1983-05-24

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 19, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjaminfp. 25389).
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before time ran out last day, Bill C-155 is an abomination to the Prairies, to western Canada and I believe Canada as a whole. It strikes at the most inner parts of prairie economic interests. It could, in a sense, be better called an Act to say "adieu" to the Liberal Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and to the Liberal Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), and to all Liberal candidates in the west in the next federal election. It could be better entitled "an Act to say 'adieu' to the Liberal Party in western Canada for the next 30 years or so". And it could be better called "an Act to make prairie people hewers of wheat and non-producers of meats and processed foods for generations to come."
It is an abomination, Mr. Speaker, to the economic interests in western Canada because its basic thrust is to tell the prairie farmers that we should all go back to producing wheat and wheat alone. Diversification is unacceptable to this regime and it is going to cost it, Mr. Speaker, as dearly politically as it is going to cost those of us who live on the Prairies.
As I pointed out earlier, a number of old meat packing plants are being closed in the West and are not being replaced. This Bill will only accelerate that process. It is well known that thousands upon thousands of western yearling calves are already being shipped to central Canada feedlots because of feed freight assistance, and Ottawa-set tariffs for moving dressed and live beef.
I would like to quote from a statement, Mr. Speaker, recently made to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the Bill as it is now on behalf of western cattle and hog organizations. I will quote three brief portions:
The livestock producer organizations in the west are completely opposed to the revised Bill C-155 under which government subsidy payments on grain will be
paid entirely to the railways. This decision will do enormous damage to diversification and agricultural processing in western Canada-
Further down it says:
The federal government's own figures suggest that there will be a potential reduction of approximately $600 million in livestock production annually by 1990 under the "pay the railway" solution. Further analysis in Alberta shows that by 1990, domestic grain prices will be artificially increased by $35.00 per long tonne relative to export returns and that this will be sufficient to cause a reduction of 60 per cent in hog and cattle feeding. Such a reduction will mean a loss of $1.5 billion in economic activity and approximately 6,000 jobs to the provincial economy.
Finally, it says:
A subsidy paid to the railways to move raw product to other countries for feeding and/or processing is the worst possible way to encourage diversification and economic development in Canada. Its implications stretch far beyond prairie agriculture. It will mean reduced economic activity, lower exports and ultimately higher food prices for consumers.
On the question of the proposed $651 million per annum subsidy to the railways, I previously mentioned that the railways have already been given in effect downtown western Canada by Ottawa. Even Carl Snavely, who has been commissioned by Liberal Governments numerous times to determine the actual cost of moving grain, has stated that the Bill is too generous to the railways. They will receive 100 per cent of their long-run variable costs. We have seen with VIA Rail what this can mean in terms of enriching the railways unjustly.
I guess I am out of time, Mr. Speaker. The Prairies will not accept this cross of thorns. The Prairies are well aware that they have been used only as a whipping boy at election time by this Government for too long and it is going to stop at the next election.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, it is the hope of the men and women who work in agriculture in my area to be able to lead good family lives. This Bill and the political high jinks that have gone along with it pose a bigger and more dangerous threat to that way of life than anything I have seen since coming into this House over ten years ago. Grain policy, Mr. Speaker, should be as simple as possible and as close to "grow it and sell it" as you can get.
The old grain rate was simplicity itself. One half a cent per tonne mile for wheat and flour on the Prairies to the Lake-head, later expanded to other ports and other grains and grain products. The new formula is almost beyond belief. It uses language such as this: "The percentage to be borne by the Government of Canada for the crop year is equal to the quotient expressed as a percentage obtained by dividing", etc., "less an amount equal to the CN adjustment in respect of the

May 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
year, plus or minus the total of the interim adjustment for the current crop year by", etc. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who can understand that?


Mr. Pepin:: I do.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: The confusion and complexity of this Bill is almost mind boggling. The blended rate is the rate combining the new freight rate below the 31.1 million tonne export limit and the freight rate above the 31.1 million tonne export limit. We can easily remove this problem by removing the 31.1 million tonne limit, which is nothing but a disincentive to increased production.
Now, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has advanced some very important points, one being that producers must be guaranteed an efficient, cost effective and reliable grains transportation system. When we look at the Bill, what does it do for us? There are no lower railway performance guarantees for the first three years. Under Clause 21, there will be only a notional scheme. I want to return to the word "notional". Sanctions to the railways will only be tallied and not levied. Also the chance to implement railway performance guarantees must pass parliamentary review. For three years the railways will get a free ride. I think Jack Horner must be smiling.
Our only hope in this whole business is the grain transportation Administrator. For a moment, let us consider how the Act treats him. First, a Senior Grain Transportation Committee must be set up. These people will be picked from a hide-bound institutional maze known as the Canadian grain industry. Under them will be the Grain Transportation Administrator. Clause 13 of the Bill states:
The Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be known as the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding seven years.
These words, "to hold office during pleasure", mean that one is just a phone call away from dismissal. This man will be without any security of tenure. He will be at the whim of every senior bureaucrat and every senior grain trade member in Canada.
We can go further and consider some of the "mays" and "shalls" of this man's duties. Clause 17 states that the Administrator may do thus and so with the concurrence of the Committee, that is, the Senior Grain Transportation Committee; he may make recommendations to the Minister and he may provide advice. However, the one 1 like is found in Clause 17(f) which states that the Administrator may, in consultation with the Committee, review the role of the Committee with a view to identifying means of strengthening that role. Talk about the executive electing the executive!
If we consider some of the "shalls", as found in Clause 18(1 )(e), the Administrator shall develop a notional scheme of sanctions applicable to the railway companies, and then a system of awards and penalties.
Everyone is familiar with the notions counter in drugstores or in Woolworths, supplying hairpins, bobbypins, nail files, etc. My dictionary defines "notional" as being "theoretical, speculative, existing in the mind only, imaginary, or given to foolish or fanciful moods or ideas". I have never seen this word used in previous legislation. Add that to a "notional scheme". My dictionary defines "scheme" as being a plan or program of action, especially a crafty or secret one.
It is interesting to note at the end of the schedule that, while we have to toil with the metric confusion, the railways can still use what I suppose are "as the Crow flies" miles, statute ones at that.
There are other methods and means of providing efficiency and cost effectiveness to rail and grain transportation which the Bill does not address. A few days ago, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) asked, "Does grain really have to be weighed six times and graded three times before it is exported?" Maybe with the old box cars it was necessary, but it is certainly not with the new hoppers. Why do the railways operate on a 24 hours a day, seven-day-a week schedule? The grain companies, especially the terminals, normally operate five days a week, sometimes with eight-hour shifts, sometimes with 16-hour shifts. It is impossible to mesh these two systems. Reduction in turnaround time of our hopper cars of one day would be the saving of the equivalent of 1,000 hoppers, some $73 million. These shortcomings will remain.
We should take a good look at what our competition in the United States is doing. Almost revolutionary rail and grain handling change is taking place. More interchange agreements are needed. Concerning use of producer hopper cars, there is a potential savings of $600 per car to the producer.
The Bill will freeze us to the status quo, to our present system, for all time, and what do we have? The old rail lines and old elevators in western Canada have been written off years ago. Even the gravel ballast under the rails depreciates at the rate of 4 per cent a year. These structures rightfully belong to the taxpayers of Canada. Producers simply do not believe the railroad costing figures, yet we are asked to increase our expenses greatly without any assurance of increased returns. Canada has always said to our grain customers, "If you want our wheat, come on over and sit down and maybe we will sell you a little bit". We have never allowed one bushel of wheat to leave this country unsold. Surely this is not the way to merchandise in 1983.
I realize that this Bill does not look beyond the accumulation of our grain at terminal position, but with the billions of dollars to be spent under this legislation, surely we could try selling it from at least one overseas terminal even if it was necessary to build one, which I doubt. Let us put it where the customers are, such as in Singapore, Hong Kong or Rotterdam. Not all customers want nor can they handle grain in million-bushel lots by shiploads.
We need a crash program on research for hardy winter wheats if the Government is serious about increasing the
May 24, 1983

returns to our western grain industry. As has already been indicated, the railways will receive under Bill C-155 100 per cent of their long-run variable costs, 20 per cent overhead and 20.5 per cent of their contributions to capital. By 1990, the railways will receive a 1000 per cent increase in the freight rate compared to today. There is no provision to reduce the rates if costs should fall and even CP Rail must like this.
I ask the Minister not to freeze us to this deal. Give us the freedom of choice as to where the so-called Crow benefit goes so that our system can evolve. Let the producers decide if they want the Crow benefit payment personally or if they want it paid directly to the railways. The mechanics can be worked out. It is simple to do for Board grains and for domestically used grains it is simpler than the present formula in the Bill.
It is hard to find any humour in this Bill. However, with the many references to the Crow rate being part of the Magna Carta of the West, and the shoddy, off-handed manner of its handling by the Government, I am reminded of the setting of the original signing of the Magna Carta, the beautiful little meadow at Runnymede just outside of Windsor in England. It was an incident when the tour buses were rolling in at approximately noon one day. The official guide was well into his pitch saying, "It was 1215 when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta by the barons of England". One of the tourists, 1 suppose from Texas, looked at his watch and said: "If the bus driver had not taken the wrong turn we would have been here in time to see that"! The Government is treating our Magna Carta the same way.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, ten minutes to debate the principle of a Bill of the importance of C-155 just gives one enough time really to clear one's throat. Let me begin my remarks by quoting for the Hon. Minister a sentence from a very famous piece of writing:
There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.
Of course, that sentence comes from a person whom the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) admires so much, Machiavelli, from "The Prince".
In the words of the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), Bill C-155 is the third major piece of legislation that has been presented in this session of Parliament, which is the longest session on record. We hear the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) list the dozens of pieces of legislation that he is so proud of every time he rises to speak in the Chamber. Yet his colleagues say that this is the third piece of major legislation that the Government has submitted in this session.
The Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) comes into the House to give notice of moving closure on this Bill. We have had 651 minutes of debate on principle. Here we are, struggling against closure on a Bill of this impact and importance to the nation.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I am from British Columbia and some may wonder why 1 am so interested in this Bill. I am interested in it because it touches the whole food chain of Canada.
What is this Government up to? It has Bill C-85, the Canagrex Bill, on the backburner. It is threatening to impose closure and rush that Bill through Parliament. Now this Government comes in with Bill C-155 and immediately puts closure on something of this magnitude and importance to every single person and region in Canada. There is something very wrong with the attitude of a Government that wants to abuse and use its arrogance and power in that manner, Mr. Speaker.
I have in my hands a couple of communications from interested parties in British Columbia who want to support Bill C-155. They urge Members from British Columbia to support Bill C-155 as presently presented to this country and to this Parliament. One is a telex from British Columbia Forest Products Ltd., signed by Mr. K. P. Benson, President and Chief Executive Officer. This telex urges Conservative Members from British Columbia to support Bill C-155 in its present form. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, and through you I will tell Mr. Benson and the British Columbia Forest Products, that there is no way, as a Member from British Columbia, that 1 will accept this kind of lobby instruction from him.
How did I receive this telex? I received this signal from B.C. Forest Products, and so did every other Member from British Columbia, in an envelope from the Privy Council Office. It shows what kind of lobbying is being done by the Government to interested parties in British Columbia and from those interested parties back to elected Members.
I have another letter of different vein from Columbia Containers Limited, Vancouver, B.C. a very interesting small business that utilized some abandoned elevator equipment and legs and put in some silos. This company started to fill the empty containers leaving the port of Vancouver with malt from the Prairies because we do not have enough export container traffic. That was an advantage which the Crow rate in its present form gave Columbia Container. This company started to fill a market void and it is very concerned that if the Crow rate does not stay the same and Bill C-155 is not passed, it will probably have to move its operation or reduce tonnage.
I can understand that company's concern, but I am also in the world of business. I have been changing my mode of operation all my life. Transportation is something that affects every single business in the world. As soon as a mode changes, as soon as something improves, you either lose a market or you gain a market. It is up to people in business to be sharp enough to anticipate what these moves are.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was doing very well in western Canada. He was accessible. He talked, he listened and he was courteous. 1 think the whole people out there genuinely liked him. Press reports and statements led us to believe that the Minister was going to move on the Gilson

May 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
recommendations. This meant a secondary industry could grow in the West, that once again our packing plants could become modern, our feeding systems could integrate with packing plants and we could move ahead and add to our secondary structure and strata on top of our primary agriculture in western Canada. This meant producers in western Canada would have a wider market. They would have more freedom and potentially more diversification. It meant that most industries could stabilize and rationalize and that something would happen down the road, that change would come in. We would break out of old habits and old chains and could start to utilize all that tremendous strength and wealth that we keep talking about here but do nothing about.
Then we had rumour of trouble with the Quebec caucus, trouble in Cabinet and trouble with the Quebec Ministers. They felt that payment to the producers was a threat to emerging and growing agriculture in the Province of Quebec. I have looked into that. I am told that there is no threat. I understand the Government has charts and graphs it is trying to show to the Quebec agricultural industry to prove it has a false attitude toward change. We have also had word that the Pools were against payment to the farmers and they want payment to the railroads. Frankly, I do not understand that. I think the bureaucracy of the Pools and the elected board of directors of the Pools are really not acting in the best interests of their producer members.
I was amazed to learn that both Quebec politics and the politics of the Pools favoured payments to the railroads. Then the Minister of Transport, who had gained and earned a measure of trust in the West, immediately reversed, almost 180 degrees, the pattern and plan of the Bill he was to bring in. He rushed the Bill in and there were not enough copies for interested Members. New Democratic Party Members and Members of my Party were trying to obtain more copies to distribute to very interested people in the Prairies. There were only 651 minutes of debate, in the Government's words, on the third major Bill in this session, and the Minister of Agriculture was up on his feet limiting us to ten-minutes speeches on something which touched every one of us in Canada. There is something very, very wrong.


Mr. Pinard:: That is not true.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: He has given notice of closure.


Yvon Pinard: Ten-minute speeches are under the rules.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, ten-minute speeches are under the rules, but it is difficult to touch anything of this magnitude in ten minutes; one could barely clear one's throat on something as important as this. If the President of the Privy Council were acting properly, he would negotiate with the Leaders on the other side to suspend the rules with unanimous consent so that we could have 20-minute speeches, debate and questions. Then we could open up all the matters which are not understood, such as how the Bill will touch each and every one of us involved in the food chain across the land.
The Bill is a national issue. It is not only a western farmer and grain producer issue; it is not only a western cattleman's issue. It is not just the hog producer of Quebec who is involved. Every activity in the Canadian food chain will be affected by what we do with this Bill. The Government has a fundamental opportunity within the palms of its hands to put something in which will create not an industrial strategy but an industrial environment in Canada if the correct decisions are made on the principle of the Bill.
I am against the principle of this Bill because it has not used the House and its powers to discuss and debate it. There are various matters involved which are contrary to the health and wellbeing of the future of the nation. I see Mr. Speaker indicating that I am out of time. I am against the principle of this Bill. I urge the Minister to withdraw it, redraft it and put its subject matter into committee so that we can return with something that is meaningful and good for the country.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, in the brief ten minutes which I have today, as the previous Hon. Member just mentioned, there is hardly time to go into the depth and complexities of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
The Bill is really an omnibus piece of legislation. It deals with the rail transporation system, with very rich western coal lands and with the statutory rate for the movement of grain. Although people may say that some of the leadership of prairie farm organizations do not represent grassroot farmers at the local producing level, I think farmers are saying clearly that they do not want the statutory Crow rate changed. It is one of the few subsidies western farmers are receiving.
With it being removed or increased to the magnitude of the plan of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in Bill C-155, we are looking at about $1 billion being lost by prairie farmers. In terms of the prairie economy, it is much more than $1 billion. If we listen to agricultural economists, they will tell us that an agricultural dollar has a multiplier effect of anywhere from four to seven times. We could be dealing with as much as $7 billion out of the Canadian economy by the year 1990. A very heavy portion of that will be placed on the backs of western grain farmers. Although we in the New Democratic Party agree that there is a need to upgrade the Canadian rail transportation system and badly want jobs to put more Canadians back to work, we do not feel that the entire cost should be placed on the backs of western Canadian farmers.
Grain producers contribute some $6 billion to the balance of trade. Approximately 20 per cent of all wealth in Canada is derived from agriculture. If we want to upgrade the transportation system, it should be done with the participation of the entire Canadian economy, not just a few agricultural producers and farmers in western Canada.
I will not go into the history of the Crow rate because of the brief time I have. Back on February 17, 1982 I talked at length about the Crow rate under the borrowing authority. I referred to its history and importance to western Canadian
May 24, 1983

grain producers. On February 1, 1983, after much discussion the Minister of Transport introduced his plan in Winnipeg. Now we see it reflected in Bill C-155. Between the time of the public announcement on February 1 and the time the legislation actually came into the House, there was clearly no consensus within western Canada on this Bill.
The Minister of Transport promised three additional changes to the initial February 1 announcement. First he promised that payments would go directly to the railways; second, that the cost of transportation would be linked to grain prices; and third, that there would be an increased number of commodities under the new statutory rate. 1 believe it was a very devious and Machiavellian plot by the Minister of Transport.
The promises were made but when the legislation came before the House they were not all reflected in Bill C-155. It is true that within the piece of legislation the payments directly to the railways were included. There was some increase in the commodities under the statutory rate or what the Minister of Transport is proposing as the new statutory rate, but there are other commodities which will never make it. I will explain that in a few moments. The linking of the cost of transportation to the price of grain was not included.
The Minister will tell us that these promises will be brought in in amendments at committee stage. If the Government plans on pushing through the legislation as fast as it has already indicated in the House and if those changes are made in the latter stages of the Bill, the promises will never appear in the final version of the Bill. This will be blamed on someone other than the Minister of Transport who made the promises. I do not think they will ever see the light of day because the Liberal Government will bring in closure in committee and stop the process just as it wishes to do on second reading. Those promises have some very big holes in them, and I think the Minister knew that when he made them.
The NDP made a proposal to the Government, but we have not received a response to it. As I mentioned, Bill C-155 is a very complex piece of legislation. We asked that instead of its being an omnibus Bill as it is now, the Minister of Transport look closely at our proposal to break it into three separate areas. First, the upgrading of our transportation system is very important and we want to see that done, but it should be taken out of this legislation and presented in a separate Bill. The second area that should be taken out of this Bill is the leasing and dealing with the very rich coal lands in British Columbia, Alberta and other parts of western Canada. We should no longer be giving guaranteed annual incomes or such prosperous gifts to the railway companies. Third, we want the statutory rates split from this Bill.
Those are three very distinctive and separate areas of the debate which obviously go in different directions. We want an upgraded transportation system. In Meadow Lake in my riding there used to be a million-bushel storage for grain in the elevators. The hopper cars that have been purchased can go
Western Grain Transportation Act
into Meadow Lake but cannot haul the grain out because the rails are in such bad shape that they cannot handle fully-loaded hopper cars on that branch line. Of course, we want an upgraded transportation system. The gifts from the coal fields to the CNR and CPR must stop. We want the freight rates maintained.
The Minister of Transport has heard that loud and clear. We in the NDP believe we should stop giving a guaranteed annual income to the railways. The railways should be paid for their actual losses for hauling grain. Payment should be made directly to them. When money is spent on upgrading our transportation system, or helping out the railways, there should be dollar-for-dollar equity for the taxpayers' money that is spent on the railway companies.
The message in western Canada has been loud and clear concerning the statutory Crow rate. We want the statutory Crow rate maintained because it is the only real subsidy, the only extra benefit for our grain producers. That is why it should be dealt with separately from the omnibus legislation before us. What the western Canadian farmers are saying has been heard many times by the Minister: "Keep the Crow, let Pepin go".


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am frankly astonished by the attitude of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and his Cabinet colleagues, and although on the other side of the House they are insisting that closure is not being imposed at this time, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the most diplomatic Minister in this Government, indicated quite clearly that he would shortly be presenting a motion under Standing Order 82, which for all practical purposes would impose closure on a debate concerning transportation in Canada.

This is not simply the Crow rate as it applies in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan. It is something that is fundamental to a national transportation policy. The Atlantic Provinces will be severely affected by this Bill. Central Canada will be affected as well. The hardest hit will be the prairie Provinces. There are some rather stupid results coming out of this in so far as British Columbia and the shipment of grain to British Columbia is concerned. These proposals purportedly only affect the movement of grain for export and the many controls and costs involved. Therefore, high-quality grain being shipped into British Columbia will naturally be hit.
I am going to put on the record, if no one else has, what the Alberta Cattle Commission has said about this Bill. Possibly my colleague from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) has already referred to this. I will put it on the record in its entirety because it is an important reaction to the volte face by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and this administration, a volte face which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when meeting the western agricultural leaders less than a fortnight ago said was very much a change-about and a capitulation to

May 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
certain vested interests and the Quebec caucus. The Quebec caucus was under pressure from its farmers because the Quebec provincial Government has embarked upon a distortion of the raising of beef in this country by outsized subsidies, then insisting that there shall be low rates on feed grain.
Over the past ten years in my city I have seen the closing of packing plants and the laying off of work forces, not in the hundreds but in the thousands. Unfortunately, that has been proportionately portrayed in all major western centres and in many smaller ones as well. What should be the heartland of beef raising and processing in this country is now in a very sad state. We do not get anything better out of it, that is the point. We sell a lot of cattle for export to the United States. However, if the western cattle industry is reduced, there will not be that volume of stock to sell to the United States. This volume has been traditional and will not in any way be replaced from Ontario and Quebec surplus beef. It is a fool-headed exercise to try and distort the development of beef in eastern Canada. That is only one of the results.
I cannot see loading down the railways systems with excessively high costs of maintaining rights-of-way to everywhere if it is only to haul grain. There must be some better way of moving grain, such as changing the elevator system. That is part of the rationalization. I find the attitude of the NDP and its agricultural affiliate, the NFU, to be tantamount to the Luddites in so far as the movement of grain and freight rates in western Canada are concerned.
Let us look at what the Alberta Cattle Commission says. The Alberta Beef Bulletin of May, 1983 begins with this desperate cry:
The Federal Government has announced it will adopt a 'pay-the-railways' solution to the Crow rate issue, despite the advice of economists and consultants, despite the advise of Dr. Clay Gilson who was appointed by the Government to advise it on Crow reform, despite the advice of its own Transport Minister Jean-Luc Pepin, despite the fact paying the Crow benefit to the railways will continue and accelerate the damage being done to the livestock and secondary processing industries in the West, despite the fact the Government is told Canada will get a less efficient and more expensive grain handling system for its tax dollars, despite, despite, despite.
Quebec has been integral in scuttling the Gilson and Pepin plans. Certainly producers and the Provincial Government are aware of the distortions and damage created by the artificially low Crow rate. Certainly Quebec is aware that, while increasing grain transportation rates would allow more market-fair prices on the Prairies, a 'pay-the-producer' solution to Crow reform would not change their feed grain prices. Certainly Quebec has been told that the anticipated increase in livestock production in the West which would follow a Gilson or Pepin type solution, would be exported and not affect Quebec markets. Quebec may not believe this, but the exports are already occurring. Certainly Quebec is aware of all these facts, and it is equally certain Quebec could not care less.
So Quebec has wielded its considerable political clout and the Federal Government has bowed to it and sold out the Western livestock industry. According to the Government's own publications, the Crow is costing the West SI50 million annually. Yet the Government will move to preserve the system which creates the losses and will see a systematic erosion of the livestock sector in the West.
The last point I should like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I do not think the railways should receive all the subsidies. A former minister of transport, Jean Marchand, was asked about the role of the railways at the Western Economic Conference and he insisted that they would open their books, but they have
consistently refused to do so. In my opinion the railways must come clean on the matter of costs. 1 do not believe they can show figures. We have never had one iota of real information from either the CNR or the CPR. They have some excess feather-bedding around in their systems which they have charged up in the same way as they charged rail transport to VIA Rail, thus booming the cost of passenger traffic. Not one page of justification for those costs filed by the railways has ever been shown to us.
If there is going to be any benefit to the railways-and undoubtedly there will be-by the improvement of their facilities and the twinning of track where necessary and so forth, they have an obligation to come clean with the people of Canada and their customers. They must establish a trust between themselves and us. Before we pay anything they must exhibit a better attitude.
I am opposed to this Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, once again it is with sadness that I stand to speak to a Government proposal. It seems there is a continuation of these things that divide our country but it is possible that the Government has never done anything to divide the country as much as this Bill will. It is ironic that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have been able to alienate western Canadians so quickly.
For a time a lot of residents and farmers in western Canada thought they had a friend in the Minister of Transport but at the flick of a switch he turned his back and walked away from them. It would have been far better if he had never said he was going to do something for western Canada. At the present time he has alienated everybody.
At first there was a division of opinion between grain growers and the red meat producers but now they have come together to object to the Minister's proposal. The President of the United Grain Growers would not attend the latest meeting with the Prime Minister in Jasper because he had already said he was not going to change his position. It is just ludicrous for the Prime Minister to meet representatives of agriculture in western Canada if he is not going to make some changes to the proposals the Government presented to them. That makes the producers in western Canada very, very angry. As well, it will have a devastating effect on the economy of the western agricultural community.
When the Government brought in the National Energy Program we warned it of the effect the program would have not just in western Canada but also in eastern Canada. That warning has proven to be true. Now we find the Minister of Transport proposing another program that will have a devastating effect on western Canada, a program which could be likened to the National Energy Program.
Several proposals have been made. First, there was the report of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall which was discussed at length. Then we had the Snavely report which was also discussed at length; and now there is the Gilson report. The three reports were presented to the House; all were discarded and
May 24, 1983

the Government came up with its own proposal. This led the people of western Canada to believe that something would be forthcoming from the Government but these hopes have been dashed.
I have to warn you, Mr. Speaker, that 30 years ago grain prices were almost the same as they are today. The only way farmers have survived in western Canada is through their efficiency. They have made their operations so efficient that they have been able to survive. But I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they are approaching the breaking point. There is no room for them to stretch any more. The cost of their operations has gone up about tenfold in the last 30 years.
Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realize that ultimately the western grain producers has to sell his grain on the Third World market. The Third World is $600 billion or $700 billion in debt and cannot afford the extra cost of the grain. Just the other day the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) pointed out that a lot of the Government's premises are based on $8 barley and $12 wheat. That is fine; the western grain grower could stay in business with those prices but when he has to sell to the Third World countries at a price they can afford, there is no room left. The world market sets the price for grain.
The Government says that the railroads are going to assess the farmer exactly what they consider to be the cost of moving that grain. This is something which I never did like about the Snavely report because it simply took into consideration the figures which the railroad provided. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), touched on that.
We cannot accept that, Mr. Speaker, because there has to be room in there somewhere for improvement. There must be a guarantee that there is going to be some improvement. For instance, when Dr. Hugh Horner was on the Grain Transportation Authority and he went out to examine what was happening on the West Coast, he mentioned-and I have confirmed with some railroad officials that it could happen-that there were 50 switches on one trainload of grain required in order to get that grain unloaded. To me, that is ridiculous. It is ridiculous for the CNR to pull their grain trains in, unhook its engines, and put on the CPR engines because the unloading facilities are on CPR tracks. That is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, and there is no guarantee that the grain producer in western Canada is going to be protected against that. My goodness gracious, I would not be surprised if we could cut the cost of moving that grain in half if there were people in there who had the desire, the knowledge and were required to improve the system. That is what is needed. That guarantee must be in the system, Mr. Speaker. We cannot put our producers at the feet of the railroads, which is exactly what the Minister has done. He has turned his back on the western grain producers. We cannot allow that to happen, and to whatever extreme we must go in order to protect those producers, I hope you will understand we are doing it for their
Western Grain Transportation Act
protection and we have the backing of 100 per cent of the western farmers.
I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of explaining this to you at this time and I hope that the Hon. Members opposite will be cognizant of what the real issues are-that the grain producers must have some protection and cannot undertake any extra costs at the present time because too many of them are going broke already.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a sense of deja vu today because it was in an all-night emergency debate involving western grain transportation that 1 first rose to speak in the House of Commons. I remember very well that it had to do with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. There was great indignation at that time about the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Otto Lang, having bypassed the Western Grain Stabilization Act, or having anticipated it, as I recall, bringing forward a policy which raised the ire and indignation of many Members on this side of the House, including Members from eastern Canada. I remember in those days-and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will remember also-the famous LIFT Program, "Lower Inventory for Tomorrow". That was going to be the panacea for western grain producers. Actually, it turned out to be one of the worst programs which was ever implemented.
Mir. Mazankowski: "Lower income for tomorrow".


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It was lower income for tomorrow instead of lower inventory, as the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has pointed out.
I get the feeling as I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, that we are seeing another Minister of Transport, this time from the eastern part of our country, dealing with western problems relating to transport and the growing of wheat who will also find that his policies are exactly what was not needed at this particular time. I ask as an interested Member of Parliament, how will we monitor the railways to see that the vast amounts of money which they are paid are expended for the purposes which this legislation envisages? At a time when we are still undergoing a very fragile recovery of our economy, how is this going to help the western grain producers and, indeed, the heavy equipment producers who are going to be victimized by increased costs of transportation?
I was here in the House the other day when the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) pointed out, as I recall, that two industries with which he was very concerned, namely, Massey-Ferguson and White Farm Equipment, are going to be victimized because of the adverse consequences he sees as implicit in this piece of legislation. I believe many of us tend to look upon this as merely a piece of legislation dealing with the Crow, as the media and the public are wont to call it. It is really much more than that. It has to do with the fabric of our national transportation policy. The tendency of this Government to change and manipulate programs and institutions, often without a clear understanding of the effects and the proper perspective of the final product, I believe, is what is

May 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
causing some of the hesitancy and some of the difficulties in Members of Parliament accepting this piece of legislation at this time.
This administration in the past has instituted many reforms in the fabric of our Parliament and of our country. Without straying too far from the rules of relevance, Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot help but remember, and you can look it up in Hansard, when the Hon. Paul Hellyer said proudly that we were in the very forefront of the nations of the world in integrating our armed services. This was something else which was going to be a great innovation, but 15 years later approximately I do not know of any western nation which has followed our lead, or whose military and armed services have received less attention than ours.
Let us look at the National Transportation Act which used to be such a cause of concern in the House. I believe the Hon. Member for Vegreville can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe Part III was ever proclaimed. We have a mishmash of conflicting and counterproductive regulations across this country which continue to hurt the trucking industry very badly. Let us look at VIA Rail, which the Minister announced in the House with such high hopes.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Again avoiding Parliament.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Again avoiding Parliament, as the Hon. Member for Vegreville has said. After the high hopes which were held out for solving another transportation crisis, not involving grain this time but involving people, what have the results been of the much heralded VIA Rail? I suppose the kindest thing one can say is that the reviews are very mixed.
Now we are coming to yet another great initiative of this Government. However, the Premier of Saskatchewan is on record as saying, after looking at the details of the program of the Minister of Transport, that he would have preferred to leave the existing program in place.
There are many anomalies which continue to surface about this particular piece of legislation. I see the "Western Grain producer" had a front page story quoting the Deputy Minister, Mr. Kroeger, as saying that the freight rate is going to go up about two cents a bushel. Then we have the 3 per cent of 13 cents formula which does not add up to that at all. Apparently there must be two kinds of inflation in this country, consumer inflation and railway inflation. I believe there are a lot of things which must be explained before this legislation receives the confidence of the people of Canada.
We have to look at what our competitors are doing, Mr. Speaker. The western grain producers are probably, if not the most efficient, certainly one of the most efficient sectors which contributes to our economic development and our export sales. However, what do other countries do to protect their producers? I believe that in Australia under the Victoria State Railway system the farmers pay less than 50 per cent of the average cost of moving grain.
In Argentina, which is a major competitor of ours, effective October 7, 1981 the National Grain Board of that country
provided free rail freight for grain from the nearest station available to the shipping port.
What does the European Economic Community do? They make sure that wheat farmers receive a direct subsidy of $2.53 a bushel.
In the United States they are paid an average subsidy of $13.81 U.S. a ton for wheat and $6.84 U.S. a ton for barley. This payment-in-kind program will provide about $11.4 billion in further support to farmers.
The problem here, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is that this legislation is really a massive attack on one of the fabrics of Confederation. To put it in terms of eastern Canada, it is almost as if suddenly there was a dramatic change made in the guarantees which would provide water transportation to Prince Edward Island, it is that basic. It is almost as if suddenly the basic concept of equalization payments was questioned. It is compounded, of course, by the fact that the Government-and it is unfortunate for the country-does not have adequate representation in western Canada. Our Party does not have adequate representation in another region of Canada, in Quebec. These suspicions and these fears are fuelled by that kind of situation which exists in the country.
Don McGillivray, who is a very astute financial columnist, has an article in today's Ottawa Citizen which is quite relevant to this discussion. He says that:
-the Commons hasn't been shown the whole of the Crow rate legislation.
I am sure that is a matter of great concern to all of us. He
says:
One key part that is supposed to protect Prairie grain farmers from unduly high rates is being kept back, only to be revealed after the Commons has given approval in principle.
That is a very poor way to do business, Mr. Speaker. He continues:
This secret provision is a link between the price of grain and the freight rate to be paid on the grain. When he brought in the bill, Pepin said this was an "important feature designed to protect grain producers from freight rates that would threaten their financial security."
Members representing Prairie farmers would, naturally, like to see the exact terms before the bill is given initial approval in the Commons.
The second reason for the present impasse is even more fundamental.
The proposed change in the Crow rate represents the attempt of a government to impose a historic change on a region from which it has no members.
That is the point I just made. He goes on to say:
The Liberals hold all but one seat in one region of the country-
The opposition parties hold all but two seats in another region of the country-
Such a polarized House deserves extra care by the government, especially where legislation concerns the established rights of that part of the country where the Liberals have no members.
It should move cautiously in wiping out something such as the Crow rate, which-rightly or wrongly-has been regarded as a "Magna Carta" of the West.
Surely the Government owes it to the House to spell out with great precision some of the effects before we pass this legislation. Let us not get into a situation such as we have seen
May 24, 1983

with VIA Rail or the unification of our Armed Forces where the cure has perhaps been worse than the disease. Let us have another very close look and take as much time as necessary before passing legislation as fundamental as this is to our country.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me in this debate I would like to cover a few areas which I think are pertinent to the debate on Bill C-155. I would first like to register my full opposition to the Bill. It will drain between $600 million to $1 billion out of the Saskatchewan economy every year. That means roughly $600 or $700 for every man, woman and child will not be spent in Saskatchewan. It means less wholesale and retail sales in Saskatchewan. It means less jobs in Saskatchewan. The social and economic fabric of my Province cannot stand such an assault on its economy. In my district alone, Mr. Speaker, in the Port Qu'Appelle area, assuming a 3 per cent average volume increase over the next ten years, that would amount to around $3 million taken out of the Port Qu'Appelle economy. That is something that area cannot afford. If we are to maintain the local economy, we need that $3 million circulating and supporting the implement dealers and garages, the local hardware store and grocery store which in turn create employment in the Port Qu'Appelle area. In terms of its social and economic impact on Saskatchewan, this legislation is madness.
Why is this assault taking place, Mr. Speaker? The Government justifies it because it claims these old rates are out of date. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) calls us reactionary because we oppose what the Government, rightly or wrongly, feels is a progressive measure. Well, let us have a serious look at this. The Government claims that the Crow gap, the difference between what the farmers pay to move wheat and what it costs the railroads, is so great that the farmers must begin to make a higher contribution to moving the grain. Yet all these figures are based on a study that a certain Mr. Snavely did at the beginning of the 1970s.
I would like to spend a few minutes examining some of his assumptions because they are at the heart of this proposed legislation. Mr. Snavely admitted in his report that his figures tend to favour the railroads. At page 236 of his report Mr. Snavely says this:
Our selection of gross ton-miles and revenue ton-miles as physical measures of the inputs and outputs of railway operations tend to produce results which bias, to the high side, the contribution required of heavy loading, long-haul commodities such as statutory grain.
To go into a little more detail, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Snavely used figures based on the revenue ton-mile basis for the movement of statutory grain to determine the cost of moving grain. Using that basis accounts for an average of 19 per cent of the workload of CN and CP. However, it accounts for only 9.6 per cent of the workload when car loadings are taken as the unit of measure and 13.6 per cent when loaded car-miles form the basis of measurement. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it really depends on what measurements you are using. Mr. Snavely admitted using the ones that tend to favour the railroads and increase the cost of moving grain. He could have
Western Grain Transportation Act
used other measurements which would have drastically reduced the cost of moving grain. But that is not all. Mr. Snavely also determined, and 1 quote:
Donations and grants were treated as common equity in the development of the capital structure.
What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that all the public gifts and subsidies that the railways have received in the past are used as a capital expenditure on which the railroads have a right to a return. In other words, included in the cost of moving grain is a capital return on gifts to, and public expenditures on behalf of, the railroads. This becomes acutely insane, Mr. Speaker, when we apply it to the branch line rehabilitation program. Under this program public moneys were used to rehabilitate existing branch lines. How does Mr. Snavely deal with these public investments or subsidies to the railroads? He claims they are part of the capital expenditures and so therefore the railroads are entitled to a rate of return of some 25.4 per cent on this money. For example, in 1980 the public paid the railroads some $67 million under this program. Mr. Snavely figured that about $39 million of this is a capital cost. Therefore, he grants them a rate of return of some $9.9 million on that sum. In other words, he is allowing them a rate of return on money they never spent. It is public money. That rate of return effectively increases the Crow gap by some $37.9 million.
Complicating the matter even more is the assertion by the railroads that they should receive higher payments under this program because of the enhancement of the value of their assets through the payments under the rehabilitation program. Snavely supports this position. In other words, the more we give them the more we owe them. It is insane, Mr. Speaker. It is a rip-off of the highest degree.
The final piece of lunacy, Mr. Speaker, is when Mr. Snavely deals with those branch lines where there were neither public investment for upgrading or maintenance and where the railways did not invest any money themselves. He subtracts the amount the railroads actually spent on maintenance from the amount he says they should have spent to keep the branch lines in proper repair, and he calls this amount the maintenance shortfall. He then grants the shortfall a cost of capital rate of 25.4 per cent to arrive at a figure of $34.6 million for 1980. The total is then charged to the cost of moving grain. These imaginary dollars effectively increase the Crow gap by $34.6 million. Snavely has gone beyond granting the railroads the right to a return on capital which they did not invest. He now grants them the right to a return on capital which no one invested, as well as a claim for reimbursement of maintenance that they did not do.
The Crow gap, the imaginary amount which the farmers are supposed to begin to make up to the railroads, is a false amount. We in this Party cannot accept it. No farmer in western Canada can accept it. The first requirement, if the Minister is interested in having an honest debate on the

May 24. 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
question, is to have the books of the CN opened, and particularly those of the CPR, so that the public can determine what it really costs to move grain, and to come to some accepted definitions and measurements, again to determine the real cost of moving grain. When we have those figures, then we can sit down with the Wheat Pools and farmers' organizations across Western Canada and perhaps begin some serious discussions. However, as long as those figures do not exist, this exercise is an exercise of Alice in Wonderland, or perhaps it is really a ploy to give more money to the railroads at the expense of the economy of western Canada, Saskatchewan in particular.
We do not even know the effects of this proposed legislation. Concerning production of papers, on July 23, 1982 1 asked for any documents the Government might have in terms of subsidies paid in the United States to American farmers compared to the subsidies we receive. My question was addressed to the Government as a whole and the reply was that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was not aware of the existence of the documents requested. Unless the Government has not conducted any studies on the type of subsidies American and Canadian farmers receive.


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


Simon Leendert de Jong: I was just beginning.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. friend, who had begun his speech in the short ten minutes allotted to him, say "I was just beginning", and I thought he was beginning rather well. I am somewhat sorry the rules of the House do not allow him to continue, but those are the rules to which we have agreed. All of us have a few moments in which to speak in the debate.
There are some in this country who regard Bill C-155, the Western Grain Transportation Act, as being a subject which is somehow only of interest to westerners. 1 do not agree with them. At this stage of the legislation we are discussing a Bill which is fundamental to the country. If there is any country in the world which depends for its existence, its advancement, and its enhancement on transportation, it is Canada. If we were to consider the importance of railroads to the country in opening up the West, ensuring that the West became part of Confederation and, equally, ensuring that the producers in western Canada depending upon the railroads could share in the development of the country, then 1 think we would sud-dently see dawning upon us the realization of the importance of the Bill. I rise today to tell my colleagues, my friends and, indeed, my political opponents on the other side of the House that the Bill is not of significance only to western Canada.
It is important to say that the Bill has its genesis in a number of factors. In particular, I believe it has its genesis in the fact that not only is there no representation from western Canada on the Government's side, that is, representation which really matters, but there is also a complete lack of understanding of the importance of this matter to western Canada.
Someone has described the Crow rate as being the Magna Carta for western Canada. It was the basis upon which western Canada's part in Confederation was given strength and substance. It has gone on for a long period of time. People will wonder, of course, why there is an outcry against the removal of the Crow. Let us put the shoe on the other foot for a few moments. In terms of Bombardier in the Province of Quebec, let us imagine that the Government managed to so arrange its affairs that there would be an increase in the cost for Bombardier, therefore jeopardizing jobs, jeopardizing production, jeopardizing sales by a large percentage over a period of years, the Government then demanding, of course, that such legislation pass through Parliament by the end of June. Could one imagine the outcry in the Province of Quebec if that were the case? Yet that is what is happening in western Canada to a business and to an undertaking which is basic to western Canada.
Could one imagine the screams of outrage there would be in the Province of Ontario if the Government decided to go into the industrial heartland of Ontario and by statute, by Bill, by giving notice of closing off debate, rearrange and change the Province's economic life? Could one not hear the screeches and screams there would be from the Province of Ontario?
If the Government went into Atlantic Canada and tried to do that with the fisheries, would one not hear some screeches of outrage, especially if the attempt were to be coupled with a threat that if such legislation did not pass through Parliament within a short period of time, the Government would use the rules to push it through? Would there not be outrage as well if, in the face of the importance of it, the people were threatened that they would not be allowed to speak? That is the kind of importance western Canada attaches to this matter. I said it had its genesis in the fact that the Liberal Party is not represented in western Canada, and I believe that is true.
One night the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) said publicly, within my hearing; "We have nothing in western Canada, and we have gambled everything on the Crow". That seems to be the attitude of the Government. The Minister says; "The words get the forum". It was taped and it was televised. It was a speech which he made with a television camera on both of us that night. It was therefore public. If it had been said privately, I would never mention it. If anyone is interested, call Ottawa Cablevision.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, I have said it in the West too.


Walter David Baker: There it sits. One will see the Member for Nepean-Carleton looking in disbelief at the Minister as he said it. I could not believe it. In any event, there it stands: "We have nothing to lose in western Canada, so we have gambled everything on the Crow".
What does the Crow mean? What did it do? The Crow rate, upon which people relied for years and years, meant that there would be a fixed rate for the transportation of goods.
May 24, 1983

2567!


Mr. Blais:: Grains.


Walter David Baker: For grains. It was not a flexible rate; it did not have any elasticity in it. There could not be any rubber rule involved. We used to have a surveyor whom we called "Rubber Rule Rabinzky." He would produce a survey which would fit any dimension at any time. He could do it within five minutes.


An Hon. Member:: He must have been a Liberal.


Walter David Baker: I do not know what he was but he certainly had elasticity. As the Crow rate currently exists, there is no elasticity. That high input cost of production is Fixed. As a result, this fixed cost was translated to have an effect on every other aspect of the cost.
What is the effect of this Bill? It says for the first time that the principle of a statutory freight rate is not to be retained. In other words, there is elasticity and flexibility and all those other variables. While some may say that this situation exists for other businesses, I say that not every business had enshrined in its legislation, for a good quid pro quo, that element of fixed overhead or fixed cost. This cannot be changed overnight. It cannot be changed by saying that it must be done by June 30. Is there anything sacred in change? Is there to be a change for change's sake or is it to take place with understanding? Will it take place as a result of an understanding among those elements of the community that are affected by it?
I suggest to the House that the Minister of Transport has done what no other politician has been able to accomplish. He has united the West with the East. He has united the West and the East with the centre. He has managed to have everyone in the country oppose him. He will be known throughout western Canada, central Canada and eastern Canada as the great unifier; he has everyone against him.


Mr. Thacker:: 1 thought only the Prime Minister could do that.


Walter David Baker: We thought that only the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could do that but he now has a rival.
That is the situation we find ourselves in today as we debate this matter. While the Government may have nothing to lose in the West, the country has a great deal to lose if the Government continues to ignore what is a legitimate regional concern in this country. If anything has been shown as a result of this debate, it has been the demonstration of the failure of the Government to understand Canada and those forces which bring it together and make it work. It has shown its failure to understand the differences so that it can reconcile them. This Bill should go.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with probably the most important Bill we have seen during this session. I say that in spite of the fact that we dealt with the Constitution.
Western Grain Transportation Act
This Bill deals with the production of food and the livelihood of those who work in the fields and raise livestock. Without food we cannot have a country. This Bill is doing more to destroy the hopes, ambitions and aspirations of those who produce food than anything which has been done in Canada in the last 100 years.
Last weekend 1 was at four meetings with grain growers, hog producers, livestock producers, processors and some consumers. There were over 200 people representing a crosssection of my riding of Bow River and not one person supports Bill C-155 as it exists. I wish the Minister would listen to that. Surely if not one person supports a Bill affecting the producers of western Canada, the Government should stop in its tracks and re-examine it.
It is being supported by the Quebec caucus but this is a western initiative. What has the Quebec caucus got to do with that? Why is it poking its nose into it? This Bill will not even hurt the Quebec farmers in the first place, it might help the Quebec Liberals but it will not help the Quebec farmers.
The Quebec farmers have a hog market now. They have their choice between barley and corn. They need not worry about the hog producers of Alberta and Saskatchewan because there is a potential market there as well which will not interfere with the Quebec market. However this Bill will prevent our farmers from obtaining this market. This Bill will make it impossible for the hog producers and livestock producers of Alberta and Saskatchewan to continue.
I see a Member from the Quebec caucus smiling. Is that your ambition? Do you want to destroy western Canadian agriculture? There must be something the matter with you if you talk like that. You are not talking sense. Why can we not try to build all of Canada instead of trying to destroy a part of Canada?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I invite the Hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. 1 am telling the Member that he has no sense at all when he is trying to destroy one part of Canada. He certainly has no right to smile about it in the House. I say that through you, Mr. Speaker.
Let us deal with the Crow benefit. It was not a transportation issue in the first place. It did not concern subsidies either. It is a rate that was found acceptable when it was put into legislation and it has been acceptable for many years.
It was only in the early 1960s that the contortions became evident. When these contortions began to show up, the Minister outlined them very well and he knows what they are. First, the railway was not getting a fair return on its investment. That was the railway's comment with which many people agreed. As a result of that the railways were not maintaining their lines and carrying out an efficient transportation system. That adversely affected the farmers.
The third contortion arose when it became cheaper for the farmer to ship the raw material from western Canada than to

May 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
process it. Processing in western Canada was being discouraged. Furthermore, it cost the livestock producers and hog producers money to feed their animals which created a disadvantage.
When the Minister set out the Gilson recommendations he pointed out these three contortions. The purpose of the Gilson study was to solve those problems. These problems would be solved if his recommendations were accepted. A total of $287,000 was spent for Gilson to find a solution to the problems. The Minister then changed that solution by cutting it in half. The vast majority of western Canadians would have supported the Gilson solution. Cutting that recommendation in half whereby the producer would receive half of the money and the railway the other half was a reasonable compromise, but the Minister has gone to the extreme and it is no wonder that he has lost all support from western Canada. Not one person from that cross-section in my riding, for example, will support Bill C-155.
That should bring home a message to the Minister. Surely he should withdraw this Bill and return to the Gilson report and perhaps even to the more favourable alternative presented by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who has suggested that we go back to freedom of choice, upon which this country was originally built. The farmers of Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan and across the whole nation could decide what they want to grow and how they would grow it, without Government interference. It is a freedom of choice issue. The Hon. Member for Vegreville has gone back to the very beginning, back to the people.
We would say to the producers: "You decide where this money will go; it is a shortfall in agriculture, but you decide. The choice is yours." Some may say: "We will pay it to the railway". That is fine. The farmer could get a card showing he paid the money to the railway and get the appropriate rate. Others may say: "I want to feed my hogs". That is just as much agriculture as shipping wheat to the export market. This person would get his payment. Another person may want to haul his grain to the feedlot. The choice is his. Why should the choice not be his? That is what Canada is all about, freedom of choice, not the Government telling people what is good for them, or the Government telling you what you have to do. It is not the Government telling you how it is going to spend your money. For once let us go back to the people and find out what the people want. The Government should go to the producers and find out what they want.
1 challenge the Hon. Minister to go to meetings like the one I attended last weekend. I challenge him to ask the producer what he wants. The Minister will find there is not a producer-I say this with good reason-in western Canada who will support this Bill as it is today. The Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say: "We have the Wheat Pool behind us". I say to them that they have not got the Wheat Pool behind them. They have not got the Alberta Wheat Pool behind them. I do not think there are five out of 25 or one out
of ten of the Wheat Pool members who are supporting this Bill. When the Minister says they have 130,000 members of the Wheat Pools, that is balderdash. It is nonsense.
When I mainstreeted in my riding last year, farmers came to me and one out of ten said: "Pay the money to the railway". In a meeting in Standard the other night the delegate for the Wheat Pool stood up and said: "I do not support paying the money to the railway; I support paying the money to the producer".
The Minister can do something if he wants for Canada. He can do something really good for Canada. He can withdraw this Bill and give the people a choice. Give the producers a choice. Let them decide how their money will be spent. Then you will see this country really do something worth while. We will see processors who can process. Give us a chance to process in the West. Give us a chance to raise hogs. Give us a chance to raise cattle. We have our own markets. We are not trying to interfere with the Quebec market. Already the Quebec market has a waterway all the way to Japan where it can ship its live hogs. Already the Quebec producers have a hold on the market in New York. But we are closer to California. We are closer to the western U.S.A. where there is a tremendous market for hogs and cattle.
Why is the Government trying to kill us? Why is the Government trying to kill agriculture in western Canada? Give us a chance to grow. Give us a chance to contribute and make this country a greater and better nation. That is all we ask the Minister to do. Give us a chance. Give us a fair deal. If you give us a fair deal, we will hold our own with anyone in this country or anyone in the world. Our producers will do that if they are given a chance. But if the Government is going to handcuff them and then expect them to raise hogs, handcuff them and then expect them to raise cattle, handcuff them and then expect to have processing, the Government is dreaming wildly. That is a wild dream that cannot take place because the Government is making it impossible for western agriculture to be competitive. This Bill makes it impossible for our cattlemen, our hog producers and our processors to be competitive. All we ask for is a fair show. We ask the Minister to withdraw this Bill and to bring in a bill that will build Canada, not destroy Canada.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that our position is clear. We do not intend to let this Bill pass through the House of Commons and become law. We will do whatever we must in order to stop it within the rules of Parliament. We are not going to enter into any kind of arrangements, other than arrangements to eliminate this threat to the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. I want to put on the record just a little bit of the history so that people will understand what it is we are talking about.
In 1881 the CPR syndicate accepted from the people of Canada land, cash, rail lines and other significant benefits in exchange for a commitment thereafter and forever efficiently to maintain work and run the Canadian Pacific Railway. Specifically the Crow rate was agreed upon by the CPR and
May 24, 1983

the Government of Canada and remains a valid and binding contract.
In 1925 Parliament put the Crow rate into a statute when the railways offered to keep grain on the Crow rate if they could be relieved of the agreement for low rates on other commodities. At the time the CPR made it clear:
Wc arc not asking for any change in the conditions established in 1897 in regard to grain and grain products.
The Crow rate has been the subject of considerable debate over the intervening years. The railroads surreptitiously attempted to influence Government to bring about change, with Government and Parliament hanging tenaciously to the original agreement.
This is not the first occasion on which the CPR has attempted to change the Crow. This will not be the last occasion on which it will attempt to change the Crow. But the CPR will fail this time as it has failed every other time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I want to read from the statement issued by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall when he studied the matter in 1980-81. In a statement dated November 24, 1981, he said that there is no position to take except to adhere through thick and thin that the Crow rate is not bargainable.
He also said that the railways receive full cost of transporting grain originating on lines covered by the branch line subsidy. The subsidy applies not only on the branch line but right through to the port terminal; so much grain is now carried at compensatory rate.
In 1981, he also said that the railways have been given the use rent-free of 14,000 hopper cars which cost roughly $700 million, besides money to rehabilitate their own fleet of boxcars and money to rehabilitate their neglected lines on which they have been collecting subsidy. He added that western grain producers now subsidize eastern bread and pass it on to the consumers to the tune of five cents a loaf by virtue of the interest and storage payment for sales made to eastern millers by the Wheat Board.
I put those passages on the record to show that this is not some idle preoccupation of the New Democratic Party and a few farmers in western Canada that the grain freight rate ought not to be changed. It was quite clearly, when originated, an agreement that gave to the CPR significant benefit and from which the CPR has derived ongoing benefit in terms of its availability of land; but even more important for the purposes of this discussion it has received significant cash benefits and product in lieu of cash intended to offset whatever it was the railways were losing by way of freight rate charges.
The Crowsnest Pass arrangement is quite clearly a subsidy of sorts. It is a subsidy paid for by all Canadians in an effort to make our grain competitive world-wide. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if it were true that we were to change the Crow rate, then we would undoubtedly raise the price of grain. If we increase the price of grain we will reduce the competitive nature of our grain farmers. Either that or the grain farmers will have to absorb the additional cost brought about by the
Western Grain Transportation Act
changes proposed by the Government. If they absorb the additional cost it means their cash flow will be diminished. If their cash flow is diminished then the amount of money they, the farmers, have available for the purchase of other products necessary either to maintain their farm operations or to maintain their families will in that way also be diminished. If that happens then eastern producers of farm machinery will not have a market for the sale of their machinery. Other of those who supply grain farmers will find that the grain farmer does not have the capital to meet either his bank obligations or to meet his purchase requirements.
We say to the Minister that whatever his motivation, it goes against the accepted agreement of the latter part of the nineteenth century and all things which have been attempted over the years and turned back by Parliaments. It goes against what Mr. Justice Emmett Hall indicated was the situation as it applied to the transportation of grain. It goes against the best interests of western Canadian grain producers inasmuch as it reduces their income capacity. It does nothing of consequence to enhance the economics of the rest of the country. Therefore it is unacceptable legislation.
We have asked that the Bill be divided into three distinctly different sections. We have asked that there be a section dealing with what happens to the coal lands, how we can best deal with them and how they can revert back to the Province of British Columbia in the event some changes are in fact undertaken. We have suggested that there should be a section dealing with the upgrading and maintenance of railroads, not only for the transportation of grain but for the transportation of all commodities which we hope at some point will be marketable world-wide and will be transported from where they are manufactured to the East and West Coasts and in that way gain access to world markets.
We agree that some changes can be made in the way in which CN and CP have not lived up to their obligations to maintain railroads suitable for modern requirements. If the Government wants to bring forward changes to the Crow rate, we guarantee that we will do all in our power to oppose them; but we suggest that those changes should be brought forward in a separate Bill dealing strictly with the changes and nothing else.
The linkage which is being made by the Government is unacceptable. Changes to the Crow rate have no direct bearing on whether or not the railroads should upgrade their facilities. They must maintain their facilities at a level to enable them to move Canadian products across the country to the various and many markets either within or outside Canada. A change to the Crow rate does not facilitate that.
It may well be necessary at this point to discuss the ownership of the coal lands and who should have jurisdiction over them. In our opinion it may be necessary that they revert to the Province of British Columbia rather than be left in the present situation. Therefore we think it is necessary for us to

May 24, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
take a serious look at the question in the House of Commons, unfettered by the entire question of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. These matters are unrelated. To draw them together into one Bill does a disservice to the serious questions of compensation and ownership of the coal lands.
Finally, we have made a commitment. This commitment will stand. Nothwithstanding what the Government attempts, there will be no change to the Crow rate in this session of Parliament by this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I say that in the full recognition that the Government will attemp to bully us, to ridicule us and in every conceivable way to make it appear that we are obstructing useful and valuable things. We will suffer that in order to stop the Government from doing what will have immeasurable, long-term, harmful effects not only on western grain producers but on the majority of Canadians, regardless of where they live, who at this point in time do not fully understand the implications of Bill C-155.
This Bill will not pass. If the Government wants to see parts of it pass, it must withdraw it and bring it back in three separate parts. If the Government hopes to see other legislation pass, it had better reach an agreement not to proceed with any change to the Crow rate. If it wants to get ahead with other things that it believes are important, it had best sit down and discuss what alternative it can bring forward with which we are prepared to deal. But we will not allow this Bill to become law.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate and especially coming from eastern Canada, I feel I might be able to introduce a perspective which has been overlooked. As has been stated many times already, the Crowsnest Pass Agreement was negotiated by CP and the Government on behalf of Canadians. The intention was to induce settlement of the West in reliance on the Government's promise of a fixed freight rate. The Government of Canada and CP have made many agreements. Either in committee or in the House we will at least be able to refer to some of them.
Some people may not know about the very complicated dealings of CP with respect to its trackage. How many people, even those in the House, realize that the hundreds and thousands of miles of rail trackage, which are commonly referred to as the CP line, are owned by 14 subsidiary companies-and in one case it is not even a subsidiary company-having minority shareholders? For the benefit of those who have travelled by rail from Montreal to Toronto and even further west, whose rail lines are they riding, if they are lucky enough to obtain seats in a passenger car? They are not riding on CP trackage. It is trackage owned by the Ontario and Quebec Railway Company under a perpetual lease for 999 years. I want to familiarize the House-and hopefully in committee subsequently if the Bill ever gets that far-with how unfairly
treated are the minority shareholders and debenture holders of such subsidiary companies.
I have letters from people whose ancestors invested in good faith in companies such as the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company and the Ontario and Quebec Railway Company, only to discover today that they can obtain no meaningful information from CP concerning their ancestors' investment. In many cases the assets with which their security was secured have disappeared or simply been transferred to other CP companies or even to third parties. In short, when CP says that it is inequitable to hold it to the Crow rate, it is not telling us about the inequity it inflicts upon shareholders and bondholders in various subsidiary companies where rates were set as much as 100 years ago and which CP says it will never renegotiate under any circumstances.
For example, Mr. Speaker, how would you like to be the holder of part of a $3.7 million New Brunswick Railway Company bond with a 4 per cent coupon whose lease is due in 2880? That is a first mortgage bond CP is taking advantage of today. How would you like to have part of the $924,000 lent to the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway Company at 4 per cent, due on June 14, 2883, or part of the $1.8 million which was lent to Quebec Central Railway Company, due August 1, 2911? How would you like to have part of the $8.1 million lent to the Ontario and Quebec Railway Company at 5 per cent on a perpetual lease? Even the Government of Canada took its perpetual bond issue and made a termination date of 1996.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember the old 3 per cent bonds? When I have an opportunity to continue, I will indicate that if it is just to adjust the Crow rate, it must also be just to adjust all those things of a perpetual or long-term nature of which CP is taking advantage, to the detriment and disadvantage of shareholders and bondholders.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, in its April 19 budget the Government of Canada made the one-third depletion allowance for mine exploration more attractive to the junior mining companies. This initiative will help finance these firms and will encourage Canadian investment.
May 24, 1983

The new incentive was received with enthusiasm by many small mining companies in my riding.
At this time I would encourage the Government to look at including the mining sector under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Many of the small mining firms need funding in order to establish their own custom-milling operations. If they had their own operation, it would reduce transportation costs, other related costs, and it would create additional jobs.
Funding is presently available to companies involved in the manufacturing of goods and they can obtain assistance for the construction of their plants. There is nothing of this sort available to the mining sector. If the Government were to introduce such an incentive under DRIE, this would further encourage the junior mining companies, and I am sure we would see jobs created in all parts of the country in all related industries.



HOUSING


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, Canada's economy is at a delicate point of balance and the question of government applied stimulus at this moment in time is a critical one. Consideration must be taken of the employment generating effect of the stimulus, the multiplier effect of the government funding, the public need met by the program, and so on.
One of the most successful such initiatives-and I congratulate the Government for it-has been the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan which provided a federal grant of $3,000 to new home buyers to stimulate both the purchase and the construction of new homes. It is proving to be the right stimulus, applied to the right sector of the economy, at the right time.
As part of his budget a month ago, the Minister added some $30 million to the program. So right was the program that within a few weeks the allocated funds were all paid out. Having stimulated demand in a major way, much of that demand was allowed to die because the allotted funds were spent.
When one considers the number of ill-advised and ill-conceived schemes through which the Government has blown the taxpayers' money to the four winds, it seems clear that a successful program like this one must be expanded, if necessary at the expense of some of the Government's less successful enterprises. I therefore call upon the Government to extend this program further by adding more funds to it immediately.



MARINE TRANSPORT


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I wish to call to the attention of the House that West Germany and The Netherlands have signed the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for the Code of Liner Conduct, and that this Code is now ratified. This development will allow trading nations to require that a portion of their international trade be carried in their own ships. It is hoped that this will reduce the scourge of flags-of-convenience shipping which has blighted international trade for many years.
There is disappointment, however, that Canada has yet to sign the Code, and there is every indication that the Government will not do so. In fact Canada has not yet issued a statement on what Canada's official response will be to those nations which do put the Code into practice. Canada's only response to date is a rather irresponsible statement made by an employee of the Canadian Transport Commission, threatening possible retaliation against nations which adopt and use the Code to ensure that at least a part of their trade is carried in their own ships.
A number of our important trading partners, including West Germany, have signed the Code. Furthermore, Canada would benefit greatly from signing the Code and adopting the position that a specific portion of our international trade must be carried in Canadian ships staffed by Canadian crews.
The Government must not declare a carrier as being Canada's carrier without any guarantees that the economic benefits would accrue to Canada in the form of work, shipbuilding, and taxes for the Canadian Government. Any attempt to declare a Canadian company with foreign flag vessels as Canada's flag carrier would amount to an incredible act of hypocrisy on the part of the Government. The Government must move immediately to sign the Code of Liner Conduct and ensure the development of a Canadian merchant marine.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, I am sure all Canadians are aware that the Progressive Conservative Party is presently engaged in a leadership race. The candidates should remember, however, that Canadians are not easily fooled, and they will have to explain very clearly where they stand on the Constitution. For the time being, confusion reigns, since neither the candidates nor the party have taken a position. The ex-president of Iron Ore supported the position of the Liberal Party during the debate on the Constitution and does not seem to have changed his stand. The Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and former Leader of the Party has

May 24, 1983
been courting Quebecers and is trying again to get Quebec separatists on his side. The Member for Etobicoke-Centre (Mr. Wilson) stated recently that an alliance should be made between Quebec Nationalists and the Conservatives, an explosive mixture to say the least.
Finally, the Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who seems to be more candid than his opponents, stated recently that the Progressive Conservative Party has tricked Quebecers at the last constitutional talks, that the so-called overture to Quebec was made only to embarrass the Liberals, and that the real reason did not go beyond the desire to score some political points.
These gentlemen have proved that they are better at bringing about disunity in a party than at governing the country.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, unemployment has reached unprecedented proportions in Quebec, especially among young people. However, the Federal Government has failed to propose any employment strategy to cope with this social disaster. The Federal Government and the Government of Quebec must stop their useless bickering. Their sole priority should be to provide employment for 500,000 unemployed workers and 600,000 welfare recipients in Quebec. This week, thousands of Quebecers will be taking part in a great march to urge both governments to act according to the mandate they were given by the people who elected them. The New Democratic Party, with the Conference of Bishops, the unions and various social organizations, supports the objectives of the organizers of this demonstration of hope. Young people, women, union and non-union workers must be given decent living and working conditions.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
(1410)
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, the current Liberal depression continues to claim its toll in rural Canada in the form of staggering farm bankruptcies and plummeting farm income. Farm bankruptcies increased in 1982 by some 160 per cent compared with 1980. Total net farm income fell more than 19 per cent in 1982 to about $3.8 billion and is expected to drop below $3.7 billion in 1983.
Canadian farmers, despite tough economic times and bureaucratic obstacles, continued to contribute greatly to our economy. During the 1980s, agriculture generated 40 per cent of the nation's gross national product. Today one farmer produces enough to feed 67 persons as compared with only 11 in 1940. Surely such performance by this efficient sector deserves greater consideration on the part of this Parliament.
Instead, the Liberal Government continues to attack our farming community and fails to come up with policies which would ease their plight. The Liberal policy makers, tangled in the vicious circle of high deficits and spending, ignore the consequences of capital gains taxes imposed on farm land, high inflation rates and, most important, fuel taxes. We hear Government officials bragging about the low cost of Canadian food, some 17 per cent compared with 30 per cent spent by West Europeans.


Madam Speaker:: Order.



SMOKING IN PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ROOMS

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, recent clinical studies have dramatically illustrated the serious health effect of second-hand smoke, otherwise known as passive smoking.
Non-smokers exposed to a chronically smoky environment have been found to have respiratory impairment equivalent to that of smokers who inhale up to ten cigarettes a day.
Patients with heart disease manifested by chest pain, angina pectoris, showed increased risks of attacks by 22 per cent as judged by exercise tolerance after exposure to passive smoke in a well ventilated room, and by 38 per cent when exposed to passive smoke in an unventilated room.
Lung cancer mortality rates in non-smoking married women were 5.6 per 1,000 for wives of non-smokers, 9.3 per 1,000 for wives of light smokers, and 13.1 per 1,000 for wives of heavy smokers of 20 cigarettes per day or more.
These studies should convince us in the political field to prevail through you, Madam Speaker, to ask the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services to regulate smoking in parliamentary committee rooms in order to improve the quality of our indoor air and thereby set an
May 24, 1983

example for the Canadian public to control smoking in public areas.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, the Halifax shipyards have been suffering the malaise common to the Canadian shipbuilding industry but, in this case, the result could be fatal. In national terms, order books are at the lowest point in a decade and employment in Canadian shipyards was down to 9,000 at the end of 1982.
In its quest for work, Halifax Industries Limited sought the $20 million refit for HMCS Nipigon. Reports indicate this contract may be placed in a Quebec shipyard. The remaining hope for Halifax is the vessel construction proposed by the federal Government plus the HMCS Protector refit.
If the Government is serious about accelerating its construction project for the Canadian Coast Guard and finalizing the Patrol Frigate Program, the industry may be salvaged.
The Halifax shipyards need immediate attention. First, government policy must create economic terms and conditions that permit fair competition nationally and internationally.
Second, the Government must "fast track" its specific shipbuilding projects and programs to provide immediate work, otherwise a highly trained and capable work force will be lost and a labour intensive activity will vanish.
This is not just a local problem. A viable East Coast shipbuilding and repair facility is a national asset and resource, and must be protected.



WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the Government appears to be hell-bent on pushing Bill C-155 through the House even though all indications are that the majority of the farmers do not want it. In four meetings held in the Bow River constituency over the weekend, namely, at Carbon, Nanton, Vulcan, and Standard, attended by more than 200 producers and consumers-producers of grain, pork and cattle-not one person wanted Bill C-155 to pass as it is. Ninety-nine per cent wanted the alternative presented to this House by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) in which the producer, not the Government, not the railways, not the farm organizations, but the producer would have freedom of choice to decide whether the shortfall went to the railways or to the producer. If given all of the facts I believe this same result would happen all over Canada. The people want some say in Government; the people want some freedom of choice once again; the people resent this compulsion by Government, and resent the Government telling them what is good for them.
Oral Questions
I urge the Government to heed the wishes of the people, withdraw Bill C-155, and replace it with a new Bill, a democratic Bill, giving the producers the opportunity to exercise their God-given right to choose and decide how their money will be spent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration-I was given to understand he would be here today- perhaps I could direct my question to the Minister of Finance. It concerns an aspect of the unemployment problem which is causing a great deal of concern. There is a consensus growing among sociologists that it is the number one social problem in the country today. I am talking about youth unemployment and the impact it has on young people and, indeed, the impact it will have upon our society if we do not do something about it.
In 1982 officials of Employment Canada projected that the unemployment rate among returning students would be in the range of 16 per cent, whereas in actual fact it was 19.3 per cent. Given the fact that we have dropped 180,000 student jobs between April this year and April of last year, does the Minister have available to him projections of-
I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration is just coming into the House, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I can rephrase the question and put it to him.
The question concerns student unemployment and projections of student unemployment based on the inaccuracy of the projections last year. At that time it was projected that the unemployment rate among returning students would be 16 per cent, when in actual fact it was 19.3 per cent. The rate for nonreturning students was 28.1 per cent. Since that time we have lost 180,000 jobs for young people. I want to ask the Minister if he has projections on what the youth unemployment rate will be in July of this year, which is supposed to be the peak month of student unemployment.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I should point out to the Hon. Member that projections are based upon historical trends. The reason for the experience of last year when the figures were less than the forecast indicated, was the general downturn in the economy as a whole. The employment rate across the board slipped substantially in that period. We hope that coming into the summer we will be able to encourage the private sector in particular, as we are trying to do now, to make a greater effort to hire students. That is why we have undertaken a fairly major "Hire a Student" campaign through our offices.

May 24, 1983
Oral Questions
I hope that we can maintain the same level or better than last year. Reports coming in from some of our offices are reasonably encouraging, but it is hard to tell at this time as most of the students are in school. We really will not know what the actual figures will be until June or early July.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my figures are based on the rate. For example, youth unemployment last year was 17.1 per cent but as of April this year it was 21.5 per cent, which represents 624,000 unemployed young people. That does not take into account the students who will be coming onto the job market this month. That is what prompted my question.


CONFERENCE SPONSORED BY NEWFOUNDLAND COUNCIL ON YOUTH
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can ask the Minister if the Government intends to assist, in any meaningful way, the Newfoundland and Labrador Youth Advisors Council on Youth which is sponsoring a national conference on youth unemployment in St. John's on August 26, 27 and 28. It intends to invite 20 delegates from each Province and Territory, and has budgeted for $150,000.
As the Minister knows, this is a Province where unemployment is critically high and the economy is as bad. The Minister has already indicated that he is prepared to support the conference with $40,000. Is he prepared to go a little further and contact his provincial counterparts so that this conference may become a real, meaningful dialogue on exactly what we intend to do about the phenomenon of youth unemployment as we get into the area of high tech?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, to put the historical record in perspective, I personally supported and recommended the idea for such a conference to the Newfoundland Advisory Council. I met with it some two months ago when I was in Newfoundland and we had a very good discussion about the report it had released. At that time it was simply proposing to undertake a conference within the Province. I felt, as the Hon. Member does, because of the importance of the issue, that we should attempt to get a cross-section of views, attitudes, and recommendations from young people across Canada.
At that time we undertook discussions with the Newfoundland Youth Advisory Council to see if it would organize a national youth employment conference for us. It agreed to do that and we are working together very closely with it and are providing financial support. We would undertake to recommend that, but I would want to assure the Hon. Member, seeing that it was our idea in the first place, we are obviously lending it our full support.


James Aloysius McGrath: No matter whose idea it was, it was a good idea and it is an idea whose time has come. I am happy to know it is receiving the support of the Minister.


OPEN 1NG OF YOUTH EMPLOYMENT CENTRES
James Aloysius McGrath: The Minister referred to the fact that the statistics regarding student unemployment are not in yet. The Minister knows that the situation is so serious that it requires a bipartisan multiGovernment private sector/public sector approach. For example, I have here a memorandum from the Regional Manager of Public Affairs in the Minister's Department to his manager in Charlottetown, regarding the opening of Canada Employment student centres. The memo lists those to be invited and states that Conservative MPs are not to be invited even if the CEC is in their riding. If that is the kind of approach which the Minister has taken to this very serious problem, which is a cause of a great deal of concern, then the Minister can only stand condemned by it. I would like to ask the Minister if that is his policy.
Is it the policy of the Government to exclude Conservative Members of Parliament from supporting young people in their endeavours to find jobs through student employment centres, or whatever? If that is the policy of the Government, then the Government should be widely condemned for it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, before the Hon. Member begins to run off at another tangent, let me remind him that it was this Government which last year initiated a major national discussion on the question of youth employment. In fact I presented a policy paper to the provincial Governments, in which the Conservative Party is well represented, upon which we are now trying to base our youth employment strategy which was announced in the budget of the Minister of Finance. We are continuing those meetings with the provincial Governments to see if we can find, as he indicated, a broad based level of support to tackle what is unquestionably a major national priority to help young people get back to work.
As far as that individual memorandum is concerned, my office had nothing to do with it. In fact, if the Hon. Member would talk to his caucus more extensively, he would recognize that many Members of his own caucus have in fact been at openings of youth CEC's.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that the National Council on Welfare has just published the revised 1983 poverty line, based on Statistics Canada definitions. These figures show that the elderly poor, single elderly people, if they are receiving only the old age pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement, are well below the poverty line. In fact these figures show that they would be more than $2,000 below the poverty line.
May 24, 1983

On March 29 the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated in committee that $300 would be sufficient to bring these single elderly poor up to the poverty line. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Government has abandoned the practice which it has always followed of accepting the low-income cutoffs provided by Statistics Canada as the poverty line. And what justification would the Government have for saying that $300 would be sufficient to bring these people up to the poverty line, when the National Council on Welfare says that it would take $2,000?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated in her question that although she was using the expression "poverty line", the expression used by the National Council on Welfare is low income and not poverty line. As the Hon. Member is aware, there is a considerable difference between the two, and we could have quite a long discussion on what term should be used. In any case, the main thing is that the Government has undertaken to concentrate its efforts and assistance on those who truly need help. We made this clear when we introduced the 6 and 5 program and exempted from capping any payments made under the Guaranteed Income Supplement or the Child Tax Credit. These measures are fully indexed to allow for the special needs of people on low incomes. In addition, the measures contained in the budget were also aimed at assisting people on low incomes so as to maximize the effective use of public funds in the fight against poverty.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, whether the Minister uses poverty lines or low-income figures, I would like him to know, in case he has not realized it, that there are 500,000 elderly poor in this country who are living well below the poverty line, and the Government ought to make it one of its priorities to correct that situation.


GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, in recent days the Government announced an expenditure of almost $300 million to bail out Canadair and de Havilland, two Crown Corporations. Again, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said in committee that the $300 million for the elderly poor, to bring them up to the poverty line, had been approved by Cabinet, and that it would be authorized for expenditure-and I use her words-"whenever we can afford it". I would like to ask the Minister how many Crown Corporations such as de Havilland and Canadair stand ahead of the elderly poor in the Government's list of priorities.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, one thing is certain, and that is that this Government will not make the mistake which the Conservatives made in the 1960s when they cancelled the Arrow program and put the aeronautics industry in this country behind by ten years.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: What the Government is doing is not only protecting thousands of jobs for Canadians, but it is also protecting a strong Canadian presence in the aviation industry, a high technology industry, and one which is important for the future of the country.
As far as the question raised by the hon. lady is concerned, she knows that the expenditures in question would be, indeed, expenditures which would not be on a recurring basis, year after year. As I have indicated in my budget speech, we are currently examining the situation on a current basis and we very much have in mind the problem raised by the hon. lady.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. The Minister knows that the American automotive companies are producing in Canada roughly 75 per cent of what they sell to Canadians. The federal task force on the automotive industry has recommended that the principle involved, namely, that automotive companies which make profits from Canadians ought to be creating jobs for Canadians, should be applied to all automotive companies and not just to the American companies. Does the Minister accept this sensible recommendation?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, as I stated last Friday in response to the task force report, we think it is a very comprehensive report and it will receive serious consideration by the Government. My officials, are already working on a paper which will be discussed with my Cabinet colleagues.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INSIST ON JOBS BEING CREATED IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question specifically. I agree it is comprehensive, and I also agree in principle that it is saying essentially the right thing. However, I would like to ask the Minister if he accepts the principle in the report. More specifically, since the major import which is causing a loss of Canadian jobs in that sector right now happens to be from Japan, and since the Japanese have agreed to produce cars, or parts, in the United States, Australia, Mexico, Great Britain, amongst others, and if they met the minimum 60 per cent standard here in this country, we would have an additional 35,000 jobs, will the Minister agree with the principle in the report? Secondly, will he, in his discussion with the Japanese industry, insist upon their acceptance of the principle?


Edward C. Lumley: May 24, 1983
Oral Questions
Madam Speaker, with respect to the principle, I believe the Prime Minister answered more than adequately the question of the Hon. Member last Friday. Obviously Canada, a major trading nation which relies on merchandise trade surpluses should not on a quid pro quo basis, adopt the principle as the Prime Minister responded to the Leader of the New Democratic Party on Friday. However, as the Prime Minister stated, in very specific cases, such as the trade imbalance in the automotive industry, there is some justification room to negotiate with other countries.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as with most questions recently, the Prime Minister answers one way on one question and another way on another question. In short, the Government's position is by no means clear on this issue. Since thousands of Canadian jobs are at stake I hope the Government will soon make up its mind.


PRINCIPLE OF CANADIAN PRODUCTION QUOTA
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the task force correctly points out that General Motors, Chrysler, and Ford, currently meeting 74 per cent production in Canada, are likely to drop to the 60 per cent minimum for competitive reasons if companies from other countries are not forced to comply, does the Minister recognize that, if they do that, we could lose some 22,000 existing jobs and, if so, will he now give us a commitment to negotiate on this principle with the Japanese so Canadians can get the jobs in this sector that they deserve?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I do not know what stronger commitment the Hon. Member wants, as I have already indicated that we will give serious consideration to the recommendations in the task force report. I have also stated that I will be sending a letter to the chief executive officers of the Japanese automotive manufacturing companies inviting them to Canada for discussions, as I requested on previous occasions when 1 was in Japan.


HOUSING
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: My question is directed to the Minister responsible for Housing.
Recently, the Minister announced on the radio that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation still had 16,000 applications pending for the $3,000 grant. The Minister also said that it was almost certain that applications made before April 30 would be accepted, and this of course would benefit
all applicants who made their requests before April 30, according to the Government's initial commitment. Within this context, could the Minister inform the House today whether Canadians who applied for the $3,000 grant before April 30 will receive a positive reply from CMHC?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I do not remember having said 16,000, but it is quite clear that the problem whose extent we are now determining is quite considerable, and that there was a flood of requests during the last two weeks of April and in the first week of May.
Right now, we are looking at ways of meeting the needs of Canadians who applied before April 30, and if possible, of those who applied before May 5. 1 hope to have an answer for the Hon. Member within forty-eight hours.


Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary. If I understood correctly, the Minister just promised that he would tell us within forty-eight hours that applications for the $3,000 grant will be accepted up to April 30. He could also provide some clarification regarding the rash commitment made by the Minister of Finance who raised the hopes of Canadians by saying that the grant might be extended until the end of May.
In any case, is the Minister prepared to repeat that Canadians will be told once and for all about the commitment made regarding April 30, and could he also, within forty-eight hours, inform the House whether the Minister will be able to meet the commitment made by his colleague? Madam Speaker, I am not accusing the Minister but his colleague, the Minister of Finance, of raising the hopes of Canadians. The Minister has given us the assurance today that within forty-eight hours, Canadians will know whether grant applications made before April 30 will be honoured, and what is going to happen regarding the commitment for the month of May.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance made it quite clear that after adding $100 million to this program in October, he was adding $30 million in his April 19 budget, especially to assist Canadians in isolated and northern areas where construction cannot start before the end of April.
As I said before, we have received a flood of requests, far more than could be expected according to the statistics for even the best years for housing in Canada. I cannot blame the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for having put a ceiling of $30 million on this program, since the housing industry is doing very well at the present time and interest rates have dropped considerably thanks to his predecessor's budget and the measures taken by the present Minister of Finance.
What I would like to say to the Hon. Member, if he could perhaps refrain from taking this unusually aggressive stance, is that we shall do everything in our power to accommodate Canadians who applied before April 30 and if possible, up to May 5.
May 24, 1983


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Wahid Ali, the President of the Senate of Trinidad and Tobago.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. MOUMIN BAH DON FARAH, REPUBLIC OF DJIBOUTI MINISTER OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Madam Speaker:: I also have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the presence of His Excellency Mr. Moumin Bahdon Farah, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Djibouti.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. During the last week we lost two more CF-104 Starfighters, for a total of four in the last six months, with the loss of three pilots ami now, unfortunately, five civilians killed in Germany. Has the Department of National Defence formed any early conclusion as to the causes of these latest two crashes? Were they caused by pilot error, or mechanical failure in these aging aircraft?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that it was indeed a very regrettable accident in Germany, and in the name of the Government of Canada. I expressed our sincere condolences to the families of those persons in Germany who lost their lives. This Government very much regrets this accident.
As for the airplane itself, the 104, as far as Fighter aircraft is concerned, has a very good safety record. It is-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lamontagne:: Well, what do you know-Madam Speaker, these people who are laughing, what do they know about the safety of a warplane? I think I am more aware and more knowledgeable about what airplane safety is than most of those people who are laughing on the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Maurice Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, we have the record of all accidents which happened to 104s since 1961. In some years, like 1972, we lost none. In 1965 we lost-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Lamontagne: Well, in 1965 we lost 12. It is part of the ups and downs of any war plane.
Mr. Broad bent: Up and down is right.


Maurice Lamontagne: They have to be involved in exercises, Madam Speaker, in very difficult missions with low and high flying. It is a warplane which has to be exercised in very difficult situations. Germany flies the 104, some other European countries fly it, and we can match their record and our record in so far as our good safety record is concerned with this warplane. I am not talking about commercial airplane safety; I am talking about warplane safety. These are two different worlds, Madam Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I must say that to claim the CF-104 has a good safety record brings the answers of the Minister to a new level of unlikelihood.


REQUEST THAT REMAINING CF-104 AIRCRAFT BE GROUNDED
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, in 1979, when an F-16 crashed, every F-16 then flying was grounded until the cause of the crash was made known. Has the Minister in any way considered grounding the Starfighters because of their attrition rate, which to many of us is already unacceptably high? While he is on his feet, could he tell us whether the CF-18A, the new fighter aircraft, will replace the Starfighter first, or will priority be given to replacing the CF-101 Voodoo, which is even older than the Starfighter?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, if there were any unreasonable risk in letting our pilots fly any of our planes I would stop them from flying right away. We are checking everything we can to make sure the planes we are flying have a good safety record and can be flown in safety, and can help our allies in every eventuality.
You have many reasons why a plane can crash, Madam Speaker, we have here the reasons for every crash of the 104. It could be personnel, it could be the material, it could be the environment, it can be operational, foreign object damage, or the reasons could be undetermined. All accidents have been investigated and we know why 95 per cent of the accidents occurred. Unfortunately in the case of some others we were not able to discover the exact cause of the accidents. But we are following matters very carefully. I think the last accident was among the most unfortunate, and one we regret greatly, but I do not think that this is any reason to stop the 104 from flying, because Germany and several other countries fly it, too.
25682

May 24, 1983
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The oil based petrochemical industry welcomed the announcement of the Minister about assistance to Petromont and the loan guarantees to Petrosar, which the shareholders applauded. However, the second part of the Minister's press release indicated that there would be a task force established with two co-chairmen. I wonder if the task force is expected to be in place soon or if the co-chairmen have been selected. If so, I would like to know their names and when the task force is expected to be mobile.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, first I want to apologize to Hon. Members. I have been a little tardy in putting together the task force, contrary to what I originally intended. However, the cochairmen are in place and will be having a meeting this week with our officials. We have asked the co-chairmen to suggest competent people from the industry from across Canada to be represented on the task force. I do not think it is appropriate to announce any individual names until such time as the whole task force is finalized.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the comments about the absolutely unjustified carnage which has come about as a result of crashes involving the CF-104 Starfighter. My question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to stop the carnage, would they be prepared to change the operational role of the aircraft in its operational procedure by not allowing it to participate in any more aerial demonstrations, any more aerobatic demonstrations, and to keep the aircraft out of civilian airports where it must approach or depart over heavily populated areas such as Vancouver and Winnipeg? Would he be prepared to make some operational changes in the use of the aircraft so that the danger is minimized in its use?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think that some people are trying to make a tragedy of this, which, of course, is regrettable. However, in this instance we were flying in Germany, accompanied by the German Air Force. We were both doing some exercises. An accident happened which, again, is very regrettable. That does not mean that the aircraft is no good and should be put out of
service. It has great utility as an air mission aircraft. It must be used in all kinds of training circumstances.
Unfortunately an accident happened, and I agree that it was very tragic, and I regret it. It was because we were requested by the Germans to fly with them in a low level mission practice. Obviously, the Germans were flying the same kind of aircraft we were flying, so it was strictly an unfortunate accident. For example, if the Hon. Member drives the same kind of car as I do and he has an accident and I do not have an accident, does that mean that his car is no good? It could depend on many causes. Why does the Hon. Member not wait, because the investigation is currently being carried out by the German Government and our people in Germany, see what in fact was the real cause, and stop making it appear to be so dramatic?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, when 600 aircraft out of a total manufacturing component of 1,900 crash, there is absolutely no excuse for the Minister's response. There is no excuse for the Government to continue to tolerate an accident rate like that anywhere.


REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTATION ON ACCIDENTS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, would the Minister of National Defence be prepared to provide the House with the documentation on the remainder of the Canadian accidents back since the beginning of production, so that the public can have an examination into other civilian aviation expertise as to a common thread in the kind of accidents which have occurred? Would he be prepared to table in this House the results of the other accident findings, instead of keeping the material secret?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, there is no question of keeping information secret. Of course, the investigation is still secret because sometimes we ask opinions in confidentiality. However, the causes of all the accidents which have occurred since 1962 are all well known to us. I will in due course be able to supply the Hon. Member with the reasons why the accident happened.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and relates to the questions which were asked earlier by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's East, involving the whole area of youth unemployment which has now hit almost crisis proportion. Is it not now time for a parliamentary task force on youth unemployment and youth issues in this country?
May 24, 1983


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, just to remind the Hon. Member, we put forward a very clear set of proposals under the youth employment strategy at the time of the budget debate. We referred that document for examination in front of the Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. In the meantime we have introduced a number of new proposals. The new proposal for wage subsidies for work experience programs would provide a brand new program to bring people into their first time jobs. There has been the proposal for youth job corps across Canada and proposals to provide substantially for more people in the Katimavik program and the DND program. We have those programs in place as well as the training programs. My attitude at this point is to get things happening rather than just go into further study.


REQUEST FOR EARLY STUDY
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the Minister well knows that criteria for programs like the youth internship program, which are desperately needed today, are not even in place yet. Students are coming on the job stream right now, this month and in the next month, and the Government will not likely have those criteria in place until Fall, at the very earliest. Can the Government not explore this very serious problem, which is not only an immediate problem but also one which will be going on for the next few years? Can it not be explored through a parliamentary task force?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I return to the point that the programs we introduced need some proper preparation, which means discussion with those in the private sector in particular, who would be the major sponsors and users of the wage subsidy program. We do not want to rush into something before it has been properly discussed and there have been consultations with that particular group, which is what we are now doing.
In terms of the longer range issue, as I have indicated we put forward a paper last January which laid out the dimensions of the problem and referred it to the provincial group for study. As I say, we are prepared to discuss it with colleagues in the House of Commons through the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, which we have already initiated. Therefore, I am not sure why the Hon. Member would want to duplicate what has already been initiated.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. For approximately four years the Conservatives
Oral Questions
have been arguing that we should abolish the Metric Commission and follow the course set by the U.K. and the United States in abolishing their metric boards and returning to a voluntary process of implementation. Would the Minister now be able to confirm to the House that the Metric Commission has been notified that it is being abolished?

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Hon. Member saying that he has been asking for the abolition of the Metric Commission for four years, according to his own words. The Hon. Member may recall that the Progressive Conservative Party was in power for about ten months, and not only did it not abolish the Metric Commission but it even passed an Order in Council to put into effect part of the compulsory metric program. It was a Conservative Cabinet that approved this Order in Council, which is certainly not in line with the views of the Member for Peterborough. As for the Commission's duration, the Commission is doing its work, and despite the systematic opposition of the Progressive Conservative Member, it is about to finish its work, and as soon as it has, it will of course be dismantled according to plan.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I should point out that it was the Conservative Government in 1979 which abolished the Order in Council that brought metric into the retail food sector. It was the Liberal Government, in March of 1979, when it still held Cabinet position, which gazetted the order in council that brought metric into the floor covering business.


USE OF IMPERIAL MEASUREMENT IN STOCKYARDS
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the Minister confirm to the House that, under pressure from provincial Governments, from agricultural associations and organizations, and from consumers, the federal Government has decided to return to imperial measurement in the weighing of beef on import and export and that all the stockyards from Montreal through to Prince Rupert will remain or return, if they have converted, to imperial measurement?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I do know that at the present time agriculture, in total, is about 85 per cent metric. There was a delay by the previous Government, in the short-term, in converting the total beef operation into metric. There has been a delay in that. I believe the arrangement that the Hon. Member is talking about has been made.

May 24, 1983
Oral Questions


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Recently, in his answers to me in the House on May 18, and in his Toronto Star interview, the Prime Minister appears to be casting himself in the role of an honest broker or mediator between the United States and the Soviet Union. Is it his intention to push that role at the forthcoming Williamsburg Summit in the hope that the United States can be persuaded of his expertise in that direction, in spite of his public musings about the warlike propensities of President Reagan?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Madam Speaker.


INVITATION TO PRIME MINISTER TO VISIT MOSCOW
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will recognize, of course, the difference between the musings that he may have had in private with Mr. Gorbachev during his recent visit here and his public criticism of the President of the United States. Can he tell us whether the private stance that he took with Mr. Gorbachev was in any way responsible for the invitation that he received to visit Moscow, and while answering that could he say whether he intends to accept that invitation?
While he is still on his feet, might he also say whether he has received any indication with respect to the manner in which his statement about President Reagan's warlike propensities have been received in Washington?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there is a whole series of questions there and I am not sure that 1 can deal with them all. As far as the invitation to Moscow is concerned, it would please the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to know that most heads of Government or senior members of Government who come to Canada invite me to visit their countries, knowing full well that it will please the Opposition that I be absent some days from this place. So it is nothing new.
In the case of the Soviet Union, I think we have been receiving visits for at least the past half dozen years on the basis that the last bilateral exchange with the Soviet Union at the level of heads of Government was when Premier Kosygin came. That was almost ten years ago, if my memory is correct. It would normally be Canada's turn to visit the Soviet Union if one considers past records. I should not be surprised that the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), when he was Prime Minister, would also have been invited to the Soviet Union with as much urgency.
The other part of the question concerned my musings. I merely want to say that I am happy that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition finds them amusing.


PRIME MINISTER'S INTENTIONS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, with respect to the Prime Minister's comments concerning the reaction of the Opposition, his inferential forthcoming visit to Moscow, and his statement that we would like to see him go from time to time, is he inferentially saying by that answer that he is threatening us with his return or promising that he will stay there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is a rather singular question, coming from a man who, we know, will no longer have his job in about three weeks from now.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Both Canadian railways are holding Canadian grain producers and taxpayers up to ransom by refusing to upgrade their rail systems unless they get more money from both. Even if they get five or six times the Crow rate, both railways have said they will not even buy hopper cars. They expect the taxpayers to do that.
In light of that, I wish to ask the Minister about Canadian National's bid of $300 million to buy 3,100 miles of the bankrupt Milwaukee Road Railway's lines in the United States, and CNs offer to take on the $180 million of debt owed by the Milwaukee Road to the United States Government. Why is he asking farmers and taxpayers to give CN and CP more money to rebuild rail lines in Canada when these companies apparently have enough resources to bail out American investors and the United States Treasury?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, with respect to the first part of the question, the adequacy of the compensation given to railways, I thought that this is one of the items of the Crow reform which was generally accepted in the West. In particular I remember a study made for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool on the adequacy of the compensation, and the figure arrived at was not very much different from the one recommended by Gilson. This is really a problem on which there is general agreement.
With respect to the purchase of the Milwaukee road by CN, that possibility still exists. It has not yet been approved by CN or the Canadian Government. We will discuss that in due course.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The United States Justice Department has already approved these. They are only waiting for the approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission in the United States.
May 24, 1983


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the question concerns CP's $150 million expenditure and CN's $300 million expenditure. Would the Minister answer the question? How can railways in Canada insist on moneys from grain producers and taxpayers to build lines here while they can afford to invest in over 4,000 miles of United States railway lines, to the tune of about $600 million in Canadian funds?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I already answered the question the other day when I ventured the opinion that the presence of Canadian owned railway companies in the United States was beneficial to Canadian exports. These are services rendered by companies and consequently it is a form of export which is very beneficial to the country as a whole. Would my hon. friend prefer to have U.S. railways operating in Canada?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Consequently it is beneficial for Canada to operate these railways in the United States because it is part of Canadian services and Canadian exports to the United States.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Approximately two years ago the Minister announced a fund of $345 million, as I recall, to be used for various Indian programs across Canada. The Minister has not yet announced any specific payments out of that fund.
A few weeks ago the Minister announced a committee to help dispense those funds. As I recall, it was to be composed of Members of the Liberal caucus. Once again there have been no payments as a result of that. One committee in particular, the agricultural committee of Ontario for the natives, has been waiting. I have been talking to the Minister and his staff for almost two years. When will we see some of that $345 million which was promised so long ago?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, with regard to the $345 million, the Minister responsible for that is my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, essentially because it deals with the Metis, Inuit and all Natives, not just status Indians for whom I am responsible. In particular, the Metis have an interest in this matter. That is why it is not only a concern to the Indians but to the people for whom the Hon. Member is concerned. Therefore I would suggest that he direct his question to my colleague, the Minister responsible for small business.
Petitions


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, if I had time I would ask everyone over there. Obviously in order to get that answer the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had to ask the Prime Minister. Because it is an agricultural problem I have already employed not the small but the great help of the Minister of Agriculture. Since I do not yet have any money, would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister responsible for small business tell us when and if, or if it is ever going to be spent, namely the $345 million that was promised by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I am told that my colleague, the Minister responsible for small business, is not in the House. Let me just assure the Hon. Member that although undeniably there have been delays in making announcements under this particular fund, the Minister responsible for small business will be in the House shortly. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that attention will be given to this matter and announcements will be forthcoming relatively soon.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on Friday, May 20, 1983 and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by a significant number of western Canadian farmers who want to bring to the attention of the House the problem that western Canadian farmers will face in the event that the proposed changes to the Crow rate take place. They have humbly prayed that western Canadian farmers now paying $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate will have to pay significantly more than they can afford.

May 24, 1983
Petitions
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain or Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition from the residents of Langham, Saskatchewan. The petition is addressed to the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of 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 rate in the 1981-1982 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmer's contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, that is, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain, this is the Crow, rate. This petition is signed by some 36 petitioners from Saskatchewan.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Saskatchewan expressing their concern with the Government's intention to change the Crow rate. In their petition these western Canadian farmers who paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-1982 crop year claim" they have contributed over $6.3 billion to this nation's balance of trade. 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 petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain or Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin):
That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Madam Speaker:: That motion, of course, is in order, pursuant to Standing Order 50. All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than jive Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members.
[And the division bells having stopped at 6 p.m.]
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The bells are ringing to call in the Members for a vote on a motion that the House now proceed to Orders of the Day.
It being six o'clock, and since the House would normally stand adjourned at this time, the motion has therefore lapsed. Consequently, in terms of Standing Order 8(1), 1 do now leave the chair, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1), until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned without question put pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, May 25, 1983