1983-06-16

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, May 24, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, at this time I rise on a point of order that 1 consider to be of some vital importance to the business that is now before the House. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that we opposed first reading of Bill C-155 because we believed that the Bill was both unacceptable in principle and confusing.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that page 380 of Erskine May, Nineteenth Edition, deals with something called a complicated question. Page 380 of Erskine May reads as follows:
The ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the House, the House may order such question to be divided, has been variously interpreted at different periods.
It goes on to read:
In 1888, however, the Speaker ruled that two propositions which were then before the House in one motion could be taken separately if any Member objected to their being taken together. Although this ruling does not appear to have been based on any previous decision, it has since remained unchallenged. A complicated question can, however, only be divided if each part is capable of standing on its own.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope to back my submission up with some evidence, that the Bill before us does in fact place before the House a complicated question within the definition comtemplated by Erskine May, that the question before the House has three quite different principles contained within it, that those three principles are not reliant one upon the other, and that each principle is capable of standing on its own.
1 would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-155, when voted upon at second reading, would require Members of the House of Commons to vote on three distinctly different principles with one vote. I submit that it would be impossible for a Member to exercise his or her responsibility properly if that Member were to be required to vote for or against a Bill
containing three principles when in fact the Member might find himself or herself in support of one or more of the principles but in opposition to one or more of the principles.
That goes directly, therefore, to the question that Erskine May poses, that if a question is one which a Member cannot in good conscience rise and vote for freely and with the assurance that that vote will achieve the results that the Member believes ought to be achieved in dealing with the principles of the Bill, then the Bill should be divided.
[DOT] (mo)
In putting this point before you, I want to indicate what those three principles are. The Bill is divided into a number of parts. I want to make it clear that I am not arguing that simply because the Bill deals with more than one amendment to more than one piece of legislation, it is necessarily dealing with more than one principle.
In the case of Bill C-155 three quite different and quite distinct principles are involved. The first is to set up a new administrative procedure for dealing with the transportation, shipping and handling of grain. This procedure could be pursued independent of any other action of the Government. It deals with the establishment of a commission, the purpose of which is to set out the methods to be used and the procedures to be followed in the technical aspects of the transportation of grain over the railroads of Canada.
The second principle contained in the Bill speaks directly to the amount of money to be charged to the farmer for the movement of grain. It is a separate principle and the amount of money to be charged to the farmer could be introduced in a piece of legislation standing on its own that could be ilealt with separately and quite apart from how the transportation system is to work.
I therefore submit that although those two principles are put together-in the view of the Government they may be marginally related-they are, however, capable of being dealt with separately. That is the key-they are capable of being dealt with separately. They are capable of standing on their own. They could have been introduced as separate pieces of legislation, one without the other. One piece could have been introduced without the other ever having been dealt with.
It would be possible to redevelop the railroad system using the proposals in Part I without in any way changing the method of payment that farmers currently have enshrined in law. It would equally be possible to change the method of payment without in any way altering the basic railroad system.

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
I submit that those are the two principles involved, each dealing with an entirely different matter-although the Government may want to relate them-and each capable of standing on its own merits. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but it is possible that Members of the House might want to support one of the principles while opposing another of the principles.
In order that Members of the House may do their job properly on behalf of their constituents, they must be able to vote freely on second reading, which is approval in principle, without voting to do something they do not want to happen or voting against something that would automatically require that something they want would be defeated.
There is a third principle contained in Bill C-155 which speaks directly in Part VI to the disposition of the Canada coal lands. I would like to submit again that just as the principle which applies to the management and development of the railroad can and should stand on its own, and just as the principle relating to the tariff to be paid by the farmers for the movement of grain can and should stand on its own, the disposition of the Canada coal lands is in no way related to the freight rate which will be charged for the movement of grain. Nor, for that matter, is it related to the redevelopment of the railroad system. Therefore, we now have not two but three distinctly different principles.
I put to you, Sir, that that quite clearly is within the definition as set out by Erskine May on Page 380, which definition I read to you at the beginning of my remarks, when he said that a complicated question can only be divided if each part is capable of standing on its own. I submit to you that that test is clearly met by the argument which I am making. There is no one in the House who would deny that if the Government wanted to move ahead with legislation to determine how the Dominion coal lands should be handled, as a matter of principle, the Government could bring forward a piece of legislation to do that, and that could be dealt with by each Hon. Member of the House of Commons and voted upon according to how that Hon. Member believed the proper disposition of that should be achieved.
Therefore I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are faced with a dilemma, that is, that if the Government persists in attempting to push this particular Bill to second reading in its present form, the Government will be requiring Hon. Members of the House of Commons to vote for or against three matters of principle which are not related, three matters of principle which the Hon. Members may quite justifiably feel cannot be dealt with properly by one vote.
I would like to point out to you, if I may, that this matter has come up previously in a variety of different ways-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Chair has been listening attentively to the argumentation being made by the Hon. Member and I do not want to put that argumentation in question in any way, shape or form. The Chair, however, is
concerned with the matter of the process. In the opinion of the Chair, at this stage the House is considering an amendment which would have the effect, if it carried, to have for all practical purposes the Bill die or withdrawn. In the opinion of the Chair, that matter ought to be disposed of in the first instance.
However the House disposes of the question now before the House on the amendment, the Hon. Member would be quite right in raising the argumentation which he has already begun this morning. In the Chair's opinion, however, that argumentation should not be made at this time but following the disposition of the amendment which is now before the House for consideration.
Therefore, 1 would ask the Hon. Member to postpone his argumentation, to wait for the disposal of the amendment which, if carried, would have the effect in any case of losing the Bill as far as the Government is concerned. At that time the Chair will listen to the Hon. Member's argumentation and take it under advisement. I will hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: I very much appreciate the point raised by the Chair. However, I would point out that if the amendment were carried, it would be carried as the result of a vote. The argument holds whether it be the amendment, Sir, or whether it be the main motion. It can be disposed of by only one vote. It is not only possible but is a fact without question that certain parts of the Bill, even as a result of the amendment, could be defeated without that necessarily being desirable. For example, as you say, if the amendment to the motion were to carry, the Bill would fail. The three principles of the Bill would then have failed and the fact is that the three principles stand separately, in my opinion and that of my colleagues, and 1 hope in the opinion of other Members. Therefore to have defeated them would require that you defeat something you are in favour of.


Mr. Smith:: Nothing new about that.


Ian Deans: Which is exactly the point I am trying to make, and I appreciate the Chair for assisting me in this way. It is true that if the amendment is defeated, then the Bill continues for further discussion. Of course, at that point there could be further discussion on the point I am making. But we cannot and may not prejudge the outcome of the vote on the amendment. We are not permitted to do that. We have to assume that the amendment might well carry, and if it did, the Bill would be defeated and with it would go clauses of the Bill which Members would have wanted to vote for.
So I urge that you consider that aspect since I think the Chair has quite well made the point I have been trying to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Oder. The Chair is taking the various points raised by the Hon. Member under advisement on a continuing basis. In the Chair's opinion, one
June 16, 1983

way out of the difficulty which now faces the House from a procedural point of view would be to withdraw the amendment at this stage. The other option, as the Chair said earlier, would be to dispose of the amendment by a voice or recorded vote as the House may choose. Otherwise, we should at this stage be proceeding with the discussion of the amendment.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am so reluctant to engage in this because if we were to dispose of the amendment and in doing so defeat the Bill, as you are suggesting and I would certainly hope might well be the case, we would have been required to dispose of three matters of principle which stand unrelated and which, if disposed of by a vote on the amendment, would mean that we would have voted against things we were in favour of and for things we were against. That happens in the case of an amendment just as it happens in the case of a second reading vote.
1 urge that you hear the argument, Sir, because it is applicable both to the disposition of the amendment and second reading. If the Speaker were to rule that there are indeed three questions of principle contained in the Bill and as a result it is indeed a complicated question as defined in Erskine May, then we would obviously at that point have to withdraw the amendment. But surely we would not dispose of the amendment in advance of determining whether or not the Chair is in fact prepared to rule that the argument, having been made and heard, is valid, that there are indeed the components of a complicated question as established by Erskine May and as dealt with over the years, and that therefore the question should be put in three separate parts for three separate votes. I beg the indulgence of the Chair at least to hear the argument out since it applies equally to the Bill's disposition by amendment or disposition by second reading vote, in my judgment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before deciding to recognize another Hon. Member, the Chair must remind Hon. Members that the question before the House now being debated is not so much on the principle of the Bill but, rather, "that the Bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".
The Chair, of course, does not wish at this time to make a comment on the arguments presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. The Chair certainly recognizes his right to raise the matter he has raised, and it does not want in any way to hamper the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain in presenting that argumentation to the Chair. However, in the Chair's opinion this is not the proper time to do it because of the nature of the amendment now before the House. Therefore, the Chair, as indicated earlier, has drawn to the attention of the Hon. Member that there is simply one other option by which he would be allowed to carry on his argumentation at this time, and that would be to withdraw the amendment,
Western Grain Transportation Act
because of the very nature of the amendment before the House.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) sought to be recognized earlier. I will hear him out, but the Chair does not wish to encourage a prolonged debate on this matter at this time.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to say at the outset that I am impressed by the arguments of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I think he has raised a very valid point.
I have been trying to follow your rationale, Mr. Speaker, and if, as you suggest, the Bill may be in improper form, if it is in fact found to be improper, then it would seem to me that the amendment would be improper as well. Therefore, the very fundamental point here, as the Hon. Member has pointed out, is that we are really dealing with three principles. I suggest that there are probably four principles enshrined in the Bill. 1 think there is substantive precedent. I can refer to the omnibus energy Bill, which was really at the heart and core of this issue.
My simple point is that if a Bill is before the House in improper form, that should be decided upon right now, notwithstanding the fact that we have an amendment which is substantive. It may have a bearing upon whether or not another similar amendment may be introduced.
In attempting to follow Your Honour's reasoning, I find that I am more compelled to support the Hon. Member on the basis of Your Honour's rationale.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blaikie:: Same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair will recognize the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).


Mr. Pepin:: I will be equally brief. I entirely disagree with the validity of the argument. On the basis of substance, just to look at the Bill is sufficient. It is, as we all know, divided into seven Parts. The first Part concerns administrative measures. This relates to the institutional aspect, the senior grain committee, the grain co-ordinator, and so on. Then it moves on to the establishment of rates.


Ian Deans: Hold on. I rise on a point of order, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I would be delighted to hear the Minister's argument, but he is now arguing the substance of what I said. I am eager at the moment to find out whether I am to be permitted to continue my argument rather than hear the Minister try to defend his ill-conceived Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair has heard the points of order. The Chair still maintains that there are doubts as to the raising of this matter at this time in terms of procedure. Perhaps Hon. Members would allow the Chair at this time to take the matter under advisement and I will make a definite ruling at the very earliest opportunity.

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a question, will the Chair be in a position to indicate by three o'clock the decision with regard to the appropriateness of my raising this matter now? I am absolutely convinced that if I wait too long I will then be in more trouble. I will have lost the opportunity to raise it at the first possible opportunity after it became known to me that the Government was not prepared to consider a proposal that I made to it with regard to accommodating our desire to split the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Of course, the Chair will endeavour to come forth with a ruling at the very earliest opportunity. 1 think the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain can take that to mean that certainly by three o'clock, if not earlier, the Chair will be in a position to rule.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have one other small point. I just want to be clear that the ruling that the Chair proposes to make at the earliest possible moment does not go to the substance of the argument but to whether or not the argument can be made now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for your consideration at noon. I was told that I was out of order in some way. The argument being presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is that the Bill can be split. He is trying to invoke principles. He said that the Parts were marginally related.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair has informed the House that it wishes to take the matter under advisement. Therefore, it would not be proper at this time to continue the debate on the question of the principles involved. That argumentation, as suggested earlier by the Chair, should come at a later stage. Therefore I think we should continue with debate at this time.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on another point of order?


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the point of order concerning whether it is appropriate for discussion to occur now or after dealing with the amendment. Since I am the mover of the amendment I wish to ask the Chair to consider me as an individual Member who would like to vote for two parts of the Bill and against one part of it. Of course, I will have to support my own amendment and that is why I wish to submit that when the Chair takes this matter under advisement it realize that all Hon. Members who may support one or more principles of the Bill and oppose others are in the same position.
Even on the amendment, Members are being asked to vote against measures they favour and for measures they oppose. Surely when the Chair is taking this under advisement it can do nothing other than to say that the appropriateness of the original point raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is valid and that the decision on splitting the Bill must occur before a vote on the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair does not wish to hear additional contributions to the point of order. I have informed the House that I wish to take this matter under advisement at this time. We are simply dealing with process. We are not arguing principles involved in the Bill but the appropriateness of hearing the points of order at this time. That is the first and fundamental matter that must be decided.
When that ruling is made the Chair will gladly hear other Hon. Members who wish to debate the points originally raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. 1 think that is generally agreed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. I want to draw to your attention page 26363 of Hansard of June 14, 1983. It says the following:


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That Vote 40, in the amount of $35,000,000 under the Department of
External Affairs-Payment to the Export Development Corporation for
operating losses, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1984, (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
It then goes on to show the division. The division shows as follows-and I will not read them all because 1 am not trying to waste time-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: You should wait for it. The list includes Mr. Allmand, Mr. Andre, Mrs. Appolloni, Mr. Bachand, Mr. Baker (Gander-Twillingate), Mr. Beatty, Madam Beauchamp-Niquet, and the list goes on. However, the Votes and Proceedings of June 14 at page 6016 states:
Mr. Gray, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved,-That Vote 40, in the amount of $35,000,000 under the Department of External Affairs-Payment to the Export Development Corporation for operating losses, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984 (less the amount voted in Interim Supply), be concurred in.
It then shows a different list of persons having voted for the motion. The Members who voted as shown in Hansard are not the Members who voted as shown in the Votes and Proceedings. There is something drastically wrong. Either the Members did vote or did not vote for the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 am sure that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain raises a legitimate matter. However, the Chair does not see in what way it is related to the debate now before the House.


Ian Deans: It is not related at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Matters of this nature are normally dealt with during Routine Proceedings following Question Period. Unless the Hon. Member can show how the point he raises is related to the Bill and the amendment now before the House, I think it is quite inappropriate to raise the matter at this time. However, I will hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will not argue with you. It is my obligation to raise points of order when they are first brought

June 16, 1983

to my attention. 1 happened to have this brought to my attention on reading it right now. I must raise it when I know it is wrong. 1 now know it is wrong and a point of order, regardless of its being related to what is happening, is always in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In any case, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain was allowed to make his point. I am sure the error will be corrected as usual.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have suggested that you will be bringing back a recommendation later this afternoon. I would like you to consider the fact that Part IV of this Bill, which my House Leader has brought to your attention, affects my riding very seriously.


David P. Smith: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member is now raising a matter which deals with principles contained in the Bill. The Chair informed the House earlier that it would bring down a ruling on the question of the process of raising the point of order at this time. Therefore I would invite Hon. Members to proceed with debate. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, on May 24 I began for a few moments simply to give another perspective with respect to this debate. The bottom line of my argument is that we should all recognize in the House that the executives of CP are very clever bargainers. They are very good dealers. With respect to this matter, they obviously have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in their pockets. They have him doing substantially what CP feel would be very much in their interest.
I was pointing out that there is another side to this issue, and that is the injustice that has been perpetrated for years on various minority shareholders and bondholders in subsidiary companies that are controlled and dominated by CP and virtually run by CP with respect to their assets as if those assets were in fact CP assets. I say this because I think the facts will show when we get to committee that much of the land the Minister of Transport proposes to deal with, much of the tremendous new subsidy that will go into the CP, actually and rightfully should be for the benefit of shareholders and bondholders that have nothing directly to do with CP at all. The CP, through technicalities with long-term leases, sometimes running as long as 999 years, through long-term financing, sometimes in perpetuity, in some instances for 100 years, has been fleecing shareholders and bondholders not only in Canada but unfortunately in other countries, in particular the United Kingdom.
If I may, in the few minutes that I have left I would like to put on the record the case that I think can be made. The Crowsnest Pass Agreement was negotiated with CP and the Government on behalf of the people of Canada. The intention
Western Grain Transportation Act
was to induce settlement of the West in reliance of the Government's promise of a fixed freight rate.
The Government of Canada and CP have made many agreements. Everyone knows of the vast land subsidies granted by the Government to induce building of the railway. Not everybody knows, however, of the many government acts entitling CP to enter into long term and perpetual leases at fixed rates and issue long term and even perpetual debt at fixed rates. The CP's method of accounting leads to tunnelvi-sion when looking at the Crow rate. The CP has segmented its operations into rail, and other operations, such as Marathon Realty, CP Enterprises and Cominco. The enormous wealth generated from the lands and minerals granted to the CP by the Government are segregated to other companies and certain CP rail operations show a loss. The Government or people of Canada are constantly being shown the loss side of the ledger but not the profit side.
The Government provided these subsidy lands which have, through time, become enormously valuable in consideration of CP's obligation for freight and passenger service in Canada. Now that the subsidy land profits have been realized, CP appears with its segmented accounting to show a loss in freight and passenger operations. We have already totally bailed out CP in its passenger operations. VIA Rail paid outrageous prices for old rolling stock and at the present time leases the rail service of CP so that the people of Canada have paid twice for passenger service which it now provides for itself.
Take a look at the consolidated operations of CP and you will see consistent profits from the total assets provided originally by the Canadian taxpayers.
The argument really is that time has made the Crow rate an economic burden to CP and an unfair economic windfall to Canadian farmers. That, I suggest, is not a fair picture. The present Canadian farmers bought their lands at prices reflecting farm incomes based on the Crow rate. The present shareholders of CP bought their shares at prices reflecting CP's consolidated income including the Crow rate. If, therefore, the rate is increased, present wheat farmers suffer an injustice in both capital and income and CP shareholders have increased profits and capital value of their shares. What is the justice in that? The promise of the Crow rate given by the Government should not work to the detriment of those people or their descendants who relied on the promise to move west so that shareholders of CP could get an increased windfall profit.
May I continue, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I must advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for York-Peel to conclude his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


An Hon. Member:: Do you want to hear the truth?


David P. Smith: I do not want to hear the filibuster.

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) spoke for only five minutes the last day, and he commenced today at 11:39 a.m.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: 1 am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that does amount to ten minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Bow River is usually right.
The Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this initial opportunity to rise to participate in the debates of this House and I wish to begin by thanking the electorate of Brandon-Souris for their support in the recent by-election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I look forward to serving my constituents in the remaining days of this Parliament and, 1 hope, in many Parliaments to come.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: I am particularly pleased to speak on this amendment as the question of the Crow was much debated during the course of my by-election campaign. I would like, therefore, to share with you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, the views of the farmers of my constituency, views which they often expressed over the course of the last four months.
Let me begin by recognizing that there are many diverging viewpoints on this proposal but those viewpoints, in my opinion, differ more in terms of detail than they do in substance. The vast majority of farmers in my constituency are opposed to the Government's transportation policy in its present form. As a result, 1 rise to speak in strong support of this amendment to postpone consideration of this Bill for six months because I am of the opinion that additional time is required for consideration of this very important and very detailed proposal.
Half of my constituents reside in the so-called rural portion of Brandon-Souris, and even those who live within the city of Brandon understand fully that agriculture is the backbone of the economy of my constituency. Furthermore, all members of my constituency recognize that the agricultural industry is equally vital to the economy of all of western Canada.
Unfortunately, prairie farmers have been suffering for several years from a financial crisis which has been caused by a combination of factors, many of which are direct results of the Government's energy and economic policies. On the one hand, rising interest rates, combined with excessively high fuel and fertilizer costs, have caused the farmers' costs to rise to unequalled levels. Tragically, those costs have been escalating
at the very time farmers' incomes have been falling as a result of declining world prices for grain. Western Canadian farmers, as a result, find themselves in an extremely dangerous financial crisis at this moment. Therefore the Government's proposal to abolish the Crow and to increase the farmers' transportation costs has been put forward at an extremely unfortunate time in the history of western agriculture.
The majority of farmers with whom 1 have spoken are painfully aware of the need for an improved transportation system, and they are prepared to pay a reasonable share of the cost to provide that system. They very legitimately argue, however, that there are very real limits to what they can afford to pay. For that reason I proposed during the course of the byelection, and as 1 suggested in this House last week, that the farmers' share of their transportation costs must be regulated in such a manner that their farming operations will remain viable.
What is required, therefore, is the creation by statute of a ceiling price which will protect the farmer from the possibility that his costs will rise on the one hand, while the value of his produce declines on the other. I propose, therefore, that a ceiling of approximately 7 per cent of the initial price for grain, or 7 per cent of the average price for non-board grains, be established. That percentage corresponds to the farmers' average transportation costs during the past quarter century. If this proposal is accepted, farmers will know that their transportation costs will not escalate beyond reason nor beyond their capability to pay.
The creation of such a ceiling, a ceiling that would be significantly lower than the Government's proposed safety net of 10 per cent of the weighted average price for grains, would require, of course, that the federal Government would have to contribute more than it is currently proposing to the cost of improving the country's rail system. Members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, believe very strongly that such money would be better spent on improving the farmers' transportation system than on other projects, such as the $1.4 billion which has been recently extended to cover the losses of Canadair.
In addition to being assured that the farmers' share of transportation costs will be regulated by statute, prairie grain producers need the guarantee that these reduced rates should apply to all the grain which farmers can produce. Any proposal to charge the full commercial rates on that portion of the farmers' crop exceeding 31.3 million tonnes would only discourage increased productivity.
I would like to conclude by noting that many western grain producers wish further time to examine this very detailed proposal, as the Government's proposal could have a devastating impact upon western agricultural industry if it is implemented in its present form. Those individuals and the various farm organizations to which they belong require more time in
June 16, 1983

which to study the Bill and to reach a consensus on the merits of the proposal. 1 will vote, therefore, in favour of the amendment which is designed to postpone consideration of this Bill for six months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since it is the Hon. Member's maiden speech, which we were all glad to hear, and in accordance with the tradition of the House when Members make their maiden speeches, I am sure there would be unanimous consent for him to continue his remarks if he wished to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is the Hon. Member's privilege to seek extended time. I gather he is not making that request at this time.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) on his maiden speech. It was an outstanding effort of bringing to this House the very legitimate concerns of the electors who enabled him to enter this House because of their desire, first of all, that a rotten Government be replaced by a Party which is capable of bringing to this House Members such as the Hon. Member who has just spoken, to represent the concerns of their constituents, particularly in the area of the Crow rate that is of such crucial importance to western Canada. I am very pleased to pay my respects to the new Member and on behalf of my colleagues to welcome him formally here after his first speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: It may not surprise you, Mr. Speaker, that an urban Member of Parliament is now on his feet in the House. While my good friend, the Hon. Member for Elgin (Mr. Wise), will recognize that my participation in the agricultural work of this House has not been particularly notable, there is a very real reason why an urban Member enters this debate. It is because what we are discussing here today on the Crow rate is of interest not only to the agricultural experts in this House and rural Members such as we have just heard, but it is central to the very life of western Canada, including the urban Members of this House.
This debate is really only beginning. We are representing here the viewpoint of western Canada. Other Members are bringing to the House viewpoints from other parts of Canada. It is a national issue. I believe it is absolutely correct to note, as the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Brian Mulroney, made clear, that changing the Crow rate is akin to changing language legislation in Quebec. It is of the same dimension. That is why this Bill should not be rushed through Parliament. Careful deliberation and thought are necessary. 1 believe, with the new Leader of our Party, that productivity must be improved in Canada and, since agriculture is the only bright light in the Canadian economy, farmers should not be penalized under this Bill.
1 want, with others, to draw the attention of the Government to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Western Grain Transportation Act
Mazankowski) who brought out his 14-point critique on this Bill on May 12 last. At that time he put forward a promising compromise that is at least one way for us to approach the extreme difficulties that the Bill presents. That compromise would allow the producer to decide if he wants the Crow benefit personally as opposed to having it paid directly to the railways. Such freedom of choice would give the producer the opportunity to affect the development of the grain-handling system, freeing the market to create and maximize efficiency. It would put decision making in the hands of the farmers themselves rather than having Government and the railways telling farmers what is good for them.
In this regard Bill C-155 is particularly lacking. Despite giving the railways what will amount to an extraordinary 1,000 per cent increase in freight rates by 1990, it nonetheless does not guarantee an efficient, cost-effective, and reliable grain transportation system.
In the time available for this part of the debate, I cannot deal with my many concerns and objections. Let me just concentrate on a couple of points. Perhaps I will have an opportunity at another stage of the debate to elaborate on my concerns.
The Government's initiative on changing the Crow does not give western Canada the opportunity for economic diversification which our vulnerable, resource dominated economy so badly needs, most directly in the realms of livestock and agricultural processing. According to the Minister's own figures, this Bill will further distort existing anomalies in freight rates, costing $1 billion in livestock production and an additional $350 million in processing activity. Moreover, by removing the statutory rates the agricultural sector will be denied a much needed factor of stability in an economic sphere which has been plagued by wild fluctuations in prices.
In a very real sense, these statutory rates for the shipment of western grain have been a key trade-off of Confederation, and that is the centrepiece of the positions we are presenting here. This has been a counter balance to the protection extended to industrial based central Canada. This buffered western Canada against harsh and often unfair international competition. Australian farmers pay less than 50 per cent of the cost of shipping their produce. Argentina gives free rail transport for grain. Wheat farmers in the EEC get a direct subsidy of $2.53 per bushel. Even our neighbouring farmers in the United States receive similarly large subsidies.
I call to the attention of the House what the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) recently pointed out, that the western producer must not be impeded, particularly in pursuing exports to the enlarging markets throughout the whole developing world. That will be a tremendous potential market, and to penalize Canadian farmers by not allowing them to reach that market does not make sense, as my colleague has said. Mr. Speaker, the West is not asking for some sort of special concession; it is simply seeking the capacity to compete on equal terms with the rest of the world, knowing full well that international trade is Canada's lifeblood.

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
By once more harming the aspirations of western Canada, the Government has again succeeded in pitting region against region and class against class. It is tragically fitting that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) should have branded the Crown initiative as the third major initiative since this Government was re-elected in 1980, referring also to the patriation of the Constitution and the National Energy Program. Like its predecessors, Sir, Bill C-155 has divided rather than reconciled.
At one time the Government claimed to have the interests of western Canada in mind. Much was heard, Sir, about the famous Western Development Fund that in 1980 promised $4 billion. Now, of course, this Fund has been relegated to the corridors of oblivion. Only $659 million has been allocated, and allocated primarily for very unimaginative and ad hoc measures. I would like to know what has happened to the Western Development Fund.
On another occasion I will make some remarks about a proposal that I want to bring to the House for a western development council that would be composed of experts on economic and social questions from the four western Provinces and the North. This council could provide a basis for integrated economic and social development in the West that would co-ordinate data from all spheres and could certainly find a just solution to the long standing problem of the Crow so that grain production in western Canada can meet the demands of a world that is in great change.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. This issue is a very fundamental and crucial one for the nation, Mr. Speaker, and this is the first chance 1 have had to rise in the House and address this issue in debate. Clearly I have been preceded by numerous colleagues of mine from the New Democratic Party who have put the case for the western farmers very eloquently and very strongly and have based their arguments upon concepts of social justice.
Much has already been said and there is not a great deal that I can add in terms of detail or even in terms of understanding to this issue, but 1 still feel that because of the fundamental importance of this issue I should add my words to what has already been said about the Government's efforts to ram through the House of Commons changes to the Crow rate.
I would like to mention briefly, Mr. Speaker, that the Government's efforts to ram changes to the Crow rate through the House has brought about a kind of an alliance, at least for a while, between the interests of people in Quebec and the interests of people in western Canada. The fact that the Government backed away from its original proposals and was forced to change those proposals-and, Mr. Speaker, we expect more changes from the Government-shows the force and the power of a potential alliance between western Canada and Quebec in terms of serving the interest of justice for all people of the nation.
[Translation}
I would like to stress, Mr. Speaker, the power of an alliance between the people of Quebec and the people of western Canada. In view of the fact that an alliance would serve the interests of social justice, it is very important to recognize in Canada that it would be easy for both the people of Quebec and of western Canada to work together to find a solution to some very formidable problems and to promote the interests of social justice. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the House will, through legislation, pursue this objective in other areas, both economic and social.

The fundamental question that faces the House with regard to this legislation is the question of who the Government is listening to. Whose side is the Government on? To whose problems are they paying attention? Clearly there are two groups of people who have put their cases to the Government and the Government is listening to one side only. These two groups are the farmers and the corporate executives of the railways. The Government has clearly put its full weight behind the interests of the corporate executives of the railways. It has decided to serve private corporate interests and to ignore community interests and the needs of many small farmers across Canada. That really tells us what the Government is all about.
Both the railways and the farmers have received subsidies and now it is the farmers who are being asked to give up those subsidies and to pay market value. Where is the proposal to ask the railways to pay market value for the subsidies that they were given in order to build a transportation system in the country? Fairness demands that both groups be treated alike. As long as the railways are allowed to continue to reap the benefits of the enormous subsidies given to them when they were formed, the farmers of the country who are in much greater financial need should be allowed to continue to reap the necessary benefits of the modest subsidies that they have been getting over the years.
This is a question of fundamental social justice. It is one of the principles of democracy in the sense that the purpose of an elected Government and an elected Parliament is to bring public concerns, the concerns of the community, to bear upon legislation and not to ally itself with powerful private interests in the country.
A part of this legislation obviously relates to a question of investment in railway redevelopment. The question that faces the House is, who will pay for that investment? The Government's policy and legislation calls upon the farmers to pay for that investment. It claims that this investment cannot go ahead unless the farmers pay for it. Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the basic principles of investment is that investment, if it is true investment, pays for itself.
The notion that is contained in the Government's proposal is that somehow, if all parts of a transportation system do not pay market value, the investment is called into question. That, Mr. Speaker, is a ludicrous notion. It is a notion that fails to
June 16, 1983

take into account concepts of sharing. It fails to take into account the fact that that investment must serve the public purpose in the sense of providing service to all communities. For example, if the philosophy behind this legislation was used to run the transit system in Ottawa or the transit system in Winnipeg where 1 come from, there is no way that transit services could be provided to suburban communities. One must realize that the market value of transportation services within the core, the price per ticket that an individual rider of the transit system should pay, is infinitesimally smaller than that which a suburban user should pay. It only shows that investment must be used to provide service, and if it is real investment it will pay for itself. The purpose of investment, even that which pays for itself, is to provide service for all the community. We must realize that in many situations the rich part of the system has to subsidize the poorer part of it so that all can benefit.
Investment must serve social justice. In this case we call upon the Government to make sure that this investment in railways serves social justice as it affects farmers and not just the private interests of the railway magnates.
It is not only in the case of farmers that investment coming from railways must serve social justice; it must also serve the urban communities in the country. I think of my own community of Winnipeg. If there is to be an enormous investment in railways as the Government has suggested, then I should like to know what plans it has to invest in the relocation of the massive railway yards in the City of Winnipeg out of the City.
I want to know that for several reasons. First of all, if the railway yards are not removed from the centre of the City, they will continue to have a detrimental impact on the neighbourhoods in which the poorest of our citizens live. Very expensive bridges will have to be built which will cut up the inner city neighbourhoods and thus wreak further social injustice. This is not acceptable. Investment must serve social justice, not simply private interests and private property.


Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments on Bill C-155 in the brief time allotted to me and also the opportunity to support the amendment which would provide a six-month hoist.
Given the magnitude of the issue before us today and the concerns and problems associated with it, I am sure that everyone, with the exception of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), would agree that it is impossible to deal adequately, from almost any point of view, with any aspect of the Bill.
1 want to take the opportunity as well, as some of my colleagues have already, to draw the attention of Members of the House and a good number of people outside the House who have been following the debate closely to the excellent, well-considered and logical response to the introduction of the Bill by my seatmate and colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski).
Western Grain Transportation Act
There has been much mention throughout the debate of the historical significance of this type of legislation and I agree with those statements. I have the distinct feeling, however, that Canadians generally-even some Canadians in western Canada but more particularly in central Canada and in my Province of Ontario and to a lesser extent in Atlantic Canada-are unaware of the significance of the legislation. I do not think it is an overstatement to say that the debate has the same significance and is as important as the constitutional debate and the debate on the National Energy Program. The result of this legislation, if it is not properly amended, will be as disastrous for the nation and the individual Canadian as that national energy policy.
The Bill was introduced on May 10; second reading debate began on May 12. We argued that the two-day interval was not enough for an adequate study of the Bill and the preparation of a response to it. On May 16 the Minister of Agriculture-not the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin)-indicated that he would move closure on second reading debate. The Government had allowed only 10 hours and 50 minutes of debate at that time, although I believe there has been another day of debate since. Until that time only a handful of the 48 Opposition Members from the three prairie Provinces had spoken, although they represent the people most directly affected by the Bill. A lesser opportunity was provided to those of us from other areas of the country.
I do not profess to be an expert on this legislation, Mr. Speaker. We have gone through four stages in the Crown debate in the last year or so. We have had the Gilson report, the Pepin proposals, the introduction of Bill C-155, and finally changes were made to the Bill. Those changes made at each step of the process were never fully explained or rationalized, however. It is no wonder, then, that there is such widespread discontent and dissatisfaction with the legislation.
The original proposal of the Minister of Transport was screened by his caucus colleagues. It is an offence to Parliament that Members of the Government caucus had an opportunity to examine the legislation and make substantive changes, whereas Members of the Opposition were told that their opportunity to discuss it at second reading would be cut off. It is obvious that a dual standard has been applied to the debate.
It is even more offensive that those Members who will be prevented from debating the Bill represent the people most directly affected by it. Parliament is supposed to represent the people, so the people's representatives must be given every opportunity to speak and to be heard.
I also find it interesting, but not surprising, that it was the Minister of Agriculture and not the Minister of Transport who announced the likelihood of closure, or the application of Standing Order 75C to the Bill. The Minister of Transport was available in the House at that time and had just finished answering the questions minutes before. But it was left to the Minister of Agriculture to introduce the motion because the

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Minister of Transport was fed up and perhaps somewhat disgusted at the compromises and changes forced on him against his better judgment.
We believe that the distortion of the low freight rates in grain and oil seeds vis-a-vis processed products should be removed and that natural advantages should be retained. The Bill will not achieve that goal. In fact, it will aggravate it. By making a direct payment to the railways it will also further distort existing freight rate inequities and will help prevent further diversification in western Canada. It will cost livestock producers an extra $20 per tonne for feed and that is a very serious problem. Livestock production in western Canada is a significant part of our total farm income.
The livestock sector of agriculture makes up some 40 per cent of total farm cash receipts in Manitoba, 17 per cent of total farm cash receipts in Saskatchewan, and in the large livestock Province of Alberta it makes up some 47 per cent of total farm income.
It is fundamental in my opinion-and I am speaking as a Canadian from central Canada-that western Canada's agricultural base must be broadened and diversified. According to the Minister's own statistics, the distortion will result in a loss of an additional $1 billion in livestock production, an additional $350 million worth of economic activity with respect to processing, packing plants and the feed mill industry in western Canada, costing western Canada some 6,000 jobs.
We believe that grain producers must have a statutory freight rate which preserves the benefit of the Crow and must be protected from that open-ended escalation. Producers will be paying double the existing Crow rate by 1985 and 1986, and an additional $160 million will be taken out of the prairie economy. Producers will also pay five and a half times Crow by 1991 or 1992, which means that more than $1 billion will be lost from the economy of western Canada. With the low level of grain prices today and in the foreseeable future, producers cannot afford the freight rate increases in Bill C-155 at this particular time.
As well, there is no statutory protection for the farmers in this Bill. This protection has been transferred to the federal Government which will pay a frozen amount of $651 million annually, I believe, in perpetuity. We believe that producers should be guaranteed an efficient, cost-effective and reliable grain transportation system in this country. There is no question about that. In this Bill, however, there will not be railway performance guarantees for the first three years. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the railways for the first three years will certainly receive a free ride.
We believe that the Government of Canada and the railways have a continuing obligation to provide a special low rate to assist producers competing with subsidized grain exports of other nations. Bill C-155 will be taking that away at a time when Canadian grain export competitors have been increasing their assistance to their own domestic grain producers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that the time allotted for his speech has expired. The Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap).


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, if it is allowable to have questions, I would be willing to stand down for whoever wishes to question the previous speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: No, I should inform the Hon. Member that this time slot does not provide for questions or comments.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this Crowsnest Pass rate clearly means different things to people in different parts of Canada. Many of my New Democrat colleagues have indicated clearly what ruin this Liberal legislation would bring to the grain farmers in Canada's Prairies. I agree with them. However, I speak first of all for the people of Spadina, and I wish to tell this House what the killing of the Crow rate would mean to Spadina people, first, and to Canadians generally.
What do the Spadina people need most? What is the biggest source of worry among us? Jobs. We need jobs, well paid and secure, and in that we are like most of the rest of Canada. There is talk of economic recovery. However, there are far too many desperate people asking me about jobs.
There are jobs to be created in the rebuilding of our railway network, good permanent jobs. According to the proposal of the NDP there are main railbeds and branch lines to be rebuilt to carry heavier and faster trains; there is a double track to be built through the mountains to the Pacific, with tunnels and bridges; there is the Hudson Bay line to be rebuilt; the Thunder Bay yards and port facilities to be renovated; lines across Ontario and the Maritimes to be rebuilt; level crossings in populated areas to be replaced by grade separations-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let's go, then.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) saying "Let's go". The trouble is that he gets off that train when it gets to about Manitoba. He does not have plans for renovating the lines east of Manitoba nor even up to Hudson Bay. He has forgotten his own lines.
We must also look into the matter of converting as many lines as we can to the use of electricity instead of diesel. We must build 12,000 grain hopper cars and new passenger trains, and rail service for passengers and freight should be increased rather than abandoned, which is the main preoccupation of the present Minister of Transport.
Will that mean jobs for people of Spadina? Certainly, and for many other parts of Canada. The rolling stock, tracks and other equipment can be manufactured in Canada's industrial cities, and not only steel and metal fabricating but textile manufacturing, furniture making and office supply manufacturing, which we do in Spadina.
All kinds of service work will be stimulated as well as the running and maintenance trades of the railway, which is the occupation of many Spadina residents. However, how many jobs and who pays? That is where the plan of the Minister of Transport fails. He not only plans a smaller program than the NDP, a program which fails to renovate anything east of
June 16, 1983

Manitoba or in north Manitoba, but he wants to finance his program in a way which would make many Canadians poorer and also destroy many jobs. The Minister proposes to create an average of 38,500 jobs per year over ten years in the upgrading work. He would donate the whole $930 million cost to the railroads and pay for it partly out of general taxation and partly by overcharging the farmers by about five times as much as they now pay to transport their grain to eastern Canada for feed or to the ocean for export. This is monstrously unfair and in fact unworkable.
The Government has for over 30 years been raising the tax burden on working people while it lowers the tax burden on big corporations like the CPR. In 1950 total taxes paid by workers were roughly equal to the total paid by corporations. By 1970 the workers were paying three times as much as the corporations. This year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) put through his income tax amendments, over the opposition of the New Democratic Party, which will take $2.5 billion more from workers and small business people and hand it over to corporations like the CPR.
Furthermore, the CPR, the biggest and richest corporation in Canada, has already received over $13 billion worth of gifts in today's dollars from the Government and the taxpayers of Canada in the form of cash grants, land and construction gifts and subsidies for operating and maintenance. The CPR makes over half a billion dollars a year profit. The sum of $13 billion is almost half the deficit which the Minister of Finance keeps holding over our heads, and he wants to give the railways almost $1 billion a year more. That is a rip-off! Beside that, the Gillespie and Canadair scandals are peanuts. That is about $60 a year taken from every working man and woman in Canada in order to increase the wealth and power of the shareholders of the CPR. Furthermore, the Minister of Transport plans to recover some of this fat gift from the western grain farmers. These farmers must export about 30 million tonnes of grain per year, bringing in over $4 billion to Canada.
The agreement made when the Government of Canada paid 60 per cent of the cost of building the CPR was that the railway would transport the grain to the ports for fixed cost. Canada's farmers must compete with farmers of the United States, Argentina, Australia and France, all of which subsidize their grain farmers. Therefore Canadians cannot easily raise our export prices. In fact, during 1975-80 the total income of prairie farmers dropped by 44 per cent while the total income of CP Rail went up by 284 per cent. The farmer simply cannot pay the exorbitant freight rates which the railroads and the Minister are demanding.
If this Crow Bill becomes law, many family farmers will be forced out of business. When their incomes shrink or they are forced out of business, they will have less money to spend on farm machinery and other manufactured goods which they buy from Ontario and Quebec. They would lose nearly $600 million per year, which directly means 20,000 manufacturing and retail jobs will be lost here in the East. Furthermore, if it costs more to ship the grain easterly through Canada than
Western Grain Transportation Act
southerly through the United States, we will lose another
35,000	handling and transportation jobs.
What is the reasonable alternative to the Minister's crazy plan? I would say it is the New Democratic Party's plan, which is, number one, to keep the Crowsnest Pass rate for grain, and number two, to make the CPR reinvest its profits, made with public subsidy, in upgrading the railway which it solemnly promised to keep running. It must be compelled by law to maintain the level of reinvestment of 1981, which would be over $800 million this year, rather than exporting its profits to buy factories, railroads and real estate in other countries. In this way we could create 10,000 more jobs per year than under the Minister's plan. Thirdly, our plan would pay the proven cost of subsidizing grain hauling, which might be $380 million in 1983, out of Canadian taxes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the point; charge it to others. Make it $2 billion by the end of the decade.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: This is less than the federal Government pays to subsidize road, air or marine transport. Number four, we would invest $550 million per year in renovating the railroads, and in return take equity or ownership in the CPR. In a few years the Canadian people would own and control the CPR, which we have already paid for so many times over.
This NDP plan keeps the Crow, keeps the grain moving through Canada, keeps the farmers from going broke, reduces the tax burden on working people, employs more workers than the Minister's plan, and gives the Canadian people ownership of what we pay for. That is good for the people of Spadina and good for the people of Canada.
There is a question still hanging: Why does the Minister push his plan to kill the Crow? Maybe he likes to increase the wealth of a handful of people. When he announced his plan to kill the Crow rate, the value of CPR shares jumped overnight by $134 million plus, and in a month had risen by over $447 million. Why? Perhaps because of the fat giveaways the Minister promises at the expense of farmers and other ordinary taxpayers. Perhaps because of $644 billion worth of coal in the 50,000 acres of coal-bearing land in southern B.C. This coal is locked up as a reserve under the Crows Nest Pass Act. Fording Coal Company next door, a subsidiary to CPR, cannot get its hand on that immense profit unless the Minister can repeal the Crows Nest Pass Act, which is his principal objective in this legislation. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, repeal of the Crow's Nest Pass Act, or this Minister's legislation to kill the Crow, would be the biggest rip-off and crime any Canadian Government has ever engineered against the working people and ordinary taxpayers of Canada. 1 say, stop it!


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark), who made his maiden speech today. I think he did a marvellous job in telling the people of Canada just exactly what happened in that election campaign. The reason he won

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
such a large majority was because of this Minister and the Crow rate.
Let me say that I have a lot of respect for this Minister, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Pepin). He is such a kind person, yet he does not care about the West.


David P. Smith: How can you sleep at night?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not think it is really him; 1 think it is just the Liberal Party that does not care.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is a heartless Party which does not really care what happens west of the Manitoba border. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Where were you in 1968, Steve?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have had many calls in Edmonton from entrepreneurs who go through these different communities and towns and all they talk to me about is the Crow rate. These are people in my constituency, and I have an urban riding, who ask what the Government is doing. By doing what the Government is doing to the Crow rate, it is ruining the country. We in the West fear there will be many ghost towns all over the West.
The Bill must be changed from its present form; that is why we oppose the Bill. We do not know what its impact will be in towns and communities, particularly in the West. We do not know whether the Government will irrevocably alter this Bill. We do not know the nature and extent of any changes. For example, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), quoted a calculation made by the Town Council of Gravelbourg in his riding which estimated that changes to the Crow would cost each Saskatchewan farmer $8,500 by 1990. Can you imagine that, Sir? That would mean an outflow of over $1 million per year for Gravelbourg alone. What will this amount of capital outflow mean to towns and villages all over the West? It is incredible. I cannot believe what this Bill is going to do to many of our communities in the West. How will they survive? How will they pay for the infrastructure and services they must provide, such as schools, hospitals and roads?
Oh, the Minister says double tracking. Big deal! Double tracking, fast tracking; we have heard that here for ten years. Every time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) goes into an election he says they are going to twin this, twin that, do this or do that. We are still waiting for that highway to the Yukon, the Alaska Highway, which he said he was going to pave way back in 1974. I do not know who you are going to have, maybe blue-eyed Turner next time, and what is he going to twin?


Mr. Turner:: You are talking about my uncle; be careful!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Well, there is the whip. He likes you, whippy, over there. It is all right, you are going to be back. But there are a few of you under our new leadership who will not be back. The country will see the light.


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


Steve Eugene Paproski: I really am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I get a little excited or emotional. We are still sort of hung over from the euphoria of our convention. The polls will be 55 per cent next month.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: This legislation would permit the railroads to offer incentives to farmers to bypass local elevators and truck their grain to the main lines. What effect will this have on the small town whose existence revolves around the elevators? Where will the elevator operators find jobs? How are farmers going to bear the increased costs once the statutory rates are abolished? Producers will be paying double the existing Crow rate by 1985-86, and in addition $160 million will be taken out of the prairie economy. Farmers will pay five and a half times the Crow by 1991-92, which means that more than $1 billion will disappear from western Canada. How many farm bankruptcies will result? How many people will be displaced? Where will they go? Where will they find jobs? How many towns will die? Are we going to have towns whose entire population, the forest service, the utility company, the post office and liquor store, will disappear? Is that going to be the community profile of the West, decaying little towns? We should really have magnifying glasses and sunshades here because of the heat in the House.
We do not know any of the answers to these questions and the Minister has not provided us any answers. Neither has Mr. Gilson. But we do know the serious flaws of this Bill. First, we believe the freight rate structure will provide for open ended escalation without any consideration for farmers' profit position on the value of grain. The Minister has mentioned a safety net provision but has not provided any details. Second, the grain farmers will have to pay the full Crow rate whenever grain movement exceeds 31.5 million tonnes. This represents a disincentive for farmers to grow more grain and increase production.


Mr. Rossi:: Who wrote that speech?


Steve Eugene Paproski: I did. The Bill includes new crops and specialty crops. The Minister has mentioned that some speciality crops are included but again he has provided no details. One would think that some Hon. Members who are out there in urban ridings do not know what the farm community really wants and what it requires. I just want Hon. Members to know that after one has been here for 15 years, one wants to ensure that one's speech is logical and one just carries on and carries on making sure that Hon. Members opposite understand what is going on.


Carlo Rossi: We understand very easily.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Bill is extremely complex and bureaucratic, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. June 16, 1983

Mazankowski), pointed out. It might have been drafted by the same people who brought down the Income Tax Act.


Carlo Rossi: Have you read it?


Steve Eugene Paproski: We think it is wrong to impose higher costs on the agricultural community just when farm community prices are declining and farm input costs are increasing.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that because of the interjections you will give me a little more time. I will feel neglected if I am to be cut off.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Bill would discourage diversification and further processing of agricultural production in western Canada. There is no provision in the Bill to reduce rates if costs should fall. It is the same trap as the energy agreement. The Bill concentrates power in the hands of the Minister, the Minister sitting opposite, that heartless Minister, the Minister who does not care.


David P. Smith: He's a nice guy.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There will be no railroad performance guarantees for the first three years. For three years, the railroads will get a free ride.
The Government should consider the context in which it is attempting to rush through such a complex and flawed piece of legislation. First, it must understand what the transportation system represents in the West. The Crow rate is the heart of the West. Someone said it is the Magna Carta of the West. If the Government takes that away, it might as well take away the second language, the official language. If that is done, that is exactly what it will represent. The gentlemen opposite from Quebec understand. They want to be "bilingue"\ we want the Crow rate in the West.


Carlo Rossi: Talk to Stewart, from Simcoe South, about "bilingue".


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is not just a method of moving goods and people. It is not just a double line steel or a length of asphalt traversing the prairie. The railroad, the highway and the river-these are frequently the reasons many of these towns exist. They determine the location, activity and well-being of the towns and villages. They represent a means of communication and the lifeline for the provision of goods and services and commerce. If the Government destroys those transportation networks, it destroys the towns and villages which make up much of western Canada.
Second, the Government must understand what a critical time this is for farmers. The amount of bankruptcies and the high costs are unbelievable. We are feeling the pinch there right now that Hon. Members opposite felt right here about a year and a half ago. The Government must understand what a critical time this is for farmers. I said that, and I repeat, repeat and repeat: please do something for them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Steve Eugene Paproski: Their costs have escalated rapidly in the past few years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Chair did extend further time to the Hon. Member for the interruptions.


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


Steve Eugene Paproski: May I?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is agreed.


David P. Smith: No, no.


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


Steve Eugene Paproski: David Smith, you will regret it.


David P. Smith: We want to get this Bill through.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have been delaying my remarks on this part of the debate, waiting for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who is a spokesman for a very important part of this policy change-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't hold your breath.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: -to make his speech. However, when he did deign to stand in his place in this House, all he could do was introduce time limitation under Standing Order 82. This is a very important debate for all of the Canadian people, not only those in western Canada. A great many aspects can be and must be addressed. That is why we have put forward the amendment which we are now discussing to delay the subject matter being introduced in the House for another six months, so that people may have adequate time to analyse, assess and debate what is proposed here.
Today I will deal only with the aspects of the proposal involving agriculture, because it seems that what we have here is a very consistent move, which has been often demonstrated by the Minister of Agriculture and some of his predecessors, of attempting to create economic activity in Canada by making some farm investment redundant in order that new farm investment can be created in another region or agricultural sector. That is basically what is being proposed here, a proposal to change the economics of a production base in one part of the country, with the hope that another sector will gain an advantage and there will be some economic activity created from that advantage.
We saw this kind of activity ten or 15 years ago when the feed grain policy changed. The effect was to sell domestic feed grains at a lower price than the Wheat Board was charging users. The net result was a vast shift in feeding of livestock, particularly pork, from west to east.

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
If one listens to some of the proponents of the policy, one finds that Bill C-155 is designed to take some of that livestock production back to the West by increasing the cost of grain in the East and reducing it at the farm gate to the producers in the western part of Canada. Therefore, it is sort of redressing a policy move which created hardships for western Canadians ten or 15 years ago.
The net effects of this particular move on agriculture would be, by the end of this decade, to increase the amount of money coming out of the pockets of farmers of western Canada by $ 1 billion. To put that into perspective, we must realize that the net farm income for all farmers in Canada runs at about $3.5 billion, so we are discussing a reduction of almost one-third of the net farm income. When one considers that a little bit and realizes that only one-third of the farmers reside in western Canada, one finds that a very great burden will be placed on that important part of the agricultural economy.
As I said, the net income last year amounted to $3.5 billion. We are not discussing a net income which has been rapidly increasing; we are, in fact, discussing a net income which has been extremely stable. If one looks back as far as ten years ago, 1973, one sees that, by golly, we had a net farm income of $3.5 billion. It has varied almost not at all in ten years, yet in that time costs, including costs of living, have more than doubled; so the injustice will be compounded by this particular proposal.
The Government is taking a particular group comprised of farmers, who have not had increases in farm income, who have been stable, who have faced increases in costs as great or greater than the rest of the economy, who have suffered less than half the real net farm income over the last ten years, and it is asking them to give up another $1 billion of net farm income. It is asking them to cut it by at least another third. We think that is patently unfair and should not even have been considered. I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture can stand in his place and simply cut the debate off rather than contributing to it and explaining why he is doing this to the farmers of eastern and western Canada.


Mr. McKnight:: He's a terrible man.


David P. Smith: He's a nice guy.


Mr. Jarvis:: That's about all you can say for him.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think that if the Minister of Agriculture and some of the other Ministers in the Government had looked at the economics of their proposal, they too would have had second thoughts and would not have introduced such a proposal today.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has been trying to put a good face on it. He has been saying that with this proposal the railways will be investing the increased money that they will be receiving from the farmers, the $1 billion by the end of the decade. He is saying they will be investing that in more plant and equipment and that that investment will create a multiplier effect of approximately 2.1. He is suggesting that as that $1 billion works its way through the economy
it will become something just over $2 billion in gross national product.
However, he forgets that, as a result of pulling that $1 billion of net income from the pockets of farmers, he is doing even more harm to the economy than the good which he alleges. The multiplier effect of that $1 billion which he is taking from the farmers would have injected a minimum of $3.5 billion to as much as $7 billion into the total economy of this country. This program, as it affects farmers and manufacturers of railway and machinery products, decreases the net gross national product of this country by anywhere from $1.5 billion and $3.5 billion. This takes place at a time when the Government is trying to restore growth and offset a recession. At this time it is pulling money out of the economy by taking money from the small farmers who are the engine of growth to a large part of this country. I would remind the House that farming is the engine of growth for close to 30 per cent of employed Canadians. Those people are helpless without the farmers.
This program not only affects the prairie economy but the entire Canadian economy. It affects the Maritimes and Quebec economies and the part of the economy which provides the goods and services to agriculture, such as those who manufacture tractors. Virtually every combines and tractor manufacturing plant that is left in Canada is in trouble. The latest plant facing receivership is the While Farm Equipment plant in Brantford. The problems of Massey Ferguson are very well known. How will those companies recover even with further financing and careful management while in receivership if there will no longer be a demand for tractors and combines as a result of a reduction of $1 billion in the net income of farmers?
Farmers almost always buy farm machinery with bank loans. The banks take a very dim view of continuing to lend money to farmers when they do not have an adequate income level. We are on the brink of a great disaster because of increases in farm debt and the rising number of bankrupt farmers. The banks are taking a dim view of continually lending money to farmers simply to keep them operating.
In summary, let me say that Government Members have made a great issue of the fact that since this policy is 86 years old it must certainly no longer have any validity. I point out to those Members who have made that argument that simply because it is an 86-year-old policy does not mean that we no longer need this transportation policy to maintain the nationhood of this country.
This policy does not affect the distances involved because our geography has not changed in 86 years. Our farmers still have further to travel to ocean shipping than any other country. It does not address the problems of competing in a world market against all of our competitors who are receiving Government subsidies directly from their treasuries.
June 16, 1983


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to participate in the debate on the amendment not necessarily as a Member from a rural riding in Ontario, not necessarily from my specific riding, but as a Member of Parliament from Ontario to speak from a provincial point of view.
I think it is very important that all Members speak from that regional point of view. I compliment many of my colleagues from the Maritimes, British Columbia and all parts of Canada for having done so. In passing, I might say that I am disappointed and a little surprised that I have not been the beneficiary of the viewpoints of NDP Members from British Columbia. I believe there have only been one or two British Columbia NDP Members who have participated so far. I am very anxious to hear that viewpoint.


Mr. Orlikow:: They will be here this afternoon.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That is a third of them. A third of yours have not spoken.


William Herbert Jarvis: I said that very kindly; I did not say it disparagingly. I want to hear that British Columbia viewpoint as far as the NDP caucus is concerned. I believe 1 have a right to hear it. If that will upset people, I will not dwell on it any longer.
I wish to deal specifically with the amendment that would permit me, as an Ontario Member, a reasonable length of time to discharge what I believe is my responsibility to explain this legislation. I am not concerned about dotting each "i" and crossing each "t" but I want to have the time to explain to my constituents the regional interest that is a very major part of this Bill.
I believe many of us in Ontario have long forgotten that the birth of the Crow rate resulted from the trade between industrialized central Canada and the great grain-producing areas of western Canada. Therefore I would like to have some time to remind my constituents of that fact. The purpose for seeking more time is not necessarily to gain their support for my position or that of my Party but to discharge my responsibility to explain regional views.
I hope that I strike a responsive chord in the Minister when I say that 1 am proud to join with two other colleagues in spending three sessions a day on the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform. Our objective is not simply to reform the Senate but to reform it in a way that will enable the Senate to represent regional views. I feel very deeply about that goal without having any preconceived notions for the mechanism of accomplishing it.
It is surprising that two matters are frequently raised at those hearings as examples of what is needed in our process. This particular Bill has been raised by senators, academics, lawyers and other witnesses who have come before us. Another subject which is continually raised is the Pepin-Robarts Report, which is a coincidence since the Minister happens to be the Minister responsible for this legislation.
Flowing from that report and others, we have been told over and over again that we have to find mechanisms by which
people in the regions would at least feel that their views were expressed as part of the process. The last Senator Lamontagne, as the Minister well knows, made great contributions in this area. People do not necessarily want their views to represent the final decision because I think they will sometimes accept decisions as long as they believe they had a voice in making that decision.
I do not wish to be patrionizing but the Minister responsible for this legislation and one of my closest and dearest friends and political mentor, John Robarts, have contributed a great deal to the initiation of the process in which I am now playing a very small part.
I would like to have six months to deal with the Crow. I cannot go to my constituents this weekend because they are very busy. I will participate in the main motion. I intend to send out approximately 25,000 copies of my speech in which I wish to explain the regional interest, its depth and the socioeconomic and cultural aspect of the Crow rate. While all
25,000	copies may not be read, I hope that I will at least have discharged my responsibility as an Ontario Member to point out that this Bill concerns a regional interest. We cannot always do this on the floor of the House of Commons. We can express our views aggressively and helpfully in caucus and when the caucus decision is made one must go along with the Party. I am proud that I have always voted with my Party but I would like to be able to send a speech to my constituents which states that this is a regional interest in western Canada which we, as fellow Canadians, must understand.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being one o'clock, 1 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.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, on Tuesday I voted for the Cruise missile resolution, but did not get recognized during the debate to explain my position and vote. I would like to do that briefly now. On Tuesday, in voting for the resolution, I voted against the escalation of the nuclear arms race by any nation, and in particular against the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. I did so because both sides now have enough nuclear power to
[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1983
destroy completely-annihilate-the other side and the Cruise missile is in no way necessary to maintain the balance of power and deterrence.
In my opinion the development of the Cruise missile will only escalate the nuclear arms race, set back disarmament discussions, and divert scarce resources from more essential needs.
I argued this position at the Liberal convention last autumn and in many other meetings and writings. There is nothing in the NATO agreements which requires Canada to use or test nuclear weapons. We have been a member of NATO since the beginning and have never done so. Furthermore, Canadian Governments for some time have been committed to arms control and disarmament. If we agree to test the Cruise, we would run contrary to these policies. I want to urge the Government to consider seriously all factors and arguments before agreeing to the Cruise tests. There are many other ways in which Canada can contribute to the NATO alliance and help maintain world peace.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, today His Holiness Pope John Paul II begins his second pilgrimage to Poland in four years. The excitement of the new freedom recognized under the Solidarity trade union that surrounded his last visit is, however, regrettably absent.
In June of 1979 the Poles could justifiably anticipate a nation without restrictions, but today their prayers are for the most basic freedoms.
The Pope's presence in Poland at this time has an important symbolic message. This Christian ambassador is pressing for the end of martial law, and amnesty for political prisoners. The military government under General Jaruzelski, however, has permitted the visit only to gain points in the West, and to stifle further dissent at home. Yesterday the home of Solidarity leader Lech Walesa was raided by the Polish authorities and he was placed under house arrest. Preventing Walesa from seeing the Pope may be General Jaruzelski's only means of asserting his authority over discontented Poles, but this action will leave a lasting impression on the West.
We, as Canadians, deplore the disregard for human rights that has been demonstrated in Poland since 1979. We are inspired, nevertheless, by the Pontiffs leadership and courage in returning to his troubled homeland. We pray that his visit will underline our hope for the return of a free political system in Poland.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, a possible work stoppage on the West Coast caused by the dispute between the grain handlers and grain companies would hurt many more people than the workers directly involved. It could penalize grain producers by disruption in cash flow, and cause possible losses in grain sales. The railway workers and longshoremen would also be penalized because they could be laid off if movement of grain stops. The least penalized by a work stoppage are among the main antagonists, namely, the grain companies. The grain companies are not penalized because they go on collecting storage charges even while grain is not moving. Across the country last year they collected about $500,000 a week in terminal charges alone.
The Government has a responsibility to do everything in its power to keep grain moving. We thank it for appointing a mediator, William Kelly. To minimize the possibility of long and costly work stoppages the Government should take some action to equalize the penalties that stoppages cause. The Government should stop the payment of storage charges to grain companies which are partially responsible for a dispute. Such action would put both antogonists on an equal footing and no doubt reduce losses for everyone from prolonged work stoppages.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Parks Canada on acquiring the Mingan Islands and thus demonstrating that it is preserving exceptional natural sites for future generations. Perhaps I may point out to the House that the Saguenay Park site in my riding has also been judged worthy of preservation by Parks Canada. The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has announced that the Canadian Government is prepared to spend $50 million to develop Saguenay Park. Since Quebec has refused to divest itself of the land, the development of Saguenay Park by Parks Canada, which would cost $50 million, is still pending. Meanwhile, the Government of Quebec has decided to invest in the development of a conservation park on part of the land. Premier Levesque made much of the national pride of the people of the Saguenay, but the fact remains that a $50 million investment would help reduce unemployment and attract more tourists, which in turn would inject more money into the regional economy. The Saguenay region has no substantial infrastructure for tourism. Saguenay Park, with its majestic fiord, would be one of the major tourist attractions of Canada, thus making the people of the Saguenay even prouder of their region.
June 16, 1983



TRADE UNIONS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the recent election for the office of President of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada was the first contested election for that office since the present incumbent took office over ten years ago. Events leading up to that election, and since, point out the necessity for changes that must be made to the Canada Labour Code to guarantee standards of democratic conduct within unions.
Suspension of membership in a union where jobs are awarded through a union administered hiring hall is in effect a dismissal of employment. The Canada Labour Code does not prescribe what must be done to ensure the holding of a fair election, nor does it say what can be done about election frauds.
Action taken by the Seafarers' International Union following this election has been a discredit to the whole union movement, and has brought the SIU into disrepute to a greater degree than what was done by the sailors who were charged.
The federal Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) should act immediately to propose amendments to the Canada Labour Code to entrench democratic rights within unions so that it will not be an occupational hazard to challenge a union leader or to support a challenger in what is a generally considered acceptable democratic process.
If Governments can certify unions and grant them monopoly bargaining rights, then they must set out minimum standards of democratic conduct by which unions must operate.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, a federal job-creation program for the disabled and those with employment disadvantages has been so popular that funding for it became exhausted shortly after it began this year.
The Program for the Employment Disadvantaged, PED, was established to offer subsidies to employers who hire disadvantaged and disabled workers for periods ranging from nine months to 65 months. The PED funded jobs for 338 Hamilton residents, but has come to an abrupt halt because the $860,000 set aside for the Hamilton area has run out and no additional funding is currently planned. Without PED funding, however, many handicapped and disadvantaged workers will not be hired by employers.
Since the funds were allocated in April, the Program has simply taken off and, even though the funds have run out, some employers have been put on hold for possible funding while others have hired workers on the basis that more funds will be added to PED and employees could be subsidized
retroactively. The PED is one of the best programs for the difficult to employ that the federal Government has ever presented. Priority should be given to this Program should further funds become available.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, today is a special day for Canadians of Hungarian origin. All Members have received material asking us today to remember especially what has become known as the case of the "Unknown Graves".
Following the 1956 Hungarian revolution, hundreds of the participants in that event were executed. The remains of the victims, among them the Prime Minister and Minister of Defence of the legal Government during the revolution, along with scores of teenagers hanged on their eighteenth birthday, have been buried in unmarked graves whose location is known only to the authorities. Repeated appeals by relatives to recover the bodies or gain permission to visit the graves have failed.
The consistent refusal of the Government in Hungary to reveal the location of the places of burial causes concern, not only here in the West but in Hungary as well. The rights of those whose family members were executed for their participation in the revolution ought to command the sympathy and sincere concern of all those who have also lost relatives in times of turmoil and adversity.
Given its obligations under the Helsinki Final Act, it is mandatory that the Government in Hungary uphold its humanitarian commitment to those survivors. I, and I am sure Hon. Members of this House, want to urge the Government of Hungary to adhere to the principles of human rights embodied in the Helsinki Accords. Allowing the families of those executed to visit the graves and/or to recover the remains of their relatives is only simple elementary human justice, already denied far too long.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I am certain that everyone in the House is aware by now that today another of Canada's C-104 Starfighters has crashed. The latest crash occurred in a small village in northern France. Fortunately nobody was injured.
This latest incident only serves to underline the clear need to ground all of Canada's Starfighters until such time as a

June 16, 1983
5.0.	21
thorough public investigation has taken place and these aircraft are judged to be totally safe and air worthy. There is a constant reminder that more than 600 of the 1,900 produced have now either crashed or been removed.
Three weeks ago there was a crash resulting in the deaths of five civilians in West Germany. There have been numerous other examples of difficulties with this aircraft. The Minister promised to produce a record of the air accidents in which these fighter aircraft have been involved, to this House. We would like to know where that is. The results of crash examinations must be made public and studied by a committee of this House. If the Minister had heeded earlier warnings, grounded these aircraft and made operational changes to them, the crash today might not have occurred.
The Minister's response at the time was to accuse others in this House of trying to make a tragedy out of the situation. This is now a complete scandal and must be dealt with quickly and appropriately. There must be a grounding of these aircraft. There must be a public investigation of the matter as soon as possible.



MARINE RESOURCES


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, this morning, we paid our last respects to Senator Maurice Lamontagne, who died early this week.
The Government was represented by the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who spoke about Senator Lamon-tagne's exceptional record as a politician and as a university professor to whom all of us owe so much. He also announced that the research institute of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, to be located in the Lower St. Lawrence region, near Mont-Joli, where Senator Lamontagne was born, will be called the Maurice Lamontagne Institute.
On behalf of the people of my riding, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Minister of Finance, acting on behalf of the Government on this occasion, for the Government's gesture in recognition of the exceptional services rendered by Senator Lamontagne to all Canadians.



FISHERIES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, in a judgment dated May 13, 1983, the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories struck down Section 22 of the Northwest Territories Fishery Regulations, finding that the provisions contained therein discriminated against certain Canadians on the basis of race and were, therefore, in contravention of the Canadian Bill of Rights. In order that fisheries officials maintain some reasonable degree of jurisdiction over the fishery for conservation purposes, it is important that new regulations be drafted without undue delay.
Although the possibility exists for the Fisheries Act to be amended so as to legalize the present Section 22 of the Regulations made thereunder, this would be seen as being contrary to the spirit and quite possibly to the letter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and, therefore, is not to be considered a preferred option. What is required is a set of workable regulations which, while respecting treaty and like contractual obligations, treats all participants in the domestic fishery on an otherwise equal basis.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. At the very same time as the Government is defending record losses with Canadair and de Havilland, it is moving to create the grand-daddy of all Crown corporations with the Canada Development Investment Corporation. In order to ensure that the sort of fiasco which took place with Canadair and de Havilland, with Parliament being kept in the dark, does not repeat itself with CDIC, will the Government agree that Parliament's auditor, the Auditor General of Canada, should be appointed as the auditor of the Canada Development Investment Corporation?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Minister responsible for this corporation has said that this possibility was still being considered by the Government, and that as soon as the Government reached a final decision, that decision would be made public.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACTS OF PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN BE TABLED
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the Government cannot decide whether to give the Auditor General the job, but it decided to give jobs to some of the boys, Joel Bell and Maurice Strong. Will the Minister agree to table in the House of Commons the contracts of Maurice Strong and Joel Bell so that Members of Parliament

n
June 16, 1983

Oral Questions
and the public will know how much these individuals are being [English]
paid, and the terms of their contracts?	AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think there is ample opportunity for discussing such questions in committee, where the issue is now being examined.


QUALIFICATIONS OF PRESIDENT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it is typical of this Minister that he is incapable of even making up his mind whether to make those contracts available to Parliament. One of the justifications that have been given for CIDC was that it would improve the management of the various Crown corporations. What exactly are Joel Bell's private sector qualifications which make him qualified to head the largest holding company in Canada? What exactly has been Joel Bell's experience with private sector business?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, Mr. Bell's experience in the business world has been very wide-ranging, and I am sure he is entirely capable of achieving the Government's objectives with respect to the renewed viability of Canadair, de Havilland and other corporations.


DE HAVILLAND CORPORATION-FORECAST OF FURTHER LOSSES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister, who undoubtedly noticed yesterday that the de Havilland Aircraft Company, another subsidiary company of the Government, lost some $265 million. In a most ominous tone the reporting Minister indicated that the new Dash-8 program is already facing difficulties. Apparently we are going to be required to pick up still greater losses with respect to that program. Will the Minister tell the House of Commons what will be the extent of these losses, and are we sure this time we know what we are doing?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I may remind the Hon. Member that when the Minister responsible made those statements yesterday, he also indicated to Members of the Committee and to the general public that by the end of this year, the Canada Development Investment Corporation would be submitting complete development strategy for the de Havilland, and we shall then know what the objectives are and the financial resources required to carry out this strategy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the Minister must know, as the rest of us know, that we are being asked to pass on various appropriations and subsidy arrangements for de Havilland today. We should not be required to wait for months into the future to learn the facts. Would the Minister indicate what the reporting Minister meant when he said that there was not the same degree of Government support going into de Havilland that officials of certain other countries are giving competitor companies in their various countries? Is $265 million indeed of so little significance to the Government that it would be bold enough to say that that is not significant support for a subsidiary owned by the people of Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think the comments made by the Minister responsible can be explained quite simply. We must consider the fact that after all, de Havilland has developed four major aircraft, which are the Twin Otter, the Buffalo, the Dash-7 and the Dash-8, and it was able to do so thanks to federal funding. It is a fact, and I have cited this example several times, that many countries develop civilian aircraft on their defence budgets or on the budgets of their own State airlines. This is what the Minister responsible was referring to when he said that in other countries, for instance, that develop certain prototype aircraft, costs are not as visible as they are here, because they do not appear on the books of the company that is doing the developing.
* *
*


SALES OF WESTERN COAL IN CENTRAL CANADA
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As he is aware, western Canadian coal producers export approximately 15 million tonnes of coal per year. At the same time, central Canadian markets import approximately 16 million tonnes of coal per year from the United States. The fact that we are only supplying a small amount of Canadian coal to central Canadian markets is costing the Canadian economy about $1 billion per year and
30,000	jobs.
Would the Government be willing to initiate studies to support the use of Canadian coal, thus reducing outflows of Canadian capital, creating jobs, and stabilizing an important Canadian industry?

June 16, 1983
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, this has been a problem for a long time. Coal consumers in Ontario, with the main consumer being Ontario Hydro, have adopted a policy that favours importing coal in Ontario for use in that province. The cost of bringing coal in from British Columbia by train would apparently be too high to maintain the fuel's competitive position for the production of electric power and other uses in Ontario. Since the Hon. Member has asked me to look into the problem, 1 certainly intend to discuss this question with my colleague. In fact, I think the Hon. Member would probably be able to further his case considerably-

If the Hon. Member would like to look at the real problems we are having in Canada and decide to vote for changes to the Crow rate, he will help alleviate that situation.


REQUEST FOR COST STUDY OF COAL USE
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as I do not want him to divert from his very, very important question. The fact remains that at the present time we are supplying four million tonnes of coal a year from western Canada to central Canada, so it can be produced effectively. Could the Minister examine the comparative costs of using this coal, including the environmental costs, and could he also look into the advantages of blending Canadian coal, as is done in Japan, to meet the specific requirements of different plants in central Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I am informed that some coal has been imported from British Columbia to the East in small quantities. With Canada's present rail capacity we could not transport all of the coal plus the wheat and other commodities. The best way to achieve what the Hon. Member has in mind is to have a good railway system, and in order to have that, the Hon. Member has to change his mind, be responsible, and vote for a change in the Crow rate.


SULPHUR CONTENT OF UNITED STATES COAL-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who, I am sure, is interested in the impact of burning high sulphur content United States coal which has eight times the sulphur content of good quality western Canadian coal. What steps has the Minister of the Environment taken, in light of the fact that half of the acid rain emissions in Canada are a result of coal burning in Canada? Has he undertaken any studies? Has he put any pressure on any of the companies to use good quality clean Canadian coal instead of dirty American coal?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, we do have regular discussions with provincial Governments about the kinds of coal strategies and limitation orders which would be required to meet our objective, which is the over-all reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions in eastern Canada by 50 per cent by the end of the decade. We recently met with provincial Governments and discussed that very subject. I expect that, within a few weeks' time, we will be able to deliver to the Hon. Member and to the House in general the kind of control strategy which would meet the objectives that our scientists tell us are needed if we are to meet safe sulphur dioxide emission levels. Within that context, 1 think that the question raised by the Hon. Member has been answered.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In the past couple of days the Government has forced the Canadian people to pay out $300 million to Canadair and de Havilland in order to cover their losses. That is the priority of the Government. But the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been saying for some time, as she said the other day in committee, that the first priority ought to be finding $300 million to alleviate the plight of the elderly poor.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister why preference is being given to de Havilland and Canadair over the needs of the elderly poor, the people who have to get by on less than $500 a month.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it has been frequently stated by the Government that, in the field of social policy, the first priority would indeed be to assist the elderly poor, particularly single persons who are most affected by the present system. That still remains a priority. I do not believe that the whole field of social policy is analogous to the particular cases of aiding companies that are at the same time performing a very useful role in the economy, particularly in providing jobs. Does the Hon. Member suggest that we ought to have permitted these companies to close, hereby putting additional workers on the streets?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to treat the elderly citizens of our country in a pretty cavalier manner.


GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, in order that the elderly poor know where they stand in the Government's list of priorities, I wonder if the Minister would tell us where they do stand. Are they fifth, or twenty-fifth, or seventy-fifth on the list of priorities? Could the

June 16, 1983

Deputy Prime Minister tell me how many bail-outs the Government is prepared to finance before it turns its attention to the needs of the people who built this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we have demonstrated our priorities by our actions, because it was following the last election that we increased the Guaranteed Income Supplement. That was done following the last election, and after a period of Conservative rule in which the Guaranteed Income Supplement was totally neglected.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Revenue and concerns the continuing harassment of farmers by auditors of the Income Tax Department. I have in my possession letters from ranchers in my constituency who are being reassessed under Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, letters that indicate Revenue Canada auditors are advising them to pocket up to $15,000 per year in cash income without declaring it for taxation purposes. This fact has also been drawn to my attention by a tax consultant and former long time Revenue Canada field auditor. Such advice might, in the minds of the tax auditors, ease the bitter pill of reassessment, but people are outraged that Government officials are advising them to commit tax fraud. Is it now the policy of the Department and its auditors to advise taxpayers not to declare income?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Certainly not, Madam Speaker. I think the auditors have a duty to make sure that such amounts are declared for the purposes of income tax.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF VANCOUVER TAXATION OFFICE
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Given the evidence in my possession, will the Minister order a full investigation of the Vancouver district taxation office to determine how widespread the practice is? Will he undertake to find out whether auditors are being advised by their superiors, or if this is a further indication of the inexperience of these auditors?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I find it hard to imagine that, as the Hon. Member said, a few mistakes might be made by inexperienced staff. I have already informed the Hon. Member, following
Oral Questions
representations he made previously, that I would personally look into those cases. I am looking into the matter, and I am checking to see whether taxpayers who happen to be farmers are also treated as farmers in terms of the Income Tax Act. I also wish to inform the Hon. Member that if anyone claims, on his income tax return, that he is earning income as a farmer, and he is not, we set the record straight and do not deal with him as a farmer. I wish the Hon. Member would understand this, and that instead of being so naive as to make accusations of the kind he has already made-and I hope he has regretted making them-he would take the time to look into the matter and check his facts to find out if these individuals actually qualify as farmers in terms of the Income Tax Act, because if the point he raised is hypothetical and it subsequently appears that the individual in question is not a farmer and does not operate a farm, the Hon. Member will be responsible for wasting our time.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Would the Minister confirm that all four Ministers of Transportation in the Atlantic Provinces have written to condemn him for launching a full-scale study into Atlantic freight rate subsidies without informing them beforehand, and without involving them in the process? How can the Minister justify such heavyhanded, unilateral action on the part of his Department, when just a few months ago he affixed his signature to a memorandum of understanding between the Government of Canada and the Maritime Provinces, committing the signatories to full cooperation in all transport-related matters as they affect the Atlantic Provinces? Is that memorandum of understanding now supposed to go out the window?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Madam Speaker, it is exactly on the basis of the memorandum of understanding that this study is taking place. It says that there will be joint planning on transportation matters in the Maritime Provinces. That is what we are doing now. The Maritime Freight Rates Act has existed since 1927 and it has been reviewed for example in 1969 and 1974. It is quite normal that at different times we look at the subsidies to find out if they are in the best interests of the region they are supposed to serve. That is part of the memorandum of understanding.
One of the principal aspects of the memorandum is that, should changes be made, money will not be taken back to "Ottawa", as they say down there, but will be put in the Maritime envelope and directed to other transportation support programs in the Maritimes.

June 16, 1983
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the fact is that the memorandum of understanding commits the Minister to full consultation with the Atlantic Provinces in all areas relating to the Atlantic Provinces, as far as transportation is concerned.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONSULTATION
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that, for example, the Minister of Transportation for Newfoundland has written to the Minister saying that the Province of Newfoundland has not been consulted on this issue and is deeply disappointed, will he assure the House, and, through the House, the Atlantic Provinces that he will not change Atlantic freight rate subsidies one iota without involving the Atlantic Provinces fully in the process?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have said that already. We are now going through phases; first, the collection of data; second, the analysis of data, and that is where we are now; and third, consultation with provincial Governments and all interested parties. I have already said that and I am committed.
On the subject of consultation with the Provinces on these matters, I should like to remind my hon. friend that this is the spirit of the memorandum of agreement. When you ask provincial Ministers to inquire about these things it is very difficult for them to agree with you. Occasionally the federal Government has to take its responsibilities. This is federal money, spent by the federal Government. My hon. friend would be the first to criticize me, as others are criticizing us on other matters, if we did not make sure that federal moneys were well spent. That is what I am doing.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am in receipt of letters from the National Council of Veterans Associations and the National Indian Veterans Association. As both organizations expressed concern that many issues adversely affecting veterans have not been dealt with, would the Minister consider tabling the annual report or any other report dealing with the Department of Veterans Affairs as soon as possible, so that we can then obtain an order of reference which will enable the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to meet in September?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the issue of the Indian veterans, particularly in western Canada, has been brought to my attention. I met with the Alberta Indian Veterans Association and the Saskatchewan Indian Veterans Association. Their request was two-fold. The first matter was funding for a research officer
for the Associations and I do not have resources to be able to give a positive response to that request. I have indicated that if they have particular cases they wish me to investigate in detail, I will be very happy to do so. To date I have received in the area of 100 specific cases and have responded to more than 90 in terms of analysing our own files and the files of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question about whether he would table the report so that we can have a reference for a meeting in September.


ORGANIZATIONS' APPEARANCES BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, there is a serious breakdown in communications between the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the 13 veterans' organizations, regarding their appearances before the Committee. Will the Minister investigate and report to the house as soon as possible?


W. Bennett Campbell: Madam Speaker, first of all I do not accept the suggestion made by the Hon. Member. It has always been the practice of the Chairman and Members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to meet with any organization that wishes to appear before the Committee.
With regard to tabling the report, if a report is available I will certainly table it.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport is supplementary to those asked by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough. Will the Minister tell the House whether it is true that the Premiers of the four Atlantic Provinces agreed to a reduction in transportation subsidies in Atlantic Canada in exchange for funds for infrastructure, and that their protests are simply another manifestation of their ardent hypocrisy and of passing the buck to he federal Government every time they have to shoulder responsibility?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, you will often find people agreeing in principle but not agreeing in practice. In this particular case the principle is that federal money in the Maritime should be well spent. Consequently, you occasionally have to review a situation to find out if that is so. When you come to a specific case, then you do not find too many friends.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Life is lonely in the middle.
June 16, 1983


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Today's Ottawa Citizen carried a story detailing the RCMP Security Service's involvement in surveillance of anti-nuclear, antiCruise peace groups. This is in direct contradiction to the statement to this House on Tuesday by the Solicitor General, and to his statement to The Citizen that, "No one is being planted in the groups. No one is being asked to bring in information." The article in The Citizen suggests that the Minister may not know what the Security Service is doing and, therefore, inadvertently misled the House.
Will the Minister tell the Members of the House whether Canadians do have the right to disagree, do have the right to oppose this country's testing of the Cruise missile and participation in the arms race, and do have the right to advocate disarmament in a peaceful and patriotic manner, without being harassed, photographed and spied upon by the Security Service of this country?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, that question does not concern my responsibilities. However, since I am answering today for the Solicitor General-and he may want to answer the question more fully when he is in the House-I might say that obviously the Hon. Member knows the answer to his own question. Of course Canadians are entitled to take part in peaceful activities wherever they may take place in this country. That is one of the privileges of democracy. I am sure my hon. friend is not going to suggest that there is any kind of activity which is exempt from legitimate scrutiny, just as no kind of activity which is peaceful and democratic is of itself illegitimate. Therefore, there can be no blanket exemption from scrutiny by the authorities of any form of activity which takes place. And each one of those propositions is just as important as the other.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, The Citizen article to which I referred in my previous question cites a former RCMP Intelligence Officer as saying that all individuals associated with the peace groups are naive idealists, that the groups should be penetrated, that all major groups, including the women's movement and the labour movement, are somehow suspect. I am sure that Dennis McDermott of the CLC and Doris Anderson of the National Action Committee will be interested in that. Does the Minister share the view that, because some communists may be involved in some of these movements, all the individuals involved are suspect and fair game for surveillance? What is the Minister or the Government going to do to eliminate the McCarthyist witch hunt tendencies which seem to be running rampant in the Security
Oral Questions
Service and will only worsen with the proposed civilian security service?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is quoting from unnamed sources in an unverified newspaper article. That is not the policy of the Government of Canada. Our policy is, of course, to maintain the democratic society in which we exist. However, as I said before to the Hon. Member, surely he is not going to say that there is any kind of person in our society who can be exempt from scrutiny in the proper circumstances? It is always a question in a given case as to where the line should be drawn. That is what we are talking about here. We are not talking about principles. Principles are not in question. What is at question is the scrutiny of certain individuals. My hon. friend may want to address some questions to the Solicitor General on another day concerning that problem.


PETRO-CANADA RENTAL OF HANOVER BUILDING IN CALGARY
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister said in answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre that he promotes the best techniques of management in Petro-Canada Resources. The Minister will know that the Hanover Building in Calgary was rented by Petro-Canada Resources last September for a 20-year period at an annual cost of $6.2 million. The building is still empty. Would the Minister tell us if this is his method of promoting the best management techniques in Petro-Canada? Would he also confirm that Petro-Canada is attempting to sublease the space for 50 per cent of what it leased it for?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I will certainly look into that question. I have not been informed of the question with regard to leasing at that price, compared to the net cost of the building. I will inquire and, if there is something to report, I will do so.


Frederick William Wright: Madam Speaker, on February 23 I sent the Minister a letter on this subject. On May 31 I sent him another letter on this subject.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


STAFF REDUCTION QUOTA
Frederick William Wright: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The management of Petro-Canada Resources has been told to reduce its staff by 25 per cent as of September of this year. Is this what the Minister means by "promoting the best techniques of management"?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, if management does not need its employees, it is normal that they reduce its staff. The Hon.

June 16, 1983
Oral Questions
Member is blaming me because he claims that the building has not been well managed so far. It might be so. I do not know. I will check and report back. However, if I have not reported back to him it is because I have not received the answer. If the Hon. Member wants me to keep everyone on staff, the management might need the space for itself. I think it has an obligation to reduce its staff, if it does not need them. And if it is reducing its staff because it does not need employees, I will not quarrel with that.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, yesterday in a question raised the matter of the unacceptable practice of the Department of Supply and Services in its procurement policy, whereby such small percentages of purchases were made in specific Provinces. Would the Minister tell the House why only 3.7 per cent of total procurement by DSS came from the Province of Manitoba? Could he explain to us why his Department has been so spectacularly unsuccessful in purchasing more goods and services from Manitoba suppliers?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to review the figures with reference to Manitoba. However, I would point out to the hon. gentleman that, quite to the contrary, we have been successful in Manitoba. We have, as a result of Government procurement, established a viable aeronautics industry within the Province of Manitoba. We are contracting with them on a regular basis. I would be pleased to be able to continue that.


REQUEST THAT MANITOBA ORDERS BE INCREASED
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, as a supplementary question, I do not feel the Minister believes those words himself because the figure of 3.7 per cent was from his own Department. The Minister says there is an aeronautics industry in Manitoba. CAE in Manitoba just closed a few weeks ago. If the Minister calls that success, then by that measurement I suppose it is a success. Therefore, I am asking the Minister whether he will be able to give us, within a very short period of time, possibly within the month, a clear policy on how that percentage will in fact be increased over a given period of time.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I discussed the very matter which is of interest to the hon. gentleman with my regional director in Manitoba less than a month ago. He advised me that the figures, in terms of contracting within the Province, were much above what they were in past years.
In terms of CAE, I agree with the Hon. Member that there has been a recent closure. However, that was not in any way related to any activity in which we were engaged. I am pleased to advise the hon. gentleman as well that I have had a recent meeting with Muriel Smith, who is the Minister of Industry in the Province of Manitoba, in order to discuss the question of the aeronautics industry, and try to strengthen that industry within the Province of Manitoba. The hon. gentleman should inform himself before he asks his questions.


IMMIGRATION
M. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration, who is also the Acting Minister of Labour. It has been reported that in Atlantic Canada there are some Canadian registered ships which are plying Canadian waters and which have crews aboard who come from abroad. They have been granted temporary "Landed Immigrant" status by the Department of Employment and Immigration while we have Canadian seamen lying idle ashore. Will the Acting Minister explain why the Government is allowing this situation to exist when unemployment in Atlantic Canada is horrendous, and when we should be encouraging the creation and the revitalization of the Canadian merchant marine?


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it is too bad the Hon. Member did not give notice of his question, because otherwise we could have made some enquiries beforehand. However, I have taken note of the question and we shall see to it that he gets a satisfactory answer.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN SEAMEN BE GIVEN WORK PRIORITY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, while the Acting Minister is looking into the matter, will he ensure that the Minister gets the impression of what is taking place, and would he ask the Minister to assure Canadian Atlantic area seamen that they will be put to work before temporary work permits are given to foreign crew members?


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Madam Speaker, the Minister will certainly take all necessary precautions. In fact, he has already taken measures to ensure that employers first advertise throughout the country to find out whether workers are available to fill these positions before work permits are issued to foreign workers who are anxious to get a job in Canada.
June 16, 1983


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. A year ago I asked him in this House if he would be bringing forward changes to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code, the section which protects the health of Canadian workers who come under federal legislation. At that time he indicated the legislation would be coming soon. Since 12 months have passed can he tell me how he defines the word "soon"?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows very well that in the time which has elapsed very important and urgent legislation has been debated and passed by Parliament. In the meantime the other types of legislation which are protecting workers in the various jurisdictions are in effect. I hope the Hon. Member will understand that this legislation is presently protecting the people he is concerned with, as are we.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, if the Minister thinks the present legislation is protection, then his definition of "soon" is never.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, is the Minister going to keep his promise and introduce legislation to amend Part IV of the Canada Labour Code? If so, is he going to bring the Atomic Energy workers, transportation workers, the people who died on the Ocean Ranger, under the protection of that legislation?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is entitled to his definition of the word "soon". As far as the introduction of amendments to the Code is concerned, it is my hope to introduce them as soon as this session and the legislation before the House are completed. Possibly in the next session, Madam Speaker.


FISHERIES
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is well aware of the ban placed on Lake Erie smelt by the Japanese because of the dioxin problem. He has telexed instructions to the Canadian Embassy on this matter. He should also now be aware, by telexes in reply, that the action taken by the Canadian Embassy is in fact ineffective. What further action is the Minister taking to guarantee this Japanese market?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I will be most grateful to the Hon. Member if he or the industry can bring me concrete proposals. Not only have I got in touch with our Embassy, but I have sent a telex to every interested party in Japan, telling them that their concern is absolutely without any foundation; that what is going on in the United States has absolutely nothing to do with Canada. We have tested the smelt we export to them and we have not found any trace of dioxin. Actually, two days ago I met some representatives of the Ontario industry who told me they appreciate our efforts very much. If the Hon. Member and others have some concrete proposals, I would gladly study them.


REQUEST THAT SPECIALIST BE SENT TO REASSURE JAPANESE
T.A. Bud Bradley: Madam Speaker, since we are dealing with an $8 million export market and thousands of spin-off jobs in southern Ontario, and because of the concern of the Japanese people, would the Minister consider sending a specialist trained in dioxin testing along with some of the latest test results of Lake Erie smelt, to the Canadian Embassy to work with them and reassure the Japanese about their concern?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member I will study his concrete proposal immediately and report to him within a day.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence, and he is aware of it. In the past few days a notam has gone out to all private pilots telling them to expect low flying military aircraft in all areas of southern Ontario. Those low flying aircraft have caused some very near misses, particularly with a couple of light aircraft over the Muskoka area. In addition, livestock on the ground have been frightened to the point of being damaged by the aircraft coming over at very high speeds at a height of 500 feet. Could the Minister tell us if indeed it is necessary, in a country as large as ours, to have those aircraft flying over heavily populated areas?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, if that happened in the area referred to, I would think it is very unusual. I know the hon. gentleman and a couple of others have notified me of incidents in their area. I inquired this morning about what was going on. Last week there were indeed some operations of that kind, but it is now all over. This week the only thing which could have happened is perhaps an exercise wherein Boeing 707s were practising emergency landing at Trenton airport. They have to come in

June 16, 1983
Oral Questions
very low towards the airport when they do that. That could have been the disturbance.
I will make a further investigation, and I can assure you that I see no reason why our fighter aircraft should fly that low over urban areas.


REQUEST THAT JET TRAINING FLIGHTS BE POSTPONED
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, I know about the Boeings landing at Trenton, and that is not a problem. What I am concerned about are high speed jet training aircraft flying across a region, particularly holiday areas, at very low speeds. Would the Minister undertake to assure this House, if not today then early next week, that this will not take place for the balance of this summer at least?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is right. 1 will investigate these matters. I certainly do not think there should be these kinds of operations over urban areas during the summer months.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who will know there are many Canadian farmers locked into loans with the Farm Credit Corporation at interest rates of 16.75 per cent when the prevailing rate is 12.75 per cent. On about April 26 the Minister stood in the House and said that within a month he would have a solution to this problem. Does the Minister have a solution, what is it and, if not, when does he propose to bring one forward?


Mr. Shields:: He does not have one.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the FCC rate for longterm mortgages is 12.75 per cent. The long-term credit rate from any other private lending institution-and they call three years long term-is 15.75 per cent. So to say 16 per cent is exorbitant for a ten-year mortgage, well, the Hon. Member has the right to say that. I told him we were negotiating. I do not remember saying that I would have it within one month.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: If I remember right, Madam Speaker, I said we were having discussions on it, and those discussions are still ongoing.


DEVELOPMENT OF AGRI-BOND PROGRAM
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, each time the Minister answers a question he is confirming himself as the "Tricky Dick" of Canadian politics. He will be aware that the Official Opposition has long supported the concept of agri-bonds and that he failed to have the Minister of Finance include this in his last budget. Can the Minister of Agriculture report any progress in the development of agri-bonds to provide long-term, low interest rate loans for Canadian farmers?


Eugene Whelan: I am sure the Hon. Member does not want to take credit away from the Hon. Member for Elgin who brought this up earlier this week. I answered him at that time, Madam Speaker.


FINANCIAL POSITION OF CORPORATION
John Wise: Madam Speaker, there is no question about the fact that we have been promised some reduction in interest rates for those special cases, on two or three occasions. I just want to put a very appropriate supplementary question on the subject of the FCC to the Minister.
Will the Minister take this opportunity to either confirm or deny the rumours, stories or reports that the Farm Credit Corporation in fact is out of funds at the moment? Will he confirm or deny that story?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, we do not have any funds left. All the money has been lent.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Wise: Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate that very frank answer. That is a very refreshing change for the Minister of Agriculture. Obviously I have a responsibility to put a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Farm Credit Corporation is out of funds, what does the Minister intend to do about it?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the demand on the Farm Credit Corporation was very great. It was thrust upon it by the private interests, the private lending institutions, telling farmers to get their finances in order, that they could not give them long-term money. Since April 1 we have loaned $452 million to farmers. We have approved that many loans. If we approve any further loans, we are approving them subject to obtaining more funds. We are hoping that we can go to the private money market to arrange more funds for them. We are still approving loans in those cases where people really need the money, in the hope that we will be able to obtain more funds for them.
June 16, 1983


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, June 15, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Madam Speaker:: 1 would like to inform the House that an objection signed by certain Hon. Members to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Saskatchewan has been filed with me. However, as Hon. Members know, these objections should be filed within a 30-day period from the day the report of the Commission is laid before the House. Those objections have been filed three days late, so under normal circumstances they would not be acceptable. Of course, with the unanimous consent of the House, we could deem those objections to have been filed within the prescribed period.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, we do not want to delay, but we would like to take the matter under advisement and report back tomorrow.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, I would like to ask the Government House Leader if he could give us some idea as to the business for tomorrow and next week.
At this time I would like to point out to the Government House Leader that we on this side are especially concerned with respect to Bill C-147, an Act to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act; Bill C-148, an Act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act; Bill C-154, an Act to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act; and especially Bill C-161, an Act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act. With the approach of June 30, we in the Progressive Conservative Party feel that it is absolutely vital that these four important Acts go forward as soon as possible.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I find it sad that the Hon. Member forgets to speak about the resolution on aboriginal rights; I think it is most urgent and important as well.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Also, the reorganization of Government and the Judges Act are measures with which we would like to deal before June 30. I have raised the matter with my colleague in meetings and I am hopeful that we will obtain some firm
Motions
commitments as to the length of debate, if needed, for each of those measures.
First, I think there are agreements on two matters. 1 think there is unanimous consent, after consultation with House Leaders, that we adopt, without debate, motion No. 109, on the Order Paper in the name of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, to create a special committee on participation of visible minorities in Canadian society. I would therefore seek unanimous consent that the motion be forthwith adopted without debate.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: There is unanimous consent. Therefore the motion is adopted.


PARTICIPATION OF VISIBLE MINORITIES IN CANADIAN SOCIETY
Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)) moved:: That a Special Committee consisting of seven Members to be named later to act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian Society, be appointed to examine the subject-matter described by its title, and in particular:
(1)	to seek positive and constructive ideas and models pertaining explicitly to ameliorating relations within Canada between visible minority and other Canadians;
(2)	to identify and investigate positive examples and models of the promotion of harmonious relations between visible minority Canadians and other Canadians, particularly in institutional areas, and find ways and means of improving those relations;
(3)	to seek the views that contribute constructively and positively to the promotion of racial tolerance, understanding and harmony of concerned voluntary, community and minority groups and organizations and individuals, as well as business, professional and trade associations, labour unions, public and private institutions and relevant specialists;
(4)	within a general review to consider federal Government policies and programs in the area of race relations;
(5)	to recommend the development of positive programs that the Committee finds necessary to promote racial understanding, tolerance and harmony in Canadian society; and
(6)	to encourage the continuation of the dialogue that will be initiated, in a climate that is open and constructive.
That the Committee report no later than six months after its membership is named;
That the Committee have all of the powers provided to standing committees pursuant to Standing Order 69(8);
That the Committee have the power to retain expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;
That the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the provisions of sections (4) and (9) of Standing Order 69 of the House of Commons should be suspended, unless otherwise agreed to by this committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1983
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Yvon Pinard: There is also an agreement that we change business for Wednesday and Thursday next week and the following week. The formal motion reads as follows:
That the hours of sitting and the order of business on Wednesday, June 22, 1983 and Wednesday, June 29, 1983 shall be that provided in Standing Orders 2 and 18 for a Thursday and, on Thursday, June 23, 1983 and Thursday, June 30, 1983, shall be that provided in Standing Orders 2 and 18 for a Wednesday; and
That the special order passed on June 15, 1983, pursuant to Standing Order No. 9, shall apply accordingly.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I must now answer the specific question as to what the business will be for today, tomorrow and next week. Today, as we all know, we are debating Bill C-155.
Tomorrow, because of the deadline in the statute, we will have to debate the reports of the Electoral Boundaries Commission dealing with two Provinces, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. I would like to start and hopefully conclude debate on the objections to those two reports tomorrow, within the first 45 minutes after the calling of Orders of the Day. If we have not completed debate after 45 minutes, we will ask that the debate be completed later before a report is made to the Chief Electoral Officer.
We have discussed with the Opposition what is to happen following those 45 minutes. I was surprised to hear my colleague say that he was in a hurry to see those measures passed, because he knows that we have an agreement among ourselves-


Mr. Nielsen:: He proposed it.


Yvon Pinard: -to deal with all stages of Bill C-148, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and all stages of Bill C-147, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I hope that we will be able to deal with all stages of those two Bills tomorrow. They will be called in that order, as was discussed among ourselves earlier this week.

Madam Speaker, as far as the business of the House for next week is concerned, on Monday we shall resume consideration of Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. If the Bill is adopted, on the days remaining until June 30 we would like to use the time of the House to consider the following Bills, not necessarily in the order in which they are mentioned: Bill C-152 on Government organization, Bill C-159 respecting the judges. Bill C-161 on
student loans, and also the legislation on industrial and regional development to be tabled shortly by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the constitutional amendment dealing with native rights, and Bill C-95 on sports pools. There is the matter of at least S200 million in funds that will go to the Calgary Olympic Games, and a number of other measures to be determined at a later date. I can therefore inform the House that we are well aware of the urgency of these Bills but, first of all, we would like to see Bill C-155 referred to the appropriate Standing Committee of the House, which, I hope, will not take too long since today is our sixth day of debate on this Bill.


Madam Speaker:: Just before I recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Moutain, I want the House to be quite clear on the fact that the Chair would not report on the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act before the debate is terminated. I want to make that very clear.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might make an inquiry of the Government House Leader. Yesterday I suggested to him that we might be able to deal with the Student Loans Act through all stages tomorrow. I notice that he did not include that in his-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He did.


Ian Deans: He did not include that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: For next week.


Ian Deans: I notice that he did not include it in his list of business for tomorrow.
1 would like to confirm again that, as far as we are concerned, we would be prepared to deal with that piece of legislation tomorrow in advance of proceeding with the other two. Subject to its obtaining approval speedily, the other two would undoubtedly similarly obtain speedy approval.


Yvon Pinard: I welcome that offer which has now been made public. I will certainly not object to the Student Loans Act being adopted through all stages tomorrow without long debate, provided that, as agreed with the Conservative Party, we also pass all stages of Bill C-148 and Bill C-147. If we can pass those two Bills through all stages, then the Canada Student Loans Act may be passed through all stages very quickly. We will not object, on the contrary, but we also need the consent of the Progressive Conservative Party on this matter.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I was rather surprised that the Government House Leader did mention Bill C-147 and Bill C-148 for tomorrow, because we understood that due to a dispute between the NDP and the Liberals, the Government would forge ahead with the Crow. Given the fact that they have made up and are now prepared to do business we will certainly take that into consideration.
June 16, 1983


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would like to understand the answer of my hon. colleague. He attended the meeting with us. He is the one who said that we should deal with Bill C-148 and C-147 tomorrow. I agreed to that. Now, I am surprised that he pretended he did not know about it. It was always very clear that we were to deal with those two Bills on Friday.
A few minutes ago, the Hon. Member referred to the Canada Student Loans Act and suggested that it was a most urgent Bill to be dealt with. He now has an offer which is very simple. I fail to understand why he does not want to give his consent today to deal with that Bill through all stages tomorrow.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, concerning Government business, could the Government House Leader indicate to the House whether or not he expects we will have a Canada health act tabled for first reading before the end of June?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will consult with the Minister responsible and report in due time.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, during the election three years ago the Liberal Party promised to change the valuation day for computing capital gains for retiring farmers. We have been waiting three years for that legislation. Could the Minister tell us when we can expect this sort of legislation to be before the House since it was one of the few farm promises in that election?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if I answered in the affirmative, I would be less than honest, because I doubt the Hon. Member's allegations are correct.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to return to the question of Bill C-148, C-147 and the Student Loans Act. I want to be clear about what will happen tomorrow. Without divulging anything about what anyone else said, my recollection of the House Leader's meeting is that I said I was not in a position to guarantee the passage of Bill C-147 or C-148 tomorrow. However, I am in a position to say that Bill C-147 and Bill C-148 certainly would most likely get approval if the Student Loans Act was also to be dealt with.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, on a number of occasions in the House I have asked that the Government House Leader give some indication whether or not the legislation which underpins the policy on shipbuilding would be brought in before June 30 so that the House and people outside the House would have an opportunity to peruse it and deal with it expeditiously in the fall.
Second, will the Minister be bringing into the House a Government statement on construction under the frigate program which would give us some indication if the six frigates that are to be built would be built on a two-two-two basis across each region of the country so its benefits would be
Business of the House
distributed equally and provide some regional survival in shipbuilding? Both of these matters are critical prior to adjournment. Will the House Leader be bringing that forward?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have taken note of the Hon. Member's priorities.


Mr. Manly:: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development promised last December that he would act with considerable haste to bring in legislation to end discrimination against Indian women. Could the Government House Leader give any indication as to whether such legislation will be tabled before the House rises on June 30 so that Indian people will have a chance to study that legislation during the summer?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if we intend to act, we will do so in no uncertain terms.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, in his report to the House the Government House Leader mentioned that the Conservative Party agreed to quick action with regard to the aboriginal rights amendment to the Canadian Constitution. With a view to developing quick action on that resolution, is the Government House Leader willing to have that resolution go to a committee of the House?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to consider the Hon. Member's suggestion as soon as he facilitates the passing of Bill C-155.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my question is: Will Canadians be allowed to make representations to a committee on changes to the Canadian Constitution, or is he willing at least to guarantee that we will have resolutions changing the Constitution of Canada go to a committee so that Canadians can appear to make presentations?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, 1 think this is a good idea. 1 said that I would take it very seriously. I think that the Member has very good judgment and he should apply the same to the Crow. Do Canadians have the right to go to committee to look at the Bill and try to improve it? Maybe he could contribute by allowing them to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, some time ago the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) promised to change the Auditor General's Act to allow the Auditor General to report intermittently instead of just annually. Can the Minister tell us when this legislation will be brought before the House?

June 16, 1983
Business of the House


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's question under advisement.
Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Minsiter of Transport (Mr. Pepin):
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. 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 five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, at one o'clock I was attempting to convince the Minister-I am not sure if I was making progress-of the benefits that would flow from this amendment to permit the House and our respective constituents to have the opportunity of a further six months in which regional interests could be expressed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Then you will ask for another six months.


William Herbert Jarvis: I am sorry, I did not hear the Minister because there is so much noise in the House. I think he is on the verge of being convinced because he is smiling at me. He may agree to this amendment.
I might say that 1 apparently ruffled some feathers earlier when 1 mentioned that few NDP Members from British Columbia had participated in this debate. 1 was not attempting to denigrate those Hon. Members. I thought it was very strange that the regional interests of the constituents of that Province were not being properly expressed in this debate. It may be a matter of strategy and I am willing to accept that.
For example, as a Member of the Senate Reform Committee I hear witnesses talk in passing about four regions. Were I not sensitive to the thoughts and aspirations of some of my
Adjournment Motion
B.C. colleagues in this caucus I might be tempted just to let that reference slide by in that committee without even questioning it, whereas I believe there are some very strong feelings among the people of British Columbia about being included as one part of the four regions. Their aspirations are not necessarily reflected in that type of attitude. That is why I probably should have heard more from the NDP Members from British Columbia with respect to this particular amendment.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament from British Columbia and as a Member of the New Democratic Party, I am sure that the Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) would like to check Hansard to see that just as many Members in the NDP who are from British Columbia have spoken as have Tories.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member has the same problem counting as his House Leader does with respect to the votes that we cast last night.
In any event, my point was that the advantage of a six-month hoist with respect to this legislation would give those of us in certain regions that extra time not to defend but to explain the legitimate historic, economic, social and cultural interests of their fellow Canadians from a different region. It is not necessarily incumbent upon me to explain all the details of this legislation to the constituents of Perth. But surely it is my responsibility to convey to my constituents as best as I am able the legitimate aspirations of a different region so that they may make that judgment to which they are entitled with respect to such profound and complicated legislation.
You are indicating to me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I very much look forward to participating in the debate on the main motion. I hope that I have convinced the Minister that a six-month hoist would be very advisable indeed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before 1 recognize the next Hon. Member, may I deal with proceedings on the adjournment debate this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellen-berger)-Indian Affairs-Freezing of band trust accounts, (b) Band responsibility; the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson)-Northern Afairs-Northern Canada Power Commission-Committee recommendations, (b) Price of

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
electricity supplied to Pine Point Mines; the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky)-Canadian Transport Commission-Rulings on railway branch line abandonments in Manitoba, (b) Request for protection of subdivisions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

['-a motion to adjourn the House has deemed to have been moved and seconded at this time. Therefore, the question is that this House do now adjourn.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I also have to deliver a ruling related to a point of order raised this morning by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain rose this morning on the point of order suggesting that Bill C-155 was improperly before the House because, he submits, it has three separate and distinct principles. He also suggests that the Bill should therefore be divided. I will address simply and only the point of order relating to the amendment.
The Chair stated that the question before the House was an amendment that the Bill be not now read a second time this day but six months hence. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain submitted that the House should not proceed further with the amendment until his point of order has been addressed and ruled upon.
After further consideration, the Chair finds that the amendment before the House must just be disposed of either by being adopted, negatived or withdrawn, before any discussion is entertained on a point of order relating to the main motion for second reading and referral to committee. The Chair recognizes that if the amendment is carried, the Bill may be rejected but it is not for the Chair to judge the consequences of the decisions of the House but rather to ensure that the proper procedures are followed. In this case, an amendment is properly before the House and a discussion on the Member's point of order can only be entertained once the amendment has been disposed of.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment which, of course, is a six-month hoist. Most Hon. Members have not addressed themselves to the amendment before us but have talked about many subjects.
I appreciate the situation of the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) who, of course, was giving his maiden speech. He followed the usual proprieties and talked about many other things instead of addressing the substance of the Bill. 1 can understand the situation of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), who represents an urban riding. He naturally would want to address certain concerns and explain the relevance of the legislation before us to his community.
I have also heard some very good speeches on the subject. Many Members have dealt with important points. The question before us is one of process. Our amendment is to delay the discussion of this Bill in the House for six months. There are very good reasons for this. The legislation before us is extremely bad legislation and the ordinary procedures of discussion before a committee hearing representations are really not as good as some other procedures of going back to the drawing board in a more fundamental way.
We are extremely concerned with the way the Government has proceeded on this question. People were given assurances that there would be no change in the Crow rate without consensus, but now the Government is trying to ram through something without consensus. That is a clear violation of trust. It is inexcusable and we have to protest in no uncertain terms. Frankly, the Government has reneged on its promises. We want to bring this to the attention of all Canadians and make the Government live up to the promise with which it initially came to the people. We are optimistic that some kind of suitable arrangements can be made and that good will can prevail if people would get together and negotiate in good faith.
The issues before us are extremely complex. That is another reason for taking a sober six-month look at the problem. The problem has been with us for a long time, and six months is a very modest time in which to try to deal in a realistic fashion with it.
Let me refer to some of the problems with which the legislation has to deal. One is transportation. Clearly this is a transportation Bill, but we have to put it in a broader context. We are dealing with transportation by railways but we have to think of transportation by highways and competing transportation in that field and we have to think of ports and of subsidy policies. These are extremely complex matters.
What about jobs? Certainly there is provision in this legislation to create jobs. But is this Bill going to do that in the best way possible? How will these jobs be distributed? This is an extremely important question with the rate of unemployment that we have now. We have to consider urban jobs as well as jobs in steel manufacturing and in farming. There is the situation of the family farm.
Some provisions of this legislation are very harmful, so we get down to very basic principles as to what kind of society we
June 16, 1983

want and what kind of farming communities we want. Is the family farm really to survive? There is the issue of the size of communities. Should small communities be wiped out by some of the presumably unintended effects of this legislation? We do not want to see that, but it is a possibility with some of the provisions in this legislation. This is too important a matter to be rushed through the House. We must go back to the drawing board and see that we have transportation policies to keep small communities alive. We have to consider the situation of the consumer. Food prices are very basic. All Canadians, people who are not farmers and people who will not be directly affected by jobs in steel, will be affected by the harm that is done to food prices by this legislation if it passes. We have to consider the situation of corporations. There are scandalous give-away provisions in this legislation whereby corporations will be allowed to go their way without being held to account. There are very unacceptable provisions as far as corporations are concerned and we have to object to them.
The NDP's approach to this legislation is completely different and we think there is a far better approach. We are not against all change. We are against change that will be unfair, change that would hurt farmers, that would hurt consumers and urban workers. We are against the fact that it will guarantee profits to the CPR.
What would the NDP policies do instead of the proposal before us? First, we would pay the railways for their proven operating losses hauling grain. To that we are agreeable. But we are in disagreement with the scandalous extent of profit that will be allowed by this legislation. We agree that some subsidies have to be provided. Certainly other countries subsidize transportation of food products and of grain, and so would we to the tune of $380 milion a year.
We want to keep the Crow rate for grain farmers. This is a historic promise that was made. We see no reason to sacrifice it now, certainly not with all the nefarious effects that this legislation would have.
We want to see public investment to upgrade the railways to the tune of $550 million a year. The railways do need to be upgraded. This situation has been discussed at great length. Our objections are to the way in which the Government wants to provide for this.
Back in the 1800s the people of British Columbia gave the CPR a large coal deposit which it put in reserve with the federal Government. The Pepin plan will remove the price ceiling on this coal but will not tell us who will own and benefit from the $450 billion reserve. This resource rightfully belongs to the people of British Columbia and we want to keep it that way.
The total cost of our plan is roughly along the lines of the proposal before us in the sense of its being $930 million per year. But we would see that more upgrading got done because we would prevent public money from leaving the rail system to real estate or dividends. The opportunities the Government's legislation provide are for the usual boondoggle subsidies with no control over how the money will be spent. Money could leave the country and may or may not make money for those who profit from the CPR, money that may go out of the
Western Grain Transportation Act
country and create jobs elsewhere that will see Canadians deprived of further jobs. That money should be invested here. What about money that would go to other companies that would not provide the same number or the kinds of jobs we would like to see?
It was public money that built the CPR in the 1880s to bring British Columbia into Confederation. It was public money and therefore the public is entitled to see to it now that any changes made are ones that respect the investment the public made in the first place. One of the purposes of building the CPR was to prevent American railroads from integrating the Prairies into the U.S. economy. The Crow rate agreement was established in 1897 to protect mineral development in British Columbia from exploitation by U.S. railways, to develop the prairie wheat economy as a market for central manufacturers to funnel Canadian grain through Canadian ports and to protect farmers from monopoly pricing by the railroads. All of these objections are extremely important. Cancelling the Crow rate would be a major step to a user-pay transportation policy which will encourage north-south trade with the United States instead of east-west trade in Canada. This, of course, has been the historic problem we face in Canada but it is something that we, as Canadians, who want to keep our country together have to address. We cannot simply succumb to the pressure of the north-south ties. Cancelling the Crow rate will end Canadian control in all three segments of the grain chain: gathering, marketing and transportation. At stake are about 35,000 jobs in Canada related to grain handling and transportation alone. Of course, many other jobs are at stake in the manufacturing sector.
The Crow is a barrier to non-agrarian capital exploiting the prairie region because the Crow would ensure fair freight rates for all shipping points, regardless of the volume shipped. This is a fundamental point of disagreement between the NDP and the Government. Grain gathering on the Prairies is decentralized in a number of country elevators mostly owned by farmers. Without the Crow the railways could charge variable rates, higher rates on branch lines than main lines. This would consolidate grain gathering in a few inland terminals owned by multinational grain companies.
Ending the Crow rate will centralize and stratify prairie society making farmers and workers less aware of each other's contribution to the community. We think in terms of a whole community in which people co-operate together, in other words, solve problems together and share the resources. The Canadian Wheat Board uses quotas to equalize delivery opportunities so that a large operator with semi-trailer trucks cannot plug an elevator to the exclusion of other farmers. Inland terminals require large volumes of gra n at any given time to fill a unit train, which would require preferential quotas at the expense of nearby country elevators. The Board also averages the price of grain to protect farmers from violent price fluctuations in a season. During periods of temporarily high grain prices, multinational grain companies with inland storage terminals could pressure farmers to lobby politicians to

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
stop price averaging. During periods of low prices and surplus grain, private grain companies could pressure farmers to end the quota system so the companies could take large volumes of grain at low prices and resell later at high prices.
The Canadian Wheat Board itself would cease to exist in such an environment and Canadian grain policy would be more vulnerable to manipulation by American politics and boycotts. Without the Crow rate, it will be less expensive to ship Canadian grain through U.S. ports than through Canadian ports. CN and CP already have lines to Duluth, Minnesota where grain can be loaded on boats for shipment to east coast elevators. Through its subsidiary Soo Line, CP owns track to Minneapolis, Minnesota where grain can be loaded on barges for shipment to export elevators at New Orleans. Minneapolis is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to her has expired. She may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Member:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow my friend from British Columbia who is a British Columbian transplanted to the streets of Toronto.


Lynn McDonald: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: I did not intend to make that kind of allusion. However, with her broad background on farming, having been raised on a farm in British Columbia, she draws on that incredibly intensive experience to bring that depth of background to this debate. It is even more interesting that she was so well versed on corporations and understands them very well.
We are debating an amendment which is to hoist this Bill for six months. Even though the amendment was proposed by the NDP, it happens to be a very good amendment. They in particular need six months to study any subject. Therefore, it happens to be an amendment to my liking.
I am always wondering where they are on this subject. I noted with particular attention the statement under Standing Order 21 submitted by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) at two o'clock today in which he was decrying the management-labour tension in the Port of Vancouver and the fact that the few people involved in that dispute are going to create massive problems for the $6 billion industry in the Prairies.
I understand very clearly what he said because it was very accurate, that the few people involved in that tension are disrupting the whole agricultural community on the Prairies and will create losses that cannot be recouped. Think of the
demurrage charges and all of the other related expenses that come about as a result of that work problem. I will not call it a stoppage, but it certainly is a problem.
What the Hon. Member for Prince Albert failed to say- and this is why I always wonder why they pose themselves as friends of the farmer-was that every time there is a work stoppage at the Port of Vancouver which stops the flow of grain from the Prairies and there is back to work legislation proposed in the House, since I have been here the New Democrats from the Prairies, who are supposed to be the champions of the farmers, vote against the back to work legislation. While the Hon. Member for Prince Albert is decrying the imposition of those terrible costs on the farmers from the Prairies, his colleagues from the Prairies always support the work stoppage and the increased cost to the prairie farmer.
The Members on my left cannot have it both ways. They either have to be for the farmer in this case or against the farmer. When it comes to voting back to work legislation for a few hundred workers in the Vancouver area, they will vote for the union and against the farmer. They have done it ever since I have come to this House. I fail to see why they have been successful in posing as the friend of the farmer when they actually vote against the farmer whenever there is a confrontation between the farmer and the port workers in Vancouver.
In the few minutes remaining to me, I would like to speak about this very important issue, the Crow rate. It is true that the legislation would do away with the statutory protection for the farmer and provide statutory protection for the railway. That in itself is an inequity that violates the basic sense of fairness that the Canadian people have. It is not fair to continue protection to the railways but to deny it to the farmer.
While inflation and increased costs of production impinge heavily on the farmer, and in the last ten years there has been 135 per cent increase in inflation and the cost of production for the farmer, there is still no protection for the farmer in terms of freight rates. Therefore, I understand the tension that exists on the Prairies when it comes to this legislation.
What bothers me most in the sweetheart deal between the railways and the Government is the double standard that has been invoked. We are arguing a rate that was established 80 years ago. At that time the railways agreed through a statutory limit that they would not charge more than a certain amount for the transport of grain. Today those costs bear no resemblance to the present day costs. The payment established 80 years ago bears no relationship to today's transport costs. We have the railways coming to us and saying they cannot operate under this arrangement because there is no realistic relationship between the cost of 80 years ago and today. I can understand that, but let us examine the language of the railway on another issue, namely, railway pensions.
My friend, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) indicated this morning the way the railways treat their minority shareholders in terms of stocks and dividends and the way they have robbed minority shareholders over the years by the
June 16, 1983

way they have treated long-term arrangements. The same is true of the workers. If there is one thing that has gratified me over the years, it is the sense of loyalty that I have experienced on the part of railway workers to the railways. CPR and CNR employees are proud of their railways.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, of the work.


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member says of the work, but they are proud of the railways. What bothers me is that in spite of this intense pride those workers have for their work and for their railways, they have been betrayed by the railways. Let me illustrate by way of their pension plans.
There are two pension plans that have been devised by the railways over the years, one covering pensions from 1935 to 1959 and one covering from 1959 to 1967. The pension plan devised for 1935 to 1959 gave the workers a pension of 40 per cent over the best ten years of employment. Let us say that that was a S3 average over 1950 to 1960; 40 per cent of those best ten years. What relationship is there between that payment now and the cost of living for those pensioners? There is no fairness at all.
Some years ago when I wrote to Ian Sinclair of CP Investment about that inequity, he said, "That's tough, they invested that money in long-term arrangements and they have to pay back according to their return on that investment". I have a letter from Mr. Roy Lowry, administrative officer of the president's office of CNR. Listen to the language he uses: "The employees' contribution, subject to matching contributions from the company with interest accrued to date of retirement, represented the company's obligation." When it comes to the employers' or the former employees' obligations, it is all statutory. There is no consideration given to the increased cost of living. There is no consideration given to the inflationary spiral. There is no consideration given to the plight of those former employees who are now living on meagre pensions. It is always a statutory obligation.
Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the railway can argue so eloquently about changing the statutory regulation when it comes to subsidies for the railway, but it is speechless when it comes to the statutory obligations for the pensioner? Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that it needs so much to operate because of the spiralling costs of production, but it cannot argue on behalf of its employees who are living on a meagre income?
Let me close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that it seems to me that the unions that are supposed to be defending employees have been no better because the unions forget the employees as soon as they are retired. They work for them as long as they are employed, but out of sight means out of mind. In that sense the unions have done no better than management.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-155 today. The Bill has commonly been called the Crow rate Bill and is perhaps
Western Grain Transportation Act
not readily understood in large urban centres such as metropolitan Toronto. Generally speaking, it is viewed as something that concerns only those Canadians who are involved in the farming communities.


Mr. Cosgrove:: They know that it means jobs.


Neil Young: They certainly do know that it means jobs and, apparently, they understand that much better than does the Liberal Party. That is why the farming community is so concerned about the changes that the Government is trying to impose upon them.
My good friend, the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), wondered whether there were any farmers in Beaches who were particularly concerned about the amendments that the Government intends to make to the Crow rate, and I want to assure him that while there are no farmers as they are commonly understood, certainly many of my constituents lived on farms and migrated to the city. These people certainly understand the implications of the Crow rate and they have expressed their concerns to me.
The issue that we in the House are talking about deals not only with individuals who are directly involved in the farm industry. It goes far beyond that. It goes deeper than that. It goes to a basic principle-


Paul James Cosgrove: It creates many jobs.


Neil Young: I will talk about jobs, and I will also talk about jobs in the Hon. Minister's constituency that will be lost because of what the Government intends to do.
We are actually talking about a social contract between Canadians and their Government which goes back to the 1800s because it was back then, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Pacific Railway received substantial mineral rights, land and cash from the people of Canada in exchange for certain responsibilities. One of those obligations was to haul grain at the Crow rate. Another was to use its mineral resources to keep its transcontinental rail line modern and efficient as the country grew.
Now Canadian Pacific says that it wants to keep the mineral rights and grants but shift its obligations to farmers and taxpayers who will have to pay the bills. The Government agrees with CP and has introduced legislation to end the Crow rates for grain transportation. This action will provoke a deep and possibly desperate reaction on the part of the people on the Prairies who consider the Crow their Confederation bargain.
The Crow is also important to central Canada. If the farmers have to pay higher freight charges, they will have less money to spend on tractors, trucks and supplies made in central Canada. Thousands of workers at farm implement plants in Ontario, for example, are already on lay-off. Doing away with the Crow will guarantee more lost jobs.
As another example, the extra freight charges to be paid by farmers under the Government's plan will lower the Canadian Gross National Product by some $1.5 billion in 1991, which means that the economy will then support some 51,000 fewer jobs than it does today.

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Higher freight charges to ship grain in Canada will also divert grain from the Canadian Prairies to U.S. ports. My friend, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), has raised this issue in the House during Question Period and has yet to receive a satisfactory response from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). Canadians who work on the railways, the Great Lakes and the Seaway will also lose jobs because of the Government's proposals.
If farmers have to pay higher freight charges, they will produce less grain. Even Agriculture Canada admits that this will mean a reduction in grain exports which now earn our country some $6 billion a year in foreign exchange.
While the New Democratic Party is in favour of upgrading Canadian railways, we would pay the railways for their proven losses hauling grain at the Crow rate and make public investment to upgrade the rails for all commodities in all regions, not just those favoured by the Minister and Canadian Pacific and the other railways. Our proposal would cost no more than the Government's plan but more rail upgrading would be accomplished because we would prevent public money from leaving the rail system and going to dividends or foreign real estate. The taxpayers have paid for rail upgrading for over 100 years, and we say that it is time we stopped the handouts and instead took equity in Canadian Pacific Limited and Canadian National for what we pay.
In 1881, Mr. Speaker, the CPR syndicate accepted from the people of Canada land, cash, rail lines and other benefits in exchange for a commitment to "thereafter and forever efficiently maintain, work and run the Canadian Pacific Railway". Clearly Parliament intended that the vast land grants and other benefits were to permit the syndicate to finance the railway's ongoing operation.
In general terms, the Crow rate is one half of an indivisible national policy dating back to the time of Sir John A. Macdonald that was to provide tariff protection for central industry and low cost transport to develop the eastern and western region. Specifically, the Crow rate was agreed upon by the CPR and the Government of Canada and remains a valid and binding contract. Sir Clifford Sifton, party to the negotiations that established the 1897 Crow rate agreement, said in 1929:
! remember when as a young minister in Laurier's cabinet. Van Horne and Shaughnessy said a line into the Kootenay mining district would not be considered for fifteen years. Also I remember that within six weeks the same two gentlemen came into my office and said that they had to build this line and wanted a large bonus for doing it, that the CPR was on the verge of bankruptcy. We gave them this bonus against the public sentiment of two-thirds of the people of Canada. They built the line and the Kootenay mining development (nucleus of Cominco) saved the CPR and saved a good many other things in Canada.
Again, Mr. Speaker, in 1925, Parliament put the Crow rate in a statute when the railways offered to keep grain on the Crow rate if they could be relieved from the agreement for low rates on other commodities. At the time, the CPR made it clear that they were not asking for any change in the conditions established in 1897 in regard to grain and grain products.
A. R. Gobeil, one member of the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transportation, had this to say:
-the grain rates were not imposed by Parliament. They were not only freely accepted by the railway but were offered by them as an inducement to persuade Parliament to lift that part of the agreement which pertained to westbound rates on other commodities.
At no time in 1925 was there a suggestion by either Party that the agreement of 1897 was being terminated. The Crows-nest Pass Agreement is a binding contract and if the Canadian Pacific Railway wishes to be relieved of its obligation under that agreement, it must also relinquish the other benefits it derives.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I urge the Government and all Members on this side of the House to defeat this totally inequitable Bill which will work against Canadian farmers.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking on something that I knew absolutely nothing about three weeks ago.


Mr. MacBain:: Things have not changed!


Thomas Scott Fennell: No, big mouth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Remarks should be addressed to the Chair, as the Hon. Member knows.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of this Bill I have had an opportunity to become aware of the Crows-nest Pass rate. To me it is another example of the destruction of our national transportation system. In Ontario we have seen the destruction of the rail passenger service, and indeed that has gone on even beyond Ontario, but in my riding the train that used to go past the back of my property every day no longer operates.
This week I had an opportunity to help a gentleman who found that he could not send his vehicle by train because it was too heavy. He was told the railways did not have the service. Strangely enough, Air Canada came to the rescue; the airline could take it but VIA Rail could not. I spoke to the Minister about that case and he admitted it was strange that the train could not take a large wheelchair vehicle when it had a mail car. That is another example of the Government's attitude towards rail transportation in this country.
It is the historical implications of the Bill that we are dealing with. I support the NDP motion for a six-month hoist. It took us six months to get the Constitution and it should have taken longer. This Bill should go to committee for at least six months so that everyone in the country can discuss it, not just Members of Parliament who have been brought up to date on the matter. This is a sound proposal, Mr. Speaker. There is no reason to rush this. There is no reason that the Transport Committee could not meet throughout the summer to hear the views of people from across the land. I notice that one of my colleagues who is involved in transportation does not like that idea very well, but I would be prepared to sit on that Committee to become more aware of the transportation system in the country.
June 16, 1983

This Party agrees, in principle, to some adjustment but not that set forth by the Minister. We must have some freedom in this country and, as the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has stated a number of times, what we are pushing for is freedom of choice. The trouble with not having freedom of choice is that it leaves too much power in the hands of Government and the railways while it removes power from the farmers, the producers and processors. 1 feel that the Bill leaves far too much power with the railways and too much with the Minister.
1 should like to compare this subsidy with a few things in Ontario. There are local transportation commissions which are all subsidized by the taxpayer. VIA Rail is subsidized by the taxpayer, the St. Lawrence Seaway has been subsidized by the taxpayer for years and now the tolls are so high that the tonnage has dropped dramatically. This Bill could have the same effect on the western farmer, and that is what I am nervous about. The Trans-Canada highway is subsidized by the taxpayer so that people can go on holidays. Economics are far more important than putting in a Trans-Canada highway. Highways should be the responsibility of the Provinces which have been collecting gas taxes for years for that purpose. Now the federal Government has to stick its nose in and subsidize the highways.
Another classic case of subsidization is Canadair, a transportation company which cost us $1,400 million. Now we find that de Havilland is going to cost $266 million.
The Government is asking farmers to give up their rights and is removing opportunity for producers and processors in the West. We must realize that this country is 5,000 miles long and 100 miles wide, and a little wider in the West. In Ontario, however, there is not much agriculture beyond 50 to 100 miles from the border.
We are committed to subsidizing transportation for grains and agricultural products. Every country in the world subsidizes agricultural products and transportation. We have a more serious problem than any other country, however, because our agricultural belt is so far from ocean ports. Now the Government is asking that we not allow farmers to have the freedom to choose what they want to do.
The subsidy in the United States amounts to between 30 per cent and 33 per cent and is paid directly to the farmer, not to the railway. He ships by rail and receives that amount of money back. France is another good example. At the end of World War II it was not self-sufficient in the production of grain but now it has become not only self-sufficient but is a net exporter of grain. The French Government gives farmers a 50 per cent subsidy on any grain shipped out of the country. That is the kind of arrangement we should have.
1 am not arguing that the railways do not need more funds, but those funds should flow from the farmers to the railways. If it happened that another form of transportation was more logical for some people than the Canadian National Railways, they should be permitted to use it. We are locking them in to the railways.
Western Grain Transportation Act
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this is not right.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You are doing a poor job of it.


Thomas Scott Fennell: A subsidy to the railway is no guarantee that the railway will be improved. Railways are greedy and always have been. A recent example of that is that the CNR is now releasing a large number of employees because of new technology, compared to General Motors in my riding which is retraining every single employee so that they will not lose their jobs. This is a national disgrace, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of thing that we should be speaking up for. I do not have faith in Crown corporations or in the railways. We must provide security, Mr. Speaker, for some processing of the grain in the West. It is far more economical to process the grain there, feed the beef and ship the beef out of the West. I know that some farmers in Ontario will not like that statement. However, I would like just briefly to explain that in Ontario they are fortunate. They are self-sufficient in grain. They are selfsufficient agriculturally, whereas the West, because it does not have the population, it does not have the same opportunity as those people in Ontario. However, I do stand on the principle of freedom of choice and I hope that this House will vote for this amendment.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to stand and speak in favour of the amendment to have a six-month hoist on this Bill. I would like to speak particularly from the point of view of the people of British Columbia who perhaps have not been quite as close to this issue and may not understand what great relevance it really has to them, both as Canadians and as British Columbians. "Keep the Crow", the clarion cry of western Canadians sometimes mystifies the people in British Columbia. "Why is this so important to farmers on the Prairies? Why is it so important that they will fight to retain the Crow freight rates, it seems, forever?"-and certainly I can say that from the point of view of Hon. Members of this caucus. "Why have thousands of people signed hundreds of petitions?", which incidentally the Government has restricted Members of Parliament in this Party from presenting, "And why are they so up in arms right across Canada and supported by people in all Provinces? Is the Crow rate important only to prairie farmers?"
I was very interested, Mr. Speaker, to learn that indeed the farmers of British Columbia will be equally affected by the removal of the Crow freight rate promises. In my research I learned that the incomes of British Columbia farmers would be cut by 30 per cent by 1992 as a result of this legislation. The cost of feed grains alone in British Columbia would be increased by 10 per cent because the feed grains come to B.C. from the prairie Provinces. It is a very important issue not only to farmers in B.C. but also it will have an impact on other workers in B.C. along with the rest of western Canada.

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
There are some superficial opinions which some people may have about this subject and I believe there is one Hon. Member among the Hon. Members who are so vocal across the way whom 1 would perhaps include in that group. I received a letter the other day from a person who asked, "By supporting Bill C-155, are you actually opposing job creation? Does it mean that you are against transportation improvements?" Categorically-and I hope the Hon. Member who is so lippy across the way will listen to this-we, of course, do not agree with this, and I will document that in a few moments. I would like to go, first of all, Mr. Speaker, to the basic Confederation agreement which was made regarding the Crowsnest freight rate. Mr. Allen Engel, the agriculture critic from Saskatchewan spoke in April to Members of Parliament of all Parties. He said the following:
-the Crow Rate is part of the ongoing Confederation bargain. It is an offset to higher costs borne by the West from such things as tariffs, the monopoly power of the railways, and the tremendous benefits given to the railways by the people of Canada since 1867.
You can't change this balance by only altering one component, ... If more money is needed to modernize the rail system, let everyone in Canada pay for that-not just western farmers.
Everyone in Canada, after all, will benefit from the trade dollars generated by the growing volumes of exports of various commodities produced in western Canada.
And if the Canadian public is going to invest in the rail system, it should get equity in return for that investment.
No more giveaways to the railways.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, is a long time expert on the Crow rate and on transportation matters, generally. I would just like to refer quickly to comments he made, very eloquently, I believe, on "The Nation's Business". He said the following:
Back in the late 1800s the Canadian Pacific Railway received substantial mineral rights, land and cash from the people of Canada, in exchange for certain responsibilities. One of the obligations was to haul grain at the low Crow rate.
The Crowsnest Pass grain rate is the foundation of the western Provinces' union with the rest of Canada. Just as tariffs helped central Canada develop its industry, the Crow rate still helps western Canada get its grain over long distances to market.
Times change of course, but the geographical barrier separating our grain from market remains. Other countries grow their grain close to the cheap water transport or subsidize their grain transport. Without the Crow rate, our farmers today cannot easily afford to sell grain in competition with other countries.
He went on to explain, Mr. Speaker, that if the Crow goes, shipping subsidies in Atlantic Canada will be next. It is the same principle and is the same Liberal policy. Farmers who will lose 35 per cent of their incomes, of course will buy fewer supplies from central Canada, those tractors and farm implements, and much of the equipment which supply manufacturing jobs in central Canada. They will export less grain from British Columbia ports. The New Democratic Party estimates that by abandoning the Crow rate, it could cost 50,000 Canadians their jobs.
1 would like to point out to the average homemaker in British Columbia that the cost of bread in British Columbia will go up by at least five cents a loaf directly related to changing costs. If the Government removes the Crow rate subsidy, as it intends to do, cheaper transportation rates
through the United States will force farmers to export grain through the United States via CPR in the U.S., instead of through the ports of Canada. I was very interested in the information provided, again by our transport critic, that the CPR is already planning for this diversion of grain transportation through the United States. It has already taken advantage of the changes which are being proposed to expand its rails in the United States at a cost which would be less than using the St. Lawrence Seaway. On May 24, the same Hon. Member said that the CNR is showing evidence of doing the same thing. These railways should improve their tracks in Canada, not bail out the bankrupt Milwaukee Railroad in the United States where some $300 million was being used, which should have been used, of course, in Canada.
I would like to point out also, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill will have an immediate effect on my riding of Vancouver East. A lot of people in my constituency perhaps are quite unaware of this. If this grain and coal as well is diverted through the United States rather than coming west through the Rockies and into the Port of Vancouver, it will have a serious impact with loss of jobs for grain workers, longshoremen, and railway workers in Vancouver east and in the B.C. lower mainland, as well as people in businesses who service the port. There are alternative plans which, indeed, we have proposed to the Government. The Government proposes to make western farmers pay for an improved transportation system. We feel that everyone in Canada should pay for this, not just the farmers. Of course, we must modernize rail transportation as well as shipping facilities in western Canada, but we believe that the geography of Canada requires that everyone, not just farmers, pay for this.
Certainly we could go on forever about the deals the CPR has pulled over the years, including the real estate deals some of us question.
We in the New Democratic Party insist that the Crow rate was an agreement of Confederation and must be maintained as a national commitment, assisting everyone in Canada. We strongly support and urge the improvement of the transportation system to serve all parts of Canada. We need improved rails, new tunnelling, a boxcar industry, and we need that in British Columbia once again as well as port improvements. These are essential to Canada's economic recovery and the creation of jobs.
Money should be invested in improved transportation. We have advocated that $550 million a year be invested, but again with equity return so that Canadians will have control. We are also concerned about the coal agreements.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to her has expired.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Crow rate reforms are just another shabby example of the Liberal Party's dedication to the philosophy that the end justifies the means. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Cabinet know
June 16, 1983

exactly where the badly needed votes will be coming from in the next federal election and they will do anything in their power to make sure those votes are assured, even if that means creating disunity in a country that all of us in this Chamber love-well, most of us anyway. They will do that even if it means permitting drastic weaknesses in our agricultural economy.
Yes, we are aware that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has to some degree anyway studied the question of the Crow rate. We do not question his dedication to what is a very involved problem. We are aware that the Crow rate, as it now stands, is not without its imperfections. It is true that the rate of 1897 is not applicable to today's world. Yet the Minister's so-called solution really just creates another problem. The headaches caused by this proposal, if passed in its present form, will make past problems seem minimal by comparison. Nowhere in the new proposals can there be seen the slightest application of common sense or a sense of justice. Any notion of responsibility to the country as a whole I believe, is nonexistent.
The Minister has shown himself to be agreeable to the wishes of an alliance of self-interested individuals and pressure groups. I would hope that he would now have the good sense to pay close attention to those who have the courtesy to point out to him that the present course of action is indeed sheer and utter folly. I wonder if the Minister realizes that the repercussions of this decision will be drastic and also long lasting? Is he aware that this could cause the secondary agricultural industry in the West, particularly in Alberta, to die?
1 speak not as a westerner but as an eastern Canadian and an Ontarian who values the place of the western Provinces in Confederation and who deplores any action which tends to give them second billing. After all, where are the great wheat producing areas of our country? Where do we in the East obtain the materials which give us the prosperity we now enjoy? We all know. Indeed, the Minister knows. Yet he is about to cause an upheaval in our country which can only add to the great feeling of alienation shared by many and perhaps most westerners today.
As Dr. Gilson pointed out in his report, the distortion resulting from the Crow hampers all agricultural sectors in the Prairies, creating problems which are growing worse with inflation every day. The Crow is indeed a disincentive to railway investment, and the grain producer can no longer be assured of an adequate and responsive system to move his harvest.
I think the objective should then be to deal with the distortions and provide incentives to the railroads. It is hard to disagree that the freight rates must effectively be raised but the way to do it is certainly not to provide such huge subsidies to the railroads and then nothing to the farmers. The record of farmers is good. They have done more for the reputation of this country than any single group in Canada's history. Our bargaining power with the Soviet Union and China is a direct result of our massive grain exports to those countries.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Let us look at the reputation of the railways, Mr. Speaker. The name of the game has been branchline abandonment. Passenger service across this country is fast becoming a joke. Lines that were paying for themselves, for example the Atlantic run, just recently let go, and the Barrie to Toronto runs, have been cut back or dropped entirely. Meanwhile, mismanagement and overpayment of high officials are the real cause of the heavy losses incurred by the railways. Yet look who is receiving the subsidy.
Let us discuss further the potential for job losses. It is interesting to note the conflict between the Crow rate proposal and the special recovery program outlined in last month's sneaky-leaky budget. That program was designed to save jobs and the Crow rate proposal is guaranteed to destroy them. Thousands of jobs in the feeding, meat packing and food processing industries are going to be lost in the western part of our country.
Is it any wonder, then, that our Party is upset? That is where a great deal of our representation is from. We represent the western people and therefore we are truly the only national Party in this country. The Liberals have no stake in that part of the country, yet it reflects badly on them that they have chosen to ride roughshod over the best interests of that very important area.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a powerful Quebec lobby is looking to its own best interests, realizing that the original Crow revision will have inevitably led to more agricultural diversification in the West. The areas of livestock processing and marketing of products are not the exclusive property of Quebec entrepreneurs. Is it just that they should have a monopoly on this? Is it fair that the West remain the raw material provider for the rest of the country instead of enjoying its own industry and the accompanying benefits? My answer is, I think not.
In some ways I very much admire the Minister of Transport. He has made an effort to persuade powerful Quebec Cabinet Ministers and the 74 Liberal MPs from la belle province to show some national spirit and some respect for the legitimate aspirations of the western Provinces and accept the proposals he outlined. Yet, selfishly, without long-term thought, they brought intense pressure upon the Minister to produce a half-baked compromise which brings out all the worst parts of the Bill and replaces the good ones.
The straight subsidy to the railroads, by far the most significant change in the proposal, can only add to the tragic list of plant closings in the meat processing industry in the West. Meanwhile the Quebec industry will profit. Pork producers, subsidized at great cost to the taxpayers, are living high off the hog in Quebec. Alberta now plays second fiddle to Quebec in that department. Is it really fair then, Mr. Speaker, that grain grown in Prairie fields can be bought as cheaply in Quebec as in Alberta? The Quebec producer does not have the same shipping costs as the Prairie beef man. However, he can have his livestock to market the same day with little or no weight loss. The Prairie beef producer ships his cattle East,

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
which takes days, at considerable cost in shrinkage and shipping. No wonder farmers are going bankrupt today.
Do the huge subsidies to the railroads guarantee that branchlines will not be abandoned and that good service at reasonable rates will be provided? I heard someone in the House say that the Minister has heart, and someone else said he is heartless. Maybe he has a carburetor instead of a heart, I am not sure, but he certainly should take another look at this Bill. I tend to doubt the Minister because of the past record of mismanagement. Listen to the tales of overnight closure of branchlines with the resultant death of full towns in the West. The trouble with a subsidy is that companies get used to them. They feel the word "efficiency" is no longer in the dictionary. They can go ahead and do whatever they please with the full knowledge that they will be bailed out when it is necessary.
Is my time running out? I have only three or four more sentences, Mr. Speaker; about 30 seconds.
In conclusion, I want to keep in mind the best interests of all Canadians. There can be no favouritism here. We are facing a major question of national unity. Regional differences are one matter, but political issues are at stake. Frankly, I think the proposal reeks of political engineering. In the long run, the future of our country is at stake.
I thank Your Honour for the extension of time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my short speech today by posing a question. Why is this major initiative to deal with the biggest transportation problem in the country today not worth careful and lengthy consideration by Parliament? Why is there this rush, this attempt to impose closure? Why is there such a decision by the Government, which it forces through because it has a majority, that the hours the House sits shall be extended to 11 o'clock in the evening three nights a week?
The proposed change in the Crow rate contained in the Bill at the present time, represents an attempt by the Government to impose an historic change on a region of Canada, western Canada, in which the Government has no members. I suggest that with a polarized Parliament such as this, in which the Liberal Government has no Members from the area where the legislation with which we are dealing will have such a major effect, it will change the established rights of that part of the country in a way and to an extent we have never seen before. I suggest that when those kind of changes are being brought forward, a Government which cares, one which wants to keep the country together, should have moved cautiously in wiping out the Crow rate, regarded by so many people in western Canada as being their Magna Carta.
People in western Canada and in Atlantic Canada have felt for many years that they are second class citizens, that their interests are sacrificed for the benefits of central Canada, for the benefits of Ontario and Quebec. The kind of provisions
contained in this Bill will go a long way toward convincing many people in western Canada that their fear is justified.
It has been argued by the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in support of the Government's plan, that it would put almost $1 billion into industrial, transportation and agricultural developments all across Canada. That is true. However, one must ask where that money will come from.
If one asks that question, one finds the answer to be very clear. The money would come from the pockets of Canadian farmers. Where would they obtain that money? They could not increase the price of the grain they sell, because if they did they could not compete with the Australians, the Americans or the Agentinians, all of whom are in very stiff competition with the Canadian farmer for their share of the world's grain market. Therefore, the Canadian grain farmer or producer would find his income reduced by the amount of the increase in the cost of transportation.
What would the Canadian farmer do? He would have to reduce the money he now spends and has spent for farm equipment, automobiles, trucks and other consumer goods. That would have an immediate effect on the farm equipment manufacturers and on the automobile companies, because they would use less steel, less rubber and less of all the products which go into producing the very heavy equipment they sell, and of which the farmer is a major, if not the major, purchaser.
The plan is supposedly to pump $16 billion into upgrading the transportation system. The farmer is told that it would only cost him 2 cents a bushel in the way of an increase. We know and the farmers know that that is just a beginning, that in fact, the increase will rise every year so that he will be looking at an increase in transportation costs over the next eight or ten years of something in the neighbourhood of 400 or 500 per cent.
There are people who are scandalized by the idea that a freight rate established in the 1890s should still be applied in the 1980s. Those people should remember several things. They should remember the principle of taxation, which is that any old tax is a fair tax, and any new tax is an unfair tax. It is true that 90 years have elapsed since the Crow rate went into effect, but all Governments since that time have had opportunities, which they have used, to review the Crow rate legislation and to change it. It has been scrutinized and examined by three or more Royal Commissions. All of them recommended against any change.
I am not opposed to a change in the Crow rate agreement under certain conditions. What are the conditions as I see them? The Crow rate was part of a package agreement. The railways agreed to move grain at a very cheap rate. They received compensation, the compensation being millions of dollars in cash grants, which they are still receiving, and millions of acres of land, some of the most valuable acreage in Canada. The Cominco property in Trail, B.C., was part of the land which the CPR received. Therefore, if the Government or anyone else wants to renegotiate the Crow agreement, I say let us renegotiate the whole agreement. We will ask the farmers
June 16, 1983

to give up the cheap rate for moving grain if and when the CPR gives back the money and the land which it received as part of the package.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: That would be a fair deal and one to which I, and I think all Members of our Party, could agree.
The Canadian Pacific is one of the largest, if not the largest, corporation in this country. How did it get that way? It was as a result of the initial cash grabs and the land and other concessions it received. It would take me more time than that allotted to me just to list all the companies which the CPR owns-


An Hon. Member:: As a result of what we gave them.


David Orlikow: -as a result, of course, of what we gave them and upon which they built. I looked in the Financial Post's report on companies and found that CP Limited, in 1981-I will not list all the companies-had total assets of $16 billion. As far as I can tell, that does not include Cominco, of which it is a major shareholder, which had assets of more than $1 billion. It received that as a result of the deal it made back in 1890. We ought to keep that in mind when we speak of giving the hundreds of millions of dollars which this revision of the Crow rate will provide.
We in our Party are not opposed to modernizing and upgrading the railway system. How could I be opposed to that when I represent so many railway workers? Both the CNR and CPR in my city have recently had closures lasting for two and three months at a time. They have put thousands of workers who have worked for the company for up to 30 years on lay-off, for the first time in their history.
I have told the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that this is idiotic. We know that our shipments of grain, sulphur, coal and potash will increase greatly in ten years. I have been telling the Government for the last couple of years that now is the time to modernize the system. We are not opposed to modernizing the system. We want the railways to get on with the job of upgrading their system in order to move all of our goods.
However, we do not want this to be done at the expense of the farmers or at the expense of the railway workers. We say that the farmers should not be required to shoulder the capital burden, as we believe this Bill will force them to do, that will be required to move the coal, sulphur, potash and other bulk commodities. We say that this Bill does not accomplish that, and we are opposed to it for that reason.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in today's ongoing debate on Bill C-155, the Western Grain Transportation Act, or the Crow
Western Grain Transportation Act
rate as it is commonly called, because of its unquestioned importance to all Canadians. Although I usually only participate in debates relating to the scientific and industrial development of our great country, I feel I should make my views known on this important Bill because, as all Members know, it does not affect only one particular part of Canada, namely the western region, but every other part of Canada as well.
The controversy over the Crow rate has resulted in a national debate on the topic, as it well should. The Crow rate is a special rail freight rate that is applied to the transportation of export grain and stems from an agreement between the federal Government and the Canadian Pacific Railway back in September of 1897. As part of the agreement, the CPR agreed to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity in return for land and federal aid in building the railway in the mineral-rich Kootenay region of southern British Columbia.
A short while ago I had the opportunity to briefly discuss this Bill with a number of my constituents at a brunch in my riding. One of my constituents stated that he felt the Crow rate was, in his words, a western problem and that as a resident of Ontario he did not feel he had very much at stake in this issue.
Regrettably, my constituent was wrong. It has been demonstrated decade after decade, in country after country that a healthy agricultural community is the basis for a healthy and strong economy of a country as a whole. This is particularly true in Canada's case where we depend on billions of foreign dollars to come to Canada to pay for the wheat and other grains we export.
As transportation costs are a big item in any farmer's budget, and because the Government of 1897, unlike the present Government, wanted to protect this important industry, the Crow rate was imposed upon the railroads to ensure that distance would not be a fatal charge for the wheat growers. In return for the special rate imposed on the railroads for the benefit of farmers the railroads were given vast grants of land and other concessions in perpetuity for the benefit of the railroad.
There is not a farmer anywhere in the West in any community who will argue that the rate set so many years ago should apply in the same terms today. They will admit that times have changed. But the solution put forward by the Government to give the benefits to the railroads with no concessions at all to the western farmers is completely unacceptable.
Can anyone seriously argue that the railroads are being victimized by a fixed freight rate which is far below today's actual cost of grain transportation, while ignoring the huge gain in the asset value of the lands and concessions given to the railways when they entered into the agreement? If one argues that the lands cannot be taken back for today's value without destroying the railroads-unlike my friends to my left who somehow believe that the lands could be given back, destroying the railroads totally, to all of our disadvantage-then why should we not be as concerned about the other party to the agreement, the grain farmer who similarly could be destroyed? Perhaps we should consider giving proportionate shares in the

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
railroad to the farmers in return for increased freight rates. At least in that manner they would benefit from this one-sided solution to the problem.
Whatever solutions may lie ahead, it should not be to the detriment of one key segment of our society which year after year and at great personal financial risk grows and exports a renewable Canadian resource to the benefit of us all. While the Government may have nothing to lose in western Canada politically, the country has a great deal to lose if the Government continues to ignore what is a legitimate regional concern of the country, or how this Bill will affect the other regions of Canada.
If anything has resulted thus far in the debate, it has been a 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 it can ultimately reconcile them.
Bill C-155 has widened the consensus gap. The country has moved further away from consensus on changing the Crow rate even since the announcement by the Minister of Transport to modify the Bill. Whatever general feeling or consensus existed in the West has disappeared. Not only are the grain farmers and the livestock producers bitter and angry, the modification to the Bill to make all payments to the railways has not entirely satisfied the pools. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is still asking for more changes.
Let us look for a moment at this piece of complex legislation which bears the Liberal trademark of complexity and bureaucracy. Let us examine why the statutory Crow rate is so important to western Canada.
The statutory rate is a constitutional pillar which provides stability, simplicity and certainty to western Canadian grain producers. At .05 cents a tonne mile, the rate has been a valuable tool for producers in their planning. The statutory rate is about the only farm input cost providing cost certainty to farmers. The statutory rate provided the historical, social and economic base of western Canada which was founded on the production, distribution and marketing of grain. The statutory rate was a trade off and acted as a counterbalance protection from industrial based central Canada. The statutory rate recognized that Canada, as a trading nation, must be competitive and it buffered farmers from the artificial and natural advantages of other grain exporting countries. The statutory rate recognized that grain and oil seeds were natural assets to Canada, contributing positively to the balance of trade and economic spin-offs.
There are a number of ways in which this Liberal Government has betrayed the statutory rate and Members should know why our Party opposes the existing Bill. First, the principles of the statutory freight rate are not retained in this legislation. There is no guarantee of international competitiveness for the future.
Second, the freight rate structure will provide for openended escalation without consideration for farmers' profit positions or
the value of grain. The National Energy Program has escalated the cost of gasoline and diesel for farm equipment and has also driven up the other major cost factor, agricultural chemical fertilizers, to the point where a bushel of Canadian wheat costs over $1 more than in the United States. This latest Government bungle will further hurt the western farmer.
Third, the 31.1 million tonne cap will provide a disincentive to increase grain production. That is amazing. Any company sales manager knows enough to increase a salesman's incentive by offering greater reward for increased volume. Only a bungling bureaucrat could come up with a system that penalizes a farmer for producing more wheat and revenue for Canada.
Fourth, the blended freight rate and the prospect of variable rates will create a further disincentive.
Fifth, the Bill is a costly mechanism which will pay bureaucrats to produce more paperwork rather than farmers to produce wheat.
Sixth, the Bill will further mitigate against diversification and processing of agricultural production in western Canada.
Seventh, the Bill is overly generous to railways while neglecting the alternative means of shipping, such as commercial trucking or the farmers' own trucks.
Eighth, no provision has been made to reduce rates if costs should fall.
Finally, there are inadequate rail service performance guarantees and no incentive for the grain transport system to be cost effective and efficient.
We in this Party are not without positive suggestion and ideas with respect to this Bill and we have made them. The Government of Canada and the railways have a continuing obligation to provide a special low rate to assist Canadian producers competing with subsidized grain export nations or this valuable export of renewable resources will decline.
As well, producers should be guaranteed an efficient, cost effective and reliable grain transportation system. Producers should have the option, or choice, to ship their grain in the most cost effective way, whether by truck or train, rather than in certain instances being locked into inefficient local grain storage elevators and poorly serviced branch rail lines which, in many cases, simply adds to the cost of the product, reduces the farmers' profits, does nothing for the railway and serves the country badly. I believe I have one minute left, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Approximately.


James Gordon Gilchrist: The distortion of the low freight rates in grain and oilseeds vis-a-vis processed products should be removed and the natural advantage retained. Western Canadians have the right to jobs too. Grain producers must have a statutory freight rate which preserves the benefits of the Crow and must be protected from open-ended escalation.
We are dealing with what is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation to be brought before the House
June 16, 1983

in this session. This Government must not continue to act in its usual cavalier way but stop, look, and listen to what responsible and knowledgeable people are saying is wrong and damaging about this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.
Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak in support of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), that Bill C-155 be given a six-month hoist. I do so because the Bill is a confusing piece of legislation. It incorporates three different principles, and we should not have to deal with them all at the same time. It is not good legislation.
Simultaneously, the Government has done a good job to persuade some people that this legislation will benefit them. In British Columbia particularly there are some sectors of society and the economy that feel this amendment to the Crow legislation will be beneficial. Most of us who are Members from British Columbia have received telegrams from major forest industries urging quick passage of the Bill. I note that on June 10 the Hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways for British Columbia spoke before a ports convention. I shall read some of his comments:
We also recognize the importance of passing the legislation before Parliament rises at the end of this month. The changes that are proposed by the federal Government are critical to western Canada, its industry, its transportation system, and its communities. Like our national ports, the railways need a commercial base and a commitment of financial resources that will allow them to put the capacity in place that will be needed to move our resource products to world markets. There will be no point in developing our ports to handle growth if development plans are not matched by the railways.
Unfortunately, for the people of British Columbia, the Minister of Transportation and Highways, Mr. Fraser, sees only one aspect of the change. He isolates one factor and then uses it to suggest that the entire package will be beneficial to the people of British Columbia. That is just not the case because it ignores two basic things. First, by doing away with the statutory rates on grain shipments and allowing increased costs for shipping grain it opens the door for the possible diversion of grain to American ports in the Louisiana Gulf states because of higher Canadian freight rates. We have to ask what effect this will have on major British Columbia ports such as Prince Rupert, and especially Vancouver.
It has already been pointed out today that both the CN and the CP are involved in trying to gain control of old railways in the United States. We have to ask what is the purpose of that if it is not to serve as a way of funnelling Canadian goods through the United States? What is the purpose of us having American lines in the midwest? I suggest it is for export.
The second factor is especially important to British Columbia. It involves the Dominion coal lands. On March 15 my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), raised his concern and the concern of all Members of this Party about the 50,000 acres of Dominion coal
Western Grain Transportation Act
lands, worth some $450 billion, which were turned over to the Dominion Government as part of the original Crowsnest agreement. Clause 62 of the Bill leaves these lands with the federal Government. If this agreement is ended, why are these lands not to be returned to British Columbia so that the people of B.C. can begin to enjoy their benefit?
These lands are the richest coal lands we have in the Province at the present time, yet this Bill leaves them entirely at the mercy of an order in cabinet so the CPR or some corporation can get them again. The people of B.C. are not getting them again. That is why I and other Members of my Party would urge the Government of British Columbia to take a closer look at this Bill, and realize it is not totally favourable to the people of B.C.
It is not just wheat, but the total economy of our country that is involved. Other speakers in our Party from Ontario have pointed out the detrimental effects this Bill can have on the farm machinery implement sector of their economies. Of course, in our Party we are not only concerned about British Columbia, Ontario and the Prairies, we are concerned about the totality of the nation. We see this as one nation. We see the injury to one part of the nation as an injury to the entire nation.
In that connection I would like to read a short passage from "The Rowell Sirois Report" as follows:
Without the construction of all-Canadian transportation facilities and an appropriate structure of freight rates (and the huge public assistance which that entailed) each of the regions would have linked up with the railway system of the United States. The connections between the various parts of the country would then have been made through the economically and politically aggressive neighbour to the south. This development would have been much less costly; it would have avoided the vast overhead of bridging great physical barriers, and it would have enabled the most intensive use of facilities already available. With the lower costs which this would have permitted, the export industries would have expanded further, the rise in the value of their natural resources would have been greater and the income obtained would have been larger. There would, however, have been no secure economic basis for a Canadian nation. Hence purely economic criteria were put aside for the creation and maintenance of a political entity.
I suggest those comments are as true today as they were in the 1930s when they were written. An injury to one part of the nation is an injury to all. If we open up the way for the diversion of Canadian grain to American ports, we will be harming British Columbia. If we reduce the cash income of prairie farmers we will be doing damage to the manufacturers in Ontario.
Certainly people in our Party have documented the negative effect these changes will have on Canadian farmers. There will be a 500 per cent increase in the cost of moving grain between now and 1991. This will force small and medium-sized farmers off the land. We have seen the results in my Province of federal government policies and the way they have forced small and medium-sized fishermen out of their jobs. Now we see the same kind of thing being applied to farmers.
We are concerned about the effects of these changes on small communities. With variable freight rates there will be

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
much more use made of large trucks, branch lines, and branch elevators will be closed. Communities are going to be killed.
[DOT] (DUO)
Our Party proposes that this Bill should be divided into three sections. This was raised as a point of order this morning. It was also raised in a letter from our House Leader to the Government House Leader over a month ago, in which he suggested:
It is the opinion of the New Democratic Party that Bill C-155 is an unacceptable omnibus Bill that must not proceed in its current form. At second reading, Members of Parliament are required to vote on the principle of the legislation. With only a single vote, Bill C-155 would require Members to pass judgment on three distinct and vital issues. Attempts to speed legislation through the House in this form have not proven successful in the past and they result in unnecessary confrontations in the Chamber. We propose this-


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


James Douglas Manly: Could I have just a minute to finish this letter?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, an article appearing in the April 15 edition of the Vancouver Sun criticized British Columbia Members of Parliament for not presenting the Province's case for changes in the Crows-nest freight rate structure. The person responsible for making this assertion was no less than Mr. Don Lanskail, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia, commonly referred to as COFI. In the article, Mr. Lanskail is referred to as one of B.C.'s best-known lobbyists. His ties to the federal Liberal Party are well known and his Liberal credentials are impeccable. Not long ago he was rewarded by an appointment to the Board of Directors of the Canada Post Corporation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Some reward!


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I remember hearing someone recount the events that took place when Mr. Lanskail, this good lobbyist, attended his first Canada Post Corporation board meeting in Ottawa. Evidently he was picked up at his Vancouver office by a limousine, handed a first-class return ticket to Ottawa, picked up at the Ottawa airport by a limousine and installed in a suite in the Chateau Laurier. When it came time to return to Vancouver, the same procedure held in reverse. Limousines and suites for the high-rollers; taxis, buses and rooms are for the great unwashed. No wonder it costs more to mail a letter than to ship a bushel of export grain.
On May 9 of this year I received my first communication from Mr. Lanskail in his position as president of COFI, urging me to support the Minister and his Crow legislation. Along with his letter was a document entitled "The Position of the
Council of Forest Industries of B.C. regarding rail transportation capacity and statutory rates" dated August 1981. This was from the man who said in April of this year that British Columbia M.P.'s were remiss, if not late, in representing our Province on the Crow issue. Rather strange indeed that he saw fit to sit on a position paper for almost two years before it occurred to him that perhaps it should be shown to someone other than his Liberal friends in Ottawa. Perhaps he is overrated as one of B.C.'s best lobbyists.
In his letter, Mr. Lanskail proposes that we fully support the Minister's proposal, and also that we are expected to support the 1981 COFI position. If he had taken the time to re-read the 1981 paper he had hidden away, and to check it against the Minister's legislation, he surely would have noticed that the two are in serious conflict. For example, point four on page 13 of the COFI documents states, "Government funding should preferably be paid to the producers if a subsidy is required". They are advocating that Government funding should preferably be paid to the producers. Come, come, Mr. Lanskail, what are we to do? In your headlong rush to fall into line as a good Liberal, you have failed to amend your own position of 1981.
The other thing that annoyed B.C. Members of Parliament, and this was previously raised in the House by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), is the telex received on May 9 by all B.C. Members from Mr. Ken Benson, President and CEO of B.C. Forest Products Limited. He also urges us to forget our responsibilities to the rest of Canada and to support the Government line. Being aware of the B.C. resource industries' situation, we can understand their position, and I will refer to this later.
However, what we could not tolerate was the fact that Mr. Benson had been clumsy enough to send his telex for distribution to the Prime Ministers office. This practice may be economical and efficient, but it may have been more effective if we had been approached via the same avenues available to most Canadians. Being lobbied courtesy the Prime Minister's Office does not sit well with B.C. Members. I suggest Mr. Benson and Mr. Lanskail have something to learn about lobbying B.C. Members of Parliament. Fortunately, many executives of the B.C. forest industry are not connected to the Liberal Party and to those good people who we have listened to well and attentively.
Let us now look at some facts about the Crow rate and British Columbia. The main argument for altering the Crow rate centres around the fact that there is little incentive for railways to improve their western systems. In particular, the forest and mining industries are concerned that capacity constraints will cause a bottleneck for the shipment of their products. This is a factor of increasing urgency, not only to these industries but to Canada's export markets.
For example, in 1960 grain dominated the bulk exports through the mountains to the West coast. By the mid-1970s,
June 16, 1983

coal had surpassed grain by tonnage in these bulk exports. The latest agreements to sell B.C. metallurgical coal to Japan and other Pacific rim countries promises to continue this trend.
In 1979, forest products from B.C. made up 60 per cent of provincial exports and almost 9 per cent of Canadian exports. In 1982, a total of 4.94 billion board feet of B.C. lumber was shipped by rail. Of that total, 3.6 billion board feet was exported to the United States. Comparatively, shipment by water accounted for three billion board feet and highway shipment accounted for approximately 2.4 billion board feet. Obviously adequate rail service is vital to the good health of both the lumber and mining industries.
In 1981 the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia argued that rationing of western rail services was imminent because current rail capacity was going to be unable to meet the demand. This possibility has been delayed by the recession which caused severe cutbacks in lumber production. However, the point remains that rail service in B.C. must be improved in order for the B.C. economy to expand in coming years.
This does not mean that British Columbia should adopt the Government's proposals as outlined in Bill C-155. Probably of greatest significance is the fact that the current legislation fails to provide adequate rail service performance guarantees. Furthermore, there is no incentive for the grain transport system to be cost effective and efficient.
There is no doubt that this Bill is generous to the railways. Under this Bill the railways will receive 100 per cent of their long-run variable costs, 20 per cent contributions to overhead and 20.5 per cent contributions to capital. In fact, by 1990 the railways will receive a 100 per cent increase in the freight rate as compared to today. Mr. Carl Snavely, who has been commissioned by the Government on numerous occasions to determine the cost of moving grain, has stated that these provisions are too generous. Unfortunately, the Government has failed to ensure that money provided to the railroads will in fact be used to increase service at a rate required to increase and improve the system. Furthermore, for the forest and mineral sectors, there is an added disadvantage in that the British Columbia Railway will not benefit from such subsidies. Therefore, services provided by B.C. Rail will be slower to improve. Furthermore, there are no benefits to truckers in the proposed legislation.
All in all, the proposals outlined in Bill C-155 fail to provide the necessary measures to guarantee the improved service required by the B.C. resource industries which depend so heavily on the country's transportation system.
I would now like to briefly discuss how cattleman in British Columbia will be affected by changes in the Crow rate. At present, the Crow rate causes higher pricing for grain for feed in the West. The Crow artificially keeps transportation costs below what they will be without the price ceiling, so farmgate prices are higher in the west than they would be without the Crow. These higher prices reduce livestock production in the West.
Would the proposals of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) alleviate this problem? Not at all. In fact, according to
Western Grain Transportation Act
the Minister's own figures, these proposals will result in a loss of an additional $1 billion in livestock production and an additional $350 million worth of economic activity with respect to processing, packing plants and the feedmill industry in the West. This is not progress, Mr. Speaker.
The Progressive Conservative Party will propose an amendment which will make the Crow rate benefit optional. It will allow the producer the freedom to choose between methods of shipment and guarantee that railways will provide adequate service. We also propose that the railways should receive fair and adequate compensation in order to provide the necessary capital and maintenance of plant and equipment. We recognize that an increase in rail capacity is an absolute necessity and that railways will need extra funding to do this. However, this should not be at the expense of producers and adequate guarantees must be provided.
Finally, while I am a Member of Parliament from British Columbia, I am also a representative of all Canadians. It would be unthinkable for me to take any action which would be unfair to my fellow Canadians in other regions. Therefore, it is imperative that the Government ensure that prairie farmers retain the benefits of the Crow in order that they can compete with foreign producers who benefit from government subsidies. Failure to do so would be a disaster, not only to prairie farmers but also for the entire Canadian economy.
The proposals before the House today benefit neither the forest, mining nor cattle industries of British Columbia, nor do they provide a reasonable benefit sufficient for prairie grain farmers to remain competitive in the export market. For these reasons, the Government must adopt the amendments put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party when they come before the House.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to have a chance to speak on this very important Bill, but it is unfortunate that under the present rules I can only speak for ten minutes.
As the representative of the Churchill constituency, a number of my constituents expect me to fight and to fight as hard as I can to prevent the passage of this legislation. One of the main concerns the people in that region have about this Bill is that it will be a knockout, killer blow to the Port of Churchill. The very fact that within this legislation before us the Government will allow variable rates to be instituted means that the Port of Churchill will lose its natural advantage as the shortest route to Europe for a good part of the grain growing area.
As long as railways are forced to charge the same rate per mile, then Churchill has the natural advantage that it should benefit from. However, if the rail lines, as a result of this Bill, introduce variable rates which are much higher on the run from the middle of Saskatchewan to the Port of Churchill and lower on lines from the middle of Saskatchewan to either

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay or Montreal, then the people who work on the rail line in communities like The Pas, Wabowden, Gillam and Churchill, and those who work at the Port of Churchill and live in those communities will suffer very, very much.
With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment of my colleague from the New Democratic Party that this Bill be given a six month hoist. This Bill is not just a minor piece of legislation. This Party has always supported the traditions of the House of Commons. This Party which has been led in the House for so many years by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has always worked to try to get reasonable legislation through the House of Commons. But now we have been forced to take extra actions because to many, many western Canadians, this Bill is completely unacceptable. I could argue that because the Government has only two Members who represent constituencies west of the Ontario-Manitoba border, it has lost touch with that region. Perhaps that is true, or perhaps the few people it does listen to from western Canada have lost touch with the majority feeling in that region.
If 1 may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read an advertisement that was placed by the Manitoba Government in the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday, June 11, 1983. It is a full page advertisement paid for by the Government of Manitoba. The program of the NDP Government in Manitoba is supported by the minority Party in that Province, the Conservative Party. The ad reads:
DON'T EAT CROW! JUST BECAUSE IT'S PUT IN FRONT OF YOU.


Mr. Blenkarn:: That is only temporary. That is what is going to happen to you; you are crow.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I wish the Hon. Member from the extreme idiotic fringe of the Conservative Party would be quiet. This is a serious matter. I recognized that Members of the Conservative Party in the Province of Manitoba support the NDP campaign, and I would hope that Members would take the issue seriously instead of playing small minded and cynical games. If they wanted to play-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There is no mind over there, never mind small minds.


Rodney Edward Murphy: If Members of the Conservative Party want to play political games in the House, let me mention that they are only putting up one speaker to each of our speakers, instead of the three speakers they would put up to each of our speakers if they were really opposed to the passage of this legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Churchill was given the floor to make a speech. He should not be interrupted.


Some Hon. Members:: Why not?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He is not making a speech, he is making a political statement.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Far be it for any Member of the House to make a political statement, Mr. Speaker.
If I may continue by reading the ad that is supported by both Parties that have elected representation in the legislature in the Province of Manitoba, the Government and the other Party, as follows:
DON'T EAT CROW! JUST BECAUSE IT'S PUT IN FRONT OF YOU. We refer of course, to the present CROW rate issue that the federal government has placed before the people of Manitoba, and Canada. In an attempt to increase the farmers' cost of shipping grain from the prairies, the Trudeau government is trying to pass off the Crow changes as being good for our farm industry. They aren't! If anything, the proposed rate increases will have damaging effects on Manitoba's farm industry! And, that's more than a farmers' concern, because whatever affects our farm industry in the next decade will have a serious effect on the entire Manitoba economy. Changing the Crow Rate means losing jobs now (at the worst possible time) and for years to come.
Sure! We need an improved rail transportation system, but changing the Crow is not the answer. When the farmer loses, Manitoba loses. You, as a proud and concerned Manitoban, have a decision to make. Do you take a stand ... or, do you simply eat Crow? For further information, or to register your concern, please call collect. 944-2004.


Mr. Parent:: What is going on here?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If the Crow answers, hang up.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The ad concludes:


NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO EAT CROW.
[Stage Direction]
What I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that the people who live in my constituency, and those who work on the rail line to Churchill, and at the Port of Churchill are concerned about the passage of this legislation.
The Manitoba Government, through a resolution supported by both Parties in that House, has expressed its concern for the passage of this legislation. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) proposed the amendment that we hoist this Bill for six months. If accepted, it will meet the needs of those people in that it will give them the chance to organize opposition to the Bill. It will give them a chance to explain to Government Members why the Bill would not only hurt the Port of Churchill and the people who work on those rail lines, but would hurt the very economy of the Province of Manitoba and the other western Provinces. We are not talking about a benefit to one or two farmers or even thousands of farmers, we are talking about a benefit that helps the economy of western Canada. To kill the Crow is to kill that economy. To kill the Crow is to make the West even more alienated than it is at the present time. There is no use talking about reform of the Senate; there is no use talking about revitalizing the Liberal Party; talk about passing legislation which has the support of western Canadians. Obviously the legislation before us is going to kill our economy in western Canada. Obviously the petitions we have presented and those that we wish to present show that many, many western Canadians do not want this legislation to pass. That is why the motion of my hon. colleague should go forward. We should put this Bill on ice for six months and give western Canadians an opportunity to persuade the Government not to pass legislation which will hurt not only the farmer but the whole basis of the western economy.
June 16, 1983
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, when I first looked at the Bill I saw that it was a Bill for the movement of western grain. It should have been described as the railway subsidy Bill. It is a $651 million Bill to provide money for the railways. It does not require them to do a damn thing. They get $651 million per year for the next five years, then the situation is reviewed and we give them more money. They do not have to spend a nickle or a dime on track or improving transportation in Canada. This is a Bill to give $651 million to the railways.
If the Government were to present the Bill in that fashion, in that fashion only, and not tied to the movement of grain, then we might discuss the question of whether the Government of Canada should use the taxpayers' money to support the railways-but it proposes to tie it to the movement of grain. I say to you that there is nothing in the Bill that ties the subsidies to the railways and what the railways might do with that money for the movement of grain. The railways are not required to put down a single tie, lay a single length of track, or improve a single terminal. They are not required to do a darn thing but still, they get $651 million.
There may be some requirement in terms of moving grain and the products of the country but there is no requirement to improve the service or do anything other than they are doing already. It is a railway subsidy Bill.
My friend from the riding of Churchill spoke about the line owned by the Canadian National Railways which runs to the Port of Churchill. I have travelled that line by passenger train; it goes up and down through the muskeg; it carries freight cars provided they are not too loaded and provided the train is not too big or is not too heavy. You can get a train across that line although it is not much of a line. One begins to wonder why in 1983 we should have a railway line built to the standard and quality of that particular line. There is nothing in the Bill that requires the Government or the railways to use any of its $651 million to rebuild the line to the Port of Churchill. They do not have to rebuild that port either. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill. It subsidizes railways and does not do anything for the farmers or to improve the transportation of the country. The railways get money. Canadian Pacific may build up a bigger dividend and Canadian National may not have quite the loss it would normally have, but there is nothing in the Bill to require any improvement to rail transportation in the country.
Only certain parts of the grain growing areas of the prairie region are covered by the Bill. New land that may be opened up at some time and is not presently covered by the Crow rate subsidy is not included so it is only a portion of the grain growing area of western Canada that is included. It is not all protected by the Bill. This is a discriminatory Bill-a Bill that says Canada finished growing in 1982.
If you were to clear land in 1983 or 1984 and were to decide to grow grain, you would not be covered. The Bill is antiCanadian; it is against growth in Canada. This Bill is designed to terminate Canada. This Bill is a central Canadian Bill
Western Grain Transportation Act
formulated in Mount Royal where, as far as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is concerned, Canada has already grown to its maximum capacity.
The new lands in Canada cannot be developed because they will be subject to penalty. They will not receive any assistance in terms of transportation. If crop is grown on those new lands they will pay the full rate. Only the existing lands are to be covered. What kind of Bill to build Canada is this? It is a disaster Bill. It is a Bill that really does nothing to create the growth we need.
Let us look at some other parts of the Bill. This Party has suggested some sort of system whereby the Crow benefit-and there is no question that there is a Crow benefit because those who grow grain are directly or indirectly receiving a subsidy for the transportation of their crop to the seaport-should be paid directly to the farmer. Why should it not be? The farmer should use the money in the way he wants to-to hire the kind of transportation he wants to hire. If that transportation involves the hiring of a tractor and semi to haul grain to Vancouver or Thunder Bay, so be it. Perhaps he then transfers it to a port in the United States.
One thing about tractor-trailer transportation in Canada is that it can be a two-way street. At the moment there is more tractor-trailer transportation of commodities into western Canada than there is transportation of products out from western Canada. A great deal of capacity already exists on tractor-trailers out of western Canada that travel empty. The capacity is there to carry a great deal of our grain to port at compensatory rates. That will not be possible if this Bill passes, however.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as to the time. Are you sure the ten minutes have not expired? It seems like an hour and a half.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: No, the Hon. Member has one minute left.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the capacity of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) to understand logic. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre is only going to be in this House for a short period of time. He will have the opportunity to be here until the next go around with the public who will then have an opportunity to judge whether the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre can keep time. I am saying to you, Sir, that what we should give to the people who grow the crops in this country is the alternative, the right to take other forms of transportation. The subsidy, the implicit subsidy in the Crow rate, ought to apply to the people who grow the grain. They should be able to use that subsidy, that implicit subsidy, to hire the transportation they want. They should not be tied to the railways. They should be able to use their own trucks. They should be able to use other railways

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
which are not already covered, as in the case of the British Columbia Railway. They should not be tied down to the monopolies, and that is what this Government wants to give them, the monopoly treatment.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, you are prepared to rise. However, please remember that 1 was interrupted by that funny fellow, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Mr. Darling:: Thirty seconds more.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My colleague says 1 should have 30 seconds more. However, this matter requires a lot more than 30 seconds. We are dealing with a very serious issue in western Canada. The people of western Canada are entitled to fair treatment, to fair debate and to a fair understanding of their concerns. I say to you, Sir, that this Bill should not be pushed, rushed and mashed through by the Government, in this way.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wonder if the House might consent to give the previous speaker, by unanimous consent, more time. Such bizarre concepts should be explored in greater detail so that a diagnosis could be attempted here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Under our rules it is for the Elon. Member who has the floor to request on extension of time.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It would be a pleasure to ask for extra time. I am sure my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, would agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the House give its consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: No.


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the extra time-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I must inform the Hon. Member that unanimous consent was not granted to the Hon. Member to continue.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I was sure, Mr. Speaker, it was granted.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, at least the record reflects that we tried to assist the Hon. Member. There are occasions when no means yes, and it is unfortunate your ruling was in the negative.
It is a pleasure this evening to rise to speak on the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). There is no doubt that this particular legislation has caused a great deal of consternation across the country. It is a proposal to abandon a very long tradition in this country, a tradition which has supported one of the major economic sectors of the Canadian economy, the agricultural sector, as well as others, and it should not be abandoned in the way the
present Government has decided. There is no doubt that there are a great many problems with our transportation system which have developed over the years. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those problems in our transportation system are due in large part to the failure of the Government to fulfil its responsibilities and insist on investment by railways in upgrading the rail system in order to be provided with certain kinds of assistance over a period of time, and to insist that that rail system provide adequate transportation for goods and services in Canada.
The reason we are here today, Mr. Speaker, and I imagine it will be for a much longer period of time, is as a result of the tremendous controversy which exists in the country over this particular piece of legislation, this attempt to place on the backs of Canadians the responsibility which, in fact, should have been taken by the railway companies. I am referring both to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. The Canadian Pacific Railway was given enormous concessions in the Province of British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada. I would like to deal just briefly with my own Province of British Columbia in which from Victoria to Seymour Narrows, some one hundred odd miles up the coast of Vancouver Island, the Canadian Pacific Railway was given a 40-mile wide strip of land, forest and mineral resources, provided that it build a railroad to Victoria and that it continue to operate that railroad. The system contained enormous resources of coal, of timber and of land. Today we find companies like Marathon Realty with enormous land holdings which are based on that original grant given for the commitment the railway made to the people of Canada. The timber resources were used to catapult Canadian Pacific into large shareholding positions in major forest companies, including MacMillan Bloedel. Undoubtedly, the coal situation was exploited as well.
What we have today is a rail line going up and down Vancouver Island which is in very poor shape and it is proposed that it be abandoned. That is the Esquimalt-Nanaimo railroad. This particular piece of railroad is of intense interest to the people who live on Vancouver Island. It symbolizes the betrayal of Canadians by the railway companies. In a small section of this country, one strip of railroad runs just basically between Victoria and Courtney and is of tremendous interest to the people of Vancouver Island. The railway company has struggled for years to abandon that piece of territory. It has taken all the resources, taken away the benefits provided by the lands, the forests and the mineral resources. Now that they are gone, it does not want to operate the rail system any more. It does not want to keep the railroad upgraded and continually it has tried to abandon that entire system. Potentially it is probably one of the most lucrative trunks of the rail system in the country. With some input, some sincere input from the companies which now operate services on it, there is no doubt that a very viable transportation system on Vancouver Island could be developed. That is an example of areas where the railway has not become involved in developing its service,
June 16, 1983

especially in the marketing area. The railroad owners do not market properly the services of transportation. There are new ski resorts, new tourist facilities by the drove on Vancouver Island. There is a tremendous influx of people into the capital city of British Columbia, Victoria. Certainly, those kinds of opportunities to develop new markets have never been taken advantage of by the railway companies.
There is also a tremendously successful venture which has been put on to capitalize on tourism by the Government of British Columbia with the Royal Hudson railroad system in which the old steam locomotives were brought back and run on a tourist section over a period of time, bringing back history and enhancing tourism. This has been proposed numerous times for Vancouver Island, but the railway companies reject it out of hand. They want nothing to do with that stretch of railroad. They do not want to enhance the transportation of goods. They do not want to enhance tourism. In fact, they are into far more lucrative activities. They do not want to run the railroad any more. It costs too much money. The railway guaranteed to run that system in perpetuity. It guaranteed to build it. It has failed in its guarantee and we should take back the resources and take the railroad business out of there. It should become a public venture, a public utility.
The legislation which is before us today is reprehensible. It is the responsibility of the railways to build a railroad system, an effective railroad system in Canada, and those companies have failed to do so. The Canadian Pacific Railway is attempting to take money earned in Canada and buy 800 miles of railroad in the United States, to build and operate. It is absolutely contemptible that a company which is going to attempt to load the costs of building and maintaining a railroad system in Canada, for which it obtained billions of dollars in resources, is turning around and telling the Canadian farmer and Canadian taxpayer that they must build their railroad system if it is going to continue to operate it, and at the same time removing capital earned in this country to invest elsewhere. The CNR tried to acquire 2,100 miles of rail on the old Milwaukee line in the United States. A Crown corporation was taking capital from Canada instead of building and running the railroad system here. They want to abandon it and place the responsibility on the backs of taxpayers. That is not good enough. As far as we are concerned, that legislation sits where it lies and it should be put back for another six months.
My colleague in the Liberal Party is worried about mixed metaphors. He should be more concerned about the taxpayer and about providing a decent railway system in this country. If we were giving serious consideration to hoisting this Bill for six months while we had a chance to deal with a more appropriate alternative, the Hon. Member would not be worried about mixed metaphors.
There is another point that should be put on the record concerning the role the Conservative Party has played in the
Western Grain Transportation Act
whole debate. That Party does not put forward a policy for the Canadian people. It prefers to have it both ways, with its Members in their riding saying to farmers: "We are with you", but not coming into this House and standing up and fighting effectively with the numbers they have to hold this Bill until we can get better opportunities for the Canadian public. It is reprehensible that the Liberals and Conservatives are secretly together on this Bill. I notice some of them now stirring with concern, and I would be more than pleased to see them stand up-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is nice to see you smiling when you say that, Skelly.


Raymond John Skelly: -in appropriate numbers to defend the taxpayers and farmers of Canada. I certainly recognize one or two individuals over there and I can have some respect for them, but as an organization they have adopted a tactic which is virtually immoral. There is a lust for power over there. They have their tongues hanging out down to their knees, yet to a man and to a woman they should be standing up in order to hold this Bill back. I see the Speaker is giving me an indication that time is running out before the full truth can be told.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You have not said anything yet.


Raymond John Skelly: There are some serious issues involved here, Mr. Speaker. It is hoped that this Bill will be delayed for six months until we have further opportunity to study the matter, look at the serious problems in the rail system and deal with them in a manner other than abandoning the Crow rate. There is no doubt that there have to be improvements in that rail system. There are serious problems in the lumber industry and with resource delivery, but they are not to be solved on the backs of Canadian farmers. The CPR and CNR cannot pass off their obligation and take billions in resources and then throw the rest of it on the backs of farmers.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: I am a little astounded, Mr. Speaker, at the remarks made by the preceding speaker, my good friend, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). He speaks with such great sanctimony about the lack of contribution from Members of this Party. He knows full well that the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has spearheaded the debate and set out clearly the options the Government should have followed in dealing with this very serious problem. He also knows that Members of this Party are able to match that rag-tag group to my left speaker for speaker and person for person any time of the year in this House.


Ian Deans: I remember when you used to insist on three to one.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I do not know why he is so preoccupied with irrelevance when certain Members of the NDP in British Columbia have been hesitant to speak on this Bill because they are concerned about the forest and mine workers and everyone else in British Columbia-
26464

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Kempling:: the "Minnie Pearl" of British Columbia.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that I feel it is time to set the record straight, that indeed many of us from British Columbia have been speaking very strongly on this Bill and that it is time that the present speaker recognized that.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, that comment will receive the degree of attention it deserves.
What we are talking about here is something fundamental to the economy and history of western Canada. Although 1 presently represent a constituency in the mouth of the Fraser River where the only affiliation really with the railway is through the Roberts Bank super port, the port of export for the coal mined in the southeast corner of B.C., and of course I represent a Province where the forest and mining industries are very important, my roots, like those of many Members of this Party, are in western Canada. I grew up in a community in Alberta. In fact, I am honoured to say that when 1 was a small boy one of my honoured colleagues in this House, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), had been a member of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta for perhaps 25 years.


Ian Deans: One hundred years.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Perhaps he can speak better than I-


Ian Deans: We noticed that.


Thomas Edward Siddon: -of the origins of those people who went to western Canada in wagons, boxcars and rail cars to clear the land and build communities in a very hostile environment. I might say that I know the Hon. Member for Bow River has narrated the story about arriving in the coal mining community of Drumheller, where i was born, in a wagon in 1915.1 do not want to date him but he can speak much better than I about how important it has been to have the benefit of the Crow rate in order to ensure that the promise of western Canada was realized by so many of us.
It was my own great grandfather, Mr. Speaker, who packed his family in a boxcar three springs in succession and moved into the foothills of Alberta to a place called Westward Ho and established a farm there. He had returned to Ontario each year because of the difficult conditions, but finally, because of a strong-minded wife and a desire to become a part of the West, they stayed and the family spread and many of my relatives went into farming in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I know just how important this Crow rate is and how important it is that we do not make any major alterations in this historic rate structure established in 1897 and confirmed by an Act of Parliament in 1925. It is so fundamental to the culture and underpinnings of western Canada.
I have recollections of hauling grain with my uncles to grain elevators. I drove my first vehicle sitting in my uncle's lap. It was a John Deere tractor. I remember putting posts in and working late at night in the Prairie dust where real men knew
what real hard work was about. It would not have been possible to develop western Canada and build the communities, schools, churches, highways and all that has materialized in the West had it not been for this very fundamental measure, the statutory rate for shipping from those very bountiful grain-producing areas in western Canada. It is important that we recognize all of those pioneers and many new Canadians who came with the turn of the century to cut trees, pull stumps and set up small sawmills and clear land. Those same people singing songs around the piano are really part and parcel of the culture of western Canada. They would not have realized the great benefits they have today had it not been for this historical Crow rate structure.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, pointed out in this House a few weeks ago that farmers today are receiving $4.63 a bushel for wheat, and ten years ago they received $4.57. He pointed out just how little the price that is available to the western farmer has increased over the past ten years and how fragile is their situation, particularly in light of inflation in terms of fertilizer costs, land costs and interest costs, and the plight of the family farm which is susceptible to any major changes in the cost of shipping grain to port and to market.
Therefore, it is essential that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. Benjamin) be supported in the House because, as I have pointed out, and as many of our colleagues have pointed out, this legislation and initiative, which has only been before the House for about five weeks, is so fundamental to the culture and to the future destiny of western Canadians that it cannot be passed through the House in the twinkling of an eye. We cannot allow the Government to run roughshod over the rights and aspirations of so many western Canadians.
If one reads the Bill and its provisions with respect to calculating the actual rate which farmers will pay, one finds that there will be an utter lack of predictability on the part of the western grain producer as to what his costs will be from year to year. It is a very complicated, bureaucratically designed formula which will make it impossible to determine. Faced with the fluctuations in world price structure for grains and other agricultural commodities, it will be virtually impossible for the western producer to have the security of being able to plan ahead to know what area should be planted, what amount of equipment he can count on purchasing, such as new tractors, combines and the like, because of the uncertainty which this sudden change will impose upon him.
I realize it is designed so that the increase in the rate for grain would be gradually phased in, and there is much talk of a healthy subsidy to the farmers, something like $650 million a year. But in fact this will not be a subsidy to the farmer; it will be a direct cash grant to the railways. It is the railways of western Canada that we thank for helping to bind together all those rural communities and, in my own Province of British
June 16, 1983

Columbia, the resource enterprises of the various saw mills, pulp mills and mining operations. Therefore, we are grateful to the contribution the railways have made to the development of western Canada, but we also realize that they have obtained considerable benefits in return for the services they have provided in building railways and communities and binding together the people of western Canada.
We now read that the federal Government, as one condition of this agreement, will completely disavow any prior commitments with respect to a major block of natural resource, and that is known as the Dominion coal block in the area of southeast British Columbia, in that this block of between one billion tonnes and 8.5 billion tonnes of first rate metallurgical coal will become a windfall to the federal Government if this legislation is allowed to proceed in its present form. In fact, that coal block was a gift from the Province of British Columbia in return for a guarantee that the railways would continue to modernize and operate their services throughout western Canada and to provide for the shipment of grain, timber, mineral products and everything else that is rolling on the rails. The federal Government will have realized a windfall of between $16 billion and $75 billion if the legislation goes through.
1 think it is time we studied many of these factors in much greater detail. I therefore heartily endorse the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Regina East. I hope we can get on with passing it so that we can have this legislation set aside for another six months.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the Bill. I appreciate that once again we are hearing from two Conservative Members in a row, compared to my socialist friends to the left, who scrambled all day to find Hon. Members to speak in support of the legislation. I think this points to the difference between the two Parties. The NDP is interested only in obstruction. It has done nothing throughout this entire debate for the substance of the issue, and it has never addressed the substance because, quite frankly, Members of the NDP do not understand the substance, whereas in our case, we have worked to improve the Bill. We have demanded amendments. We indicated to the Government that we were not happy with the Bill as it came down. We indicated that the safety net is not sufficient for our purposes and, in fact, this was not even in the original Bill.
It was only through the efforts of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that we in the Progressive Conservative Party achieved the improvements in the Bill, meagre and insufficient though they are, whereas the NDP has no idea as to how to create improvements and improve the substance. We have seen that in the results of the election in Brandon-Souris, where the NDP was completely obliterated by the Progressive Conservative candidate, fortunately for the health of the nation and that seat.
I must admit that I listened to the debate on the six-month hoist with great amusement when I heard from Members of the NDP because, having placed on the floor the amendment asking for a six-month hoist, out of the other sides of their mouths they were saying, "Golly, there are some things in the
Western Grain Transportation Act
Bill we like". It is hard to understand why they hoist it on the one hand and like it on the other hand. However, I want everyone in the House to know that we in this Party have waited with bated breath to hear the Hon. Member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), the economic guru of the NDP. We all waited to hear his words of wisdom. It is much easier to hear the words now. He shaved off his beard for the election out there. It did not help, the NDP lost. However, he shaved it off so that he could look a little more clean-cut. We thought he would come back after the election and shed some light on this Bill for us. He was here the other day, when the Cruise missile debate was on. He was here in his place, not in his normal seat, but in place for the picture, and afterwards he was gone. Here we have such an important debate, but we do not have the economic guru from the NDP to enlighten us all. That was a great disappointment to us.
I was amazed and amused to hear the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). When he was finished, a page came up to him and asked him for his notes. I distinctly heard him say, "Do you think I would have made that speech and written it down that way?" Anyway, the page did not receive the notes.
Seriously, I want to speak for a minute or two about the importance of the Crowsnest Pass legislation. We in Ontario understand why the West feels so strongly about the Bill. There are a couple of reasons we understand. The first is that this Party, the Progressive Conservative Party, represents the country. We have the Members in the West to understand the full ramifications of what this Bill means to the West. It is a great disadvantage to the Party in Government that it does not have any Liberal Members west of Ontario. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it does have two. However, based on calibre, they do not really count. They just do not understand the depth of feeling that exists in the country concerning the Crowsnest Pass legislation.
It is quite evident to this Party that when the original agreement was signed, it was signed to give reduced rates for transporting grain across this big country of ours. It was pinned down to 5 cents a tonne mile from western Canada to the lakehead.


Mr. Neil:: Half a cent a tonne mile.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Half a cent a mile. Then, in 1925, it became a statutory matter. Be that as it may, as far as the actual legislation is concerned, what we are really discussing is what it means to the West, to the economic base of western Canada.
In the early years of our country, western Canada relied strictly on the grain economy. It was a big part of the economy of western Canada. That is why this statutory rate meant so much to western Canada. It was a subsidy for transportation. We understand that. We understand that this is a big country. It may not be all that easy for the people from Ontario and Quebec in the Liberal Party to understand that this is a big country, but we have the vision on this side of the House and can understand it. We subsidize the transportation of grain. We have no problem with that because we are subsidizing

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
other industries such as manufacturing and fishing. Can one imagine, when it comes to changing legislation, if the Kirby Report had been brought into legislation by being introduced on a Tuesday, debated on a Thursday and have had closure imposed on it on Monday? Can one imagine the Liberal Party doing that? Oh, no. That would hurt home to Liberal Members. When it comes to doing it to the grain industry, they have no hesitation in doing it quickly. That is what is behind the objections we have had to the actions of the Government on this Bill.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is misleading the House, I would like to think inadvertently. He knows very well that closure has not been imposed on this Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Closure has been threatened and hanging over this House for some time on this Bill, and the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) knows it. He knows that is the way the Government has operated some 18 times when it has brought in closure.


Mr. Ferguson:: Rubbish.


David P. Smith: Garbage.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Government has cut off debate and cut off free speech on at least 18 occasions. The only time it cuts off rubbish is when it cuts you off, my friend.
What did the Government do on this Bill? It introduced it on the Tuesday after two and a half years of press conferences by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). It started debate on the Thursday, carried it through the Thursday and the Friday, and then attempted to bring in closure on the following Tuesday. It was a threat of closure, a threat of closure. The Liberal Government fails to realize that this is a big country and that it takes a while for legislation and its full import to travel across the country.
By way of comparison with other legislation, I invite the House to consider the security service legislation which, putting aside the value of the Bill, at least is being carried forward properly. At least the process is proper. I give the Minister his due in that case. The Bill was introduced. Interest groups have had a chance to read it and to bring forward opinions. They have had a chance to inform Hon. Members of Parliament. There has been editorial opinion on it and a great deal of discussion. We feel that this legislation deserves the same treatment. This is why we have objected to this rush to judgment which the Liberal Party wants to make. We have not been given the proper length of time for the entire country to understand it.
1 want to discuss the reasons we oppose this legislation. We feel that the principle of a fair statutory freight rate has not been maintained in this legislation. We feel that this freight rate structure will increase the costs to the producers of western Canada on an unfair basis, because they will be paying double the existing Crow rate by 1985-86. That will take an
additional $ 160 million out of the economy of western Canada. In 1982, as a result of the high energy costs of the Government, which got in on the promise of low energy costs, the net incomes of farmers decreased 35 per cent due entirely to the Liberal Government. One does not have to be a grain farmer to understand that a 31.1 million tonne cap will provide a disincentive to increase grain production. If we are producing more grain, if our railways are rolling more often and we are putting more people to work, surely to goodness economics say that the price should go down, but the Government does not see it that way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And think of all the money spent on improvements.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: On improvements, certainly. Anyone who trusts the railways had better take a hard look at this Bill. Quite frankly we in eastern Canada do not trust the railways. The Government has let them get away with murder, whether it be VIA Rail, freight rates, CN or CP. Anyone who thinks that the railways will adhere to this without strict controls, which the makers and overseers of Canadair have failed to produce, or anyone who thinks that those people can control the railways, is really looking at this Bill with blinders.
I would like to conclude on that note. We oppose the Bill, but we will always do it based on thought, theory and in an attempt to improve it, not as the NDP does it, by pure obstruction.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the amendment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), having moved the amendment, has already spoken.


Ian Deans: There is no harm in trying.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having been rung:


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out!
June 16, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member who has just arrived may sit in the House but he may not vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate my opposition to the six-month hoist on this motion and my support of the Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a legitimate point of order. Earlier today the Government moved and carried a motion for extended hours. I should like to ask whether the fact that the Government Members refused to come into the House for four hours is a point of disorder.


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


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, it is high time Bill C-155 was referred to the Committee on Transport. The Bill is now being debated, and I simply want to say that the Crow rate is a matter that concerns all Members of this House. Consequently, I fail to understand why certain parties in the House are refusing to even consider the issue, with all its implications, before the Committee on Transport.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that everyone agreed the system must be reformed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On what grounds does the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rise?


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What is the point of order?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain seeks to be heard on a point of order. We have resumed debate and 1 have recognized the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance). What is the purpose of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. Order.


Ian Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for not getting to the point of order immediately but my light was not on-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: It never was.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order. The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Rosemont.


Claude-André Lachance: Everyone agrees, Mr. Speaker, that the rate system-


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is rising on a point of order, he should state his point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that earlier today I rose on a point of order that had to do with what I chose to call, in the language used by Erskine May, a complicated question. At the time I rose to discuss the matter you will also recall that the Speaker-the Deputy Speaker as I recall-indicated to me that the timing was inappropriate and that I ought to raise it when we are dealing with the main motion. We are now dealing with the main motion; therefore 1 should like to ask the indulgence of the House to put before the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -the argumentation 1 was beginning to develop this morning.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Ian Deans: 1 find it a little difficult to do that properly, given the rabble-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain on a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: What is it?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your intervention on my behalf. I do not know if you can hear me, but 1 cannot, try as I may.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that this morning I referred to page 380 of Erskine May, Nineteenth Edition,
Parliamentary Practice. Under the heading "Complicated Questions", it says the following:
The ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the House, the House may order such question to be divided, has been variously interpreted at different periods.
Erskine May goes on to say this:
In 1888,... the Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -ruled that two propositions-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must again appeal to the House for order. It is difficult to hear the Hon. Member and I ask Hon. Members to pay attention, perhaps, and let the Hon. Member make his point.


Ian Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker for again intervening. It is quite clear that certain Hon. Members, who shall remain unnamed, do not seem to care.


Erik Nielsen: Name them.


Ian Deans: Let me go back-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Let the Hon. Member make his point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Given that the Liberal Members apparently do not want to hear the point at the moment, and given that this is the appropriate time to raise it, would you, Sir, be prepared to permit me to reserve the right to argue the point on Monday? The reason being that since we already have an agreement for tomorrow's House business, I do not want to disrupt the business tomorrow by raising the point and, thereby, denying the Government an opportunity to have its Bills-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been recognized to make his point. He is invited to make his point.


Ian Deans: I go back, then, Mr. Speaker, to-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I am quoting from Erskine May. It reads:
In 1888,... the Speaker ruled-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has been recognized and I believe the Chair owes him the courtesy of at least allowing him to express
June 16, 1983

himself and to make his point. I feel it is an elementary courtesy that Hon. Members do owe to any Hon. Member of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I bring again to your attention the rule with regard to complicated questions. I point out to you that the application of the rule goes back to 1888, and I quote:
In 1888, ... the Speaker ruled that two propositions which were then before the House in one motion could be taken separately if any Member objected to their being taken together.
He goes on to say:
Although this ruling does not appear to have been based on any previous decision, it has since remained unchallenged.
The key is as follows:
A complicated question can, however, only be divided if each part is capable of standing on its own.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the question we now have before us, Bill C-155, is indeed a complicated question within the definition of Erskine May. I put it to you in the following way, Sir, for your consideration: There are three distinct principles contained within Bill C-155. Each of the distinct principles can be spelled out. Each one is capable of standing on its own merit. The principles are as follows: In the first section of the Bill, known as Part I, the Bill deals with administrative measures to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of grain. I submit that that is a question of principle, the decision on which should be made by the House of Commons separate and apart from the other parts of the Bill. The decision on the administrative measures to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of grain could be quite easily introduced in a Bill without either of the other two principles contained in this Bill being before the House of Commons. I will come back to that point in a moment.
The second principle contained within the Bill is the principle which speaks directly to the rates which will be established to be charged to farmers for the transportation of grain. I submit to you, Sir, that that is a principle quite different from the administrative measures to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of grain. The rates are a matter which could easily be dealt whith by the House of Commons in a separate Bill, as a separate principle.
The third principle in the Bill is the disposition of what is known as the Dominion coal lands. I put before the House, Mr. Speaker, that that principle alone, how the Dominion coal lands are disposed of and dealt with, is a principle which can stand on its own separate and apart from either of the other two.
1 raise the three principles because I want to suggest to you, Sir, that it is important for parliamentarians to be able to vote as their conscience dictates on each of the principles. I suggest to you that the principle which speaks to the redevelopment and administration of the railroads is a principle in its own right, not necessarily hinging on whether or not there is a change to the statutory grain rates or to the Dominion coal lands. The principle of changing the statutory grain rate is a
Western Grain Transportation Act
principle which can stand on its own merit and is not necessarily related to any redevelopment or upgrading of the railroad system, or to the disposition of the Dominion coal lands. I suggest to you, Sir, that the matter of the Dominion coal lands and its disposition is a principle separate and apart from the principle of the redevelopment of the rail transportation system and separate and apart from the imposition of any freight rate of any kind at all, grain or otherwise.
Therefore, we have three quite distinct questions before us and these are questions on which Hon. Members cannot necessarily vote en bloc. These are questions which deal with entirely different matters. There would be Hon. Members in the House of Commons who would want to vote one way or the other on how the Government of Canada should dispose of or deal with the Dominion coal lands. They would want to do that without any regard to whether or not we upgrade the railroad and without any regard to whether or not there are changes undertaken to the Crowsnest Pass arrangement as it applies to the freight rates charged to grain growers in western Canada. There are people in this House of Commons, men and women representing constituencies from all across Canada, who would want to be able to vote on the principle contained in the section which speaks to the redevelopment of Canada's railroad system, separate and apart from the question of whether or not there is a disposition of the Dominion coal lands, and separate and apart from whether or not there is a change which takes place to the grain freight rates as contained in the third principle. There are again Hon. Members who would want to vote one way or the other on the grain freight rates changes which are being proposed.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is ample evidence to show that Parliaments have in fact on a number of occasions dealt with complicated questions such as this by requiring that the question be split for the purpose of the vote, that the question be split into the three principal parts in order that each Hon. Member be able to exercise his or her responsibility in the way which he or she sees fit as they understand it, given that their constituencies may well have quite different needs and quite different priorities. The way this Bill is structured makes it impossible. It is necessary for an Hon. Member to vote on all three principles at one time whether or not that Hon. Member believes that the same vote is capable of reflecting his honest opinion as to how each of the three principles should be dealt with.
I would like to urge upon you that you give serious consideration to the implications of allowing a Bill such as this to proceed in the way that it does.
A Member who believes there ought to be a revitalization of the railroad system in Canada must vote on the disposition of the coal lands and must at the same time, with the same vote, vote on whether or not the Crowsnest Pass freight rate ought to be changed. That is wrong. Of course, the same is true with regard to the redevelopment of the railroads. I contend, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Speaker, that it is impossible for any Member of the House of Commons who can identify clearly the three principles involved-and I suggest surely no one would dispute those are in fact the three principles contained in the Bill-and who wants to vote on those three principles but cannot cast the same vote on each of them, is being deprived of his opportunity and obligation to vote according to what he believes is in the best interests of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I might say that it goes even to the privileges of Members of Parliament because one of the privileges of a Member of Parliament is the right properly to represent his or her constituents. That cannot be done as long as this Bill remains as one Bill to be dealt with in one vote, dealing as it does with three principles.
I will not take much longer, Mr. Speaker, but there are references I would urge you to look at. I point out that on January 26, 1971, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said:
There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
He was referring at that time to the very question of omnibus Bills, Bills with multiple principles. He was saying that there comes a time when the Government cannot simply go ahead and inflict upon Parliament its wish to amalgamate or put into one a number of principles and expect the House of Commons to be able to deal with them. He says that there is in fact a point beyond which the Government may not go in forcing Parliament to address itself to more than one question at one time.
In much the same circumstances, Mr. Speaker Jerome, in 1971, expressed some very deep concern about whether our practice in respect of Bills does in fact provide a remedy for the very legitimate complaint that a Bill of the kind being discussed gives the Government under our practices the right to demand one decision on a number of quite different although related subjects. Now, Mr. Speaker, I concede that one can determine that these subjects are related. At least two of them are. But they are quite different and they do meet the test of Erskine May that they are capable of standing on their own as separate pieces of legislation. I suggest that to require Members of Parliament to deal with this in the way the Government is doing would work to the disfavour and disadvantage of the obligation of Members of Parliament adequately to respond to their understanding of what is right within the parliamentary process.
I put it to you that there are numerous references worthy of consideration by the Speaker. I might say that I hesitate to go into them at great length because I am aware that the Speaker has available to him all the references applicable in this case. But I do point out that facilitating legislation is an important part of the parliamentary process, to make sure that legislation can in fact be dealt with in a proper and orderly way. I would urge upon the Speaker that it is quite clearly within his power,
as is pointed out in Erskine May, to determine that there are in fact three principles-


David P. Smith: Come on; this is the fourth time.


Ian Deans: That is fine. There are in fact three principles; that the principles, though related, are not intertwined; that they do in fact stand individually as principles in their own right; and that the Government could have, without reference to either of the two, moved any single one of those principles and put it before Parliament in legislation to be dealt with as it would have been dealt with. There would have been no need to do either of the other two. I think that is really the test that must be applied.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: It is not a question of whether the Government wants to put those three things together. That is not the question. The question is whether it is necessary for those three things to be together in order for this Bill to stand. It is quite clearly not necessary for those three things to be in this Bill. It is quite clear that any single one of them could have, in its own right, been a Bill before Parliament. Any single one of them could have dealt with a concern of the people of Canada in its own right. Any single one of these principles could have been dealt with by Parliament as a separate Bill and disposed of without in any way infringing upon the operation of the other two. Therefore I urge you, I plead with you, that in order that Members of this House can properly deal with this Bill-and this is not to suggest that all three matters cannot be dealt with-they must surely be brought forward as three distinct and separate questions.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has a valid point of order at all. He has cited Erskine May, page 380, with regard to some quotations on the issue of complicated questions, to the effect that the House may order such questions to be divided. It says "may", it does not say "shall", it does not say "must". He then refers to a quotation which said that in 1888 the Speaker ruled that two propositions then before the House in one motion "could" be taken separately.


Ian Deans: And were.


David P. Smith: It does not say that they must be taken separately. What the Hon. Member is suggesting is that because a piece of legislation which may involve several principles is before the House, somehow it is necessary to divide it into as many pieces of legislation as there are principles contained in it. That is, with respect, an absurd proposition. What it suggests is that at some time we might have a Bill which contains several hundred clauses with perhaps 15 separate principles. Would that mean that we then had to have 15 Bills so the Hon. Member could vote his own way on each one? The Hon. Member is suggesting that you cannot make tough decisions or go through various principles one by one and then wind up with a package. In the final analysis you have to make a tough choice. You have to vote for or against it.
June 16, 1983

He has referred on a couple of occasions to the ruling of Speaker Lamoureux on January 26, 1971, and again those of Mr. Speaker Jerome in 1977, on May 11, but-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I call the attention of the House to the fact that it is now 11 o'clock p.m.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a very brief point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, briefly.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I raise a very brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest, in the interests of orderly business, that this point of order be continued on Monday when the Crowsnest legislation is called again, rather than tomorrow.
Second, I would like to inform the Government House Leader that I have now had an opportunity to consult with my caucus with respect to the suggestion that Bill C-161, the Canada Student Loans Act, be brought forward tomorrow for passage tomorrow with one Hon. Member speaking on our side, and that we go through all three stages tomorrow in order that the students of Canada can receive the assistance which is badly needed in terms of today's economy.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I want to confirm that after having consulted with the House Leaders of both Opposition Parties, we have come to the conclusion that tomorrow the business will be in the following order: first, we will spend 45 minutes debating the electoral boundaries of the two Provinces which I mentioned earlier today. Then the first Bill to be debated will be the Student Loans Act. We have an understanding to pass the Bill through all stages with one Hon. Member speaking per Party. That would be followed, with the same understanding, by Bill C-148 and then by Bill C-147. Those involve the Farm Improvement Loans Act first, followed by the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Simply as a point of clarification, there is an understanding that the other two Bills, Bill C-147 and Bill C-148, will proceed through all stages tomorrow, but not necessarily with one speaker, but with sufficient speakers so that all three stages on both Bills will be completed.


David P. Smith: I rise on a point of order. Yes, may I confirm, Mr. Speaker, that when this matter is called again, I will have the floor to complete my submissions on this point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hansard record will indicate that the Parliamentary Secretary was interrupted.
I now recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.
Adjournment Debate


Ian Deans: Al, will you shut up? I simply want to confirm that the agreement-


William James Kempling: What an ignorant bullhorn.


Ian Deans: -indicated by the Government House Leader is in fact accurate and we will abide by it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In accordance with Standing Order 45-


Ian Deans: But we won't do it, then! I withdraw it!


William James Kempling: Little Ceasar.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -a motion to adjourn the House has deemed to have been moved and seconded at this time. Therefore, the question is that this House do now adjourn.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, in my question to the Minister on Tuesday, June 14, 1 made the Minister aware of the fact that I had received representations from both the Sarcee and Stoney tribal administrations about fiscal problems they are currently experiencing because of the incapacity of departmental officials to consult with band councils prior to forming and implementing policy decisions.
I want to be more specific today. The Sarcee tribal administration cannot agree to the stipulations in the H-12 Circular issued March 15, 1983 by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As a result of this disagreement, the Band Council has not had access either to its capital funds or to its budget allocation. The Band Council, therefore, is forced to borrow moneys to finance current expenditures. Money urgently needed to provide for the needs of the community is being wasted on the repayment of interest charges on outstanding loans. Moreover, although the Band Council has alerted the Minister's office to the gravity of the situation in which they now find themselves, they have not yet even had the courtesy of a reply. The moneys that the Band Council is currently using to finance operating costs will run out by June 24, 1983.
The Stoney tribal administration has recently been informed that it is responsible for the repayment of approximately $4 million as a result of an alleged royalty overpayment accumulated over a number of years. Although officials in the

June 16, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Minister's department have been aware of this potential problem since 1979, they did not alert the Band Council to this possibility.
Moreover, when the problem became a reality in 1981, officials from Indian Minerals West unilaterally negotiated with Shell Canada for a recovery process which began on January 1, 1983. At no stage in this process was the band council informed of these developments or consulted as to a possible resolution of the situation.
Although the particulars of these two cases are quite distinct, they both serve to exemplify the extent to which current policies of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are in direct opposition to statements made by the Minister of the Department. To prove this point, let me quote some of the Minister's statements in his appearance before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 7, 1983. He said:
As part of my commitment to improving the conditions for native people, I have tried to foster an environment in which their governments have been better able to meet the needs of their constituents.
Despite this commitment, the current funding bypass between the Department and the Sarcee tribal administration will force the Sarcee band to close its administrative offices on June 24 of this year. The Sarcee people face that serious problem, and the federal Government has not taken the time to discuss funding problems with them or to negotiate a reasonable solution to this current impasse. This blatant example of the federal Government's inability to work with Indian governments is particularly surprising to me.
The Minister also said on June 7:
It is important not only to understand what the place of Indian government in Canadian society should be. but also to understand how the Government and Indian people can work together to achieve our objectives for Indian government.
I sincerely hope that what I now see does not exemplify how the Government and Indian people can work together, for if it does there is little hope that Indian people can be optimistic about their future under this Liberal Government.
It may seem that I have been consistently referring back to this one particular speech. I have, but for good reason. The underlying theme of the speech was to emphasize the good will of the Minister and his Department to the Indian people of Canada and to emphasize the importance he places on full negotiation at all times so that Indian people and the federal Government may work in concert for a better future. Yet, whenever a problem arises that needs negotiation to be resolved, the Minister is never available. Instead, the Department simply continues to formulate policy which dramatically affects the daily lives of these people. When this policy is abhorrent to Indian people, they have no option but to submit to it or face bankruptcy. I realize that the Minister's time is limited and that he cannot address every issue personally, but there must be a mechanism in place that will allow Indian people, especially Indian governments, to participate in choices and decisions which affect their future.
Let me refer back to the present situation facing the Stoney Tribal Council. Because of decisions made by Indian Mineral West without consultation with the Stoney tribal administration, the band is now responsible for the repayment of approximately $4 million. In effect, what has happened is that funds allocated to existing projects and payments to band members have been cut to finance the repayment to Shell Canada Limited.
Let us be clear. I am not suggesting that there should be no repayment. Rather, I am suggesting that the Stoney tribal administration should have been party to the negotiation process or at least aware that it was taking place. I do not think that is satisfactory, but they should have known. How can the Minister in good faith continue to say that Indian governments should participate in deciding what their priorities should be when he allows, just to name one example, Indian Minerals West to decide unilaterally upon funding cuts to existing projects to finance the repayment of a debt, for which in all probability they are responsible in the first place.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the interest of the Hon. Member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger) in this whole question. But at the same time I cannot accept everything he has just said about the Department, about the Minister and about the Government. I think the Minister and the Department are doing a very fine job. In fact, the Liberal Government has done more for the Indian people of the country than any other Government.
I would like to add to the information which the Minister gave on June 14 in response to two questions by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). The first related to the alleged freezing of funds to the Sarcee band. This question related to the involvement or alleged interference by the Department in the affairs of the band and the way it is administered.
I would like to refer the Hon. Member to Circular H-12. He has a copy of it. This circular sets out certain requirements the Minister has to meet in respect to Indian bands' capital funds. These requirements are not onerous and are to some degree flexible to accommodate the different financial systems used by different bands. The requirement that basic information about what money is to be spent for or spent on is fundamental.
In the case of the Sarcee band, it has refused to provide any information about the purpose for which it proposes to use its band capital moneys. All we are asking the Sarcee band to do is to provide us with a simple explanation. It need not be in great detail. When that information has been provided, and I understand that regional officials will be meeting with the Sarcee band to discuss it, then the funds can be released immediately.
June 16, 1983

The question posed by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin concerning the Stoney band referred to the right of the band to make decisions about its own affairs. The particular case involves the exploitation of mineral resources on the Stoney reserve. This area is the responsibility of the Director of Indian Minerals in Calgary. Past practice has always been to consult with the Indian bands about matters affecting their resources, but the final decision must rest with the director.
The current situation does not involve a question of adjusting oil royalties or in any way changing the nature of the existing agreement. Rather it is a matter of paying the processing charges on natural gas produced on the Stoney reserve which have not been paid since 1979. This amounts to a little over $4 million. These charges are against revenues paid to the band of almost $120 million since 1979.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS-NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION-COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. (B) PRICE OF ELECTRICITY SUPPLIED TO PINE POINT MINES
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to register my complete dissatisfaction with the answer given on May 30 by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) to my questions concerning the report of the Parliamentary Subcommittee on the Northern Canada Power Commission, commonly referred to as the Penner Report. This report, Sir, was tabled in the House of Commons or made available on April 7, 1982, some 14 months ago. So far there has been no response to this report by the presumably or so-called responsible Minister. In answering my question on May 30 he only referred to part of the report dealing with possible subsidies. He completely ignored some of the other major recommendations contained in this report, recommendations such as the revocation of the NCPC monopoly in northern Canada. If this were to be revoked, as recommended in the report, a municipality or consumer of power would be able to accept bids from other suppliers rather than be trapped by the Northern Canada Power Commission, not being able to go elsewhere.
There are recommendations contained in this report dealing with better planning mechanisms so as to avoid the many mistakes of the past. One of the most important recommendations deals with the transfer of jurisdiction over power from the federal to the territorial Governments. Nowhere else in Canada, with the exception of a very small part of northern British Columbia, does the Government of Canada get involved in this type of activity. It is something that naturally falls within the jurisdiction of the Province. There is no reason why that should not happen also in northern Canada.
I sometimes wonder what the business of the Government is. Is it the business of the great Government of Canada to run
Adjournment Debate
little 200-kilowatt generators in remote areas? Surely we must be concerned with matters of national importance.
This report recommends a write-off of the great outstanding debt of the corporation, most of which is due to previous mismanagement, especially on capital projects. If we were in a province where power was supplied by private companies, such as Alberta, then the public utilities board of the Province would not allow these excessive capital costs to be rolled into the rate base. The responsibility for cost-over runs would be borne by the shareholders. This is not the case with NCPC.
The report recommends the authority of the Public Utilities Board in the Yukon and Northwest Territories to set the rates of the corporation, the same as for the few private power corporations operating there which are grandfathered in. Nowhere else in Canada is there a situation where the major supplier of power considers itself exempt and aloof from the regulatory process of a public utilities board.
There are a lot of things besides subsidization that should be addressed by the Minister and the Department. When it does come to subsidization, the concept in this report, the ideal or the goal, is that the average price of power in the Territories should approximate the average price of power in the Provinces. I do not think anybody can really disagree with that.
We have to realize the part played by the availability of electricity at reasonable cost in increasing standards of living in undeveloped areas. This should be recognized by the federal Government just as it is by provincial Governments in their rural electrification schemes. It is certainly recognized by Canada in the case of Africa. In 1982 CIDA gave $328 million of Canadian taxpayers' money for electrification schemes. It did not give one nickel to the undeveloped areas of Canada's North.
On many previous occasions have we asked the Minister what he is going to do about this report. When I asked him on November 2 he said he would reply shortly after Christmas. On and on it goes. All he does is commission further studies. He has had a departmental study on the NCPC and now has asked the National Energy Board to again review the matter. The matter has been studied to death. It is time for action and decisions, not further studies. It would appear that the Minister is just incapable of decision. A Member on his side is so frustrated that he said, as quoted in a CBC report dated May 10, 1983:
Keith Penner, the Liberal Member of Parliament who chaired the parliamentary study into NCPC says the federal Government shows a lack of will for not adopting his committee's report and that referring it to the National Energy Board is a delaying tactic to buy more time.
That is also my opinion, the opinion of my constituents and the people in the Northwest Territories and Yukon.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be able to comment on the northern energy policy activities which have occurred since the Penner Report was issued about one year ago.

June 16, 1983
Adjournment Debate
The subsidies on electric power to residents of the North outside of the Territory capitals were extended to March, 1984. This program, coupled with the 6 and 5 per cent price guidelines which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) directed the Northern Canada Power Commission to adopt has saved consumers many millions of dollars in both Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The cost is fully absorbed by the federal Government.
It should be noted that rather than reducing capital spending during a period of reduced demand, the Government has in fact dramatically expanded the expenditures for capital works by the Northern Canada Power Commission. In 1981-82, NCPC capital expenditures were less than $10 million. This was increased to over $40 million in 1982-83, and for the current year is expected to be in excess of $20 million. These expenditures are for hydro investment which should enhance stability in electricity costs over the long-term. They are also a major source for construction employment throughout the North. This is a start on a long-term objective to reduce reliance on diesel powered generating plants.
The Penner Report did not address the issue of how to reduce costs over the long term other than by further expensive Government subsidies to consumers. It is the Government's belief that equitable pricing of energy in the North is necessary. However, this should be coupled with programs that encourage energy conservation and with programs that provide alternative sources of energy. Activities of the federal Government are now concentrated on achieving these objectives.
With respect to the equity of electricity pricing, the Minister requested that the NEB examine the methodologies of rate setting by the Northern Canada Power Commission and assess alternative approaches to regulation of electrical rates. The proposal in the subcommittee report that rate ceilings be fixed, regardless of generating costs, would discourage conservation and delay the development of more cost effective alternative energy sources. The Minister's discussions with the territorial Governments have also confirmed that they too are primarily concerned with the development of local alternate energy sources.
The recent decline in energy demand in the North illustrates the vulnerability of any utility which relies on such a small number of customers for its revenue. In times of acute financial decline, NCPC as a federal Crown corporation can still receive some form of assistance from the federal Government. Any change in ownership of NCPC would alter this support and the financial implications of this are still being examined.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret interrupting the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, but the time allotted to him has expired.


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION-RULINGS ON RAILWAY BRANCH LINE ABANDONMENTS IN MANITOBA. (B) REQUEST FOR PROTECTION OF SUBDIVISIONS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to be able to follow up on a question I raised on Thursday, May 12, with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I am especially happy since my fiance, Lois Reimer, is
in the gallery tonight to observe me debate this particular question.
I was not very happy on the day the Minister of Transport responded to my question because he mentioned that he was very happy with the record of the Canadian Transport Commission. He said that 88 per cent of the branch line systems we had in the 1930s were currently in place in western Canada. 1 tried to point out to the Minister at that time that 100 per cent of the submissions the CN and CP had made in Manitoba were abandoned. I was very displeased by the Minister's use of those kind of statistics because he certainly did not seem to be grappling with the particular problem.
I have a list of the 18 hearings that have been held in Manitoba by the CTC. The CTC had established a western arm with the sole purpose of assuring that a more sensitive and decentralized hearing would be given to the people in western Canada whose rail lines were being abandoned. We have the record of the CTC hearings regarding the Cabot subdivision, the Boissevain subdivision, the Varcoe subdivision, the Ridge-ville subdivision, the Neepawa subdivision, Pleasant Point subdivision, Carman subdivision as far as the CN is concerned, and the Carman subdivision as far as the CP is concerned, the Wawanesa subdivision, the Hartney subdivision, the Lenore subdivision, the Neepawa subdivision, the Rossburn subdivision, the Lyleton subdivision, the Oakland subdivision, a portion of the Erwood subdivision, the Winnipegosis subdivision and the Inwood subdivision.
I list all these hearings because I think it is important to see what has been happening in western Canada as far as rail line abandonment is concerned, and so the Government can understand the frustration of people in western Canada in constituencies such as Dauphin-Swan River. When a hearing comes to town it is referred to as a three-ring circus. The hoops are set up and constituents are expected to hop through them. The results of the hearing are given out even before the CTC has had an opportunity to read the submissions that have been filed.
I express concern at this time because I think it is high time the Minister looked into the situation and at some of the lines that have been slated for abandonment to ensure that some positive action is taken.
I want to refer to at least two subdivisions which are slated for abandonment in my riding. The Oakland subdivision is slated for abandonment on August 31, 1984. Four Manitoba pool elevators operate on the portion of the line which is up for abandonment, and one of the elevators on this line was upgraded considerably during the Spring of 1982. The grain producers of the area depend very heavily on this line because otherwise they would be faced with insurmountable long hauls for their grain.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to be here tonight. When I raised this issue with him and told him that 18 hearings were held, and that 17 of the decisions on
June 16, 1983

those lines were made in favour of the CNR, he expressed doubt. Then he did some independent research, and I have a copy of the results which he passed on to me. The special assistant to the Minister of Transport indicated that in Manitoba it is true that in every application heard, the CTC has decided upon abandonment. This is certainly not justice, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is very important that we look at the issues. The PRAC Commission said that if there were a trucking subsidy or some other way that farmers would be able to cope with the expense of hauling their grain, then perhaps there could be some sort of consideration given to rail line abandonment. I have a letter on file from the Minister which indicates there is no way he would even consider any kind of trucking subsidy, yet the Government allows these types of decisions to be made by the CTC.
The Parliamentary Secretary who is in the House to answer my question tonight is pinch hitting for the Government, but I am sure he will pass my concerns on to the Minister. First of all, why is there an inconsistency? There are lines in Saskatchewan, which do not handle anything like the same amount of grain as handled in those areas in Manitoba that are up for abandonment which have been granted an extension. Why is there this type of inconsistency on the part of the Government in terms of decisions that have been allowed?
When hearings are held, the CNR always makes a representation, and the people who support it are given an opportunity to say what it will cost the CNR or the CPR to maintain the line. But there is never any kind of assistance given by the Government to anyone else, such as PRAC, to indicate the economic impact on the community. Why is there no opportunity for people who have served on PRAC, and people within the Department of Transport such as Mr. Henry Roperts, to make adequate presentations indicating what the economic impact would be on those communities?
I would like to hear answers to these questions. I would like to see these injustices which exist where these railways are being abandoned rectified. I hope there is something in the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary which will at least address some of these questions.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that after listening to the Hon. Member, I would be tempted to agree with him. Of course, I too would like to have my own airport. Hon. Members of that
Adjournment Debate
Party are the ones who cry when the deficit goes up. How can they reconcile this?
It seems to me the Hon. Member has two concerns. One relates to what he describes as "the tarnished record of the western division of the CTC". The other is in regard to the hearing process conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission into branch line abandonments.
Dealing first with the second concern, the Hon. Member objects to intervenors going to what he calls a "three ring circus". I am not sure what he would suggest as an alternative to these public hearings. The Railway Act provides for public hearings, and the CTC makes every effort to ensure that all interested parties are heard on abandonment cases. The Act requires that the CTC determine the viability of branch lines and that it consider socioeconomic factors in making its determination. The alternative to this process would be to allow the CTC to make arbitrary decisions, which 1 am sure the Hon. Member does not want.
The Hon. Member's other concern is the record of abandonments in his region, and I recognize and compliment him for having the best interests of his constituents at heart. For the record, Mr. Speaker, since the western division of the CTC was established in July, 1979, there have been eight railway abandonment hearings in Manitoba. Of these eight, there is a decision pending on the Erwood Subdivision for part of the line, and a decision has been made on the Rossburn Subdivision allowing a part of the line to be abandoned on condition that a connecting rail line be constructed to ensure the continuation of adequate service.
I understand that as a result of the Hon. Member's question on May 12 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) arranged a meeting between the Hon. Member and a senior official of the Department of Transport to review the Hon. Member's concerns. 1 hope this meeting was useful.
I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that, in addition to the process described earlier, decisions of the CTC can be appealed to the Governor in Council. In conclusion, the Government believes that the process for branch line abandonment is extremely fair, and allows all factors to be carefully considered before a decision is taken.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 11.34 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, June 17, 1983