1983-11-04

REMEMBRANCE DAY


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me as Minister of Veterans Affairs to remind all Hon. Members that next Friday is Remembrance Day.
I will have the happy duty next week of accompanying a number of First World War veterans to Vimy Ridge. For these veterans it will have been 65 years since the Armistice ending the First World War signalled their salvation. They had survived the bloodiest conflict in history, and bequeathed to Canada a reputation for gallantry that has been untarnished by time. Remembrance Day was intended to commemorate the memory of those who lost their lives in the "war to end all wars", but on November 11 Canadians will also be honouring the victims of later conflicts.
Next year, Mr. Speaker, another generation of Canadians will be returning to France to recall the fortieth Anniversary of D-Day, the day that returned hope and freedom to millions of Europeans held prisoner in their own lands.
Last month, Canadians went overseas to honour the sacrifice of those killed in yet another war. A delegation went to the Far East to mark the thirtieth Anniversary of the end of the Korean conflict. The welcome given to these Canadians by the people of Korea left no doubt about the enduring respect our forces won in the service of the United Nations. Mr. Speaker, more than 110,000 of our countrymen and women died in those wars. Many others returned home with injuries that would be a permanent reminder of the pain of war.
Next Friday, on the sixty-fifth anniversary of the event that led to Remembrance Day, we should, above all, remind ourselves that Canada's commitment to the almost three-quarter million veterans alive today and their families has no cut-off date, no sunset clause. This commitment continues until the last veteran and the last dependant of a veteran has passed away. They gave of their best, and, in return, they deserve the best.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), our critic for Veterans Affairs, for affording me the opportunity in joining with the Minister in this tribute, an opportunity I have never sought in the lengthy time that I have been in this House.
Sixty-six years ago, on November 11, 1918, the guns were stilled on the Western Front and Allied and German troops fraternized in the mud of Flanders. Some 41 years ago, the sons and daughters of these same men once again laid down their arms after years of the most horrendous carnage the world had seen, involving battle-fronts in all the corners of the world. Such was our good fortune historically that the gods of war stayed away from our shores in this country, except for brief incursions in 1759, 1774, and 1812-14.
Today, the fires of war are flaring in the Caribbean and Central America as two conflicting world philosophies meet in deadly confrontation. It is our hope, and that of all men solicitous for the continuation in prosperity and hope of the human race, that diplomacy, understanding, and mutual selfinterest, will outlaw war from this planet.
Today, with hope for the future and reverence for the past, we mark the deeds of those who have passed into the shades of history. Although vanished, they have gained immortality for their achievements.
Men and women fought and died 40 years ago-and many who fought are still living-so that freedom should not perish. Freedom to those of us who are veterans was more than an abstraction, more than an ideal to serve as a centre-piece for commencement addresses. Freedom was something we understood in the very fibre of our natures, something without which life was not worth living.
Freedom is that without which all of the other blessings of human living become merely ashes. Freedom is man's capacity to pursue individual goals as well as the goals set by society. Freedom is the right to create, to preserve, to nourish the original flashes of human genius without requiring the approval of the state. Freedom is man's right to reach for the stars, whether or not his grasp is adequate to attain the creative ideals which his nature conjures up.
The exercise of real freedom demands peace. There can be no full exercise of freedom in war, where everything is subordinated to the military objective. No society can be more desirous of peace, more anxious to attain it, and more eager to preserve it, than a free society.
The upward movement of the human mind required to produce great literature, art, ballet, technology and other creative arts must have that free play of the human mind which comes only with peace. The free world is dedicated to the cause of peace and the freedom of men's minds that goes with it. We shall do all that must be done to preserve it, and shall avoid everything that threatens its attainment.
COMMONS DEBATES_______________________________November 4, 1983
Remembrance Day
While the cause of freedom must never intrude in the domestic affairs of others, nevertheless it must be prepared to respond when freedom is endangered. Freedom cannot be imposed on those who reject it, but it cannot be withheld from those who are willing to make an effort to retain it or to attain it.
Recently, in this House of Commons, Prime Minister Thatcher of Great Britain said, "It is time for freedom to take the offensive." Freedom cannot take the offensive by closing its eyes to the incursions of those who sponsor aggression and total control over minds and bodies. Justice may be blind but freedom cannot be, if it intends to survive. Nor can freedom be the cherished possession of the few while denied to the restless and helpless millions around the world.
Freedom stems from the very nature of humanity, from the fact that men and women are gifted with intelligence and the capacity to choose for themselves. By so much as they are denied that right, by so much does humanity suffer.
When creative thinking is placed at the service of the state and reduced to a servile status so that the best and greatest minds are denied the capacity to function creatively, then this is an assault on the very nature of man.
Joseph Howe, in the early days of this nation, had this to say:
Let a wise nation preserve its monuments, decorate the graves of its illustrious dead, repair its great structures, and foster national pride by perpetual allusion to the glories and sacrifices of the past.
All Members of this Chamber, and particularly those of us who are veterans on both sides of the House, join with Canadians in this pledge to our fallen comrades. We shall remember them. Their memory is green in our hearts.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be able to join with my two colleagues in offering, on behalf of this Party, and in particular on behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), our Veterans Affairs critic, some words on the eve of Remembrance Day.
Each year on November 11 we pause, albeit for a moment, to remember the horrors of war, to remember those who died, to remember those who returned from the battle, broken, disabled, and in some cases devastated.
Those of us who lived through the destruction remember the bombs and sirens, and the panic and the blackouts, and the gas masks and the fears-the fear of a letter that might arrive any day from the War Office. We remember the end of the conflicts. We remember the celebration of victory, and we remember the relief tnat was felt that, at last, it was over. We remember the triumphant return of men and women to their homes and families, and the tears for those who could not return.
We vowed-I remember we vowed-never again. We vowed our enthusiastic commitment to peace. We understood that we owed a great deal to those whose lifetimes would be ones of
suffering, and we owed a great deal to the widows and families of those who had lost their lives. We were prepared to make sacrifices to make sure that those who had returned, and those who had lost, would never want.
I ask-have we kept the faith? Could we have done better? Have we truly remembered as we promised we would?
We remember all those things on November 11 each year, but that is not enough. We are once again poised on the brink-another world war, perhaps? All around, the signals warn of the possibility-armed conflict in the Middle East, armed conflict in the Caribbean, armed conflict in Afghanistan-wherever you turn in the world it seems that those who have disputes settle them by armed conflict. We see terrorism and fanaticism. We watch as the super powers play politics with weapons capable of total destruction.
1 ask, has the sacrifice of all those who went through the wars been forgotten? I do not think so, but I do believe that the passage of time dims the memory.
We have to remember every day, not just on November 11. We have to rededicate ourselves to the necessity for peace in the world, to showing by our example, our gratitude to those who fought in wars that were intended to end all wars, by taking up where they left off, and by re-echoing the plea that I remember, and I am sure many here remember-for God's sake, never again.
On behalf of my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), whose battle for veterans has been and continues to be never ending, and on behalf of all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I join in paying tribute and in pleading that in the years ahead we will try to pay our debt to those who served in World Wars 1 and II, in Korea, and in the other conflicts as part of our peace-keeping effort-conflicts in which we participated willingly. I pray that we will remain mindful of the need to develop throughout the world an economic order that will eliminate poverty and want for all people, and to that end, eliminate, once and for all, the need for war.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I have chosen to chew on my own political umbilical cord one more time. A politician who is not sensitive to the need for eternal infatuation with the news media is, to be sure, a person with lonesome neurons. Nevertheless, I elbow our centralized news media about national issues with regional roots.
November 4, 1983

For the better part of a year Canadians have heard about the Crow rate. The media would have them believe the issue deals with excessive debating, hours of petitions, Members of Parliament still speaking and poking holes in the air with their fingers at 4 a.m., and a beautiful Member of Parliament with silver, curly hair being ejected from the House of Commons. Most Canadians have come to believe that the Crow rate and parliamentary tactics are synonymous.
The majority of Canadains were never educated, however, to the fact that the Crow rate is not just a western issue but a national one. Annually it impacts on $6 billion worth of relief to our balance of payments. It affects the capacity of western producers to purchase central Canadian goods.
Some will argue, with legitimate logic, that a total payment of the Crow benefit to the railways will devastate the western meat industry and other value added economies. Others will argue that variable rates will change the map of prairie Canada, diminishing its towns and villages in favour of a few widely dispersed prairie cities.
Few realize that the present Crow rate legislation does not have the support of any of the prairie Governments or of a single prairie farm organization. Let us hope that Knowlton will give a balanced, objective, educational media report on this national issue before he "Nashes" another goodnight.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the native people in my riding are very pleased with the news that the special report on autonomy and native rights was presented yesterday. I think some words of congratulations are in order for the Committee, which did tremendous work on recognition of native rights, and I feel this is the direction in wich all native people want the Government to go. However, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the obligation of the Government of Newfoundland to recognize Indian hunting, fishing and trapping rights in Labrador. For four years, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been trying to get permission for native people in Labrador, in the Schefferville area-they are practically the only people left around Schefferville-for native people born in that region, to hunt, fish and trap according to their traditional ways. However, the Conservative Government of Newfoundland has always denied the Indians this absolute right to live according to their native traditions. Mr. Speaker, speaking from the floor of this House, I would urge the Government of Newfoundland, and especially Mr. Brian Peck-
5.0.	21
ford, to acknowledge as of this fall, that Indians in the Labrador region of Newfoundland have hunting, trapping and fishing rights. This is extremely important, and there are daily examples of flagrant injustice in this part of our country, and I think that if our friends opposite agree with the philosophy of the report presented by the Special Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we should immediately put pressure on the Government of Newfoundland to recognize this absolute right.
* *
*



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, because of my concern with the very high level of unemployment in Canada, and the fact that small business is one of the hardest hit sectors with respect to lost jobs-in fact 700,000 to 800,000 jobs were lost in the small business sector between January, 1981, and February, 1983-I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) during Question Period yesterday a very simple question, namely, whether he would consider introducing employment tax credits for small business since it is a widely accepted fact that small business, despite all obstacles, still remains the largest potential provider of new jobs.
I expected a civil answer from the Minister, particularly because, when I asked him a similar question a few months ago, he thanked me for recommending such a positive idea and said that it was worth while pursuing. Yesterday, in his answer, you will recall that the Minister, in his pompous and arrogant way, did not even address himself to this very important question of creating jobs within the small business sector. Instead, he rattled on at length about unrelated matters. Obviously the Minister of Finance is either hard of hearing or he intentionally attempted to mislead this House. In any event, I want to emphasize to the Minister that, despite his apparent disinterest in the potential of job creation within the small business sector, and his obvious fixation with bailing out large multinational corporations instead, this Party is committed to pursue all positive incentive oriented recommendations-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



THE MEDIA


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, major events in our global community occur with such suddenness that many people are caught unaware and they become uneasy and anxious. This
28780

November 4, 1983
insecurity arises partially because many are ill informed and often confused by international events as they unfold.
For Canadians, the major sources of information about global incidents are the newspapers and television. However, the main thrust of reporting in the visual and print media is "news as it occurs", with little attempt to provide background data to put the news in a historical perspective. The communication of appropriate background information to current news is vital if Canadians are to be more aware of world events.
It is time that serious consideration be given to the establishment of a more in-depth international component to our national television networks and newspapers, with more emphasis given to ongoing news and information about the various regions of the globe. This information should be presented in such a way as to provide substantive historical and cultural background material, as well as a review of current political, military, and social developments while limiting, as far as possible, slanted views and editorial comments.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House I spoke about the situation where Canadian immigration lawyers and consultants flocked into Hong Kong to take advantage of the difficult situation there. Some put misleading ads in the papers, and charged big fees for work the Canadian Embassy could do for nothing. It got so bad that the Embassy took out counter ads. This situation gave Canada a bad reputation.
I am happy to report to the House I have had discussions with the immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association, whose members are self policing and who report bad or misleading ads, and are trying to upgrade the status of immigration lawyers generally. I think that is a very good response. In return, I would like to ask that the Government and the Minister responsible upgrade our immigration offices in Hong Kong, Islamabad, and in Delhi. The people are burning out there. Money to improve the facilities there is tied up in Treasury Board.
There is a further problem. I warn the Government that the immigration policies themselves are inequitable. The implication is that if you are a Chinese Canadian with a brother or sister in Hong Kong, you cannot get them in under family reunification, but if you have $250,000 or $300,000 you can almost buy your way in by investing in a business in Canada. That is not really fair or just.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Andrei Sakharov, a brilliant physicist, was the key figure in Soviet development of the hydrogen bomb. For 20 years he was a pillar of the Soviet establishment. As the years went by he saw the folly of communism and called, first, for a halt to the testing of nuclear weapons in Russia, and later declared that the state monopoly "inevitably entails servitude and compulsory conformism . . . people become hypocrites, time servers, mediocre and stupidly self-deceiving." But because communism permits no one to speak against the state he was arrested, and today he is dying without medical treatment in Gorki. 1 join with the whole free world in asking that he be given medical treatment and his freedom.
The pioneers in Canada built this country on free enterprise, but the Liberal Government has been moving Canada more and more towards a socialist state. The PC Party, under our Leader (Mr. Brian Mulroney), the next Prime Minister, will return Canada to the basic principles of free enterprises which made this country great. We will encourage the entrepreneur, the farmer, and businessman to invest and hire Canadians and expand their businesses. Profit will not be a sin, and taxation will leave some of the money earned in the pockets of the earners and producers. Like Sakharov, we will recognize that economic freedom is the best pre-condition for freedom of thought, creativity and productivity, and Canada will reach the greatness envisioned by our founders. May that day come soon!



SOCIAL SERVICES


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Government has instituted a very restrictive requirement for people applying for social assistance. This should not be tolerated by the federal Government. In order to receive social assistance, a person must have lived in the Yukon for one year and worked for three months out of the last 12. Even long-time Yukoners must prove they have made a serious effort to obtain employment. This requirement is causing considerable hardship for people who have no other source of income and require basic help in acquiring food and shelter.
The Yukon is one of Canada's most depressed areas. The mining industry is virtually closed down. Bankruptcies have increased 100 per cent, and unemployment insurance claims are up by 86 per cent. Depleted unemployment insurance benefits are forcing workers to apply for social assistance, only to be faced with these onerous requirements.
November 4, 1983

The federal Government has a direct responsibility for social services in the Territories and must not condone these unjust requirements. However, the territorial Minister has stated that federal Canada Assistance Plan representatives, as well as federal auditors, did not object to this policy. I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to put an end to this unjust and hurtful work requirement policy.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we have recently heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais), and even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), make emphatic statements regarding Canada's commitment to the western alliance and to NATO. These statements are most welcome, representing as they do a major shift in attitude by the Prime Minister who, early in his mandate as Prime Minister, sought to withdraw Canada from NATO and, failing in that regard, did bring about a very large reduction in Canada's commitments to NATO and in our over-all defence effort.
In his recent speech concerning East-West relations the Prime Minister did acknowledge that most strategists recognize that strong conventional defences have the effect of raising the nuclear threshold or, in other words, making nuclear war less likely. Most strategists also recognize that strong defences make all wars less likely, and that must surely be Canada's highest priority.
If the Prime Minister and his Ministers are sincere, they will change Canada's defence policy so as to stop the deterioration in our defence capabilities as exemplified by the fact that we still have war ships with vacuum tube electronics, replacement parts for which are only manufactured behind the Iron Curtain, and as exemplified by the fact that Canadian forces in Europe were unable to participate in the full range of the annual autumn exercises this year because of budgetary constraints.
The House and the country look forward to the Government's actions backing up the recent affirmations of commitment to defence made by the Prime Minister and his Ministers.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, intertwined with the constitutional process in the Northwest Territories are unsettled comprehensive aboriginal rights negotiations. These involve the Dene of the West, the Innuvialuit of the Beaufort region, and the Inuit in the central and eastern Arctic. Federal Liberal Members, in a statement in May, 1983, tied the
division of the N.W.T. to three preconditions; first, the settlement of land claims; second, the agreement of the placement of a boundary between East and West; and third, the development of the party system in the politics of the area. These preconditions, particularly the requirement for the party system, constitute a direct interference in the democratic rights of the citizens in this federal colony who are marching toward their own responsible Government.
Members of the NDP support a constitutional process for the establishment of new territories without federal interference in the form of preconditions. In concert with this would be the establishment of a new and more harmonious political arrangement between aboriginal and other Canadians in the North. We also support concentration on the development of the renewable resources of the North, including the use of small scale hydro and alternate energy programs, and we support development of the non-renewable resources of the North in the national interest but with northern control. We support a universal tax credit for all northerners, which would recognize the real differences of the cost of living in the North. We also hope that immediate measures will be taken in the North regarding the status of women in the Northwest Territories, and their particular needs.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago in Alberta, a ten-year old girl was viciously raped. The very fact that this could and did take place leaves us appalled, but what leaves Canadians in an utter state of abhorrence and disbelief is the fact that the girl was subsequently denied medical treatment and examination, apparently because no doctor wanted to become involved in legal proceedings likely to follow.
Society has habitually held medical practitioners in high esteem and rewarded them accordingly. In return, society has every right to expect a high standard of ethical and moral behaviour. People expect doctors to uphold the oath they have taken. It is not something to be set aside lightly when they do not want to become involved.
The Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons ought to investigate the incident thoroughly, and other provincial organizations ought to ensure that this could not happen in their areas.
Parliament extends, I am sure, its sympathies to the helpless victim of this crime, and reflects the feelings of all Canadians in condemning the subsequent abuse to which she was subjected.

November 4, 1983
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who was in his seat a few moments ago. The labour force data released today indicates that there were
25,000	fewer people working in October than there were in September, and 47,000 fewer Canadians working full time. Will the Minister be accelerating new job-creation programs, given the fact that unemployment traditionally worsens in the wintertime, and also given the fact that this is the first time since November, 1982, that there has been a decline in the rate of employment?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the Hon. Member would also have wanted to recognize that the latest figures have shown that the unemployment rate in Canada has dropped once again, to 11.1 per cent. That means that since last July there has been a drop in the unemployment rate of almost one percentage point, something about which 1 think he should be pleased and would want to welcome.
It is true that there is this disappointing aspect of a fall in the actual number of jobs over the past month. This is the first time this has occurred since last November, and 1 think that we will see in months to come that the trend line which has already been established will continue. There are indications that the economy is recovering and that there will be, as has been the case continually since last November, an increase in jobs, seasonally adjusted, in the Canadian economy.
As to the proposals we will be making, the Hon. Member knows that we are very anxious to finish the business presently before the House so that we will be able to bring in proposals for the strengthening and re-profiling of existing programs, and perhaps for the addition of some new programs for job creation within the context of a Speech from the Throne.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can play that kind of a statistical shell game, but the fact remains that there were more people unemployed in October than there were in September. That is a fact.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF NEW PROGRAMS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that there were more people unemployed in October than there were in September, we have a right to ask the Minister if he intends to bring on the new programs about which he has been musing, at this time, given the likelihood that there will not be a Speech from the Throne until December or perhaps even January. These people cannot wait. Why can the Minister not bring on his programs now, rather than
getting press coverage for himself by musing upon them every weekend?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not the one who is playing a shell game with statistics. I did draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that, indeed, there was a decrease in the number of jobs created over the last month. It was the Hon. Member who was being selective in two ways; first, by not giving any indication that there has been a fall in the level of unemployment and, second, by giving no indication of the generally successful record of the creation of new jobs in the Canadian economy since last year.
As I have said repeatedly, it seems to me that the proper way for assessing programs which are presented in relation to job creation is within the over-all context of a Speech from the Throne. If his Party and the other opposition Party had been more expeditious in handling important business of the House, we would have been at that point already.


UNITED STATES EMPLOYMENT FIGURES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and the Minister of Finance talk about recovery. Perhaps he can explain to the House how it is that in the United States there are a million more people working today than when the recession began, while we in Canada are still a quarter of a million jobs behind, and are now falling further behind at the rate of 25,000 jobs a month. Let him explain that, and let him also explain the fact that there were 17,000 fewer young Canadians working in October than in September. What will he do about that?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member, in his excitement, addressed the question to the Minister of Finance. I assume he meant to address the question to me.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Friday mornings you're brilliant.


John (Moody) Roberts: I would be glad to accept the testimony of the Hon. Member to the effect that 1 am brilliant although, given the source, I would be skeptical of any such judgment.
I think the Hon. Member and all Members of the House know that one of the most important markets for the Canadian economy is the United States, and it is traditionally the case that when there is a recovery in the United States the full impact of that on Canadian exports and, therefore, on the Canadian economy, is found after a lag period. It is not surprising that the upswing of the American economy should take more time to have its full effects felt in the Canadian economy. That is neither extraordinary nor unusual. It is the normal pattern of events.
November 4, 1983


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to explore with him another of his strange formulas. In this case it is the one which he uses to determine the weekly insurable earnings for unemployment insurance. The net effect of that formula will be to provide a raise of 10.4 per cent to the highest weekly income earners. At the same time it kicks out of the plan and denies any kind of assistance to people at the low end of the wage scale.
Could the Minister tell us how many people he will be kicking out of the plan on January 1? Could he also tell us whether he believes it is Liberal justice to give a big raise, in a year of six and five, to high income earners, and kick low income earners out of the plan?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in all honesty 1 must say that I am not exactly sure what the Hon. Member is talking about. If he is talking about the insurable earnings for unemployment insurance, it is true, as 1 believe was indicated about a week ago, that there is no increase in premiums this year but, as a result of automatic application of the law, there is roughly a 10 per cent increase in the insurable earnings of people under unemployment insurance.
That addition to insurable earnings takes place each year on the basis of a formula of an average over a ten-year period, I believe, and leads to automatic increases in the degree of insurable earnings. Therefore, as the insurable earnings of an employee go up, so, to that degree, do the premiums which are paid to cover those insurable earnings. That is not something over which I have discretion, it is a question of the automatic exercise of the law.
It may be that 1 have not fully understood what the Hon. Member is referring to, but if I have understood, then that is the answer 1 should give.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It confirms my worst fears. The Minister administers laws that he really does not understand. It is an eight-year average, not ten. It will have increasing effects of the kind I described, in the years ahead.


PERMISSION FOR BENEFICIARIES TO ATTEND SCHOOL
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the business of the Parliament of Canada is to change bad laws. I suggest to the Minister that he is administering a bad law. He has not recognized that fact. It is obvious that he has no intention of changing that. I commend that course of action to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would suggest that the Hon. Member ask a supplementary question.
Oral Questions


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The Minister does have the power under the law to allow unemployed people to use their UIC benefit period to go to school. Last month, for which figures are available-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask a supplementary question?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Of that one million people, only 12,000 were allowed to go to school to get increased training. Will the Minister administer the law in a fashion that will allow an increasing number of Canadians on unemployment insurance to take training and go to school in order to use their benefit period to improve themselves? Will he do that with the law?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has essentially confirmed what I said. We are not dealing with a discretionary action on the part of the Minister but with the automatic application of the present law, which we are required to do. He does not happen to like that law. It would be interesting to know how many of his colleagues believe it should be changed or amended in a way which he describes.
Of course, I will continue to use the discretion that I have under the Act to do as he suggests, and certainly I will give very considerable reflection to his recommendations.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Minister of Employment and Immigratiaon just informed the House that we have seen a shrinking of the job market in Canada this month by 25,000 jobs. It is the first time in seven months that the job market has actually decreased. Will the Prime Minister not agree that this surely indicates that the domestic recovery has stalled and, if so, what is his Government prepared to do about it?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not agree.


LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Conference Board of Canada, the C.D. Howe Institute, and Statistics Canada have indicated that two areas are hindering the domestic recovery. They are high interest rates and an increased taxation that is about to occur for all Canadians. Is the Prime Minister prepared to listen to these organizations, accept their advice, and do something about the excessively high interest rates and the new taxation that Canadians are about to experience?

November 4, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are always anxious to get advice from the various sources, and of course we listen to what they say. But, as the Hon. Member knows, many economists have conflicting views on the situation and its remedies. The Government is in a different position in that it must make choices, and it does make choices.
I was wondering this morning how the Opposition would manage to seek grief because unemployment had fallen for the seventh consecutive month and the figures are good and encouraging.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There are 25,000 fewer jobs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am interested in seeing that the Opposition can still put a sad face on good news.


UNITED STATES DECISION ON CANADIAN POTATO EXPORTS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the next 36 hours he faces two important deadlines. At midnight tonight the United States Commerce Department may confirm a ruling which would put a 17 per cent penalty on the export of certain Canadian products to the United States. In this case it is potatoes, but it is a precedent which could, if set, apply to trade generally between Canada and the United States. Can the Minister assure the House that the United States will not take this step, or are we to accept this as further evidence of the general breakdown in the rapport between the United States and Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is not quite right in his analysis of the situation affecting Canadian potatotes. A number of determinations have been made by the United States authorities, but the final determination as to injury has not yet been made. The U.S. authorities have until December 19 to make that determination. We believe we have a very good case against the finding that would lead to an injury determination.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the second deadline that the Minister faces is the 60-day ban on Aeroflot flights, which runs out this Sunday. It is now 58 days since the ban was put in place, a period in which the Government has had little but dynamic inaction on this matter. Would the Minister indicate if it is the Government's intention to extend the ban?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when the Government acted to suspend Aeroflot flights, the Hon. Member will recall that it was the first Government which took action. The action that was taken by the Government of Canada has been longer and more intensive than any action by any other Government.
While the suspension of Aeroflot flights is still in existence as of today, it was waived many weeks ago with respect to most other countries. Therefore, there is no basis to describe Canadian action in the terms which the Hon. Member has used.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Have you got compensation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When we did make that suspension for 60 days it was made with a purpose, with a specific term, and it is not the intention of the Government to extend that-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -beyond the present period, which expires on November 6.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What about the compensation?


FORESTRY
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, over the past five years his Government has funded over 100 forestry projects outside Canada, internationally, at a cost of over $430 million. Would he tell the House and Canadians generally why he and his Government will not fund identical project proposals, particularly in British Columbia where unemployment in some areas now exceeds 50 per cent?


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the question about special projects should be asked by a Member from British Columbia. If the Hon. Member's party would be willing to expedite the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House, we would be able to use the legislation on the Crow rate to create a number of jobs in the Vancouver area and elsewhere in the Province. I think this is a program that should create substantial employment.
November 4, 1983


CANADA-UNITED STATES POTATO TRADE-REQUEST FOR TASK FORCE REVIEW
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there is a decision in place which imposes a 17.9 per cent surcharge on every shipment, either by the posting of a bond, or by the placing of a cash deposit in the hands of United States authorities. The first decision has been reached in the potato trade structure.
Would the Deputy Prime Minister, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs interested in trade and agriculture, now put together a task force which could accumulate evidence to portray the history of trade between Canada and the United States, the massive imbalance of trade in favour of the United States, and the consequence of a final decision by ITC that, indeed, a surcharge should be imposed upon Canadian potato shipments to the United States? It will cover the whole field of trade between the two countries if they prevail and get a surcharge imposed. Would he do this in co-operation with the Canadian Horticultural Council and the Governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, which are fighting the battle alone?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Governments are not fighting the battle alone. The Canadian Government is fighting the battle along with the Provinces and with the industry. Just recently, on the occasion of our meeting with Mr. Shultz in Halifax, the Minister of State for International Trade made a very spirited intervention in the consultations to indicate the Canadian view.
The Hon. Member suggested that we put together a task force. I know that ongoing consultations are taking place between the industry and the Government. I will look at the structure in place and, if it requires strengthening, I would be pleased to consider that, because I think we have a very good case and we ought to ensure that it is put together in the strongest possible way.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the meeting which he and his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, had with Secretary Shultz and EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus a few weeks ago. Was the Minister able to give to the Americans any commitment as to when Canada would proceed to a 50 per cent reduction of
Oral Questions
sulphur emissions, which of course is the target that was suggested to the Americans?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that in order to achieve the proper reductions of sulphur emissions, it requires co-ordinated action between Canada and the United States. It is true, as the Minister of the Environment stated, that the Government of Canada and the Provinces of Canada have come together with a proposal which, if linked with similar decisions in the United States, would lead to a targeted reduction. As the Hon. Member knows, at that meeting the U.S. authorities were not in a position to indicate what would be their proposals. They are still under active consideration. Therefore, a joint plan or a joint agreement could not be reached. That is the situation at the present time. It is not any deficiency on the part of either the Government of Canada or the Provinces of Canada.


John Allen Fraser: The Minister's response is completely ridiculous when everyone knows that, sooner or later, this country has to reduce its emissions by 50 per cent; we may as well get started now rather than later.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, from the foolishness the Minister has given us this morning, are we to accept that the Government position is to do absolutely nothing until the Reagan Administration finally gets around to doing something? Is that the position of the Canadian Government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: Then what is it?


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Could he explain an official departmental work order dated September 28, 1983, which specifies the supply and delivery of 300 years of three-quarter inch road crusched gravel on Transport Canada site road approximately ten miles east of Whitecourt, Alberta, and two miles north on the Gas Co-op Road? Would the Minister not agree that this voluntary and welcome use of imperial measurement applies not only in Alberta but throughout Transport Canada all across Canada?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the Hon. Member took such an intense interest in the supplying and piling up of gravel. I will attempt to determine exactly the whereabouts of that location in

November 4, 1983
Oral Questions
Alberta, see how high the gravel is, and see to what degree it is measured in metric or imperial standard.


AIR SAFETY
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question. While the Minister is checking out the pile of gravel, would he also consider, given the uncaring attitude on the part of Transport Canada and Air Canada toward that courageous crew who landed an airliner at Gimli because of a metric mix-up, that this is utter hypocrisy on the part of Transport Canada, when it issues official orders in imperial, and penalizes and demotes pilots who accidentally got something mixed up because of a metric dipstick mix-up?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member's supplementary question shows how Hon. Members on the other side are really the Chamber's experts on looking at piles of other kinds of substances. The fact of the matter is that, if the Hon. Member had been paying attention a few weeks back, he would have learned that we established a special inquiry into the Gimli incident. That inquiry is opening hearings in Winnipeg on November 15, at which time the various parties to the circumstance will have the opportunity to present the causes and effects of that problem. Rather than rushing to prejudge, as he and his other colleagues are so prone to do, he should leave it to an independent inquiry to determine the facts.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. At the Minister knows, in the unemployment statistics this morning the only two Provinces where unemployment has risen in the last year are Alberta and my Province of Saskatchewan. In fact the number of people seeking work has risen by 75 per cent in the last year, and the number of people on welfare is up 14 per cent, all since the election of the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan. Could the Minister announce the immediate allocation of more funds for job creation in Saskatchewan, either in special projects or for small business, so that we can have more jobs back home?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic to at least part of the preamble to the Hon. Member's question. However, we have allocated substantial funds to Saskatchewan under Special
Recovery Capital Projects. In fact, as the Hon. Member knows, we have, in Saskatchewan, the irrigation works rehabilitation in the Swift Current-Maple Creek area. We have the expansion of the West Agribition Centre in Regina, which is very significant. As Hon. Members know, the amount of $5,700,000 has been devoted to that particular program. We have a major program under way at the Regina airport, an expansion of that airport, as well as at the Prince Albert airport. There is $6 million going to the Regina airport, as the Hon. Member knows.
I had the pleasure myself of visiting Saskatchewan to announce the expansion of the prairie laboratory of the National Research Council, which is an additional $6 million investment in that area. All these investments have created, are creating, and will continue to create jobs as these projects are completed within the time frame set by the Special Recovery Capital Projects criteria, established by the Minister of Finance back in April. It was that they would be started within six months, which is what is being done, and that at least 60 per cent to 70 per cent of those projects would be completed within the next two years. I suggest that is the time frame about which we all must be concerned with respect to job creation. We are certainly doing our part.
I share the view of the Hon. Member that we must encourage the provincial Governments as well to do their part in bringing in complementary programs which will absorb that kind of unemployment to which the Hon. Member makes reference.


REGINA WATER FILTRATION PLANT PROJECT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we still have had the highest increase in unemployment in the country in the last year. The Minister and his Government have been approached to put forward funding for a $15 million carbon filtration plant for the water system in Regina and Saskatoon. They are delaying that. Can the Minister assure us that the federal Government will pay half the cost of this important project, in order to put people back to work? Second, if he cannot assure us now, when will he be making an important announcement for the people of Saskatchewan?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the issue of the water problem in Regina is one that has preoccupied both levels of government for some time. There has been much discussion as to what the most sensible approach would be, whether it would take the form of a pipeline from Lake Diefenbaker, or whether there should be an irrigation canal. At the moment it looks like the carbon filtration plant, as suggested by the Hon. Member, is a sensible thing to do, certainly in the near term. Negotiations and discussions are ongoing with the Province of Saskatchewan. I expect to be meeting with the Province in the relatively near future with
November 4, 1983

respect to the economic and regional development agreements. Undoubtedly that subject will also be pursued in the course of those discussions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. 1 do not have yesterday's Hansard, and I do not say that critically because 1 realize the extraordinary burden placed upon the printing facilities after yesterday's proceedings, but, if I recall correctly, in response to my question yesterday, the Government House Leader said that he would be consulting with the Chairman of the Standing Committee with a view to having referred to that Standing Committee the question of the mismanagement of arrangements by the Government to obtain the rescue of Canadian citizens caught in Grenada. Has the consultation taken place? Will that matter be referred? If so, when?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, 1 take objection to the comment by the House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition about the mismanagement of Government. I have to take exception, and 1 do take exception.
Second, the Hon. Member saw me in the House throughout the full Question Period yesterday. It was only at 3 o'clock, after Question Period was over, that I left to receive a telephone call. I had been expecting a question. When 1 came back, the Hon. Member was right in the middle of questions with regard to the Foreign Affairs Chairman and the Committee. I am still consulting. He saw that just a minute ago the critic for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for York-Peel, asked me what I intend to do. I will tell him what 1 intend to do.
As soon as the House comes back on November 14, or next Monday as the case may be, and I do not know what the House Leader will do, the Supplementary Estimates will be before the House of Commons. I want the Hon. Member to know that I do not receive marching orders either from the House Leader-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is giving a lengthy reply.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: 1 have a very brief supplementary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon seems to be able to trigger very lengthy replies.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT STEERING COMMITTEE MEET
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would want to do would be to trigger the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. Will he call a Steering Committee meeting today?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I shall call the Steering Committee in due time, when 1 finish my consultation.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. It relates to the Senate Committee report on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Bill C-157. As the Minister will be aware, the report was virtually a clause by clause repudiation of the major provisions of that Bill. Does the Solicitor General accept the principal recommendations of the Senate Committee?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would have interpreted the principal recommendations of the Committee as urging Parliament to deal quickly with the creation of an agency to see to Canada's national security, based on the Security Service in the RCMP. 1 would have seen it as an endorsement of the principle of separation, in that sense, I welcome the report. 1 spent a considerable amount of time last night reading it. 1 have undertaken to consult with my colleagues about it. I hope to be in a position to respond to that report on behalf of the Government in early December.


PRESENTATION OF LEGISLATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. After such a long wait to get the original Bill which was proposed by the Minister, and to find that that Bill consisted of a major assault on the civil liberties of Canadians, can we assume from the Minister's response that we are now going to have a brand new Bill presented to us, with very major surgery performed on it in accordance with some of the principal recommendations of the Senate Committee?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, 1 would say that the report has been very helpful to the Government and helpful to the country in increasing the understanding of national security issues. 1 have expressed my view and contradicted the interpretation that the Hon. Member gave to the Bill. What I think would be timely would be to have the views of the Opposition, both of the Conservative Party and of the New Democratic Party, which would be of considerable assistance to me in advising my colleagues as to the proposal to establish a security agency and to implement

November 4, 1983
Oral Questions
the other aspects of the Bill to which reference was made in the report.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In his absence, I will direct it to the Minister of Public Works. It is a question that might be answered by either Minister. Can the Minister indicate to the House the cost of leasing the DVA building from Rampart Enterprises during the term of the lease which is, I understand, for 35 years? Will the Minister consider tabling the leasing agreement in the House, or making a copy of it available to interested Members?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member, with his long experience in the House, would not expect me to have at my fingertips that type of information. I will obviously look into it and write to him directly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure he is aware of the fact that there are many Canadians of Grenadian origin, their families having come from Grenada. There has been great loss of human life on the island of Grenada. These people have no way of finding out who has been killed, what has happened to the bodies, and so forth. Why will the Minister not support an interparliamentary group representing all Parties to observe the situation and bring back information to Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised the question of loss of life in Grenada and the identity of persons who may have lost their lives, particularly those who have been engaged in combat. I have requested information be gathered on the numbers who may have been affected, and their identity, if possible. I think there are efficient ways of collecting that information without sending a parliamentary committee.


ADMISSION OF REFUGEES TO CANADA
Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, 1 had hoped to ask a question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration or of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since they have both left the Chamber, I will ask the Secretary of State for External
Affairs. Returning CUSO volunteers indicated they heard that prisons had been opened and many criminals and murderers had been let out on the streets. They are also hearing that the army of occupation is attempting to search down former members of the New Jewel Movement. Is Canada going to open its doors to refugees, and how is it going to screen the refugees who do apply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand that very early next week an interim Government will be put in place in Grenada. According to my reports prisoners did escape, if that is the correct word, including political prisoners and criminals. The criminal element has been brought back into the prisons. Mr. Speaker, if there is a requirement for a refugee program, although at the moment there may not be, the Government would consider it. It is premature to reach a conclusion until the interim Government is in place as indicated by the Governor General.


MEDICAL CARE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This week there was a ten-year old rape victim who was refused medical help for the reason that doctors who were asked to help "did not want to get involved in legal procedures". I recognize this is a complicated matter. Has the Minister had consultations with either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General on how information or evidence might be received and yet desperately needed medical help be given when there are legal implications? What advice does she have for the House or for her colleagues?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I expected the Hon. Member to ask when we were going to table the Medicare Act. He does not seem to be interested in that. He asked me a question which clearly should be directed to the Minister of Justice.
As to the responsibility which would fall in the field of health for the conduct of a doctor who refuses help and medical assistance to any patient, which I must advise him is provincial, this should be referred immediately to the Province in question. I have not been made aware by the Hon. Member of the incident and it has not been brought to my attention. Therefore I have to answer in a general theoretical way that that conduct should be reported immediately to the provincial medical association and to the provincial minister.
November 4, 1983


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temis-couata in her capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. The Committee has not met since September 12. There are many matters affecting agriculture. One of them was raised in the House today regarding agricultural trade and there is the whole area of farm finance. Would the Hon. Member be prepared to give us a commitment that she will approach her House Leader to see if, immediately upon our return on November 14, the very distinguished and hard-working Committee would again have a chance to meet and address some of the major concerns in the agricultural sector of the economy?


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Member for Portage-Marquette on being appointed official critic for the Progressive Conservative Opposition, thus taking the place of the Member for Elgin. 1 also wish to thank the Hon. Member for Elgin who, during the three years I have been a Member of the Agriculture Committee, has worked very hard to make the Committee's proceedings a success.
There are a number of reasons why the Committee did not sit, but first I should say that from the outset, the Committee has been very successful in examining a number of Bills, including Canagrex. The Members of the Agriculture Committee have been travelling because they sat on the Transport Committee in connection with Bill C-155.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member perhaps answer the question?


Eva Lachance Côté: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. It is the first time the Member for Portage-Marquette asked me about the Agriculture Committee, and it seems to me that the most important piece of legislation was Bill C-155, which is before the House today and is of particular interest to farmers. When the House resumes sitting on November 14, I should be glad to get in touch with Committee Members to find out what can be done.


REQUEST FOR CASH ADVANCE PAYMENTS TO FARMERS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The elevators in the Drum-heller area are jammed, no grain has been moved for weeks, and many farmers are unable to deliver their quotas. The elevators in southern Saskatchewan are empty, and the Canadian Grain Commission indicated that in the last month they have delivered several million tonnes of grain less than
Oral Questions
they delivered last year. In view of these facts will the Minister investigate and arrange for an increase in the cash advance payments, to give the farmers some cash until the Canadian Wheat Board is able to get some cars into the area, or deal with the quota issue in southern Saskatchewan in order to start the grain moving again?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will be examining the exact situation that the Hon. Member has drawn to my attention.
The broader question of advance payments is a matter that is now being very thoroughly examined by the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board. 1 hope that he will have some recommendations to bring forward to Cabinet very shortly. He has been waiting for the close of the 1983 crop year which is now virtually complete, and we expect to have some recommendations from him. Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's question demonstrates once again how important it is that we finally complete our discussion on the Crow so that we will have no problems in transportation in western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question asked by the Hon. Member for St. John's, and is for the Minister responsible for Statistics Canada. We are quite pleased with the 11.1 per cent unemployment rate, but is it not a fact that the unemployment rate is down because he has reduced the number of people in the labour force by 52,000? What happened to those 52,000? Did they get the flu? Why were they taken out of the total labour force? What happened in Canada? Did we all of a sudden lose people? Is there a reduction in population? What is the problem?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should have some more information on the labour force survey, and 1 should be happy to give him a full briefing session, if he so desires. Why 52,000 people disappeared from the statistics? The reason is that the survey includes the following question: Did you seek employment during the last six months? If the answer is yes, the respondent is supposed to answer a sub-question: Did you seek employment during the last four weeks? As far as the people referred to by the Hon. Member are concerned, they answered no to the second question, to indicate that they had not sought employment during the last few weeks. That explains the difference, but I should be very happy, and I am sure the Chief Statistician of Canada would be as well, to provide a more comprehensive information session for the Hon. Member.

November 4, 1983
Business of the House


SHIPBUILDING
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. In light of the fact that bidding tenders on new ship construction were conditional on bid bonds and were priced on surety bond requirement, why did the Minister waive the contract performance requirements on contracts let on recent shipbuilding needs? Is the waiving of surety bonds a new Government policy?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would give me a few examples before I try to answer his question.


GUIDELINES GOVERNING CONTRACTS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The Department of Supply and Services and Treasury Board both have guidelines on the letting of contracts. We remember the Bonaventure experience, and the fact that seven vessels built in 1982 are now either total write-offs or are in shipyards being repaired at prices beyond the original contract. Why are the Minister and the President of the Treasury Board not enforcing the guidelines at hand, to protect the public purse? A very serious situation exists in light of the contracts set, and it looks as though we are into a series of runaway price escalations.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the question does not make sense, because I asked the Hon. Member to give me one or several examples of specific ships where we did not follow common practice, and he mentions the Bonaventure, which is something that happened many years ago. The letting of contracts was done as expeditiously as possible, Mr. Speaker, to create employment in Canadian shipyards, because that is what Canadian workers need at this time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, if you seek the unanimous consent of the House that Orders of the Day be now read, I have good reason to believe that no one will object and that, therefore, the House would consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that we now proceed to Orders of the Day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Lloyd Axworthy: that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the spirit with which we conducted business last night has carried over to today and will allow us, if I may draw an analogy from a movie I watched last night, to begin the "last waltz" on the Crow Bill.
I should like to say how enjoyable it has been to be a part of this interesting exercise over the past several months-perhaps we could even say years. It seems that after all this time, after the millions of words intered and the hundreds of pages of Hansard, a final round of speeches and declarations might be redundant. I believe it is useful, however, to recognize what an important and significant occasion this is. The House is engaged in final debate on a piece of legislation that will have important and beneficial significance for all Canadians for a long time to come.
This morning the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) said that in the last several weeks far too much attention has been paid by the media to the parliamentary games, the high jinks, the "Tory trot" where they bounced all over the dance floor, and the "NDP frug" where they stayed in one place and kept saying no, no, no. The concentration on those particular antics missed the point. As the Hon. Member for Crowfoot said, the media should be concentrating on the substance and depth of this Bill and the impact it will have. It has given a lot of occasion for commentary and an assessment of the machinations of the Parties as we zigzagged our way through the exercise, and certain columnists have had a chance to vent their ageing spleen on various people and personnel. The fact is, however, that the House has been engaged in a very important and significant initiative. It has been developing a basis for future growth and economic activity, not just in western Canada but in the entire country.
I think it is important that we recognize that all this took place only because of the extraordinary effort and initiative of a few key individuals. I am sure the history books will record better than I can in a short speech the names of those who played an important part in this legislation. I should like to take a moment, however, to pay tribute to certain individuals who were instrumental in bringing us to the point where we are about to decide on the importance of the Crow rate.
First and foremost I am sure Hon. Members would join me in paying tribute to my predecessor in this portfolio, the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), the former Minister of Transport. He was the author of the basic blueprint.


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


Lloyd Axworthy: Through his perseverance, initiative and intelligence, he was able to devise a plan and work with a variety of groups to develop a proposal. Sometimes we tend to forget that the plan was based on the most extraordinarily extensive consultations ever undertaken with any piece of legislation. Hundreds of groups and thousands of individuals were brought in for in depth discussion and examination which culminated in the Gilson report. Members of major farm organizations, railroads and shippers were brought together in one place to hammer out the architecture for the reorganization of their programs. 1 think we all recognize the important contribution that the Minister of State for External Relations has made in this area.
Some very able Parliamentarians on this side of the House helped the Minister. I mention the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) and the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) who, as his Parliamentary Secretary, sometimes escaped both the burden and the glory. Both were able to provide backup and support in the organization of the Bill.
I should also like to pay tribute to Members of the Transport Committee who spent many months at hearings in Ottawa and across the country. They listened to over 200 briefs and gave everyone who wanted it a chance to be heard. No one was turned down. Everyone who appeared had the right to give a presentation. Members from all sides of the House were party to that very important contribution. My only regret is that the chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), is not in the House today to share in this moment. Unquestionably, of all those involved in the Committee, he was the leader. We on this side of the House would like to pay homage to his contribution to this very important piece of legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 think it is important to recognize a number of other individuals who are not Members of the House but who also contributed. A number of very fine, highly qualified and dedicated public servants worked hundreds of thousands of hours not only in putting the Bill together, but in attending committee hearings, providing material and responding to the inquiries of Members of Parliament. Those men and women are very much part of this historical moment. A number of dedicated individuals in groups and organizations across Canada spent time on the Bill-not always in total harmony or agreement, we concede.
I think of many people from my Province who spent time in Ottawa with their organization in an effort to develop the best interests of their members and to represent the interests of the farming community and the various agrarian groups in Canada.
I want to mention all these people, Mr. Speaker, because regardless of what position was taken, no one can denigrate or downgrade the significance of what they are doing. I think it is important in this final round of debate that we clear away the sometimes intense interchange between Members of Parlia-
Western Grain Transportation Act
ment and come back to the basic consideration of what we are trying to do and what will be achieved by this legislation.
First and foremost, we are addressing the most critical factor, the most undeniable and essential ingredient in the prosperity of western agriculture, and that is the ability to move the product to market. The agrarian agricultural system of western Canada is almost unique in that it has to export virtually all its product. The geography of the west requires that the product be moved long distances by rail. Without that system of rail transportation, we could not sell. If we could not sell, we could not gain the kind of economic growth of which the entire country is the beneficiary.
One thing which has been clear for years, Mr. Speaker, is that freight rates have been a key to that development of western agriculture. However, we also have to recognize that something which has becme imbedded in history for well over 80 years must be re-examined in terms of its relevance today. What was becoming increasingly clear, not just to Hon. Members on this side of the House but to a wide variety of people, is that that system of freight rates was becoming counterproductive. It was preventing the development of a modern, up-to-date transportation system which would allow us to give certainty of market to our buyers, so that when they bought a bushel of grain from the Wheat Board or any other seller, they would be assured that the grain would be delivered on time and at a good price. We know from recent history that this is not the case right now. The reason it is not the case is that the Crow rates provide insufficient revenues to allow the railways to maintain a decent level of investment in the plant, rolling stock and maintenance of those railway lines to ensure that delivery. That is a simple, fundamental fact.
We are not going to get a good system of transportation if it cannot be paid for. If the money is not there to update it, to modernize it, to upgrade it, to make sure we have the hopper cars, the proper switching materials and the trackage, there will not be an efficient railway system which is so essential to western agriculture.
What was clear over the years is that the revenue base conditioned by the Crow was shrinking. There is an interesting article in today's The Globe and Mail which I would recommend to Hon. Members. It is the beginning of a continuing series about the CPR. It points out that when the Crow rate was first brought in, transportation represented 20 per cent of the farmers' costs. Today it represents 3 per cent or 4 per cent of those costs. Those are accurate figures and there is no one in this House who can deny it.
The fact of the matter is that over the years those rates have fluctuated up and down. However, what was becoming increasingly clear was a revenue shortfall. It does not take a great deal of wit about economics to realize that unless we can provide a system of payment to the railways to ensure a continuous, stable flow of revenue, it will be impossible for the railways to go to the capital market and generate the $15 billion or $16 billion worth of capital required in order to

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
modernize the branch lines, the main track and the communication systems. There is no lender in North America or around the world who would lend the kind of capital the railways need unless they could demonstrate they have a revenue base to justify the repayment on that capital.
All the various schemes and formulae which we have heard bandied about over the last year and a half simply do not work because they defy logic and economics. A three-year freeze, a no-freeze, a one-sale-buy-out; none of these things will work. The time has come to end the capricious ad hoc financing of our railway system and to put in place a system which will ensure a continual, ever-growing expansion and modernization of the railway service in western Canada. That is what this Bill is all about, Mr. Speaker. That is why this Government has pursued this Bill against all opposition, because we believe it is the right thing to do.
More than that, we also know that the Crow rate, over a period of time, has begun to develop as well a serious distortion in the range of agricultural diversification in western Canada. It provided disparities in the kind of costs related to one product as compared with another. As a westerner, 1 believe the future of agriculture and the future of the economy in the west is dependent upon that diversification, on a broadening of our economic base. It is dependent on allowing westerners not only to grow a wider variety of products, but to process those products in western Canada, to have value added manufacturing and development in western Canada. That is the future of western Canada. That is what westerners must build their future on. We must have that diversification, that ability to broaden the base of our economy and to eliminate those distortions in our country.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is absolute distortion of the truth.


Mr. Gustafson:: Pay the producer, then.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will get to the Hon. Member from British Columbia in just a moment. Just hold on.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am looking forward to it.


Lloyd Axworthy: The third element of the Bill is that not only does it broaden in the long term a modern railway system and begin to eliminate the distortion-even in the present legislation, if the Hon. Member knew anything about it, which he does not-but it also unquestionably is the largest, single economic growth project in the history of Canada. We are talking about an investment of $16.5 billion of direct capital, never mind the secondary or tertiary benefits. We are talking about direct capital investment. We are talking about over
300,000	jobs. We are talking about benefits spread from one end of the country to the other.
I have to admit to being amazed at times at certain Hon. Members opposite who were standing on their feet with the utmost indignation and opposing a Bill which would have brought hundreds of thousands of jobs to their region.


Mr. McKnight:: Name three.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am going to name them right now. I will start with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). 1 do not want to say too much because I know I will hurt his feelings. I know what a sensitive soul he has, so I do not want to say too much about it. However, what about the 800 workers who are working in the Trenton steel works plant today because of this Bill?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is not right and you know it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Is he prepared to continue to oppose a Bill which is providing work for 800 of his constituents? What about the Hon. Members from British Columbia, both the Conservative and New Democratic Members, who by their continual delay have rejected the investment of over $3 billion in the economy of British Columbia-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Name the Member from British
Columbia.


Lloyd Axworthy: -with 70,000 or 80,000 jobs going in there.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: That is absolutely not the truth, Lloyd, and you know it.


Lloyd Axworthy: I want those Members to go back and tell their constituents-


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


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, this Party has never said that we were against development. We were against-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. There is a ten-minute question and answer period following the speech of every Hon. Member, including the Minister. That is the opportunity for this type of crossfire.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would welcome it if Hon. Members, during the course of their remarks on their reading, explain their stand in opposing that major mass of job creation projects. How could one expect the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) or anyone on this side to take the wild indignation of Hon. Members on that side seriously?


Leonard J. Gustafson: You always have the same answer.


Lloyd Axworthy: We listened this morning to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) standing up and asking "Where are your job creation projects?" And we have been sitting in this House for months with a piece of legislation which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and-


Leonard J. Gustafson: Like the National Energy Policy.


Lloyd Axworthy: -and that Party has been the opponent of it. How can those Hon. Members expect to be taken seriously by anyone as they stood in their places, waving their arms and flapping their wings with wild cries of horror and resentment, when in fact what they were doing was stopping the engine of
November 4, 1983

growth which could fuel this economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs?


Leonard J. Gustafson: Just like the National Energy Policy, in the same way?


Lloyd Axworthy: That is something that they will have to answer for at some point-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Let us go to the people.


Lloyd Axworthy: -because their constituents know this. The reason they were receiving those letters and telegrams saying "Quit fooling around in Parliament" is because their constituents know what this Bill will mean to economic growth in this country. 1 believe, Mr. Speaker, that has been the purpose of the Bill and that is the reason this Government has considered it to be of the highest priority.
We also recognize there are issues which have to be faced. When I was asked to take over this Ministry and met with a number of farm leaders across this country, it was made clear to me that certain issues still had to be recognized. One was the question of the ability to pay the farmers. We all recognize the kind of squeeze affecting farmers under the present grain levels-


Leonard J. Gustafson: It is too late now, you have done it.


Lloyd Axworthy: -but what we were able to do, Mr. Speaker, is introduce into this Bill, passed last night at report stage, a major insurance policy for the farmers through the safety net.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Ten per cent.


Lloyd Axworthy: If the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) would go over the historical record of grain prices, he would recognize, as 1 have just said, that at the time the Crow rate originated the farmers were paying 20 per cent of cost, not 10 per cent. There is a continuing fluctuation. If they knew anything about the economics of grain, they would recognize that.
Beginning next year we are providing a 4 per cent safety net, then 5 per cent, 6 per cent, 8 per cent, 9 per cent and 10 per cent, to ensure farmers are protected against any drastic change in the cost/price ratio. We are aware of the problem and have tried to respond with the recommendations put forward by Hon. Members. We recognized their concern and the need to provide that degree of protection and assurance so that farmers recognize this Bill is not designed to provide for a major pull-out. But it does have a ceiling on costs related to the over-all price of grain. That is the safety net and that is why I am pleased we had that amendment passed last evening. I appreciate the co-operation of Members of the Opposition in allowing that amendment to be introduced and passed.
We have also recognized, Mr. Speaker, the very important divergence of opinion over method of payment. Let us clear up
Western Grain Transportation Act
that issue. We recognize that the original proposition put forward by my predecessor included a 50/50 method of payment to producers and railroads. But it was the opposition of major agricultural groups in provinces represented by Members opposite which brought about that change. It was the pools of western Canada that demanded that the railways receive full payment. It was the organizations representing the majority of grain producers that spoke with a very clear voice to say the basis of their support is payment to the railways. On that issue we felt we had to make the change.
We also recognize that the issue is not closed. It still must be brought forward for examination. There will be a parliamentary review in 1985-86. To ensure that is simply not a re-creation of what we have had in the past several months, we have also established a special commission to bring together experts to examine the various methods of payment and determine what the impact will be so that Members of Parliament will be able to make a more learned, rational judgment about the proper method of payment to be implemented. We have given further assurances to the groups concerned that not only will the report be tabled in the House, but it will also be available for debate so there will be a clear window through which the views of the different Parties can be expressed.
These examples demonstrate we have tried to respond to the concerns and be sensitive to the issues raised. We have tried to be flexible in making changes. We have accepted many amendments, such as that put forward by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) on export definitions. Over 80 amendments have been accepted, not only in committee but during report stage. We have negotiated with Members opposite in an attempt to get the best kind of Bill. We do not claim it is perfect but we are saying it is an important beginning.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that we now have to implement this legislation well and effectively. The major challenge now is how to bring into full, effective implementation the many important, major steps brought forward in this Bill: the establishment of the Grain Committee, development of the Review Commission, the organization of rates and the ability to provide a more efficient and effective transportation system. We have to bring together representatives of the grain companies, the railroads, the elevators, the ports and the truckers. They are the major players and they will be required to develop the dynamics of improving the system. They will do that simply by displaying what they are prepared to do.
There are in this Bill major safeguards concerning the performance of the railways, not only through examination and evaluation by the Canadian Transport Commission, but also through the sanctions and rewards the Minister of Transport can impose if the railways do not live up to the expectations and requirements we make of them. There are a number of critically essential initiatives which must be taken. This must be done in a spirit of co-operation. It certainly would be in my interests as the Minister of Transport, and in the interests of this Government, to begin working with the farm organizations, municipalities and others involved to make this

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Bill work for the interests of western agriculture and the interests of our country. That is our intention now. We can put the debate and controversy behind us. We have to get the Bill working.
1 invite Members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, to join in this effort. We recognize there is opposition, but surely they recognize how important this Bill is to their constituents and the country. I hope they will be able to put their feelings aside and, when we vote on this Bill, turn their minds to helping us bring about legislation which is written not just on paper but will begin to take on life and meaning and become one of the most important and significant milestones in the future growth and development of the agricultural system of western Canada and the economic system of our country. Members of Parliament are truly engaged in a rare opportunity to do something of major importance for the country. 1 am pleased we are now at a stage where we can all join not only in the passage of the bill but its future development and implementation.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, as is his pattern, the Minister has made an awful lot about $16 billion of benefits to the economic structure of western Canada. He will have to pardon some of us if we are a little skeptical about the arithmetic. We have been hearing about $4.5 billion for double tracking, $2.5 billion as early as 1971 at the transportation conference in Calgay, and we see these figures recycled and ballooned one on top of the other and rotated through the press for political purposes.
How fair and how sound does the Minister think that figure of $16 billion is in light of the fact that the Province of British Columbia turned the coal lands over to the CPR in a deal tied to the Crow when those lands in today's market are worth something like $450 billion? This bill does not return those lands to the Province, but rather grabs them from the Province and turns them over to PetroCan. What kind of fairness and equity and sense of well-being does he think that will develop between the people of British Columbia and the federal Government?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 am fully aware of how the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is an entrenched skeptic, along with some other attributes that go with that. I will take the opportunity to give him the evidence he asks for. In British Columbia we are talking about direct expenditures by the railways of $5.4 billion, which will result in 87,000 person-years of work. That will mean $3.1 billion worth of labour income, which results in about $4.4 billion of gross domestic product, and about $8.5 billion in total industrial sales.
We are talking about a major project involving over 3,000 workers in the Roger's Pass tunnel. We are talking about several thousand workers in the Prince George area. We are talking about the Valemount to Prince Rupert rail line and 400 person-years of work. We are talking about expenditure of $900 million on the main line between Vancouver and Valemount.
Those are some examples of what is going to happen in his Province, Mr. Speaker. No thanks to him because he has been one of the most obdurate, unthinking and unresponsive Members of this House to that kind of investment. Those are the kinds of projects we are talking about in immediate terms, starting now.
When we come to the question of coal lands, if the Government of the Province of British Columbia had taken any interest in the issue, it might have made some representations to us. It has not done that yet.


Mr. Schellenberger:: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Before I ask those questions though, in light of the importance of the matter now before the House of Commons I think Hon. Members should be given every opportunity within the constraint of time allocation that was passed by the House to debate this Bill, and therefore, pursuant to provisions of Standing Order 8(4)(cr), I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the House continue to sit through the lunch hour today for the purpose of considering third reading stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it. According to the provisions of Standing Order 8(4)(a), if 25 Members rise in their places to object, the motion is declared defeated. Shall the motion carry?
And 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It has been confirmed by myself and by the Clerk that exactly 25 Members have risen to oppose the motion. Accordingly, the motion is defeated.
Are Hon. Members standing on points or order?


Some Hon. Members:: Questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has not yet completed his remarks.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the Government would not allow one additional hour for debate. We have been trying to debate the motions in the House for weeks now without that opportunity given to certain amendments that were moved at the beginning by Members of the NDP. One extra hour of debate would have helped a small bit by allowing us to put forward our positions.
November 4, 1983

In any event, I would like to ask the Minister a question. Given that the Government will not accept the burden to pay this subsidy to the producer, how will the Government deal with the injury to the livestock industry that will be created by this Bill for the next three years until the review is in place? Is it the Government's intention, now that it has not accepted any of the amendments that would assist in this area, to use the agricultural adjustment fund in the next three years in some way to assist the livestock producer in western Canada and the agri-business that the Minister has just spoken of in order to allow them to continue in some manner until this review has been undertaken?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first let me address myself to the opening remarks of the Hon. Member for Westaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). I think his remarks demonstrate the importance of what I mentioned in my closing remarks, and that is working in co-operation. If Members of the House had indicated in some way prior to the moving of the motion their interest in continuing the debate, we would have had a chance to consider the motion. However, springing that motion on us by surprise with no prior consultation with House Leaders according to their agreement demonstrates which side is really playing fair on this question.
I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that we would have responded if there had been any attempt, initiative or willingness on the part of the Hon. Member opposite to send a note indicating his intention. I think that that demonstrates that co-operation is working on both sides, Mr. Speaker, not just on one side alone. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the sooner Hon. Members on the opposite side learn that, the better off we will be.
I shall now address myself to the questions asked by the Hon. Member. First, there is a relevance to the livestock distortion through the very fact that the rates themselves will be increasing. Of course, the costs will be increasing. That is part of the rate, but that does reduce the cost differential. I would remind the Hon. Member that if he would look at the projected scale rates, he would see that the Crow has maintained the status quo. If the amendment put forward by his Party had been accepted, that distortion would have grown larger. By not maintaining the status quo, that distortion would not have stayed the same but would have grown even larger. The real fact is that there would have been a higher distortion in those areas.
Dealing with the second part of the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker, we have stated clearly that as part of the contingency related to the review in 1985-86, a $204 million adjustment fund has been set aside in reserve contingency for that period pending the outcome of that review.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Hon. Members will be aware that I am trying to facilitate the ability of both Opposition Parties to ask questions and I think it would be reasonable, in view of the interruption for the purpose of taking a vote, that we might agree to extend the period of questions and answers until one o'clock. May I ask
Western Grain Transportation Act Hon. Members to try to keep questions and answers very brief? There are quite a few Hon. Members who would like to put questions and comments to the Minister.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions for the Minister. I will put them all at once and 1 will put them quickly. When the new Minister lost his virginity at the committee hearings on his very first appearance, he talked about how he wanted to co-operate. He could not do that just now.
Can the Minister name one farm organization on either side of the argument that supports this Bill the way it stands at the moment? Second, what is the Government's policy on the disposition of the Dominion coal lands? Will it return them to the Province of British Columbia, which is where they should be, or will it not? Third, in light of the telex received from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in which the Saskatchewan Pool indicated that unless four fundamental changes were made to the Bill, it should be scrapped, and in light of the fact that at least three of those four changes have not been accepted by the Government, does the Government still intend to leave the Bill as is? The word received from the Alberta and Manitoba Pools indicated that unless three changes were made, the Bill should be scrapped. What is the Minister's response to that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I find it a trifle ironic that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who has been the author of countless hundreds of hours of wasted parliamentary time through petitions and points of order of total irrelevance is now complaining about the loss of one hour's debating time. If he is seriously concerned about using full debating time, why then would his Party have taken up tens of hundreds of hours of parliamentary time when the debate could have gone forward? Why was it that his Party brought forward so many amendments at report stage that we were not able to get to many of the critical and essential amendments but were debating amendments that had been examined in committee for tens of hundreds of hours? He simply brought them back for repetition. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that is a presumptuous statement by a very self-righteous Member of Parliament which he has no business making.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I would also remind the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that the questions he asked were questions that have all been answered before in committee and just now. Dealing with the Dominion coal lands, the Province of British Columbia itself has not made the initiative on that question. What kind of discussion does the Hon. Member want to get into about that?
On the Hon. Member's second question which dealt with farm organizations, I would only refer him to the latest series of stories I have heard. One which I would like to relate to him deals with a distinguished farmer from my own Province of Manitoba. He said: "What good is a bushel of grain to me if I cannot give it to someone who wants to buy it?" He said he is prepared to go for it. I would suggest to him that there are

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act thousands of farmers in the Prairies who recognize that the move we are making is essential to their future and they are supporting us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 really should not recognize another Hon. Member but I have had the courtesey of being advised of his intentions and I think the House can deal with the matter as it sees fit.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I wonder whether the Government might not reconsider and offer unanimous consent to sit through the lunch hour?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 will put that question and then I will call it one o'clock, depending, of course, on the decison. Is there unanimous consent to sit during the lunch hour?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is not unanimous consent. I now call it one o'clock. At two o'clock the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) will take the floor.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me indicate that it is very difficult to deal with a complex piece of legislation such as the one with which we are dealing today in one allocated day. A number of motions were presented and placed on the Order Paper. Probably between 60 and 70 of them have not been dealt with. This Bill is far from perfect; it has many defects and deficiencies. We are being asked to try to cover all its aspects in this final stage. However, I say very honestly that it is a task which cannot be achieved.
I am disappointed as well in the fact that the Government refused to allow unanimous consent on this final day of debate to provide Hon. Members on all sides with another hour in which to express their views and deal with some of the issues that have not yet been dealt with, particularly, as the Minister pointed out earlier, issues which go to the very core of the Bill. Those issues could not be debated at second reading, could not be considered at committee stage or at report stage. We are really being denied an opportunity to deal with major points, such as the method of payment, the safety net and the ability of farmers to pay.
Anyone inside or outside the Chamber who believes that with the passage of this Bill the controversy surrounding the Crow will go away is fooling himself or herself. I say that
without equivocation. My belief is that the new Crow regime which will emerge from the Bill will be more contentious and far more controversial than the old Crow. Moreover, there is no doubt in my mind nor in the minds of Hon. Members of my Party that this measure will be most oppressive to western agriculture. Unless major changes are made, it will do irreparable harm to the western agricultural economy, which is still one of our basic industries, the one upon which we rely the most and upon which Canada as a nation relies to a great extent.
When the debate started back in the middle of May, our Party expressed some very grave reservations about a number of matters. I want to deal with the more important matters. Other Hon. Members will be dealing with them as well and with other issues which relate thereto. At the very outset we expressed serious reservations about the ability of farmers to pay more for the movement of grain, particularly at a time when they have had input cost increases of 300 per cent to 400 per cent over the last ten years. Also we indicated that commodity prices had fallen to a level equivalent to 1972-73, that fuel costs had doubled in 2.5 years and that the federal Government was ripping off individual farmers to the extent of $275 million annually just in taxes. We say prairie farm incomes decline by 29 per cent in 1982. We know what happened to interest rates, a 400 per cent to 500 per cent increase. Aslo we know that 10 per cent to 15 per cent of western Canadian farmers are on the verge of bankruptcy.
We pointed out that at a time when other countries were increasing their support and subsidies for grain producers, we were going in the other direction; we were reducing ours. Based upon the last ten years, the average subsidy received by United States wheat farmers amounted to $11.41 per tonne, EEC wheat farmers were subsidized to the tune of $19.96 per tonne and Canadian wheat farmers received an average subsidy or support of $6.35 per tonne, which was primarily comprised of the transportation component, the Crowsnest Pass freight rate or the statutory freight rate. Canadian barley producers were faced with a similar situation. They received a subsidy on average over the last ten years of $6.32 per tonne, whereas United States producers received $7.57 per tonne and EEC producers received $32.80 per tonne. This study was conducted by a consulting firm commissioned by the Province of Manitoba.
When we look at Canada in relation to the United States, we find that in the 1982-83 crop year while Canadian wheat producers were supported by the federal treasury through the Crow rate by 37 cents per bushel, United States wheat producers received a subsidy of something in the order of $1.12 per bushel.
We could talk about the benefits or the breaks that Argentinian and Australian farmers receive in terms of freight rate subsidies, but I point out in passing that we are reducing our support to grain farmers while other countries are increasing their support. Whenever that happens, Canadian farmers lose because Canadian producers are price-takers not price-setters. Any increase in freight rate to producers will result in reduced
November 4, 1983

income because they cannot pass the increase on to the customers.
The second area to which we took very strong exception was the ever-escalating freight rate structure and its openended-ness with which farmers would be faced. This structure was being based upon so-called railway costs, a self-perpetuating cost-plus regime for which farmers would pay very dearly. In conjunction with that, the complexity of trying to figure out the freight rate was explained during the process of committee hearings. However, to establish such a freight rate a time frame of 2.5 years is required. Farmers will not know their freight rates for the current crop year until the freight rate cycle is completed 2.5 years hence.
The Minister has come up with a safety net. The general principle of a safety net would be supported by most people in the Chamber and indeed in the agricultural community. But when we look at the safety net which the Minister brought forth, we find on the basis of the calculations and the figures provided by the Department of Transport that for the year 1983-84 the freight rates would have to rise to $8 per tonne or grain prices would have to fall to a weighted average of SI44 per tonne in order to activate the safety net. We know very well that on the basis of the figures for 1982-83, the weighted average was $192.88. That is pretty low. It is the 1972-73 level.
As we look at the period 1990-91, in order for the safety net to be triggered, prices would have to remain the same in 1990-91 as they are today. That is not much of a safety net. It is not much protection. It becomes obvious that the farmers will essentially have to be in dire straits before this will have any effect on them. That concern still remains intact.
Third, we took exception to the fact that this Bill locked in the method of payment to the railways. We said that what it really does is, in effect, provide them with a guaranteed annual income. My friends to the left in the NDP support that principle. While they condemn the railways on the one hand, they say the money should all go to the railways. We say that this will further perpetuate the distortions that this Bill was supposed to address. It will perpetuate the same inefficiencies that have been in existence heretofore. It will perpetuate the cost-plus system. This will be paid for by the farmers and taxpayers of Canada.
Quite frankly, this Bill is not going to address those problems which this Minister was supposed to address, namely the distortions. The Minister talked today about diversification and broadening the base of agriculture, encouragement to the livestock industry and the processing industry. I say they will be worse off than before; there is no question about that. That is why in the October 24 edition of Agriweek, there is an article entitled "Prairie Groups Withdraw Support for Fed's Crow Bill". I quote from the article:
In Winnipeg, October 12, the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition, the United Grain Growers, Manitoba Farm Bureau, the Western Feed Grains Council,
Western Grain Transportation Act
Alberta and Saskatchewan Stock Growers said that there had to be major changes to the Crow Bill.
If not, they said kill the bill.
Those allies who were on the side of the Government when the former Minister started this process have now left the sinking ship. They are not in support of it either. 1 can also quote from an independent group, the Canada West Foundation, which has passed judgment on Bill C-155. It outlines the winners and losers, and I will have more to say about this. The winners are clearly the two national railways. 1 quote from page 8 of their brief:
The losers ... under the method of payment scheme laid out in Bill C-155, the long term interests of western Canada will not be served-major losers in the Crow debate are Prairie livestock interests as represented by feed grain producer and livestock associations. Bill C-155 clearly discriminates against these groups by encouraging farmers through its subsidy structure to produce grain for export markets... the biggest losers are western Canadian agribusiness. Paying the Crow benefit to the railways deals a near death-blow to the existing and future agricultural processing in western Canada.
The Minister talked about the great splash of processing and manufacturing activity that will take place. This statement comes from an independent body, the Canada West Foundation. It is an independent think thank which has passed judgment on this. One has only to look at the groups that have come out in opposition to this measure.
What is happening is that of the four or five principles which the former Minister wanted to achieve, only one principle will be achieved. Maybe we will get more capacity in the railways. The railways will certainly get paid. They will be the major beneficiaries because this is nothing more than a sweetheart deal for the railways.
This brings me to my next point. I am pleased to see the former Minister as well as the current Minister in the House. At the time this debate started, we took exception to the generosity of this package as far as the railways are concerned. As I said, it is a sweetheart deal. It constitutes a form of corporate welfare unprecedented in this country. One has only to look at the record to confirm that.
We were also less than impressed by the so-called notional schemes, the awards and sanctions that were being imposed that would guarantee performance, efficiency and investment. We tried in the committee to tighten that up. We also tried to tighten it up in report stage. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) tried in Motion No. 58 to tighten up that provision. Unfortunately, the axe of closure fell and we were not able to deal with that motion. 1 just want to confirm what this means to the railroads. I am not picking on CPR because I think the other railway will be served in much the same way. I quote from the Wood Gundy report of July 12, 1983:
The federal initiative will add an estimated $3.50 per share in earnings in the 1983-85 period.
I quote from a recent document dated September, 1983 put out by Wood Gundy commenting on the CPR:
The Crow revision will be a primary engine of this growth which should propel the railway's net earnings to almost double their previous peak (1981) by 1985.

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
This will, in effect, double the railways' earnings over their best year ever, 1981, between now and 1985. It really is a sweetheart Bill.
We were told during the committee stage that there is at least $40 to $50 million worth of fat in this package. The two competing consultants who appeared before the committee took issue with that and documented it very accurately. These were some of the concerns that we expressed when we started debate on this issue in mid-May. We still have these concerns today. They are issues that have not been rectified. Since that time, during the course of the hearings and the six months that have elapsed, the Government has really not done anything to allay these concerns and fears. It has provided some window dressing and made a few gestures, but really nothing substantive.
During second reading debate and outside the House as well, the former Minister said that he would look at ways and means of reducing the burden on the producer. He said he would entertain the possibility of adjusting the 31.1 million tonne cap. It has been adjusted somewhat because there have been additional crops which have been brought in. He was going to look at the pros and cons of that. Also, he was again going to look seriously at the method of payment. It was really on that basis that this Bill passed second reading and went to committee. When it got to committee, we found that these matters could not be dealt with. They were found to be out of order, going beyond the Royal Proclamation or beyond the expressed intent of the Bill as it passed second reading.
What happened after that? The former Minister was dumped and a new Minister was named. He appeared before the committee, and I commend him for that, within a couple of days of his appointment. He was the epitome of conciliation and accommodation. He was going to listen to the committee. He challenged the committee to bring forth proposals with respect to the method of payment, a different freight rate structure and with respect to finding ways and means and reducing the burden on producers. He even came up with some suggestions on the agriculture adjustment fund; there was no mechanism to implement that. It was not in the terms of reference.
We have been working at this. My colleague from Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger) outlined his proposal for the utilization of the agriculture adjustment fund. I commend it to the Minister because, as he says, the $204 million is still in the envelope. He recognizes, and everyone who understands this Bill just a little bit knows, that the livestock hurt is still there and it is going to be worse as more grain moves more freely to export markets. That will simply exacerbate the problem. I ask the Minister to look at the proposal of my colleague the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin.
[DOT] (M20)
The Minister appeared before the committee and said outside the committee that there was one thing that was not negotiable, and that was the method of payment. All this good will that was generated, all this conciliation and these acts of
accommodation were nothing but fluff. He had not met his caucus. As well as committing himself to one review that was included in the Bill, the Minister also committed himself to set up a special commission of inquiry under the Inquiries Act, where we witnesses can be subpoenaed and evidence taken under oath, to study the method of payment.
They also found out they had some reservations about the sweetheart deal to the railroads with respect to the constant costs, so the Government set up another study to look at the appropriateness of constant costs, which is really nothing but a profit to the railroads. The railways are going to receive full cost recovery for the movement of grain. Included in that cost recovery is a component for return on investment of anywhere from 18 per cent to 20 per cent and depreciaiton. On top of that, they are going to get a 20 per cent mark-up. It is a 20 per cent cost-plus operation. Without the constant costs the railways are still going to receive more than $1 billion a year for moving grain between their payments from the farmers, the Government the railway rehabilitation and all the other programs.
They are saying now: "Pass the Bill and we will review the impact after the Bill is passed". One review which is enshrined in the Bill is to study the impact assessment, the farmers' ability to pay, the appropriateness of the freight rates imposed upon the farmers. We have been saying: "Let us study the impact on the increased freight rates on the farmer and whether there is a better way to distribute the method of payment before we burden the producers with these exorbitant freight rate increases".
The Government have the cart before the horse. They are doing everything backward. We had a golden opportunity because there was no consensus for Crow reform and there is no consensus now. The reason there is no consensus now is that, this Minister chose to do nothing different from the former Minister. He had a golden opportunity to bring forth a new approach which would have taken into consideration those concerns of western Canada. He could and should have defended the interests of western Canadian agriculture, but he turned out to be a pygmy. He was crushed by the overwhelming influence of his Quebec colleagues. It is disturbing to westerners that, while this issue has implications right across the country, it is a western issue which is being solved-


Jean-Guy Dubois: It is a Canadian issue.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, it is a Canadian issue, but the real core of it is a western issue. The implications and the spin-off extends throughout the whole of the country but it is a western issue. The formula for Crow reform has been prescribed, not by westerners but by the politicians from Quebec and Ontario with a western Minister presiding. That is a shame and a failure. There is no question in my mind that it is going to cripple-


Some Hon. Members:: Say that in Quebec.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I will say it in Quebec. I will say it anywhere because it is the truth. I regret that very much. I am
November 4, 1983

surprised that the Members opposite are not receptive to hearing what the views of people in other parts of Canada are.


An Hon. Member:: What are the rules on that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, someone will cover that before the day is over.


Lloyd Axworthy: Where are the pools?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Are they the Government now, Mr. Minister? Are the pools the Government now? Give away the polling and go to the pools.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister asks where are the pools. I do not see the pools joyously clapping their hands and supporting this Bill. They are not supporting this Bill at all. It only confirms that this Bill is going to cripple the livestock industry and could spell the demise of many farms and farm communities.


An Hon. Member:: What did they tell you in western Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member opposite who is not sitting in his seat is asking, "What to they tell you in western Canada?" I will tell him what they told us in western Canada. I am quoting from a brief that was presented by the Research Action and Education Centre, Regina, Saskatchewan. They say that on the basis of their calculations this Bill will have the effect of removing some 30,000 to 35,000 farms from rural Saskatchewan during the next decade.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Right on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: These people are worried about jobs. What about the poor farmers that are going to be driven out of business as a result of this legislation? This is not a farmers' brief. It is a brief that was put together by university academics who have an agricultural base and understand the social and economic fabric of Saskatchewan and western Canada.
I say that the Minister has been a failure. He has been overwhelmed and crushed by the influences within the Liberal caucus that have a lot more influence than he. I regret that very much because I know the Minister firmly believes that his method of payment solution is not satisfactory. I know that and I commend him for trying, but that is the way the Liberal Party operates.
Throughout the debate we have opposed those sections of the legislation which we believed to be wrong and we have proposed alternatives. We advanced a proposition that would lighten the burden of producers and give them a chance to adjust. This decision was taken after a great deal of care and deliberation. We went out and heard what the producers, communities and groups in western Canada had to say. They convinced us that the time was not ready for the dismantlement of the Crow and that this was not the time to impose an
Western Grain Transportation Act
additional burden upon the backs of producers. Therefore, we have advanced the proposition for retaining the Crowsnest Pass freight rates until the end of the 1985-86 crop year. It would not cost the treasury any money. It would just mean that during that period the railways would not get their contribution to constant costs. That is their 20 per cent profit. We are talking about something under $200 million because it is now a two and one-half year freeze since the new rates will come into effect on January 1. Mr. Speaker, that would have given the Government some time to do its impact assessment and review analysis to see what the effect would be on the individual family farm, the farm communities and the western agricultural community as a whole. They could then look at the various scenarios with respect to the method of payment and determine what effect this method or that method of payment would have upon future processing and the livestock industry.
Speaking of future processing, the canola processors are worse off now than they were before the Bill was passed and their product is being included as a statutory grain. It is ridiculous for the Minister to stand in his place and say that all these new things are going to occur.
We made a very serious proposal. It was practical and was based on common sense. It would have given the producers some time to prepared for any potential increase and we think this was the right way to go about it. It would have been fair and equitable.
We advanced proposals with respect to the method of payment. In an attempt to break the deadlock we proposed freedom of choice, not a formula delivered from on high. We challenged the western agricultural groups to examine the freedom of choice method of payment. The Alberta Government and a number of Alberta farm groups came up with the double 80 proposal. The Manitoba Farm Bureau came up with a very good proposal which would have offered freedom of choice and allowed further diversification in spreading the Crow benefit among a larger group of producers. 1 am sure there are more proposals as well. The Minister looked at them but then he said: "It is not negotiable". Mr. Speaker, what is the point of pursuing it any further? The Minister chose, instead, and elaborate review process.
Even at this late date we are merely asking that the Minister include a permissive provision in the Bill which would allow another method of payment after the review process is completed. If the inquiry comes forward with a recommendation for another method of payment, there is nothing in the Bill to allow the change to be made. We are asking that the provision be inserted so that by Order in Council, subject to parliamentary approval, a modified method of payment may be incorporated after a review. We contend that this is a reasonable and realistic proposal.
We offered amendments to include the B.C. Railway. I am pleased that the Government saw fit to allow that and, with some degree of reluctance, the Minister included the B.C.

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Railway as an eligible railway to receive subsidies under the program.
We proposed ways and means of cutting back on the generosity of the railroads by eliminating the constant cost until we could determine with some degree of accuracy what level was appropriate. The Government suggested that the railways need the money now. They are certainly going to be a lot better off than they were previously, Mr. Speaker. They are going to get full cost recovery including return on investment and provision for depreciation. We said that was fine but that 20 per cent profit was a bit much so we backed it off. 1 wonder how many farmers operate at a profit of 20 per cent over cost. No business in the world has that kind of sweetheart deal.
We made changes to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and tried to strengthen the role of the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator. In committee we contributed to a better bill but we cannot support the burden the Government is proposing to impose on producers and the fact that the method of payment is totally wrong. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we maintained a responsible position. We worked hard in an attempt to seek out and prescribe a solution that would be fair and in the best interests of all.


Mr. Pepin:: You were divided.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister is carrying on a conversation now. He knows that the agricultural community is divided in western Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: So are you in your Party.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: At least we are prepared to listen to various points of view and to work toward a solution. The Party opposite says it has the answer and come hell or high water, that is the proposal; it will be rammed down our throats.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some day you must make a decision.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: All this leads to further disharmony and will strain regional tensions in the country. 1 regret having to say that, Mr. Speaker.
The concerns that existed last May exist today. In terms of the additional burden being placed on producers we say, let us see the review before we accept it. That is a logical, common sense, realistic proposal.
1 find it strange that some people are surprised that we advanced the proposal for the two and a half year freeze. Anyone who followed the debate closely might have drawn that conclusion. Anyone who followed the committee proceedings would not have been surprised. I should like to read into the record what 1 said in debate on May 12, because 1 think it will put the whole thing into perspective. As reported at page 25382 of Hansard 1 said:
This Bill will have a very dramatic impact on the economy and social lifestyle of western Canada. It is very, very difficult to gauge the degree of that impact. That is why this House and Canadians in general will have to move very slowly and deliberately on this legislation.
To begin dismantling the historic and statutory rates enjoyed by producers in western Canada is in some respects to approach the land of the unknown. The social and economic base of western Canada has largely been founded upon the production, distribution, marketing and transportation of grain. Certain patterns evolved as a result of that. The Crowsnest Pass statutory freight rate was a major component of the development of those patterns. In essence, the Crowsnest Pass statutory freight rate served as a constitutional pillar of the western agricultural industry.
I went on to talk about the difficult times that farmers were facing. As reported at page 25384 I said:
1 think a strong case can be made, therefore, for no increase until such time as the price of the farmer's commodity increases or at least reaches a level which will bear some semblance to the price of input costs and, indeed, bear some relationship to the international marketplace.
I repeated that at page 25385. The Minister of Transport was not in the House during that debate so I bring it to his attention now. I said:
This is certainly not the time to be imposing an additional burden upon the backs of the farmers of western Canada.
I repeated that and I do not know how many times I can say it. 1 then went on to outline my reasons. We expected change and accommodation when the new Minister took over but we did not get it. Today we are being asked to pass a Bill which the prairie community does not support and the Government is not prepared to listen to us.
I should like to close by saying a few things about the Bill to my urban friends. Those who live in urban areas in the country are probably sick and tired of hearing about the Crow, particularly those who live in urban areas outside the prairie basin. 1 am sure that they have some difficulty appreciating what the Crow is all about. They are not alone; we have had some difficulty as well. It is a complex issue, more complex than simply a matter of one half a cent per tonne per mile. I should like to remind them of what the grain industry means to Canada. It means in excess of $6 billion in exports. That is pretty important in terms of foreign exchange and economic spin-off. In direct employment, over 150,000 families are directly involved in the production of grain-families, not persons, Mr. Speaker. Employment in transportation and the railway system means at least another 25,000 to 30,000 people directly involved in the industry.
Rural communities, municipalities and cities exist as a result of this important industry. What does this mean in terms of spin-off? In 1981, farmers spent some $2 billion on farm machinery and parts. Most of that was spent in central Canada, in cities where people work in factories producing these important products. And farmers are very good spenders. In 1981, farmers spent $760 million on fuel and well over $200 million went directly into the federal coffers in the form of taxes. In 1981 some $642 million was spent on fertilizer and, again, a good portion of that in the form of taxes went directly into Government coffers. In terms of the multiplier effect, every dollar's worth of grain which is exported generates $4 worth of economic activity. Therefore, we are looking at something like $24 billion.
November 4, 1983

All of this translates into jobs. Of the tonnage which moves along the St. Lawrence Seaway, 52 per cent is grain. Two-thirds of that grain is Canadian grain. The Port of Vancouver owes its existence to the western farmer. Over 20 per cent of the tonnage which goes through the Port of Vancouver is grain. That translates into jobs. So when we are talking about jobs, let us not undermine that industry which produces jobs, which has jobs in place, because if the farmers are driven out of business those jobs are going to be destroyed. That is one of the points which this Government has failed to recognize.
This session opened with a Speech from the Throne delivered on April 14, 1980. At the conclusion, the Throne Speech has this to say:
Like all of your colleagues in the House of Commons, you who represent the people of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia have a responsibility to represent your constituents to the nation. You also have an extra responsibility in the present circumstances to represent the nation to your constituents. It is a task no one else can fulfil. My government is prepared to co-operate fully in helping you to achieve this.
We have a Bill before us, Mr. Speaker, which is being rammed through under double and triple closure by a Government which has no rural representation in western Canada, by a Government which has not achieved a consensus about which the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke, by a Government which does not have a mandate to tamper with the Crow because it did not mention the Crow during the last election campaign. We have a Government which is moving to invoke this Bill, which is not supported by western Canadian Members of Parliament, nor the western farmers, nor the western farm organizations, nor the western governments.
1 can only draw this conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this Government, this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this Minister of Transport simply cannot be trusted, because if those words in the Speech from the Throne have any meaning, they would not be proceeding with this particular piece of legislation at this time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to amend the motion with which we are dealing as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
"Bill C-155, the Western Grain Transportation Act, be not now read a third
time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Transport for the
purposes of reconsidering Clauses 43, 55, 58 and 62."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are we on debate, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member want to be recognized to speak to the amendment?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to speak on the Bill, thank you, on third reading and on the amendment.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will those in favour of the motion please say yea?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons adopted, the vote stands deferred.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could clarify your ruling. We understand, first, that the motion has been defeated, so he is not speaking on the-


Some Hon. Members:: Deferred!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion has been deferred, according to our rules.
We will now revert to the usual ten-minute question and answer period. The Hon. Member had unlimited time and this caused some concern to the Chair. However, it is quite clear that it is in order for there to be a ten-minute question and answer period.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the ten-minute question and answer period. I listened with great interest to what the spokesman for the Official Opposition had to say. I listened for 31 days in committee, nine days on second reading and 15 days or whatever at report stage, and what I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is, what is the Tory bottom line?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We gave it to you.


Jesse Philip Flis: What is that Party's ultimate position? And does it have-


An Hon. Member:: Are you asleep?


Mr. Forrestall:: If you had some credibility, you have just blown it.


Jesse Philip Flis: Listen! And does it-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary has been recognized for the purpose of asking a question. He has the floor.


Jesse Philip Flis: Does it have consensus on that position? Because the Hon. Member criticized the Government, saying that we do not have a consensus on this Bill. With all these amendments put by ourselves, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party making it the best Bill possible under the circumstances, what is the Tory position? What is its bottom line? And does it have a consensus for that position?

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly abide by your admonition. This could give me an opportunity to make a ten-minute speech. However, I will not seize that opportunity. 1 will try to answer the question as briefly as I can. Our bottom line has been and will continue to be to get a fair deal for the producers. This Bill does not constitute a fair deal for the producer and everything we have done in the course of the last six months has been done in an attempt to strike a better deal for the producers of Canada.
When the Minister and his Government complete all their studies on the appropriateness of the freight rate regime, the ability of the producers to pay, the method of payment and the appropriateness of the 20 per cent constant cost, all of which is going to be reviewed and studied by review committees set up by this Minister, then we will be in a better position to determine whether the producers can afford this kind of freight rate regime. The bottom line is simply that if the Government had accepted the two proposals we advanced, the freeze and the enabling provision for a modified method of payment on completion of the review inquiry, this would have gone a long way toward improving the Bill and attracting more support from western Canada. Our position has always been to try and seek out a solution in the best interests of the producer, and if it is in the best interests of the producer, then it is in the best interests of agriculture as a whole.


Jesse Philip Flis: If the Hon. Member is sincere in his desire to have a package worked out in the best interests of the producer, I am sure he is thinking of all producers in western Canada. He is thinking not only of the grain producers but of the livestock producers, hog and poultry producers, the specialty crop producers and so on. We heard from those producers that the Crow rate has caused a distortion over all these years. They feel they are discriminated against to the extent of 80 per cent because the grain producer pays only 20 per cent of the shipment of grain while the livestock producers have to pay 100 per cent of the cost of shipping their products. I heard this from the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and others. These producers are shipping the same product, grain, but in the form of hogs or beef cattle or whatever. It is still the same product, grain, being transported, but they have to pay 100 per cent of the cost.
Would the Hon. Member explain to this House how putting a three-year freeze in place is going to correct that distortion? Will it not prolong the distortion for another three years? The NDP position would prolong the distortion indefinitely, and the Tories would prolong it for another three years. Can the Hon. Member clarify that fact? He gave us his bottom line and yet again we see there is no bottom line because they are all over the map in this situation, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has been waving around a $204 million agricultural adjustment fund which could certainly be used to alleviate any injury to producers. If he wants to take that proposition seriously, 1 commend to him the document produced by the Hon. Member
for Wetaskiwin which answers the question the Parliamentary Secretary has advanced. Quite frankly, there is a livestock injury; there was, there is and there will be under this legislation. At least the former Minister had $204 million in the kitty to resolve that. Why does this Minister not utilize that money to relieve the livestock injury to some extent? That is what we would be doing and that is why this proposition is here.
The Hon. Member suggests that things are going to be better as a result of the increased freight rates. This is what the prairie commodity groups say. The Bill removes all incentive for increased efficiency in handling, leaving in effect a cost-plus system which will encourage the railways to maximize their grain cost structure. This system will be disastrous for grain producers who will be paying an even larger share of the enormously costly, inefficient and inadequate system that no one can afford.
The Bill goes on to say that because more grain will be moving, it will create a further distortion for the livestock producer. If the Minister and his Government are as serious about incorporating a different method of payment as they say they are, then they should be very eager to incorporate an enabling provision in this legislation. That is what we are asking for. It is a two-pronged effect but let us do it after the proper analysis and study have been done. We have spent ten years studying the so-called losses of the railway campanies. I think we can stand at least a couple of years to study the impact this proposal will have on the producers, whether they can afford to pay more, and how the benefit would best be distributed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, one is undecided whether to try and take the high road, middle road or low road in a debate such as this. Once every 20, 30 or 50 years Parliament is faced with legislation of such consequence that it is incumbent upon people all over the country, but particularly on Opposition Parties, not only to oppose and propose, but also to try to prevent. This is one of those rare occasions.
This Parliament has sat for over three years in one session in which we have passed over 100 pieces of legislation. Some of that legislation the Opposition agreed with, some we opposed and voted against. But the Government was able to have its way. However, every once in a while, on rare occasions, a government may be embarked on a course which harms our nationhood and our Confederation. This is one of those rare occasions.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for, in fact I am proud of, the role my Party and my colleagues have played from day one when we said we would do everything we could under the rules of Parliament to prevent his legislation from passing. 1 do not mean this unkindly, Sir, because I generally welcome the support of the Conservative Party in trying to prevent this Bill from passing. But it is not enough just to vote against the Bill, whether it is second reading, report stage amendments or third reading. That is easy. When we have that rare occasion when
November 4, 1983

we must try to prevent this kind of harm to our nation and our Confederation and to an important region of Canada, it seems to me, while we welcome the conversion of my colleagues from the Conservative Party on their version of the Road to Damascus, that they could have stopped this Bill back in June. They had the numbers and the rules, and they could have stopped this Bill any time after it was first introduced. They could have but they did not. They opposed the Bill, Mr. Speaker. They are in favour of stopping and killing the Crow rate but they cannot have it both ways. They do not want to abolish the statutory grain rates now. They want to do it a year and a half or two years or two and a half years from now. They cannot be half pregnant, Mr. Speaker. There is no such thing. They are either in favour of keeping the statutory grain rate for the grain producers or they are not.
Working both sides of the street is not worthy of that very historic Party. It is not worthy of Conservative and Liberal Governments that, from 1881 on, saw to it that regions of the nation were not discriminated against because of geography or because of where the goods are produced.
In all regions of Canada, Mr. Speaker, there are programs implemented by the national Government, the costs of which are shared by all the people of Canada. When we go back to the original regional programs, that concept was called the beginnings of co-operative federalism. I will never forget the first Leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Tommy Douglas, who campaigned in 1962 and 1963 on a platform of co-operative federalism. It was pooh-poohed by Grits and Tories at that time. Now everybody uses the phrase, and well they should because it is a non-partisan phrase and deals with the unity of the country and how we live together and deal with one another decently and fairly.
In the last few days, we have welcomed one of the few things, or perhaps the only thing, the Government has done right and that is the freeze on the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls. The St. Lawrence Seaway is essential for all of Canada, and all Canadians share in paying for its cost and losses. I would like to tell the Government that western farmers and people from western Canada supported central Canada in its bid to freeze the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls for at least one more year.
There is an attempt in the House to perpetuate a philosophy that was put forward by a Member who is neither missed nor forgotten, although I wish I could forget him, and that is the philosophy of user-pay. Members of our Party, and perhaps Members of other Parties, had access to a Cabinet document in the fall of 1981. That Cabinet document referred not only to abolishing the statutory grain rates. It also referred to the feed freight assistance Act, the At and East rates, the Maritime freight assistance Act, the Atlantic Provinces assistance Act, the deficits on the St. Lawrence Seaway and the deficits on airports. It was a document that followed up on Mr. Lang's original proposals regarding user-pay in order to get the
Western Grain Transportation Act
federal Treasury and the Government out from under all of these regional programs.
I warned my colleagues on the Government side, particularly those in the backbenches, and I warned my colleagues on the Conservative side that the statutory grain rates was just the beginning and that every other regional program was at stake. Hon. Members had best remember that warning because user-pay is indefensible when it comes to transportation since every mode of transportation is subsidized. Hundreds of commodities are subsidized. They must be subsidized in a country with our geography, our climate and our thinly and widely scattered population. There is no other alternative. We are not a nation with a large and dense population.
I do not want to say the following, but I must. It was strange how successful we were when we sought the freeze on the St. Lawrence Seaway tolls, an issue that meant so much to central Canada and to all of the ports from Thunder Bay to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. People rallied from central Canada and from western Canada to stop the increase in St. Lawrence Seaway tolls. However, Mr. Speaker, people have rallied from all across Canada to stop this legislation. It is strange that we did not get the same amount of time and attention on this issue from the Government in a year. It is only the last few weeks we have even had the time and attention of the Conservative Party.
I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there are at least
200,000	signatures appearing on petitions of all kinds submitted by Members of Parliament from both Opposition Parties and submitted by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool through a Government Member. Even if 50,000 of those signatures appear on more than one petition. One hundred and fifty thousand people, most of them from western Canada, have asked that the Government not proceed with this legislation. People from coast to coast have asked the same thing. Most of those people are farmers.
The Minister spoke about rail upgrading. He proved this morning that he does not know one end of a boxcar from another. The deliberate attempt to make the grain producers and the statutory grain rate the villains of the piece is the worst kind of political chicanery that can be performed by someone who should kow better. If he knew anything about the problem, he would know better.
The Crowsnest Pass grain rates and then the statutory grain rates, have been in effect since 1897 and 1925. That, according to the Minister, was supposed to have prevented the modernizing and upgrading of the railways. Since 1897, under the staturory grain rates, there have been many improvements. During the time from 1900 to 1920, a spiral tunnel was constructed, the Connaught Tunnel was constructed and double-tracking was installed. The 1930s were kind of slow but there were a few improvements even then. The 1940s and 1950s saw the implementation of centralized traffic control from coast to coast and dieselization from coast to coast. Double tracks were installed right up until 1957 or 1958. Do you know what happened, then, Mr. Speaker? The Liberal Government followed by a Tory Government allowed the

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act railways to lift up something like 600 miles of double track in western Canada.
So much for the Minister's nonsense and his political and economic blackmail that would have us believe that if we do not raise the grain rates, we will not have the rails upgraded. If there was not another bushel of grain shipped to Vancouver and Prince Rupert starting tomorrow, those tracks would still have to be upgraded. If we moved all of the grain to Thunder Bay and Churchill and forgot about the West coast, those tracks would still have to be upgraded.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall has made that proposition plain in his report and on several occasions since, particularly in front of the committee. He has made it plain that for the purposes of moving coal from British Columbia, the track is now almost completely upgraded from the Alberta border to Prince Rupert. That upgrading had nothing to do with grain and nothing to do with the freight rate on grain.
The statutory grain rate is a part of the charter for western Canada. We in western Canada are no different from people from anywhere else in the country. We are honest people and we deal honestly. We have always tried to operate in such a manner that a deal is a deal.
1 want to say to my friend, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), whom I thank for repeating much of what I said in my speech at second reading, that we must cease just handing the money over to the railroads. The taxpayers, like any other investor, are entitled to have an opportunity for a return on their investment. Surely that is nothing more than good, sound business management and good free enterprise economics.
We submitted our alternative plan to the public. We mailed it to the former Minister of Transport, we mailed it to the Conservative Party and we mailed it to all the farm organizations. But I must say that we have not had the courtesy of a reply or a point by point answer from either the Government or the Official Opposition. It is the "KISS" principle which we meant mainly for the Government but which perhaps might help the Opposition. That principle is, "Keep it simple, stupid". With respect to the Dominion coal lands, all of my colleagues welcomed the fact that a Conservative Member from Alberta or British Columbia got up and supported our number one point. Our point is that the B.C. Coal lands should be returned to the Province of British Columbia. We announced our alternative program two days after the Minister's press conference in Winnipeg on February 1.
The present Minister says that British Columbia has not asked for the land back. I cannot help it if that Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit Government in British Columbia is so stupid. That is not my problem and it is not the Minister's problem. What is just and within the Constitution is the principle that the natural resources belong to the Provinces. I am not talking about offshore resources. These are inland resources in the southeastern part of British Columbia. That Province gave up many thousands of acres of that land, for
what? They did it for the Kettle Valley Railway line. But where is that line? It has been abandoned. I say that a deal is a deal and since the railroads got out of their part of the deal, surely the people of British Columbia are entitled to have their part of the deal returned. Nothing could be more simple or more just.
Our second position is the retention of the statutory grain rates for the shipping of grain from western Canada. My colleague for Vegreville spoke about the competition which exists. 1 do not need to go into that any further because he is exactly right. Our competitors in the United States, Argentina, Australia and the European Economic Community provide subsidies of anywhere from $10 to $25 a tonne. The Government is seeking to reduce the present costs of the statutory rate from $5 to $6 a tonne, to zero by 1990, even if we accepted the railways' figures. It is asking grain producers, which it has done time and time again since the turn of the century, to compete with the treasuries of the rest of the world.
What happened to co-operative federalism? According to the statutory rates, whatever the deficit or out of pocket costs, the nation as a whole shares that cost because that grain export and grain production benefits the whole nation from Halifax to Prince Rupert.
We have already lost 3,000 miles of branch lines in western Canada. Through this legislation, with its variable rates, the Government is quitting on its commitment for branch line rehabilitation and is, in fact, even transferring funds from the branch line rehabilitation account to the subsidizing of trucks, which means that many fewer miles of branch lines will be upgraded, with the loss of another 1,500 miles of branch lines.
I hope that by Monday afternoon on November 14, the Government will agree that it needs to continue to look not only at the statutory grain rates but at all the regional transportation programs. I hope it will study how they fit together in a national objective, no matter what political Party is in power. This has never been dealt with.
I want to continue my remarks, but before you cut me off, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following subamendment:
That the amendment be amended by inserting:
"for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 55, 88, 89, 93, 116 and 157B .
That is seconded by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). These numbers refer to motions on the Order Paper. Because some of these require some additions to the Bill, that is why we moved this subamendment.
I want to say to my friends in the Conservative Party that this issue does not only concern wheat. I want to say to my colleagues on the Government side that it is not just wheat. The ramifications of this legislation will provide a hurt. I have yet to have anyone show me that the so-called livestock hurt is attribuable to the statutory grain rate. It is a myth for anyone to believe that abolishing the statutory rate will somehow enable western livestock producers to invade the U.S. market, whether California, the central States or eastern States and that the U.S. administration will hold still for that. If they
November 4, 1983

believe that, they are dreaming in technicolour. In fact, the head of Burns Food said before the committee that he would like to know where those big markets are because he cannot find them. You can hardly call him a raving socialist. That is a piece of mythology peddled by those who want to blame somebody. Who do they blame? They blame the grain producers and the statutory rate.
1 will never forget when a cattleman in the Peace River country in Alberta said that he did not want to make more money on his cattle on the backs of his neighbours from whom he buys grain.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Chair might enlighten me, for I would like to know whether the sub-amendment has been moved and accepted by the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I should explain to the Hon. Member that the sub-amendment has not yet been accepted by the Chair but, right now, the Chair would like to urge the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to conclude his remarks because his time has expired, and during the period allowed for questions, answers and comments, perhaps I will be able to reach a decision concerning the sub-amendment.
[English}
I have indicated to the Hon. Member who stood on a point of order that I have not yet decided on the acceptability of the subamendment, but perhaps during the period of questions and answers we can achieve that.
1 must indicate to the Hon. Member for Regina west (Mr. Benjamin) that his time has expired.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, if the Hon. Member for Regina West wishes to raise a point of order, perhaps we could consider that his time for debate has expired and I will now recognize him on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, if it will assist the Chair in regard to our subamendment, let me say that the numbers in it refer to motions that were on the Order Paper which, in turn, refer to the subject matter in the Bill, such as Canadian Wheat Board control, stop-off charges, variable rates, volume cap and producer share of costs, namely, the safety net. Because we only had a very few minutes in which to draft the subamendment hurriedly, and we did not have a copy of the one moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), which by the way we support, we had to use the motion numbers on the Order Paper. However, those motion numbers refer to the subject matters which are already in the Bill.
I hope the Chair will take that into consideration when it considers whether or not the motion is in order. If we had had ten minutes longer, perhaps we could have gone through the
Western Grain Transportation Act Bill and picked out the actual clause numbers. Time did not permit that. What we are aiming at is the subject matter now in the Bill at third reading. We only used the motion numbers on the Order Paper as a term of reference for the Chair and everyone else in the Chamber. I hope the Chair will be sympathetic in accepting our subamendment as well as the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Claude-André Lachance: Would the Chair explain how it can accept a sub-amendment to an amendment on which the House has already divided?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that was the point I was rising on. As I sat in my office monitoring rather than being here because I had things to do there, what 1 saw transpire was that the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) moved an amendment which would have had a certain matter referred back to the committee for further study. I think inadvertently your colleague, the occupant of the chair at the time, stated that the motion was deferred, which I think was in error.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He said, "the vote".


Erik Nielsen: What I heard was "motion".


Mr. Halliday:: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: What I heard was that the motion was deferred. As the Chair well knows, on an amendment such as the one put by the Hon. Member for Vegreville after the yeas and nays are called-and they were-the Standing Orders require the vote on that motion to be deferred until the next sitting day. It was at that point that the Chair then called for debate on the amendment and then proceeded directly into the ten-minute question period. 1 suggest to the Chair that the point in procedural time at which we should be now is on the debate on the amendment.
I will not offer any suggestions with respect to the putting of a subamendment. The Chair can sort that out for itself without any assistance from me. But the point in procedural time where we are now is on the debate on the amendment put by the Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to help my hon. colleague, but how can we be debating an amendment on which the yeas and nays have been called?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question gladly. We went through the whole process on some 84 amendments where yeas and nays were called and the votes thereon deferred. That is exactly what happens on a Friday where a motion is put which comprises an amendment. The only course for the Chair to follow under the Standing Orders as they now exist, under the new experimental rules, is for the yeas and nays to be put, and there the process stops.

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
1 see the Parliamentary Secretary shaking his head. That is the process. Otherwise, the only other alternative is for the bells to ring and a division to be taken, which is prohibited by the experimental Standing Orders. I suggest that the Chair is obliged, on a substantive motion such as the one moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville, to call the yeas and nays. Thereafter, under the new Standing Orders it is obliged to say that the vote is deferred until the next sitting day, the same way the vote on third reading is deferred until Monday, November 14.
If the subamendment is accepted by the Chair, in my submission it is the obligation of the Chair to call for the yeas and nays on the subamendment and then, under the experimental Standing Orders, to defer the vote on the subamendment until November 14. The amendment by way of the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville has not been disposed of by the yeas and nays, not at all.


Mr. Evans:: What do you think the yeas and nays are?


Erik Nielsen: The yeas and nays-


John Leslie Evans: It is a vote.


Erik Nielsen: It is not a vote. The Parliamentary Secretary says, "It is a vote". It is not a recorded division.


Mr. Blais:: It is not a recorded division but it is a vote; the question has been put.


Erik Nielsen: The yeas and nays are taken and the vote is then deferred.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The recording of the vote is deferred.


Erik Nielsen: There can be no question of that under our experimental Standing Orders. That is what happened all day yesterday, and we came to an agreement to shorten that voting process.
In my submission that amendment is still before the House. The vote was required to be deferred until the next sitting day. With respect to the NDP subamendment, it would seem that any subamendment-and they themselves call it a subamendment, quite properly-would have to relate to the clauses of the Bill itself. The way I heard the subamendment which was produced, it related to motions at report stage. It had no reference to the clauses of the Bill itself, as did the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. That is my submission with respect to the procedural time slot we are in, and I ask that you so find.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry, I should recognize another Hon. Member from a different Party. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure you will understand if I say that I am a bit confused about what is happening here procedurally. I do not know whether or not the right decision
was made on the amendment. However, I want to say one or two words on the subamendment. What we are referring in the subamendment is the subject matter referred to in the motions read by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
I do not want to go into any lengthy argument whatsoever, but I would like to refer to page 155 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition wherein Citation 438 and Citation 439 refer to the feasibility of subamendments. Citation 439 in part reads:
To an amendment, when proposed from the Chair, an amendment may be moved; but only two amendments can be proposed at the same time to a question. Some limit is necessary; the usage has grown into law that an amendment to an amendment is allowable-
What we have done here-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 wonder if I might assist the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. The problem facing the Chair is whether or not there can be a subamendment if there is not an amendment; that is the only issue. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) put the argument in a very precise way. Since the yeas and nays were taken on the amendment and the amendment was disposed of, if I may use that expression without in any sense affecting the argument, logically one has a difficulty with whether or not we can have a subamendment to a non-existing amendment. That is the only issue at which we are looking. Hon. Members of the House are obviously aware of that. I particularly refer to- [Translation]
-the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) who raised the question immediately.

If we have disposed of an amendment, how do we have a subamendment? That is the issue. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in my submissions to you-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You refused to recognize me-


Erik Nielsen: 1 am sorry, 1 will defer to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Yvon Pinard: -then you allowed an NDP Member to speak, and suddenly you stopped everyone and allowed the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to speak.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order, don't you have any respect for the Chair?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) will remember that I recognized him, then the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), back to the President of the Privy Council, back again to the Hon.
November 4, 1983

Member for Yukon. As is usually the case, and particularly since the issue involves a subamendment of the NDP, 1 then intervened and suggested that we ought to hear from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). What has happened now is that the Hon. Member has deferred by indicating to the Chair visually that he is willing to turn the matter over to the Hon. Member for Yukon. I will recognize either the President of the Privy Council or the Hon. Member for Yukon, whichever one rises.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the Government House Leader speaking now, but if he would like to hear me first, 1 will speak briefly. It is up to him.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member very much for his courtesy. It makes more sense that I reply to what he has said. I have not participated in the debate on the point of order. 1 just asked a question of the Hon. Member for Yukon. 1 asked him how we could agree to a subamendment to an amendment that has been voted on by yeas and nays. He gave me an answer that I find unacceptable. I want to argue on this point first before he goes further.
The Hon. Member compared the situation with a vote on an amendment on yeas and nays at the report stage which was deferred. This is not the same case. At the report stage, when an amendment has not been disposed of completely but the yeas and nays are called, you cannot debate that amendment further. He said that here we could debate the amendment. I do not think we can. At report stage, once the yeas and nays have been called on an amendment, it is deferred. We then move to the following amendment. We do not debate the same amendment again. Therefore, I do not think his answer was adequate to the question 1 asked of him.
In this whole situation the problem is very simple. Nobody saw fit to debate the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) before the yeas and nays were called. Theoretically, debate should have ended and the House adjourned until November 14 the minute the yeas and nays were called and the vote was deferred until the next sitting day. We cannot debate the main motion without knowing what will happen with the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. We will not know that before three o'clock on Monday the 14th. 1 am not saying that we might not consider giving the appropriate consent to allowing the debate to go on until five o'clock, but I would not like to have this interpreted as a precedent. I would not like this to prevent all questions being put without further debate on Monday the 14th at three o'clock. It would be mere courtesy on our part to allow debate to continue on the main motion, without agreeing to any subamendment because there cannot be a subamendment to an amendment that has not been voted on finally.
The situation is very simple and clear. Theoretically, according to the Standing Orders, we should not be debating the motion any further this afternoon. The amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville has been partially disposed of and cannot be voted on before Monday, November 14. Therefore, we cannot debate the main motion. We should adjourn.
Western Grain Transportation Act
However, 1 am not asking that we adjourn. I am saying that we are willing to consider giving the appropriate consent to allow debate to go on until five o'clock without prejudice for the Standing Orders to apply fully for the vote to be taken at three o'clock on Monday the 14th without further debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am attempting to provide courtesy on the part of the Chair. The issue is a subamendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has once or twice deferred to the Hon. Member for Yukon. Again, I will take it in whatever order Members want it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate debate and not waste time on procedure, may I suggest to the House that we perhaps withdraw our subamendment and propose an amendment? If we had unanimous agreement for that, it might facilitate our procedure in the House.


Erik Nielsen: There is a better solution.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The other solution is to have the Hon. Member for Vegreville resubmit his amendment with unanimous consent and we can do the same. There is not much time remaining. It would allow time for Members to participate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there might be a better and more acceptable solution. I have had quite a few years dealing with the Government House Leader. I find that his arguments today have been uniquely and unusually impeccable with respect to his analysis of the situation. What has happened here, and I am sure it will not be understood by a good many people watching, is that another one of those parliamentary black holes has occurred. It has swallowed up temporarily the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville.
The solution which might find acceptance, since the Government has indicated consent and since we only have about one hour and fifteen minutes debating time left, is for the House to consent, regardless of its clinical acceptability or not, to the subamendment being put by the NDP which will "revive" the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). We can then enter back upon the debate. It would mean of course, three votes instead of two on Monday, November 14. If the House were disposed to consent to that, perhaps everyone might be happy. We could proceed with the debate without creating any precedent.


Yvon Pinard: Without creating any precedent. Mr. Speaker, 1 have had long years of negotiation with the Hon. Member for Yukon. I must admit that his proposal is unusually interesting. What we could agree to, in order to allow debate to go on, would be to consent not to consider the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville as having been voted on, even partially. That would allow a subamendment to be put. What the Members would have debated until now would have been the amendment. Therefore, everything would be regularized. We are willing to give that consent without prejudice to our

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
rights under the Standing Orders to have all votes without further debate at three o'clock on Monday, November 14.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we find what the Hon. Member for Yukon and the Government House Leader have had to say is eminently acceptable to us. 1 appreciate that the Chair will have to rule on the admissibility of the subamendment.
In any event, before the Chair rules, now that we have had a few minutes, I would ask the Chair to accept a different set of numbers in our subamendment. We have now had time to go through the Bill. Instead of the Clause numbers we show in the subamendment the Clause numbers should read Clause 33, Clause 41, Clause 47, Clause 54 and Clause 59. That is an additional five clauses that are different from those proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. We were correct on the subject matter, but we are now also correct on the clause numbers in the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the sake of clarification, the Hon. Member for Regina West at one point said additional clauses and at another point said replacement clause numbers. If I understand him correctly, what he would now like to do is to change his subamendment so that the numbers earlier referred to are entirely deleted.
The new clauses which he has just given to the Chair, that is, Clauses 33, 41,47, 54 and 59, would be in fact those clauses of the Bill which he would like to see sent to the Standing Committee. I have that correct apparently.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the sake of formality, I want to indicate to the Hon. Member that he had already proposed a subamendment. In order to change it, he is suggesting that it be withdrawn and that his new subamendment be put in. That is the procedural way. 1 need the unanimous consent of the House, and I would gather that it is forthcoming, that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) be permitted to withdraw his subamendment and replace it with the new one. Is that agreed by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, having resolved the procedural gymnastics, I would like to raise a question concerning the subamendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West. He passed over it very quickly, but I believe two or three of his amendments did have substantial financial connotations to them and therefore would require a royal recommendation. I believe the precedent set by the Chair previously is to rule those out of order because obviously such recommendations are neither available nor forthcoming.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I do not want to prejudge that issue. We are only dealing with a procedural issue as to the presentation of the subamendment. This is not a
time to argue whether or not the spending power is involved. This is just a matter of whether or not the Hon. Member can withdraw his subamendment and replace it with different clauses. This is well in advance of the question of the Chair ruling on the admissibility of the proposed subamendment. We now seek unanimous consent of the House as to whether or not the Hon. Member is to be permitted to withdraw his subamendment and to produce the one that he has just read out. May I have that unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Thank you.
On the matter of the subamendment now proposed by the Hon. Member, the Chair will take it under consideration. 1 do not want to hear argument yet. We can go back to the suggestions of the Hon. Member for the Yukon and the President of the Privy Council that there may be a disposition in the House to accept, without doing violence to any precedent or to the provisional Standing Orders, that what is before the House now is the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). May I have unanimous consent on that?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Again I thank Hon. Members. Therefore, debate is open on the amendment, and the subamendment is now possible. The Chair will take into consideration the subamendment in due course. Debate will continue for the moment.
[ Translation]


Mr. Ostiguy:: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will understand that it is indeed an honour for me today to take part in this third reading debate on a Bill which, in my opinion, is the Bill of the century. It stands to reason that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ostiguy), but the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You have wasted enough time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You got your extra ten minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville on a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt. I assure you it is a legitimate point of order. The Hon. Member for Regina West had finished his 20 minutes but you did not give a chance to the House to ask any questions of him, which is normally the course.
November 4, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member is quite correct. The Chair made an error in that regard. I should have gone first to questions, comments and answers and I will do so now. With respect to the debate of the Hon. Member for Regina West; questions, comments and answers.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was part way through his explanation of how he was proposing to bring about improvements to the rail system. 1 wonder if he could finish those remarks, so we have a complete understanding of it.


Mr. Dick:: What an abuse.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 hear the word "abuse". 1 learned this from some of my colleagues in the Official Opposition the first couple of times this happened.
However, Mr. Speaker, 1 will be brief and 1 thank my colleague. I regret that I did not complete the four-point alternative plan that we had proposed back in February. I had covered the B.C. coal lands and the retention of the Crow rate. The other two points are that we pay directly to the railways a subsidy that only covers their proven out-of-pocket costs. On the subsidy portion they cannot make any profit.
The fourth point is that all the moneys, which will be something in the order of $550 million, that will go to the railroads for rebuilding and modernizing railway lines are a capital investment. What we propose, and have proposed for these many months, is that that portion that goes into capital improvement in CN automatically increases the Government's equity ownership in CN by whatever number of shares. We take common stock shares in return for the portion that goes to Canadian Pacific.
Mr. Speaker, that is the NDP position. If the Government and the Official Opposition are not prepared to accept that, I would even be willing to say that if we made it a loan and charged them the bank rate, or even a couple of percentage points less than the bank rate, at least there would be an opportunity for a return on that investment to the taxpayers just as there is in the case of private or corporate investor.


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is the nub of-that is the condition for-


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -for providing the money to the railroads.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. Some Hon. Members are distressed that one Member of the same Party as the speaker who had just spoken is able to use the ten-minute question period to exchange questions and answers between two Members of the same Party. That has been ruled on several times. There is no question that if other Hon. Members in the House do not choose to use that 10-minute question period to put questions or provide answers and comments to the Hon. Member who had the floor in debate, then a Member
Western Grain Transportation Act
of his own Party may do so. That has happened from all Parties of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is settled. I want to be clear that I, as one of the occupants of the Chair, have quite often indicated that questions, answers, statements and comments are all to be guided by the amount of time given for statements made just prior to the question period. A minute and a half is what I regard as a good guideline. This is not an opportunity for a 30-second question and a nine and a half minute speech. A minute and a half is a guideline. 1 think the Hon. Member for Regina West has pretty well come to the conclusion of his remarks. I do not want to cut him off too abruptly. 1 see he indicates that I might go elsewhere.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the statement of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). He did make a rather interesting point with regard to a comparison between the Crow benefits and the subsidies that are paid by the taxpayers of Canada on the St. Lawrence Seaway. It seemed to me that there was a flaw in that comparison. Does making that comparison not revolve around who benefits and whether that benefit is available to all people who use the facility, or should it be available only to some people who use the facility? The benefit from the subsidy that is paid by the taxpayers of Canada is available to anyone who uses the St. Lawrence Seaway. Yet the benefit on the Crow, which effectively is supposed to build a better railway system in Canada, is available only to people who happen to grow a certain type of product, certain grains, and anyone else who ships on that rail line does not receive the subsidy. It seems to me that in order to be consistent, the Hon. Member should be saying either that the benefit should not be available for shipping grain or that it should be available to anyone using the railroad.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the subsidy on the St. Lawrence Seaway benefits all of Canada. The statutory grain rates benefit all of Canada. The Hon. Member wants to ask about other commodities. Mr. Speaker, other commodities have commercial or compensatory rates because they get a price for their product. If coal prices were on a level with grain prices, then there should be a statutory rate for coal. But coal prices have risen 600 per cent while their freight rate has risen 500 per cent. If a statutory rate for coal were needed because of low world coal prices, that would be perfectly logical. It would be just like the statutory grain rate, the subsidized St. Lawrence Seaway and freight assistance in all the rest of Canada.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, in debate, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) stated that people from coast to coast are saying that we should not proceed with the Bill. He led the House to believe that everyone is saying that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I did not say that.

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Jesse Philip Flis: I wonder if he would compare that statement to what Dennis McDermott, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, said in his press release of October 14, when he urged all three Parties to get on with Bill C-155.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has chosen one paragraph of that release. If he would care to quote the rest of it he will see that it says that the statutory rate should be retained for grain producers, that the rehabilitation and modernization of the railroads should continue for all commodities, not just for grain, and that jobs should be provided not only for railway workers but for other kinds of workers. The Canadian Labour Congress has supported the alternative proposal of the New Democratic Party since it was brought out in the first week of February.


Jesse Philip Flis: Not according to this press release.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Read all of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 gather that the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) wishes to enter the debate. Does the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) wish to enter debate or ask a question?


Mr. Heap:: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In the short time remaining I will allow the Hon. Member for Spadina the briefest possible question.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has touched on the question of trade. I should like to ask him to comment more generally on how maintaining the present Crow rate would affect foreign trade.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I extended a courtesy to the Hon. Member for Spadina but I did not extend an unlimited privilege to continue the ten-minute question period.
1 have already recognized the Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacin-the-Bagot (Mr. Ostiguy).
[ Translation]


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, one always says that in life-


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, as I know very well my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ostiguy), I apologize for interrupting him. 1 would like to say for the record that the representatives of the various parties have reached an agreement. This morning, 1 received a request from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and, this afternoon. from the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), asking me that the votes on Bill C-155 not be taken at 3 p.m. but rather at 5.45 p.m., and that the bells be rung at 5.45 p.m. at the next sitting. It is therefore, by exception, an amendment if you will to Standing Order 12(3), so instead of ringing the bells for 15 minutes beginning at 3 p.m. the next sitting day- that will be Monday, November 14-we agree that the bells be rung beginning at 5.45, pursuant to Standing Order 12(3).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: This is a good opportunity to indicate to the Hon. Member for Regina West and to the House that the subamendment he proposed is found to be in order.
That means, therefore, that the votes held on Monday, November 14, will be on the main motion, the amendment and the subamendment.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is seeking the unanimous consent that the vote be held not at three o'clock but at 5.45 p.m. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Agreed and so ordered.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for-Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is having some trouble being recognized. 1 shall recognize the Hon. Member, for the third time.


Marcel Ostiguy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The old saying that a picture is worth more than a thousands words would be very appropriate in this case, since this is the third time I was before the television cameras without being able to say a word.
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that today, the debate on the Western grain transportation rate, Bill C-155, a very important piece of legislation, affects every single person in this country. No one can afford to ignore this important Bill. No one, on our farms, in our cities, in our factories, in towns and in the country, no one can afford to ignore this issue. In my experience, in the riding I have the honour to represent in the House, the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, where more than
3,000	farmers live off the fruits of the land, the fruits of their labors, and I am thinking of the farmers in Saint-Damas, Saint-Hughes, Saint-Andre d'Acton and elsewhere-I must say that all these people have been, and still are, following the developments in this debate very closely. Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the National Assembly, the separatist Member for Saint-Hyacinthe, is something of an expert on farming and agricultural matters, and I say so without rancor, because at last winter's meetings when the objectors met the first time in Saint-Hyacinthe, including people from the UPA, the Cooperative federee and the Association des meuniers, my separatist colleague said that the Bill had already been passed, while it had not even been tabled at that time. He even said, and I shall quote him here from a publicity folder: "By imposing the recommendations of the Gilson Report, Pepin, Ouellet and Co. and all the others, you were all breaking the economic back of the agro-food business, probably just so you can have your picture taken with us when you hand out our wheel chairs."
1 may therefore point out to my provincial counterpart that at the time, the Bill had not been passed and that the main arguments put forward by the objectors concerned the princi-
November 4, 1983

pie that payments would be made to the railways instead of to producers.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill has, of course, gone through several stages. First of all, in February 1982, Professor Gilson was contracted to make a full study of transportation rates for Western grain. Subsequently, the Gilson Report was submitted to the Minister of Transport, followed by publication of a statement of policy, and then the Bill was tabled in the House.
Last summer, I was fortunate enough to sit on the Transport Committee that travelled across Canada to hear witnesses and intervenors on the subject of the Bill concerning what is referred to as the Crow. Mr. Speaker, out West, I carefully followed the proceedings of the Committee and realized there was no consensus among farmers and the various agricultural organizations. As I have said several times, we deplored this. Earlier, the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said that the people of Quebec had forced the Government to change its position on the Bill.
1 can inform the Member for Vegreville that in Quebec we have only one association, namely, the Union des producteurs agricoles. All other organizations related to agriculture or the agro-food business supported that association, and they were merely asking to have payments made to the railways instead of to farmers, for reasons they explained in great detail.
The objective of the people who were opposed to the Bill at the time was, of course, to ensure that the policy the Government would adopt on revision of railway transportation rates for grain would not alter the competitive balance within the livestock industry in Canada. This objective was in line with the traditional claims of Quebec intervenors with respect to Canada's grain policy, which boils down to one word: equity. As far as we are concerned, the word equity in this context means different things to different people. First, as far as ranchers are concerned, equity requires that there be nothing to prevent the same basic price from applying to feed grain throughout the domestic market, in other words that there be in Canada just one domestic market. Second, equity also requires that ranchers enjoy some sort of balance in transportation costs for meat and grain. And thirdly, as far as grain producers are concerned, equity requires that they get equal treatment from the governments wherever they may be in Canada, and also that a new price allowing for adequate returns be established. At that time, and the brief was clear on that, they were asking for federal transport subsidies to be paid to railroad companies rather than to producers.
This was very important for that farm group. And at that point in time, Mr. Pierre Bornais had this to say in an editorial in the newspaper Le Courrier, and 1 quote:
How is it that something which was to be nothing more than a transport policy could evolve into a farm policy, capable of triggering a chain reaction across the land and more especially in Eastern Canada? Simply because a choice was made
Western Grain Transportation Act
concerning the means selected to implement that policy, a choice indeed that changes that transport policy into an agricultural policy.
And he went on to say:
As was to be expected, all Members of Parliament from this area are in agreement, although they claim they are sharing grassroots concerns-
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my friends opposite, concerning what they have been saying in their speeches since the start of this debate on freight rates for grain, that I only wish they had made those speeches in Quebec, in a rural constituency such as Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. I only wish that their only Member, who one day had asked us to resign as Members of Parliament because we were not turning our attention to the Crow rate, the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), although we have never seen him, at least 1 have not seen him, not even once in this House during the debate on the Crow rate . . . And of all of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, there came into that Party the great mind that would solve all farm problems and others in Canada. It was at that time that the now Leader of the Opposition wrote the following to my colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) on July 11, 1983: "As people are no doubt aware, the Hon. Don Mazankowski made a major speech in the House of Commons on May 12, in which he described in every detail our positions. It is my sincere hope that the Committee proceedings will lead to arrangements that will best meet the requirements of the various parts of the country in that respect."
As usual, Mr. Speaker, he did not commit himself, they did not commit themselves anymore than they had committed themselves at that point. The Tories, our friends opposite, proposed at one time to delay for another three years the passing of this legislation, in other words they requested a three-year hoist.
Mr. Speaker, this important bill has been before the House since August, 1982. I do not have the figures with me, but the Transport Committee held many hearings and we visited a great number of places. In any case, as I said earlier, I can tell the House that there was no consensus for or against change in Western Canada and British Columbia. Nearly all the witnesses asked that the bill be passed as quickly as possible and said that it could have very substantial economic spin-off benefits. As for the people in the province of Quebec, we have always maintained our position, and all those who expressed their views at the time are in agreement, and they too ask that this bill be passed as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to give a overview of the economic benefits which could derive from this important piece of legislation. Naturally, if passed, Bill C-155 will result in capital expenditures by the railways, as was mentioned on many occasions, of $16.5 billion, which will create 375,000 person-years of work. CNR and CPR will spend respectively $10 billion and $6.5 billion each, and it is expected that investments made in 1983 alone could create 5,500 person-
28812

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act years of employment. Between 1983 and 1987, we can expect 23,700 person-years and at least 2,000 permanent jobs to be created.
Mr. Speaker, the major part of these expenditures depend on passage of the bill and on the Crow rate being changed. The railways have already undertaken their projects in anticipation of the bill being passed. They were encouraged by the decision of the Government early in 1983 to allow a depreciation allowance for railway investments. The Government has also offered the railways interim payments of approximately $300 million for the 1982-83 crop year to compensate for the losses incurred because of moving grain at the statutory price. With these payments, the railways will be able to increase their capital expenditures, namely by 40 per cent for CNR and 75 per cent for CPR. When passed the Bill C-155 will enable the railways to spend several billion dollars, and of course, to provide jobs and contribute to economic recovery in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, what will be the benefits for the provinces? In Western Canada, for instance? It has been recognized that the four Western provinces will be the major beneficiaries of the Crow rate reform. First, of course, the grain producers will benefit from a more effective and reliable railway network and rail transport system.
Everyone is aware, Mr. Speaker, that when travelling to Western Canada to hear the submissions made by residents of those provinces, all of them without exception told us that the present rail system was inefficient. I believe that this Bill will at least attempt to improve its efficiency. However, first of all, this will not prevent a reoccurrence of the congestion which occurred in 1977 and 1979 but will eliminate the need to rationalize the number of cars allotted to move each type of raw material, and second, it is in Western Canada that railway lines will be most improved. This will create jobs and provide new opportunities for local suppliers and industries. In addition, in order to assist these businesses, the Government has decided to provide $75 million worth of economic and industrial benefits as an incentive to industrial and economic development in Western Canada.
The province of British Columbia will benefit most from economic spin-offs. It is estimated that it will get 13 to more than a third of the $16 billion the railways will spend throughout the country. In Alberta, Mr. Speaker, the upgrading of the line will cost about $145 million. The CNR will spend 34 million dollars on concrete track ties manufactured in Alberta, and expand their freight stations in Japser, Edson, Edmonton and Wainwright.
In Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, the CNR will build a second track almost half as long as its mainline. The CNR maintenance facilities in Melville, Watrous, Saskatoon will be expanded. The CPR must expand its facilities in Regina and
build, in 1983, a repair workshop for cars and diesel engines in Moose Jaw, if this Bill ever passes.
In Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, the CNR will expand their wheel maintenance shop in Transcona and modernize their marshalling yard in Symington. The CPR will spend $40 million to improve the regulation of railway traffic between Winnipeg and Thunder Bay, then they will expand again their wheel maintenance shop and build a new engine repair shop.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in Quebec and Ontario, the railways intend to spend $300 million over the next four years in upgrading their equipment and facilities. The CNR and CPR should spend about 1.4 billion dollars on rail supplies and equipment over the next decade.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government will spend some $3 million to improve the Port of Montreal and up-date its facilities to handle truck-delivered grain. It is the well-known war between Silos No. 4 and 5, and the work is already under way. The federal will order 3,840 hopper cars, most of which will be built at the Sorel plant. I see that my colleague the Hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Leduc) cannot help smiling, for he is thinking of all these railway cars which will be built in his plant. This will have spin-offs even in my riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, for the Griffin Steel Company there specializes in the making of railway wheels. Over 200 workers who are employed by this company have been closely following our proceedings on the Crow rate. I was very pleased to meet the president of the union in my riding office on a number of occasions. He was anxious to know when this bill would be adopted, for if it were, Marine Industries Limited in Sorel as well as other companies would receive orders for hopper cars, something which the workers in the Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot riding have been waiting for to get back to work. They had been unemployed for several months. I can tell you that as I am speaking, the building of these cars has already started and our unionized workers in the Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot riding are already back to work.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is important. It means billions of dollars in investments. It will give jobs to a great many Canadian men and women, so I cannot understand why our hon. friends opposite continue their filibuster. Earlier today, just before the lunch break, they asked for our consent to the House sitting during the lunch hour, and when we refused, they raised hell. I should like to ask them why they behaved as they did, allowing the bell to ring, when we were quite ready to work and defend this bill. The bell rang for hours and days and we were still on the same bill. Today, because we refused them one hour, we have been called traitors a moment ago in this House. I will not take seriously men who talk like that, and the citizens of this country will certainly see them for what they are when the time comes.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from an editorial published in the French newspaper La Presse on October 26, 1983, that is, quite recently. Frederic Wagniere
November 4, 1983

said that Bill C-155 was a railway Act as opposed to an agricultural Act. I quote very briefly from his editorial. He said:
-while previously there was nothing but a hodgepodge of antiquated customs-
He was referring to the railways. And he concluded by
saying:
These excessively close ties between transportation and agricultural policies are abnormal and have been permitted far too long. Legislation must be implemented as soon as possible in order to allow railway invesments which are badly needed, even if it means for the Minister of Agriculture to take required action to iron out difficulties this new transportation policy could cause the farmers.
Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest this quotation is enlightening. We as members of this Canadian Parliament are asked to take action and to pass third reading of Bill C-155 as soon as possible.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to moneys or grants allocated in this Bill C-155 to upgrade ports. I suppose he was referring to Montreal and other places. However, I fail to find in this bill a single penny for the port of Vancouver.

Perhaps 1 can ask him a question about that because I could not put it to the Minister. The Minister talked about co-operation and then he stood up and lambasted the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), but in the spirit of that co-operation would the Hon. Member be prepared to approach the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and ask him whether he would give a commitment to tackle as a next step the terrible situation in the port of Vancouver, the transportation snags and so on? There is nothing in this Bill-
[ Translation]
1 note that there is not a penny for the port of Vancouver.


Marcel Ostiguy: Mr. Speaker, I never said there was, but some funds were previously voted, elsewhere to expand the facilities or services in the port of Vancouver. Obviously, there is nothing of the kind provided in this bill. But the benefits of the bill made it possible to undertake works now under way in the port of Montreal but of course they are not mentioned as such in the bill. It is not necessary to include everything in the bill. A lot can be done through the benefits flowing from the bill. Nevertheless, in the $16.6 billion provided for the entire amendment of the rates for grain, funds from other departments could be used to improve port facilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair has been apprised of the fact that there may be a desire to proceed in the following fashion. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), then probably the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), followed, I think, by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), but with the intention that possibly a Government Member may wish to complete the debate. It is not possible to do all those things in the time ramaining and I think it is up to
Western Grain Transportation Act the House to decide which way it wants to go. I simply say that, as I recognize the Hon. Member for Capilano, it is possible he may want to reduce his time to about ten minutes and a question and answer period of four or five minutes. But there is no House order to that effect so I have to leave it to Hon. Members to do as they wish.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, you are indicating three Opposition Members in a row. I would think the normal parliamentary practice and custom would be for the Government to be equally represented, and I wonder if you would like to revise that list accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. As I said, there is no House order. The Chair has been approached with a request to find out if that is possible. I indicated I would mention it to the House and the House would decide as it sees fit. That is all. It is a common practice, when it is late in the day, that sometimes Hon. Members decide to reduce 20 minute speeches to ten in order to allow other Members to speak, that is all.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since it is Friday and the only Members left in the House are the ones who are most congenial, I am sure there would not be any problem if the Chair did not see the clock until perhaps 15 or 20 minutes after five in order to complete the kind of round of speakers which I am sure all sides would like to hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It cannot be done that way. We have already indicated that it is simply because 1 have been approached in the chair with a request for some facilitation of the program that I have mentioned it, but it is not up to the Chair to make those decisions. I cannot do that. If the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) would like to put a motion, he can do so.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, Speakers have been known not only to not see an Hon. Member but to not see the clock. That is all I was suggesting.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that it is so difficult to rise and give a speech on third reading of a Bill of this magnitude and importance to the country. It is a Bill that is extremely important to the prairie basin and very important to my Province of British Columbia.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ostiguy) said that all that the people in Quebec want out of this Bill is justice and equity, and he used those very marvellous words. That is all we in the West want as well, Sir. Let me assure the Hon. Member of that. I would also like to point out that I am reminded of Aleksander Solzhenitsyn's words in 1975 warning the western society of the legalistic society that is coming upon us and will be threatening our freedoms. We are certainly in the middle of that here today because, in the final hours of this debate, legalistic procedure has cut out one and a half to two speakers. During the last week we have lost a

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act day that never existed and now we have lost the opportunity for two Members from the West to speak.
I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that first comes the plough and then civilization. We are dealing right now with the plough of the West and the civilization of the West. The Crow rate of half a cent a ton mile made a lot of money for the railways in the beginning. It was not until the end of the 1950s and into the 1960s that inflation in the western world caught up with that statutory rate. For all those years, the Crow was a good thing for the railways and it gave the farmers of western Canada a statutory rate. They knew what that aspect of their cost would be. On the Prairies, grain prices today are the same as they were almost ten years ago. It is machinery, ingenuity, creativity and thrift that has allowed productivity in the prairie Provinces to adjust to the rising costs of energy and machinery. Now we shall see the rising costs of transportation with the removal of the protection of those costs.
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the railways must have compensatory rates for their cost. We question if they need a 20 per cent profit on costs because who in this land can really understand the costing methods of the railways? The method of payment has been a very serious issue in the debate on this Bill. The entire payment will now go to the railway, reversing the stand taken by the previous Minister of Transport who more or less followed the Gilson line.
Throughout the debate, we have seen that the method of payment will be the heart and guts of where we will go in the future. If this Bill stands, Sir, and the subsidy goes to the railways, we have locked the West into an archaic transportation system. We have removed from the West and its farmers and industrialists the right to innovate, to put in better systems and to use other means of transportation. We have also eliminated the right of industrialists and farmers on the Prairies to have the freedom to choose what they will do with the wealth and the energy that comes from the prairie soil. That is the tragedy. Sir, and that is why some of us get so very, very emotional and upset about this legislation.
When the Minister opened the debate on third reading today, this one short day of debate on third reading of a Bill of this magnitude, he made some very disparaging remarks about the Province of British Columbia and said that if the Province had represented itself in Ottawa or had offered an opinion or statement on the coal lands, then perhaps the Government would have done something about it. I would simply like to tell Hon. Members how misleading the Minister's statement was, Mr. Speaker.
On May 20, 1983, ten days after the first reading of Bill C-155, the British Columbia Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources sent the following message to the federal Minister of Transport:
Your proposals to amend the grain rates established by the Crow's Nest Pass Act have received support from this Province. We continue to hope for an early resolution of this issue, although we have concerns with recent changes you have made to the subsidy arrangements. We believe it desirable to pay the subsidy to the farmers and not to the railways directly. We are troubled, moreover, by the language employed in Section 62 of Bill C-155. The Province of British
Columbia has always maintained an ownership claim on the subject of coal lands. Moreover, it has regulatory requirements and land use priorities which must be met by all explorers and developers of coal. Accordingly, we trust that the federal government would never attempt to dispose of these coal lands unilaterally.
I believe it is possible for our governments to take a co-operative approach-
A co-operative approach is something about which this Government knows nothing.
-to resolving these outstanding issues in order to facilitate the orderly development of the coal resources for the benefit of British Columbia, and all of Canada.
That was the position taken by the British Columbia Government on May 20, 1983, ten days after first reading of Bill C-155. There was a limited response on June 22, 1983, to the British Columbia initiative. The government of British Columbia laid it on the line back then, Sir, and that is its position today.
When dealing with the method of payment, we keep getting it thrown back in our face that no one supports us on that issue. 1 would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of Manitoba supports payment to the railways, but that Government is a socialist Government. What we are dealing with in this Bill is corporatism both in a state and a corporate sense. The Government will destroy the small farmer, the person with a bank debt or a mortgage on a farm. The whole damned prairie basin, Sir, will go to the big guys, the people without debt, the people with capital and the people of the second and third generations. That is what this formula of payment will do.
The Govermment of Saskatchewan is opposed to this method of payment and advocates payment to the producers. The Government of Alberta is opposed to the method of payment and believes that producers should be given the choice of how payment is to be made. It proposes the doubleeighty option. The government of British Columbia is opposed to the method of payment in this Bill and favours producer payments for reasons of efficiency. Producer groups and the pools in Manitoba support payment to the railways. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool prefers the same method of payment as does the Manitoba Pool.
Why do the bureaucrats in the infrastructures that are locked into the railway system support payment to the railways? They are managers and elected directors and bureaucrats who manage a physical plant that is tied into the railway collection, distribution and delivery system. Of course they oppose payment to the producers because full payment or even partial payment to the producers allows some decision-making to be based at large among the population and interferes with the established infrastructure. It also interferes with the opportunity to install modern plants and find new ways of doing things with more efficiency for the delivery, production and handling costs of grain.
We find opposition all the way down the line. The United Grain Growers is opposed to the method of payment and proposes an alternate scheme similar to the freedom of choice option. Unifarm is opposed to railway payments and supports
November 4, 1983

the double-eighty proposal. Cargill is opposed to railway payments and supports the double-eighty proposal.
It is easy, Mr. Speaker, for a Member from Quebec to stand up and say that there is no consensus on the Prairies. The overwhelming consensus on the Prairies is that if we do not move to partial or full payment to the producer, we are locking in the future of western Canada.
Perhaps I can explain further, Sir, by telling you about my personal experience in a business in which 1 was once intimately involved. 1 am in the business of production of goods. I have also made my living as an efficiency expert, a critical path expert, a work study expert and a designer of better systems for handling cattle and the production of produce in the field of agriculture. That was my background. I was privy to a study that was given to me with the purpose of putting in a big packing plant and feeding operation in Lethbridge. We selected Lethbridge for many reasons. We were going to have massive feeding systems which were very efficient so that we could get a uniformity of finish on the cattle coming in.
We fed the cattle before they went to slaughter. The entrails were removed according to health of animals regulations. Hides were taken according to those regulations. The cattle were hung for curing in order to get the optimum quality out of this production. All of the tallow and bone were stripped according to health of animals protection and supervision. The meat was cut and certain cuts were ordered by hotel systems, restaurant systems and large supermarkets. This was all handled so that the maximum dollar value with no waste came out of that animal. It was one of the finest designs and one of the best economic structures in meat handling, from hoof all the way through to store shelf and the plate on the restaurant table, that we had seen. I was part and parcel of this.
That operation was uneconomical in the Canadian Prairies because the subsidy moving the grain out to the large areas of consumption made it impossible to move the finished product. That is why 1 stand here to say that what the Government is doing is wrong. It is smothering and suffocating the West with its stubborness and adherence to this concept of payment to the railroad. It is all right to say that we will set up a study of the matter which will examine it and that perhaps two and one-half years from now, when the committee reports back, we will change the Bill. One of the amendments my colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was asking for was an amendment to the Bill so that recommendations from that study could be put into the Bill. Therefore, if we have to follow a modified Gilson formula or whatever the committee decided flowing from its studies, something could be done that would give some staying power to the future and the infrastructure of the region I come from.
You cannot question my love of the country but do not blame me for being raised and educated in the West. I understand and love this country. I understand and love the freedoms that it has given me and allowed me to pass on. But I
Western Grain Transportation Act have a western sense about me, the same as the people from Quebec have a Quebecois sense about them. I am saying that if you want to keep this country going, regions that have political power in this House must not impose that power arbitrarily on the rest of us. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this week in Edmonton a new federal Party was formed. It is called "The Confederation of Regions' Party". That Party will address this regionalization of Canada if we in the House cannot.
Bill C-155 and the arrogance and manner with which it is being imposed upon us has produced an anger that will last and stay unless we fix it.
I do not have enough time to say the rest of what is in my heart. I really want that time but I am going to sit down after speaking for 15 minutes because I know that I have some colleagues who really want to express in the final minutes of this debate how they feel and how their regions feel about this Bill. But I tell those Members on the Government side that what they are ramming down our throats in the West with this Bill, on top of the National Energy Program, will not be forgotten. It will not heal the wounds of this country; it will aggravate them. With that, I will sit down and allow somebody else to speak in the few remaining minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to remind the House that the subamendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) was found to be in order. Accordingly, I will put it to the House. Moved by Mr. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Althouse:
That the amendment be amended by adding Clauses 33, 41,47, 54 and 59.
As I already indicated to the House, the amendment is in order. The Chair will now call for questions, comments and answers for ten minutes related to the speech of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). At that time I will look to my right for the next speaker. Debate will close at 4.45 p.m.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Crow rate has been before this House for years. I came here in 1979 and served on the Transport Committee, it was evident that the Government of the day, with the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) as Minister of Transport, had to look to the Crow rate. It had to be one of the priorities for resolution in the very near future. It was a problem that would not go away and had to be faced, not deferred.
The previous Minister of Transport, now the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), established the Gilson task force. That task force came as close as possible to reaching a consensus. During the interim, unfortunately, different associations which had been part of that consensus allowed it to disintegrate because they were trying to bargain for more. The Gilson report was then amended and submitted.
In the P.C. dominated Provinces, the Gilson report as amended was slow to be endorsed. Subsequently, when we made our tours across the country, people said that we should

November 4, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
have adopted the Gilson report, but 1 must confess that we found no unity in the West on the resolution of the Crow. Many witnesses in Alberta told us that they would rather proceed with the present Bill with the expectation of amending it at a later date or making changes from the experience garnered rather than do nothing. When we went to British Columbia, the witnesses there told us emphatically to proceed and get on with the Bill because the country needs it. In Manitoba, many people said that they did not want any change at all but, on the other hand, they wanted increased benefits, improved capacity and to make sure the railway employees have work. But they did not want the Government to add any cost to the producers.
When we returned from the hearings which the Transport Committee held in the West we resumed our meetings in the Railway Committee room.
The Official Opposition launched its trial balloon saying that there should be freedom of choice. It was a nice catch phrase which can also apply when talking about abortion. The Conservatives advocated freedom of choice for the producers. They let that lapse and took the position that it is better to do nothing. Rather than make a decision they wanted to put a freeze on the rates and wait to see what happens. They suggested that we should gain three years of experience and proceed in the meantime with putting in the required infrastructure to improve the capacity of rail and product transportation to export.
There is no doubt in my mind that costs for producers have gone up. We recognize that grain producers are in a class by themselves. They do not have the option of passing on their production costs to the customer because of our system for marketing our cereal grains to export. Producers pay more for land, shelter, farm buildings, their equipment and supplies. That is not an exception to the rule. Show me a business that has not had increased costs. Everything has gone up, everything costs more. Show me a consumer whose costs of living have not gone up. Every business would like to have the guarantees given to grain producers. They have been guaranteed an adequate transportation and a safety net which will keep the percentage of the sale of their goods limited, so that they do not pay more than a fixed percentage to transport their grain. No one in the country, if invited, would want to pay more taxes. No one wanted to pay more for postage. No one wants to pay more for services.
What it boils down to is the fact that producers do not want to pay more for transportation. As was mentioned earlier today, their transportation costs represent 3 per cent to 4 per cent of the sale price of cereal grain. They do not want to pay more than that.
What does the federal Government propose to do to assist western transportation initiatives? Having established the datum of the Crow benefit at $650 million, Canadian taxpayers will continue to contribute in perpetuity at least $650 million toward the transportation of cereal grain. Last year
producers paid $135 million for something that cost $785 million to handle. As increases are applied to the cost of transportation, producers will only have to pay twice as much in four crop years; they will be expected to pay twice as much for transportation in four crop years as they do today. There is a myth propagated that it will be five times Crow by 1991. There will be a review after four crop years. In anticipation of the review, we will look at the experience. The Opposition says that we should do nothing for three years and then look at what is possible. In that event we would defer ad nauseum what we will do for grain producers.
The Canadian Government is looking to spending $3.5 billion in the next 3.5 years, that is $1 billion per year. First there is the $650 million subsidy. Then there are the branch line rehabilitation fund, branch line subsidies and hopper car purchases and leases for which the Government of Canada pays. That runs close to $1 billion per year. We are doing a great deal to help grain producers.
Also the Government has taken initiatives in the area of helping to establish a superport at Prince Rupert, to improve the Port of Vancouver and to improve rail lines. These improvements will make it easier for grain producers and all suppliers of manufactured and processed goods and mineral resources across the country to receive goods, to transport them across the country and to export them. This is the catalyst which will cause the railways to spend $16 billion in the next eight years.
It has been mentioned by other speakers in the House how that $16 billion will be apportioned to the various regions of the country, how it will improve the economy and create jobs. Our intention is to create jobs, to provide employment and to enhance the economy. It is important that it be done on a broad spectrum to help everyone across the nation and to give the country the railway system and transportation it needs. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to travel in Saskatchewan where I met people who have been in wheat and grain production for years. The tradition was passed on from grandfather to father to son, and those people have told us: Ah, there is one thing which you should not do, and that is change the Crow rate.

For those people the Crow rate seemed to be a dogma of faith. We could not touch it. When we asked why, they really did not know. It was because they were told from generation to generation that they must never spend more on transportation. They had to spend more on everything else, but it was one thing on which they should not have to spend any more. That defies logic. It is necessary to realize that when everything else is costing more, people are prepared to meet what the Canadian Government wants to do.
May I in closing-


Some Hon. Members:: Time.
November 4, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being 4.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, October 26, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of third reading of the Bill.
Consequently, the question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it. Therefore 1 declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The next question is on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). All those in favor of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Accordingly, the vote is deferred to 5.45 p.m., Monday, November 14, 1983, and the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock a.m., Monday, November 14. Bonne semaine a tous; have a good week.
At 4.48 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Orders.

Monday, November 14, 1983