1983-06-21

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 20, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and the Motion of Mr. Lachance (p. 26521).
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, once more we open up this debate on the Crow following a day, yesterday, that had its high moments and low moments.


Mr. Friesen:: Mostly low.


Douglas Roche: I think it was mostly low-


Mr. Smith:: Except for your speech, Benno.


Douglas Roche: -when our friends in other parts of the House
intervened.
Today 1 want to start out by expressing real concern on the part of the West. I would observe that an urban Member of Parliament is speaking, because we want to emphasize the point that this is not just an agricultural question, although it is certainly that. It is not just a question of transportation, although it is certainly that. It is not just a western question, although it is certainly that. But it is a national question, and every Member of Parliament who has concern for the development of transportation and agricultural policies which will benefit not only our own people here in Canada but also the world, which needs the grain that Canada is able to produce, all Members of Parliament who have those concerns want to enter this debate. We want to enter it especially because of the form of closure or whatever name applies to the motion now before us to cut off this debate at a time when the Canadian people are expecting us here in Parliament to represent their interests.
1 think, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill before us, Bill C-155, has the same potential for hurting our national unity and our economy as did the constitutional Bill, the National Energy Program, the Government's economic policies and its failure to honour pledges to western Canada through the Western Development Fund. This Bill before us has the same potential
for wrecking unity and hurting people directly in the most severe economic ways. To limit the debate in the manner that the Government is doing is reprehensible. So we are here, Mr. Speaker, attacking not only the principle of this Bill but the manner in which it is being railroaded through the House of Commons.
We are going to continue our discussions, our protests, and our representations on behalf of the people of Canada who do not deserve to have the Crow, the Magna Carta of the West, destroyed. The Bill is as important to us as are language and cultural considerations important to the Members from Quebec and all those debates that we have been through. Throughout several years in the House we have heard of the need to satisfy the people of Quebec, and the whole question involving French Canadians. I say to Your Honour that what we are wrestling with now is a question of equal importance.
[DOT] (mo)
Since 1980 we have seen the Government using time allocation and closure measures some 22 times, 22 times in the life of this single, never ending session of Parliament. I believe that not only is it an insult to Parliamentarians who are here trying to represent the interests of their constituents, but it is also a very sad comment on how the Government is treating Parliament itself.
There is perhaps a special impetus felt by the prairie Members of Parliament to represent the interests of western Canada, because those interests are obviously not being represented by the Government Members since, to begin with, they only have two west of the Lakehead. In the debate, I have not heard much input from those two Hon. Members on behalf of western Canada. Naturally, it falls to western Members, who are legitimately concerned with the interests of their people, to continue the fight.
We cannot help but feel that it is western Canada that is especially being victimized by the Government's high-handed tactics. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you could imagine the furor which would result should the Government decide to rip apart the auto pact, which is Ontario's economic mainstay, so perfunctorily. Would the Government have proceeded with such abandon to make wholesale changes to its bilingual policy, which is Quebec's lifeblood? Consider the care and attention which are paid to the Atlantic region's fisheries sector via the Kirby Report.
I believe that those instances that I have mentioned here just in passing illustrate the depth of certain questions with regard

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
to certain regions of the country. The Crow rate is of equal, if not surpassing, importance to the lifeblood of western Canada. That is why we are on our feet again and again, and we will continue until the Government uses every last stop measure that it can possibly pull out of the rule book to end this matter.
If the Government is to continue guillotining the Crow, so be it. Let the people of Canada know where the Government is going. I would prefer that the Government would recall what it said in introducing the Western Development Fund some time ago. It stated, "The Government does not prejudge the disposition of these funds. Westerners will have much to say in this decision, as they should, and they will find the federal Government eager to listen". How hollow are those words! Western Canadians are still waiting for the Government's purported eagerness to listen.


Mr. Pepin:: For three years the West has been saying, "Do something". Where were you all that time?


Mr. Huntington:: Do something right.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Pathetic.


Douglas Roche: At the heart of the principle of the Bill, is the question involving the freedom of choice, about which we have heard a good deal in the debate. The question was opened up by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). To repeat, it is the freedom of choice for which we are arguing, in directly attacking the principle of the Bill. Freedom of choice would allow the producer the choice between taking the Government subsidy or forwarding it on to the railways. That would correspond to the position of my own provincial Government, the Government of Alberta, which has heavily criticized-


Jean-Luc Pepin: What about Saskatchewan?


Douglas Roche: -the payment of all benefits to the railways alone, on the grounds that Canada will lose the opportunity to make market responsive improvements to both the grain handling system and to the economic development potential in western Canada.
We have statements on file made by the Alberta Government which have already been sent to the Government. These are statements made particularly by the Ministers of Economic Development and Agriculture in the Government of Alberta who have noted that it is their intent to see that the federal Government lives up to previous commitments that it has made to western Canada, and commitments in particular which are in the best interest of Alberta's agricultural and economic development.
The question before the House now concerns the benefit paid directly to producers. Canada is going to lose the opportunity to make market responsive improvements to both the grain handling system and the economic development potential
in western Canada. We consider that to be really an unfortunate move in the extreme because of the dangers that it will present to industrial development and agricultural potential in western Canada. Those are the questions before us.
The Ministers from the Government of Alberta concluded their argumentation by noting that if the reported changes are made, that is, giving the subsidy entirely to the railways, the federal Government will have ensured that the Crow rate benefits will have been lost and that any offsetting economic development benefits will have been sacrificed.
I see that my time is short. Once again Members are forced to summarize their argumentation rapidly on an extremely complex Bill. My colleague from Vegreville went to the point of listing 14 points that are the heart of this Bill. I simply say that it is very unfortunate and harmful to intelligent debate and discourse in this House for the Government to keep imposing time allocation, so that Members are prevented from fully elaborating, on behalf of their constituents and the people of Canada, the full ramifications of this Bill and what it will do to our whole national fabric.


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing this important issue I want to expand upon some points that my colleagues have previously made in this debate, and upon two points in particular which I want to address to the nation as a whole and not simply for Canadians living in the Prairies or any particular region of Canada. I want to make these points in the national interest of the country.
The Bill that the Government has before Parliament ought to be defeated, taken from this place, and not brought back. The point has been made on numerous occasions that this Bill is wrong in principle.
The principle of the Crow rate is to be accurately regarded as the Magna Carta of the West. As many Members have said, it is fully comparable in its significance to language rights for minorities in different parts of our country and, as the previous Member just said, comparable to the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement for working Canadians in other parts of Canada. The point I want to make is that in principle it is important to keep this commitment that was made to our prairie Canadians many years ago. It ought not to be changed because of that principle.
I want to go beyond that question to deal with the basic matter of dollars and cents. I have heard some Canadians question how we can continue subsidizing the prairie farmer to the extent that we have in the past, and that surely it should be changed. On behalf of my Party I want to say that surely it should not be changed. Let me explain why.
If we look at the international grain trade market and consider who our principal competitors are, they are the United States, Argentina, and Australia. What is the situation in terms of grain farmers in those three countries?
In the United States the degree of subsidy for the over-all cost of shipment of grain is higher than that provided to Canadian grain farmers. That is the first point.
June 21, 1983



If you move to Argentina, not only is the subsidy higher but there is virtually no cost at all in terms of transportation, for Argentinian grain producers when it comes to shipping and transporting their grain to ports for export elsewhere in the world.
Then there is Australia, another great grain producing nation, a nation with which our farmers have to compete, and again the economic reality is that most Australian grain producers have half the distance or less to ship their product to port before it is exported elsewhere in the world.
If you look at all three of these countries you find a situation in the first two where subsidies given to the farmers are much higher than are given to Canadian grain producers, and in the case of Australia, our other major competitor, Australian transportation costs are much lower simply because the Australian farmers do not have to ship their grain as far.
In spite of this, in spite of the subsidies which the United States provides, in spite of the subsidies which Argentina provides, in spite of the great advantage the Australian grain producer has, Canadian grain producers earn for Canada- and that is the point I want to make, our grain producers do not simply earn for the Prairies, but they earn for all Canada-some $6 billion in foreign exchange. That was the case last year. We should be thankful for the Canadian grain producer that his sector of the economy has functioned so well that it has brought in that revenue benefiting Canadians from coast to coast.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Instead of continuing to assist our farmers, instead of providing some acceleration in the benefit to this very productive part of our economy, the Liberal Government is moving in just the opposite direction. It is going to increase the cost to the typical grain producer on the average by $6,000 per year, over the period of a decade. That means, on the average, a 500 per cent increase. It means, Mr. Speaker, the kind of increase that no other worker, no other sector in the Canadian economy would tolerate, and we say, in this Party, that Canadian farmers should not have to tolerate that kind of increase either.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want now to come to the question of subsidies. Having made the case, it seems to me that it should be self evident, except to anybody on the Government side of the House, that some subsidy is indeed warranted, warranted in principle because a commitment was made, warranted in terms of dollars and cents because of the revenue our farmers bring into Canada. But I also want to come to the question of how that subsidy should go out.
We are saying that when it comes to the CPR, in terms of its actual costs above and beyond what the CPR gets from grain farmers for the Crow rate, it is appropriate for the rest of Canada to pay the subsidy up to that actual cost for the shipping of grain because of the benefits that the earned
Western Grain Transportation Act
revenue from grain provides for all of Canada. And because of the commitment in principle we have to grain farmers, yes, we should give that subsidy to the CPR for the incremental cost beyond what it gets from the Crow rate.
What we also say, Mr. Speaker, is that the approximately $550 million which the Government wants to give to the railways, and in particular I am talking about the CPR, the private railway, is unconscionable. Why should we give a very profitable enterprise a handout of some $550 million a year? I come from an automotive community. I would oppose a handout to General Motors. I would oppose giving General Motors money. To give such an enterprise a loan to facilitate financial developments for the private sector, under certain tightly controlled circumstances and in the public interest, is one thing, but to give a handout from the taxpayers of Canada to a profit-making large corporation, I say is a misuse of public funds and we should not do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Therefore, we want to proceed immediately with the tunneling which has to be built, with the rails that have to be improved, with the bedding which has to be improved, and with the expansion that must take place, not only for grain farmers but for exporters of other raw materials and goods that will use railway facilities. We all agree with this. We in the NDP are saying that the subsidy for the cost of grain should be paid and that the CPR deserves the additional cost beyond the Crow rate. There is no question. But with respect to the other $550 million needed for tunneling and rails, we say that money should be put into investment, and that for every penny which goes from the taxpayers to the CPR we should get a share of the return. That is our position.
I want to conclude my observations with this point. We in the NDP believe that a healthy prairie economy, a healthy grain economy, is essentially important, first for farmers and their families who are doing the work and producing grain for export. Second, it is very important in terms of a revenue source for all Canada; it was $6 billion last year. Third, it is important for manufacturing jobs. If farmers are thriving, if they are doing well, they buy equipment. Where is that equipment made? It is made in places like Yorkton and Winnipeg in the West, but it is also made in places like Brantford and Hamilton in the East.
A healthy prairie economy, the generalization holds, means a healthy national economy. When the Liberals learn this, they will finally learn something about the nature of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) on his remarks. I will read Hansard tomorrow to find out precisely what he said and where his Party stands, because he seemed to go all over the field with respect to this matter. I am

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
not quite sure whether he was consistent with the position of others of his colleagues in this debate, but I want to say that the New Democratic Party has every reason to cry. Members of that Party have been all over the field and reversing themselves on every issue respecting the Crow rate, to the point where yesterday we saw the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) revert to an unusual position. They said that they would kill the Bill and do everything in their power to bring the House to a halt. Suddenly that Hon. Member rose in his place and, in one of the most outstanding and unusual speeches in this place, said, "Mr. Speaker, we now want this matter to go to committee". What is that Party up to in terms of consistency of position? Does it know where it is going? Is it going only one place, from 16 per cent down to a lower position in the polls?
I remind the House that we are now faced with an additional indication of the attitude of the Government toward this very important issue. The Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) stood in his place yesterday and, once again by direction from his Party hierarchy, moved that the question be now put. It was another indication that his Party wanted to shut down debate in the House of Commons on an issue which everyone who has spoken has pointed out is the Magna Carta of western Canada.
Another indication is time allocation or closure. The Minister has been carrying on negotiations behind closed doors with respect to a matter which is important right across Canada but is particularly important to western Canada. He carried on these closed door negotiations with a select few groups of people, and has come forward and sprung on the people of Canada and the House of Commons the "Pepin" proposal and the legislation we are now considering. From the time that legislation was sprung upon us, we have been faced with threats to terminate the debate and to limit the debate. More important, of greatest concern to me is that this signals to us in the House of Commons what will happen if and when the Bill gets to committee for consideration.
We have not had any commitment from the Minister and the Government that there will be a free and fair opportunity for Members of the House of Commons on the committee to travel across Canada, as we did with respect to the Western Grain Stabilization legislation, giving an opportunity to people with very different interests to make representations to a parliamentary committee. We have no commitment. The only indication we have is that the Government is determined to ram this legislation through, to impose closure at committee stage, to ram it through the summer months without any opportunity for input, meaningful consideration or, if necessary, amendments to improve this very faulty legislation.
I say to the Minister in all seriousness that if he has any interest in terms of getting this matter dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner, he will take the step of giving a clear and unequivocal statement that a committee which considers this
matter, if we reach that point, will have a free and open opportunity to receive representations from legitimate interest groups across the country and that we will have a reasonable period of time in which to carry on deliberations.
When I last spoke in this debate on May 16, the Minister had not yet presented his amendments to the Bill. At that time we had a vague promise from the Minister on a safety net that would be established. We now know that the safety net will link freight rates to the weighted average price of the six major grains. The second amendment added certain crops and products to the list of the commodities which may be shipped under the statutory rate. There are other crops that should have been included, and it appears the Government will have to be dragged into including a proper list of crops to be covered by this rate.
The introduction of these amendments, while it is in one sense a sign that the Government is very slowly realizing the impact that this legislation will have on western Canada, particularly on the producers, is really insufficient, to answer the needs of western producers. It is important that the rate be tied to the price of grain. Farmers today are simply not in a position to contribute additional funds for grain transportation.
This safety net is fixed at 10 per cent of the weighted average price, which means that farmers will probably be paying the same amount under the plan by 1990-91 as they would under the previous proposal. While in theory it may be a rational approach to tie the rate to the price of grain, the actual proposal still deals a body blow to the pocketbooks of western farmers. It is unacceptable. It is nothing more than a sham.
I suggest that we must still question whether it is really desirable to tamper with the Crow during a time of recession. The concept of a subsidy has been referred to by the Leader of the New Democratic Party and other Members participating in this debate, including my colleague the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). It has not been fully explored by the Government.
In Argentina, as has been pointed out, the National Grain Board provides free rail transport for grain, from shipping stations to the ports. In Australia farmers pay less than 50 per cent of the cost of transporting grain. One example that the Leader of the New Democratic Party failed to mention is that in the European Economic Community there is a minimum direct subsidy of $2.53 per bushel.
The United States subsidizes wheat producers at the rate of $13.81 per tonne. In addition, there are a number of ways in which the Americans subsidize the transportation of grain. The United States army engineers maintain the canal system which is used for grain export transportation. There are a number of hidden methods by which the subsidy is given to the grain farmer in the United States.
At the very time when subsidies seem to be the order of the day with all our major competitors, we in Canada are doing exactly the opposite. We are saying to the farmer that he has
June 21, 1983

to have the cost of transportation substantially put upon his shoulders. This will make him non-competitive in world trade. The farmer will thereby be the loser. That is the message the Minister is giving to the western grain producer. In Saskatchewan 85 per cent of the producers oppose the Minister's proposal. That is the current statistic. He still is not able to understand what he is doing to the Province of Saskatchewan with this proposal.
To increase freight costs in Canada enormously will make our farmers uncompetitive. I wonder if the Minister has considered the value which grain producers provide to the Canadian economy. He should be more generous to the farmers as far as that consideration is concerned.
The reason why the Minister is receiving such enormous resistance throughout the West is because of the emotional ties the Crow has had to the hearts and minds of western Canadians. As has been pointed out, this is considered to be almost a constitutional right in western Canada. It should not be trifled with by devices of closure, and time allocation that "the motion now be put", limiting the ability of Parliament to deal with the matter.
At the outset of this session, in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a very special point of indicating that on the Government side there was no representation from the three eastern prairie provinces or the North. He pointed out at that time that he wanted there to be full debate on matters related to western Canada. He said that Members of Parliament from western Canada would be given an opportunity to stand and adequately debate issues that had a direct impact on them. The first really serious blow to western Canadian producers in this transportation proposal has been characterized by the record of this Government attempting to limit debate and force through a proposal which the Government knows is totally unacceptable.
I want to warn the Minister that if he persists in this course of action, he will not only affect the economic future but also the social fabric of western Canada, including the Province I represent, Saskatchewan. The fabric of rural Saskatchewan will be negatively and adversely affected. This proposal will mean that farms will become larger and larger. The small family farm will be a thing of the past. In Saskatchewan there will be a drying up of the rural population, a change in the social fabric, and the Minister knows it. In his heart of hearts he knows that that will be the consequence and the effect of this legislation in its present form.
The Minister can make his own speech in his own time. Every time I get up to speak he shouts across the aisle. I know he is sensitive. He has every right to be sensitive about this issue, because he is on the wrong side.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to bring some honesty back into the debate. I want to remind a few of the Tories that they may be able to send some of their speeches to their constituents, but the facts are quite clear to show where the Tory Party really stands on this whole freedom of choice scam it is trying to sell in western Canada. It is certainly not selling to farmers. The farmers know that the freedom of choice they are talking about is
Western Grain Transportation Act
freedom of choice as to whether the cheque goes directly to CN or CP, or comes to them temporarily and then goes on to the railways. Now that we have seen what the Tory collapse is all about-only 30 per cent have been involved in this debate-we need to remind farmers and Canadians of how this legislation was introduced in the House.
There were 37 Tories absent, and the Government only won by 24 votes. If the Tories had turned up even a fraction of their Members, and this may be interesting to the Member from Saskatchewan who just spoke because over half the Tory Members from Saskatchewan did not turn up when the legislation was introduced, the result would have been different.
We know where the Tories are coming from. For every speaker we put up, sometimes they put up one, sometimes they do not put up any. Some of the Members they put up from the West, such as the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) who spoke last night, do not know anything about the legislation. He is a typical Tory. He talked about $800 million going to the railroad. He has never read the Bill. The $800 million is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. It is $651 million. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta demonstrated once again that he is good at getting up and dithering, but he does not know much about many Bills that come before the House. He certainly does not do his homework.
I would like to talk about why the Tories have taken the position that they have. A few quick quotes will tell all Canadians why the Tories are collapsing as they are. During the Tory leadership campaign, here is what John Crosbie had to say. He said that the farmers' share of the cost has to increase. Initiatives had to be taken to improve freight transportation in the West, keeping in mind that the price per ton will double in the next two years and will go up at least five times by 1991. Michael Wilson said that it was a move in the right direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member should refer to Members of the House by their constituency names.


James Ross Fulton: I certainly recognize that, Mr. Speaker. I am quoting from a press-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member is not allowed to do indirectly what he is not allowed to do directly. He is referring to Members of the House. He must use their constituency names.


James Ross Fulton: Well, Mr. Speaker, Montreal businessman, Brian Mulroney, who is not a Member of the House, and may never be, said that he agrees that the Government is going in the right direction.
Members of the Tory Party cannot stand up in the House and say, "Well, we are opposed to this, we want freedom of choice". Mr. Speaker, a certain degree of honesty is required.

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
All of their leadership candidates said that it was a move in the right direction, the right kind of legislation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) on a point of order.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, have you ever noticed that the NDP has a special school for whiners and snivellers to which they all must go?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has the floor. He should not be interrupted in the course of his speech.


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member who just spoke is the original whiner and sniveller of the House of Commons in this session.
The Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) said that he has not had time for a detailed study of the issue. He was the Leader of the Party for seven years and did not even have time to look at the issue. We know what Members of the Tory Party will do to somebody who stands up for the West. They got rid of him in a heck of a hurry.
1 would like to direct a few comments to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I am glad to see that he is here and is continuing to follow the debate. I would like to know what his views are on splitting the Bill. There is a certain degree of dishonesty from the Government side that I find unacceptable, that occurs when the Government pushes upgrading without ever having a single Member from the Government side deal head to head with the issue of equity. We hear much chatter in the House about the NDP proposal to get equity back if we give money to the railroads. But no Liberals have told us why that is not a good idea.
1 will deal with Jack Horner in a moment because he is probably the one who is telling the Tory Members where to go. We know what Tory Members from the West do. They jump from the Tory side of the House over to the Liberal side and are automatically made head of a Crown corporation so that they can tell the Tories where to go on railway policy.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us about the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar).


James Ross Fulton: You can tell us about that in a moment. Mr. Speaker, a very good book that I recommend to the Minister of Transport and a few Tories is "To Kill the Crow". I read from the first chapter:
On the day after the annoucement of the federal government's determination to repudiate the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement, the stockholders of Canadian Pacific Limited were richer by $134,677,700 than they were the day preceeding the announcement.
Perhaps Members of the Liberal and Tory Parties should have gotten together to write a Bill that would simply give money directly to the shareholders of CP, which would save the House from this long, protracted debate.
The book goes on:
By the end of the month the value of their shares in the company had increased by $447,889,250. Their "Crow Benefit" was not long coming.
It is interesting to note that Members of the Liberal and Tory Parties are prepared to support legislation that will give $651.5 million a year in perpetuity to the railroad, yet they travel around the country saying, "Oh, the Crow rate for farmers was written in 1897. It is too old. We cannot have legislation in perpetuity. We must have a sunset on the Crow rate when it comes to the farmers."
1 will return now to the problem with the Tory position because we know what is the problem with the Liberal position. Liberals will not take a position on equity in terms of upgrading. They will not take a position on returning $450 billion or $500 billion worth of coal, to British Columbia. They will not talk about the out of pocket costs to the railroads for moving grain in terms of the balance of trade that grain producers bring to all Canadians, not just to western Canada, nor will they split the Crow rate. I would like to see Government Members vote in favour of taking $6,000 a year away from farmers in western Canada. That is what the issue really is.
I know that Members of the Tory Party will slip and slide on the issue. They will say, "Oh, freedom of choice". It is freedom of choice to lose $6,000 a year. 1 do not think many Members of the Liberal or Conservative Parties would go to textile workers in Toronto and say, "Sorry, $500 a month must be taken away. That is freedom of choice". Freedom of choice for what? The Tory position is preposterous. As the Tory Party's lead-off speaker on the Crow debate, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), given the position of the former Leader and the future possible Leader of the Tory Party, said:
-1 ask the Minister to consider making the payment of the Crow benefit optional to the producer or to the railroad. Let the producer decide whether the money should go to the railroad, or let him decide whether it should go to him.
Does the Hon. Member for Vegreville think that a bunch of Liberal donkeys from eastern Canada will turn up and all of the grain will be loaded on them to be taken out to Prince Rupert for free? The farrtiers from western Canada will not buy that. They know that if grain is to be moved, a cheque may come from Ottawa. But what are Members of the Tory Party supporting? They are supporting a hugh new bureaucracy. Those farmers who want the cheque to come to them will have to pay for having the grain hauled.
Tory Members wanted to get Jack Horner a good job with a Crown corporation so they told him to become a Liberal. Now they are looking for jobs for more Tories in a new Crown corporation that would handle the freedom of choice legislation that they are supporting.
Tory policies are like that cheese that comes from Europe, the stuff with the mouseholes in it. I cannot imagine, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: It stinks.
June 21, 1983


James Ross Fulton: Perhaps it is limburger cheese. Let us take a close look at the Tory freedom of choice proposal. First, farmers will have the choice to pay more to the railways. I am sure that farmers will like that. Second, it will reduce the price of grain at the farm gate. I am sure that farmers will like that. Third, it will dilute the benefit to producers of grain by spreading the Crow benefit to cultivated acres which do not produce statutory grains. I am sure that farmers are very interested in seeing that done. The psychological benefits of freedom of choice are outweighed by reduced economic choices. That, Mr. Speaker, will happen as all of the local elevators close. Tory Members know that, and that is why Tory Members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta are not participating in this debate, though one of them pops up from time to time to make a speech like the one made by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.
The Minister of Transport was grinning. He knows that the Tory deal has already been made. Members of the Tory Party have collapsed and are now supporting the Bill. They are taking the big business line. They are pro-CP. We know what is going on. The Minister of Transport was grinning because he knew that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West had already swallowed the bait but needed to keep his constituents under control.
We will see. The reporters who are covering this debate, Mr. Speaker, will see how many Tory Members from the Prairies will get up to speak on this issue in the next couple of days. That will be the telling fact.


Mr. Malone:: What a despicable person to be in Parliament.


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has once again described himself as a despicable Member. I certainly would concur with many of his comments about himself, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Taylor:: What makes you so bitter? Are you afraid you will be defeated?


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is starting to sing. Members of the Tory Party are starting to sing, Mr. Speaker, because they know that I have lifted the curtain on their freedom of choice scam that would take $6,000 away from the farmers on the Prairies.


Mr. Mazankowski:: It is the truth.


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member for Vegreville says that it is the truth. He is waving his hand. He has talked to Jack Horner. Jack Horner has said, "Hey, look, Don, you had better talk to Jean-Luc because the fix is in."


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the quality of debate has dropped to a new low.


James Ross Fulton: Because you are up.


Leonard J. Gustafson: It is interesting to note that speaker after speaker from the NDP has done nothing more than attack Conservative Members. Members of the NDP know very well
Western Grain Transportation Act
that the Conservatives represent the primary producers of western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard J. Gustafson: I will not bear on this point, but I want to make it abundantly clear to the House and to the people of Canada that Members of the NDP have brought nothing constructive to the debate, to this point.
I think that when we look at Bill C-155 we must look at it with the best interests of the primary producer in mind. Again and again Members of the NDP have tried to bring up what various leadership candidates have said, but the position taken by the Conservative Party from day one of this debate has considered the importance of the primary producer.
We know what the New Democratic Party did to the primary producer in energy. Its record is clear in this House. We know how it supported the Liberals to bring in a national energy policy which put the primary producers of energy flat on their backs and cost Canada dearly. If we are going to continue in that direction, the farmers of Canada are going to suffer severely. That should not be the position of the Government and it certainly will not be the position of the Conservative Government. And we will take power. That is what all the hollering is about from the NDP. That Party can see the handwriting on the wall. It can see what is coming and it is concerned, which gives me a certain amount of satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, along with every Conservative Member on this side of the House, because we also can see the handwriting on the wall. We know that the farmers and the primary producers understand what has happened.
I would like to speak about the most important factor, how we can strengthen the position of the primary producer in Canada. First of all we must look at the timing of the situation. I am happy that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is in the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am always here.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The Minister tells me he is always here, but I am particularly happy he is here this morning. The farmer has faced some very serious situations in terms of the cost of production. The Minister has heard that many times in the debate. Yet he has not responded in a positive way. In the international marketplace our producers face a very serious challenge of competition.
Dr. Andy Schmidt of the University of Saskatoon has done extensive studies into exports and into competition in the international marketplace for the primary producer. He tells us that the United States of America subsidizes its producers over all by 33 per cent. He tells us that subsidies in Australia are in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent on shipping freight rates for grains exported from Australia. In addition to that, the European Common countries are subsidizing their farmers up to $5 per bushel for wheat.

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
The unfortunate result of the direction the Minister of Transport has followed has been that he has played producer against producer. He has played the wheat and grain producer against the cattle producer. Certainly we understand, as primary producers ourselves, that the cattlemen of western Canada have suffered some very severe problems. The grain producer is suffering a tremendous challenge in terms of the costs of production as well. The commodity groups are involved in the situation. With one blow the Minister is trying to solve a number of very complex problems which will not be solved that simply. It must be brought to his attention that he must not destroy what has been accomplished.
It is significant to note that in my riding of Assiniboia the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) announced, at Fillmore, Saskatchewan, a program to double-track the railroad clean from Winnipeg to Vancouver. It was interesting to note that the railroad men following that announcement, were literally suggesting that because many trains had been taken off the track with regard to passengers and so on, in many areas this simply was a political manoeuvre.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is being done now.


Leonard J. Gustafson: We in the Conservative Party understand that there are congested areas, but the Government has not addressed those problems. It must take a positive position in solving those problems and those bottlenecks which are there. In Bill C-155 there is absolutely no guarantee, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is going to address in a position way the problems and the bottlenecks which exist in the system. It has only played politics.
We must strengthen the position of the primary producer. We must give him an opportunity to do and continue to do for Canada what he has done up to this point, in producing $6 billion worth of exports, which has been one bright spot. The people in the energy field did the same thing until the Government climbed on their backs and made them ineffective, and we will possibly see the results of that for many years. We must turn this around. Certainly our Party will look objectively at building a transportation system which will be unequalled anywhere in the world. We must get around the snowslides, we must deal with the congestion at the ports, and we must deal with other places where double-tracking is absolutely necessary. However, to make a political football out of these problems is unfair to the producer.
The statutory Crow rate is so important. As the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has said time and time again, it is the Magna Carta of western Canada. Because of the tremendous distances we must face in transportation, the Government must look objectively at how it can strengthen the system without destroying the producer. If the producer is destroyed, Mr. Speaker, I say through you to the Minister that it will have the same impact upon this Canada of ours as we suffered in the past year and a half when the Government laid our energy people flat on their backs, imported oil from Mexico, disregarded increased prices, said in this House that it was not going to increase fuel prices beyond
18 cents a gallon, and later we saw an increase of $1 a gallon on fuel costs. This is the kind of direction which has been followed. We must avoid that, and we can avoid it. We must not play producer against producer. We must not play commodity group against commodity group.
I would suggest to the Minister that it is most important that he bring the railroads into accountability, and that he lay out purely and simply to the producers of Canada, and to ail the people of Canada, the importance of this debate which the Government is trying to obstruct in this House. I cannot repeat too often the importance of the direction to be followed which will produce positive results in the improvement of the export market and will lead to a brighter day for the economy of this great country of ours, Canada.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I enter into this debate again. In my previous remarks I went over some very essential points about which I believe the farmers and, indeed, the people of Saskatchewan, are greatly concerned. The first point was that under the proposed legislation some $600 million to $1 billion annually will be taken out of the Saskatchewan economy. That is something which the Saskatchewan economy just cannot stand. It comes close to $600 to $1,000 purchasing power for every man, woman, and child in Saskatchewan which just will not be there. The effects, therefore, will not only be felt by the farmers but will also be felt by the retail sector and by the workers in Saskatchewan. In sum, Mr. Speaker, it means less jobs and less money to go around. For that reason, although there are many reasons, I stand totally opposed to the proposed legislation.
The other argument I brought forward concerned my suspicions as to the $650 million the Government claims is the Crow gap. I went through some of the figures Mr. Snavely used and pointed out he allowed the railroads a rate of return on money they never invested on their own. These were public moneys invested in rail operations, moneys originally given to build the CPR. Yet Mr. Snavely allowed the railroads a rate of return on those public moneys. That rate of return is included in this $650 million Crow gap. If we are serious about examining the Crow rate, then we have to have some honest and real figures. My suggestion at that time was that we go back to square one and get some accurate figures as to what it really has cost the railroads to ship grain.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool does not disagree.


Simon Leendert de Jong: When I ran out of time the last time, I was trying to cover the area of subsidies. Other speakers have pointed out this morning that Canadian agriculture is not subsidized the way it is in the European Economic Community, Argentina, Australia or the United States. In fact, I wonder if the Government really has a handle on the amount of subsidies that farmers in other countries get. For example,
June 21, 1983

on July 23, 1982 1 asked the Government to table any documents they might have comparing the rate of subsidies given to grain farmers in the U.S. with those in Canada. Some time later I received a reply saying that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not aware of the existence of the documents requested. The implications of that were somewhat startling. Either the Government was lying-and I am not going to accuse the Minister of Agriculture of lying-or the Government does not have those figures. In other words, the Government is making this major assault on the economy of western Canada without even an inkling as to what the effects are going to be on our international trade. The U.S., of course, subsidize their grain farmers in several ways. A major part of their grain is barged down the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, a system maintained by the U.S. Corps of Army Engineers. That is a subsidy to American grain farmers.
Canadian grain farmers face many of the obstacles their American counterparts in North Dakota and Montana must face. There are tremendous distances to the shipping ports. The American system allows for assistance to grain farmers in shipping their grain, yet the only assistance the Canadian grain farmers get is an indirect subsidy called the Crow. To kick that support out from underneath the western grain farmer is an act of total irresponsibility. But then, what can you expect from a Government which has rattled the basis of Canadian Confederation ever since it returned to office in 1980? The assault on western Canada through the Constitution and various resource policies is inexcusable. That assault continues with this legislation, which in turn comes from a Government with hardly any representation in western Canada among the people who will be so greatly and adversely affected.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That does not prevent you from passing judgment on Quebec.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat concerned and puzzled at the type of opposition that Members to my right have raised. To tell you the truth, it is very confusing. We hear many different arguments being introduced. Of course, the Conservative Party has a variety of interests that it must maintain. They get support from the commodity groups, and of course we all know that they would like to see this legislation go through. The Conservatives have some debts they must honour to the coal and lumber interests, and so on.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought you said everyone disagreed with it?


Simon Leendert de Jong: One of the various conflicting interests the Conservatives feel they must represent is that between the grain producers and cattlemen. Not all but many cattlemen feel this is essentially good legislation and that the statutory rates must be changed. Many of them feel this would help them and would bring processing plants to western Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would dearly like to see processing plants move to western Canada; after all, a lot of our beef is produced there. But I am not convinced that doing away with the
Western Grain Transportation Act
statutory Crow rate is going to result in more processing plants and better beef production in western Canada.


Arnold John Malone: Why not?


Simon Leendert de Jong: I will tell you why. Last Spring, Mr. Speaker,
I took a week off from my duties in this House and paid an extensive visit to North Dakota and Montana. I talked to elevator operators, grain farmers and the Commissioner of Agriculture in the State of North Dakota. I talked to all sorts of people involved in the agriculture sector of those two States. What did they tell me? I told them that in North Dakota and Montana they do not have a statutory rate. We have the Crow but they do not. Did they feel that this had benefited them in terms of beef production and processing plants? They said no, they do not have any processing plants in North Dakota. They have one in Montana and one flour mill in North Dakota which has been supported by subsidies from the State, but there were no tremendous benefits to the beef producers in those two States. There were no flour mills to speak of because the economics are still that it is cheaper to ship the cattle on the hoof than it is to ship it as finished products in refrigerated cars.


Mr. Althouse:: Because the producer is paying for it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That unfortunately is the harsh economic situation. For the Government to attempt to seduce western beef producers into supporting the Crow changes against their brothers who are producing grain is, I think, one of the more despicable attempts at seduction by the Government.


Mr. Blais:: Oh, don't be silly.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am afraid that many of my Conservative colleagues to the right have fallen for that seduction from across the way.
I would like to see some honest studies, Mr. Speaker, that would show how much more beef production there is going to be in western Canada, how many more packing plants there will be if this legislation goes through. If the experience in North Dakota and Montana is any indication, there will be very minimal benefits to the beef producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Then you complain you cannot process your goods.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I see that my time is running out, so therefore-


Jean-Jacques Blais: In an electoral sense as well.


Simon Leendert de Jong: -I will give a preview of my next speech on the Crow. I will attempt to deal with some of the double-talk coming from the Government. We are moving into 1984, which has always struck me because of a novel I read in high school by George Orwell called "1984". In that book there was a term called "double-think" and "double-speaker". The common usage of a word and its meaning was totally turned upside down. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) have called us reactionary on this side. I want to deal with that piece of double-talk at the

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
next opportunity, because to call reactionary our attempt to save a rural way of life, to save small farmers in Saskatchewan so that they will continue to be economically viable, is a piece of double-speak straight out of "1984" and George Orwell's novel.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we should have a lesson in prairie economics concerning cattle and grain from the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). I wonder how many times he has used a permit book. 1 wonder how many Members of his Party currently have a permit book or have used a permit book. I would like to challenge the NDP to see whether they really think they represent the farmers. I could go through our ranks and about 20 of our Members have permit books.
I do not know whether some of those characters to my left even know what a permit book even is. It is the book issued by the Canadian Wheat Board allowing one to deliver grain, which makes one a bona fide farmer. I suspect that very few, if any, of these characters to my left who want to rise and speak on all the aspects of prairie agriculture know anything about it. One would have to show them with a map, which is the business end of a steer, yet they want to give us lessons as to how to run a prairie farm.
The Hon. Member started speaking of North Dakota and everything dealing with the beef and packing plant industry. I would point out that we currently do have what is left of a diversified industry on the Prairies. If we keep going the way we are going, we will not have one. If the Hon. Member had wanted to travel a little further south into Nebraska or Colorado, he would have found that there is a meat processing industry in the western part of the United States. What we are discussing is maintaining the industry we have in the West and not losing it all to the East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: Therefore, if the Hon. Member wants to start discussing those matters, I suspect he should either travel a little further physically or open up his brain so that a little broader range of ideas will get into it.
The Leader of the NDP spoke of the subsidy not being a question. In many ways it is true. We are not arguing as to whether or not the prairie grain producer should have a subsidy. I think we all agree that, based on the amount of taxes that producers pay, and based on the treatment of other industries in Canada, those of us who grow and want to ship grain on the Prairies should be entitled to the same sort of consideration as many of the other industries in Canada.
Our concern is the way in which the subsidy should be paid. The NDP and the National Farmers' Union are really in concert with regard to this matter. Two years ago the National Farmers' Union filed a class action suit against the CPR for damages resulting from services not rendered. Yet now it
wants to give all this money to the CPR. I just do not understand. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) wears a hat. Last night I sympathized with her concern with regard to wearing a hat in the House. She pointed out that the CPR has made a profit of $2 billion. If it has made all of this money, why does the NDP want to continue to give it more? That does not make any kind of sense. The Leader of the NDP is a renowned economist.


Mr. Orlikow:: And take equity in return.


Charles James Mayer: Whatever way one wants to do it. If one takes equity back in return, one is still giving money to it.


David Orlikow: No, you will share in the profit.


Charles James Mayer: A subsidy by any other name is still a subsidy. That is exactly what is being done. Why does the NDP want to give it money and take equity back when it has already made $2 billion in the last two years? I see that I have Members of the NDP going. It reminds me of a classic statement made by Edmund Burke, a very well respected Conservative theorist in England. He said that a Conservative is someone who believes that nothing should ever be done for the first time. I think that if he were here now and could look at the NDP, he would say that the NDP is someone that believes that nothing should ever be done for the first time. That is about how enlightened and reactionary are the attitudes of its Members.
We on this side of the House, are determined that if the Government is to make any changes to the Crow, we will ensure that those changes will be improvements. The NDP is saying we should do nothing about railway capacity, but simply give the railway more money and equity. It does not do anything about comparative advantage. It wants to lose our industry to eastern Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Charles James Mayer: That is its position. As I said, it literally boggles one's mind as to why Members of the NDP can be so opposed to giving money to the farmer.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party is purportedly an economist. If he is an economist, he will know what I mean when I mention the multiplier effect. If one gives the option to the farmer to take the money, aside from the fact that we believe in some freedom and a little bit of liberty in this country, the money will stay and be spent in his community and it will have a multiplier effect working on it two, three or four times before it is shipped out of the country, whether to Japan, Poland or wherever. If one pays the producer, at least the producer has a handle as to how some of the money will be redirected. That is one of the answers in terms of the money that will be taken out of the community when the producer is asked to pay more money.
I agree that at this particular time, when grain prices are falling and costs continue to escalate, it is a concern that the producer wil be asked to pay more money. Surely, as far as the NDP is concerned, it is obvious that the producer should be given a choice as to whether he wants to see all the money
June 21, 1983

continually going to the railways and being sent right out of the country with no local, multiplier effect. I assume that is not over the heads of some of my friends to the left.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) rose to speak. I feel that his comments and his comportment in the House reminded me of the guy who was kicked out of grade two for not shaving. That was about the level of his contribution in the House.
I want to mention that great nabob from the NDP, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), the mountains where he grows all the grain. He told us that we should stand up for farmers. As I said, I do not need anyone telling me how to stand up for farmers. I have held a permit book since I was 18 years old. 1 do not need guys like him to stand up and tell me what needs to be done on behalf of farmers. I happen to represent farmers and I know farmers. I speak to farmers every week when 1 go home. I have a fairly good idea what people are thinking at home. As I say, I do not need people from the "great plains of Hamilton Mountain" coming in to tell me how to represent farmers.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is a long-time Member of the NDP, and I suspect-


An Hon. Member:: He never had grease on his hands.


Charles James Mayer: Exactly; he never had grease on his hands. I do not know whether or not he has, but if he has I suspect it would have been accidental. I suspect he will be in some trouble at home when people begin to understand that he is in favour of giving all of the additional money to the railways.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Don't you have anything to say on the issue?


Charles James Mayer: Sure, I have lots to say on the issue. 1 see that a Member from Vancouver is becoming involved. I wish more of these NDP Members from the West Coast would rise to speak.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: 1 thought you only wanted farmers.


Charles James Mayer: No, there is nothing wrong with rising to speak. I say that when the time comes to represent farmers, many of us on this side, including myself, do not need lectures on how we should represent farmers, because we understand farmers. If Hon. Members want to rise to make comments, we will be more than happy to hear them. We have heard some very excellent comments from people on this side of the House who represent areas outside of the Prairies. I would certainly welcome and encourage Hon. Members from the NDP who represent areas outside of the Prairies to rise and make some enlightened comment on this matter.
Yesterday the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville rose in the House and said: "I am afraid that the Conservative Party has sold out to big business, to the CPR". I submit that it is exactly the reverse. Given the fact that the Government is determined to modify the Crow legislation, and given the fact that it is willing to put up $600 million a year, we are determined to give the producers a chance to have some of that money. It is the NDP that is in favour of big business, because
Western Grain Transportation Act
its Members are the ones who are in favour of giving money to the railways.
I would like to speak specifically. When I say that we are concerned about any changes being made, our concern is that there be improvements to the legislation. Let me go through some of our concerns. We want to ensure that the inflation factor, if it is applied will be an incentive to the railways to provide efficient service. I submit-I mentioned this when I had a chance to speak on the issue about six weeks ago-that the inflation factor was backwards in that if there is to be a sharing of the increase in costs as a result of inflation, the railways should be obligated to pick up the first percentage points of the inflation so that there is an incentive to railways to see that their services are run as efficiently as possible. The way the Bill is now, if the farmers are asked to pick up the first percentage points, it is almost guaranteed that there will be inflation of either three percentage points or six percentage points as far as railway costing is concerned, no matter whether there is inflation in the community at large or not. That is one of the very major concerns which we would like to see addressed.
Along the same line, we also want to ensure that if producers are to be asked to pay more, there be efficiency throughout the whole system. That means from the time the grain is loaded on to an elevator in the Prairies until the time it is put in the hold of a boat at one of the export positions in this country. That is an ongoing responsibility of the Government. It relates to everything, including labour relations and the amount of switching that goes on on the West Coast. It relates to the way our grading is established. It is a whole ongoing series of concerns which the Government must consider.
In a larger context, we must ensure that the Government understands that it has an obligation to look after some of the tariff and non-tariff barriers around the world. If we can grow things very efficiently on the Prairies, and I would submit that we can, we must ensure that Japan and the European Economic Community, for instance, do not take unfair advantage of our efficiencies here by throwing up tariff barriers and nontariff barriers in front of our exports.
I will mention a classic example. About ten years ago, horse meat was being shipped form Montreal to France. All of a sudden, this shipment stopped. The reason was that because France decided there was a possibility of some exotic, southern hemisphere disease being transmitted from this part of the continent to France, every worker in the packing house was required to have a rectal swab once a week.
This is the sort of situation which the Government must address. When we do have efficiencies in production the Government must ensure that we are not left out from what happens in other parts of the world as far as exports are concerned.


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

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as other Members have pointed out previously in this debate, we are now dealing with a form of closure. It is a rare form of closure that has not been used in this House since 1955 and was last used in Westminster in 1943, but-


David P. Smith: It is not closure. The last time it was used in this House-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -not by a Minister and not to slam the door shut on debate on a very contentious and important issue. As my colleague for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out, this form of closure is being imposed-


David P. Smith: It is not closure.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -by a dying, lame duck Government. It is being imposed upon a region of Canada where the Government does not have more than two Members representing that region. It has struck out in western Canada so western Canadians are really paying the price.
The reason it is moving closure-


David P. Smith: It is not closure.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -is that the Government knows that this is a divisive measure and that it has created a lot of anxiety. They know that it is a piece of legislation that goes to the very fabric, heart and core of western Canada's social and economic structure.
There are many things that are bad about this Bill. There are many things that are disastrous about this Bill. To use closure-


David P. Smith: It is not closure. Stop misleading.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -is an affront to western Canada, an affront to western Canadian Members of Parliament and it is an affront to this institution.


David P. Smith: It is not closure.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could I have order, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Some Members take heckling lightly and do not mind it. The Hon. Member who was given the floor should not be interrupted. It is his right and privilege to be heard.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Tell the truth.


David P. Smith: You cannot mislead the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not misleading the House. The facts are very clear. The fact of the matter is that this Government has used a form of closure more than 20 times in this session. This nation of Canada has had some bitter experiences with closure. We have seen the National Energy Program which destroyed the western Canadian energy industry, particularly the supply, service and exploration industry. It is a policy that has more than doubled energy
prices. I should say as well that the Government had the support of my friends to the left, the NDP.
The Government did the same thing with the Constitution which really set out to colonize the western Canadian Provinces. Again it had the support of my friends to the left, the NDP. They have set out to collectivize agriculture in this country through a Crown corporation known as Canagrex. The Government used closure and again had the support of my friends to the left. They want all the policies of agriculture formulated from on high, from the ivory towers in Ottawa. That is what they want.
We now have a situation where the Government of Canada is imposing closure-


David P. Smith: It is not closure. You are misleading.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -on the dismantling of the statutory Crowsnest Pass rates which could destroy the social and economic fabric of the West and cripple further a floundering Canadian economy. This Government has had the support of the arm chair critics over there. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, what this debate is doing? It is really separating the farmers from the armchair critics to my left. That is all they are, armchair theorists. They like to see agriculture collectivized so that it could all be under the control of a central planning bureaucracy sitting here in Ottawa.
I am disappointed with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and his lack of response. He has a chance to enter into the debate again on this particular motion. I challenge him to rise in his place. We in this Party have documented some very major objections to the piece of legislation before us, Bill C-155. We have documented at least a dozen points.
There are four or five points which I want to reiterate. First, the 10 per cent safety net that the Minister has advanced in the form of an amendment is not satisfactory. It will continue to create a situation where the statutory freight rate for the farmer will double by 1985-86 and multiply five times by the year 1990. The fact of the matter is that the historical figure is something in the order of 7 per cent or 8 per cent.
If we look over the last ten years, between the years 1970 to 1974 the farmers were paying 5.3 per cent of their income from grain for freight; from 1975 to 1979, it was 3.8 per cent; and from 1982 it was roughly 3 per cent. When one looks at it over the last ten years, farmers have been paying a freight rate equal to about 4 per cent of their weighted average of grain. This Minister has put forward a safety net of 10 per cent. That is not historical. It is far from historical and he must bend that figure or this Bill will not get passed, I can assure him of that.
The second point of contention is the 31.1 million tonne cap. That is not satisfactory. It is a disincentive. If we recognize the importance of grain to our national economy and the importance of encouraging production and marketing, then there should be an incentive to produce more. The result of putting on this 31.1 million tonne cap is tantamount to stepping on the accelerator and using the brake at the same time. It does not work.
June 21, 1983

The third point concerns the statutory freight structure. The Minister's proposal takes the railways off the hook. It takes them off their statutory and historical obligation from which they will be fully relieved. That is fundamentally wrong. Furthermore, it will perpetuate a cost-plus freight rate structure.
1 suggest to the House and challenge the Minister that what will happen is that the farmers will become the same victims as the passengers of VIA Rail. This is the same type of cost-plus formula that will be put in place. It really does not matter whether it is a Crown corporation or a private company, the same cost-plus formula will be in existence. Therefore, if the NDP want to renationalize the CNR and nationalize the CPR, the formula will remain the same. The fact of the matter is that they are the friends of the railroads. They are advocating a guaranteed annual income for the railroads.
The fourth point concerns the method of payment. The Minister knows that his proposal is not satisfactory and has not met with any degree of acceptance across the Prairies. In fact, the Gilson proposal recommended an 81-19 split in favour of the producers. The Minister then chose a 50-50 split. He will now send the $651 million Crow benefit directly to the railroads. I suggest this is well documented. The livestock industry has certainly documented its case very well. The future of the livestock industry in western Canada will suffer a very serious blow. It will be a serious blow to further diversification and processing.
We have offered a suggestion. It may not be perfect and we would be the first to admit that. However, it is a principle that I believe bears some serious consideration and study by the Government.
The NDP believe that individual producers do not have the brains, capacity or ability to make their own decisions. They believe that the Government should make the decisions because producers are not capable of doing so. I ask the NDP to come forth with a solution that would address the problems of the livestock producers and the need to further diversify.
The Alberta Wheat Pool has recognized that this is a serious flaw in this particular Bill. The fact of the matter is that we have a current situation in which this Bill must be improved because it cannot go forward as it exists. In its present form it will deliver a tremendous body blow to the future of agriculture in western Canada.
I repeat that the NDP are really the friends of the railroads. They want the $651 million plus to go to the railroads in perpetuity. We have spoken out on behalf of the producers. We firmly believe that the freedom of choice option would give the individual producer the opportunity to retain some of that benefit in his own pocket, thereby maximizing incomes to the producers. It would ameliorate some tensions. It would inject some competition into the system and provide for some efficiencies. Most of all, the bottom line is that it would enhance the income potential of the producers.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I conclude by simply saying that what we solicit is a fair, equitable, reasonable, practical, common sense solution, serving the broadest interests of western Canadian agriculture. This is a complex Bill. It is a contentious Bill and it is necessary for this Minister to provide maximum flexibility. We appeal to the Minister to rise in his place to address some of the very serious objections we have made during the course of this debate. Failure to do so is a clear indication that he is not prepared to accommodate and is not prepared to be flexible on this issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words once again on the proposed Western Grain Transportation Act, Bill C-155.
There is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the passing of this Bill and the abolishment of the Crow rate will have a devastating effect on the people of western Canada and indeed on all Canadians. What this Bill does is add to the divisiveness of Canada at a time when everything should be done to heal the wounds of disunity and to make this country whole again.
I do not believe there is any place in Canada for greed and avarice by some special interest groups at the expense of the unity of our country and at the expense of the further growth and total development of our country, and 1 mean every section of our country, be it the East or the West.
By going out of the way needlessly to antagonize and to frustrate people in one section of the country to please people in another section is like playing both ends against the middle. The results, Mr. Speaker, always prove disastrous for everyone concerned.
This is what will happen if the producers and the people of western Canada are not given a fair shake in this proposed legislation. I believe a fair shake was in the offing when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) originally drafted the legislation to divide the proposal annual subsidy of $651 million between the producers and the railways.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Where were you then?


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: I believe this was a good proposal. But, Mr. Speaker, through pressure from the wheat pools and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Minister unfortunately was pressured to change his mind from this common-sense approach and forced to direct the full subsidy to the railways, thereby selling the producers down the river.
I do not know but perhaps the usual Liberal logic prevailed, because without any elected representatives in western Canada, the Party as a whole would have nothing to lose politically. I can tell you that such logic will have a negative lasting effect on western Canada voters regarding the Liberal Party for many generations into the future.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is that why you chose your Leader from Quebec?

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: The fact that the railways would be receiving the subsidy means that the only way the producers could reap the benefit would be to ship their grain by rail. The 150,000 member-owned prairie wheat pools which own most of the elevators are all for this in order to retain their self-pecuniary interest. This has the effect of freezing out Canadian trucking from transporting prairie crops. To me this is discriminatory and is counter to the free enterprise system by restricting trade; and I believe that if it was ever contested in a court of law, a verdict would be reached in favour of the Canadian Trucking Association.
If a farmer received the subsidy he could well decide to sell his grain to local livestock producers and use trucking firms to do this. Unfortunately, Quebec livestock producers have been the primary force against the subsidy being paid directly to farmers because they fear that cattle producers in the West, through cheaper priced grain, could raise cattle much cheaper than in Quebec. But the western livestock producers see it as a necessary restructuring of the whole prairie economy and everything must be done to encourage this. This Bill does the opposite.
The Minister has also decided to put a ceiling of 31.1 million tonnes a year on the amount of grain eligible for the subsidy-


Jean-Luc Pepin: The shippers did that.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: You went along with it, Sir. Anything over that, Mr. Speaker, would be shipped at the full rate. This is sheer nonsense. Now the farmers are to be penalized if they produce more or if new records are set in grain production. To me, it is ludicrous to punish producers because of excellence of production.
What this Minister does not seem to realize, Mr. Speaker, is that farming is Canada's major industry. This Government seems conveniently to forget that, despite the fact that close to 40 per cent of all jobs in Canada are directly or indirectly related to agriculture.
To show how little priority agriculture has to this Government, less than 2 per cent of the total budget is set aside for agriculture. If Agriculture Canada had access to the $1.4 billion lost by Canadair through bungling and gross inefficiencies in management, think what that money would have done for all the farmers of Canada, the most efficient producers in the world.
Agriculture Canada, Mr. Speaker, is one of the best run departments of this Government. As a former veterinary inspector in the department and a practising veterinarian for many years, I was always in contact with Agriculture Canada, and 1 can truthfully say that the Canadian taxpayers, as far as Agriculture Canada is concerned, do get their money's worth, which is more than I can say for many other government departments. However, the common sense of Agriculture Canada is in direct contrast to the legislation that we are debating today, which is far from common sense.
One of the incentives used by the Minister to encourage farmers to participate in the change of the Crow rate was the promise that there would be railway performance guarantees to producers in exchange for increasing the freight rate to move grain. Bill C-155 proves this to be a sham. There will be no railway performance guarantees for the first three years. Railway performance objectives will have no clout because sanctions to the railways will only be tallied, not levied. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the railways will get a free ride for three years.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We can withhold their money if they do not perform well.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Although the Act states that the Minister can withhold any amount of money to the railway if the railways are not adequately investing in rail plant and equipment for moving grain, there is nothing to stop the railways from claiming that the money received from the Government is inadequate to justify the needed expenditures, and therefore they let the rail system deteriorate and then wait for the Government to come back again with ad hoc measures such as hopper car supply.
That is why I say there is no adequate guarantee to producers that they would be getting their money's worth for paying the increased freight rate. A stronger commitment and guarantee by the Government and the railways is necessary and absolutely essential.
Another clause in this Bill empowers the Canadian Transport Commission to monitor the investment programs of the railways and their efforts to maintain the grain-dependent branch lines. This in no way reassures me and my colleagues that all will be well if one takes into consideration the 1982 Annual Report of the Auditor General, which roundly criticizes the Department of Transport and the CTC in their financial and engineering audits of the rail rehabilitation program.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have answered all that since.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: This program, begun in 1977, called for the rehabilitation of 5,675 miles by 1992 at a cost of $1.6 billion. In this program the Auditor General found profound deficiencies, including deficiencies in construction costs charged by the railways, deficiencies in assessment and poor disclosure of financial implications.
The Auditor General as well found deficiencies in the responsibility of maintaining lines and deficiencies in the development of construction standards and specifications.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He is not infallible.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: There is no guarantee that this will not be repeated. There is no question that Bill C-155 is a Bill that is poorly drafted and poorly thought out by people I suspect who may be geniuses in theory but have no practical experience and lack total common sense. I suggest that the Minister go back to the drawing board and meet with people who have both the
June 21, 1983

experience and the common sense needed to bring forth a sensible Bill that all Parties will approve and live with,


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak in this debate to say that while I have only a few farmers in my constituency, I have several thousand railway workers working for both the CP and the CN who have a vital concern in the efficient operation of the railway system.
We are being asked in this Bill to destroy the statutory rate for the shipping of grain which has been commonly known as the Crow rate. The Crow rate has been characterized by many people in western Canada as their Magna Carta. It has had the support of so many people and organizations that for years the Liberal Government promised that it would not change the Crow rate until there had been full discussion and a consensus reached. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on February 13, 1981:
We have made a decision not to deal with the Crowsnest Pass freight rates until there is a very strong demand from representatives of western farm groups and other groups to touch the Crowsnest rates.
Did he get that consensus? Let me list just a few of the groups and organizations which have expressed opposition to the present legislation. I will not list them all because it would take much more than my ten minutes. Among the groups that have expressed opposition to all or parts of the Bill are the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Manitoba Pool Elevators and the Advisory Committee to the Canadian Wheat Board. Unanimous resolutions were also passed by the Manitoba and Saskatchewan legislatures.


An Hon. Member:: No Liberals there.


David Orlikow: There are no Liberals there. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) ought to give some thought as to why that is so.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall is recognized in Canada for his ability to look at very complex problems and to give Canadians the benefit of his work and advice, which has proven over the years to be very sound. I remind the Minister of Transport that if we have a national, universal medical insurance plan in Canada, it is largely as a result of the study conducted by Mr. Justice Hall. Concerning the kind of legislation we are presently being asked to pass, Mr. Justice Hall said on November 24, 1981:
If once tampering with the statutory rate is accepted or condoned or is an item on the bargaining table, all will be lost. For once the subject is on the bargaining table, it will only be a matter of time until it is lost step by step.
I urge not only the Minister of Transport to heed the advice of Mr. Justice Hall but Hon. Members of the Conservative Party to do likewise. When they talk about freedom of choice, they have already accepted the idea that the rates for moving grain will go up and that somehow farmers will be compensated for the increase. I see an Hon. Member from Alberta nodding his head in agreement. All that means is that once the rates go up and farmers are compensated, we are really saying
Western Grain Transportation Act
that farmers can endorse the cheques and pass them on to CPR. That is not acceptable to us.
We are told that if the Bill is passed the railways will invest some $16 billion in improving and upgrading the rail system. We are not told from where the money will come. It will come either from farmers in the form of increases over the next few years of up to 500 per cent in their cost of shipping grain, or through subsidies from Canadian taxpayers including farmers and city people. We are not told that under the plan as proposed by the Government over-all railway investment will actually decline or that railway investment will be reduced severely east of Calgary and Edmonton. We are not told that the Port of Churchill will be ignored or that Thunder Bay ports will be downgraded. We are not told that the rail systems in central and Atlantic Canada will also get very little support.
Where will the investment go? It will go to the mountain lines to subsidize the shipment of coal, and again CPR will benefit. We are not arguing that coal, potash or lumber should not be shipped. We are not saying that coal or these other products should not be exported if there are markets. We are saying that the cost of moving the increased shipments of grain, potash, coal and lumber should not be placed on the backs of the grain farmers of western Canada.
Who will benefit from this plan? Mainly the benefits will go to CPR, a corporation which was established and has grown fat as a result of grants of money to the tune of billions of dollars and grants of millions of acres of land over the years. I suggest that the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) ought to look at the speeches of his Conservative colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who knows much more about what CPR has done to this country than he knows. As a result of the assistance CPR has received from Canadians in the form of cash grants, subsidies, millions of acres of land and mineral rights, today it is one of the largest corporations, if not the largest corporation, in Canada with assets of over $16 billion. It owns railway lines, shipping lines and airlines.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Shipping registered outside Canada.


David Orlikow: Yes, with shipping registered outside Canada and using foreign crews to avoid paying the fair wages which Canadian workers would demand. It owns real estate, mines and pulp and paper companies, to mention just a small part of its assets.
We have made our position clear. We are opposed to this rip-off which the Government is proposing, this plan that will benefit CPR. We have put forward a very clear alternative. Our alternative to the Government's plan calls for upgrading the railways. In the City of Winnipeg I have seen CPR and CNR workers who were continuously employed for 15 years to 25 years being laid off for periods of six weeks to 12 weeks in the last year. Why? The reason is that CP and CN officials have said that their current business is slow. Enough studies have been conducted to show that in the next ten years our exports of grain will go up by about 100 per cent, our exports
26592

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
of potash by about 150 per cent and our exports of coal by about 400 per cent.
Now is the time for the railways to be entering a period of modernization. They could upgrade their system and build the equipment they will need, such as hopper cars, engines and signal systems. Now is the time for the railways to be modernized and upgraded. This would mean implementing a massive job creation program. Without it they will not be able to move the increased sales of grain, potash, coal and lumber we expect to see in the next ten or 15 years.
We say that that can be done while retaining the Crowsnest Pass rate for grain farmers. We believe it will cost Canadian taxpayers no more than the present plan of the Government and would create more than 100,000 new jobs in the next ten years, many of which would be in railway shops and plants in my City of Winnipeg. We want to stop the continuing policy which we have had for many years under both Liberal and Conservative Governments of handouts of money to the railways with no return to the public. We believe we should pay the railways proven out-of-pocket expenses-I emphasize that, not the kind of inflated figures we get from the railways-for hauling grain.
I point out that in 1983 we paid CN and CP S380 million. In return for the money we paid to those railway companies, the Government should take an equity share. In return for a specific capital investment in railway upgrading, in the last year we paid $550 million. If we took an equity share in CPR for the money we have given to it, we would get back part of the profits it earns, profits which are and will be very substantial. We would require the railways to maintain their investment. We have seen companies in Canada and the United States take public money and not use it for the primary purpose for which it was given, but use it for-
[Editor's note: At this point the electricity supply to the Chamber was interrupted.]


Some Hon. Members:: One o'clock.


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


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in this debate this afternoon-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Perhaps the Hon. Member can wait for a few seconds until we see what the problem is.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Why not call it one o'clock and then we can get this place fixed up?


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to speak over the noise in the background. I wish to make a few comments on what we all believe to be the closing stages of second reading debate before the Bill goes to committee. Hopefully the
Members of the Transport Committee will take a good, long, hard look at the Bill throughout the rest of June and during the month of July.
I wish to deal briefly with two matters. First, the whole debate which has been going on for some period of time is not about nationalization, as the former speaker indicated. It does not have any part in the subject matter we are talking about today.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know this noise is not at every desk in this House, but certainly in this part of the Chamber the noise is intolerable. We cannot hear the Hon. Member speak. Would it not make more sense to call it one o'clock and get the electrical problem attended to?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair will inquire from Hon. Members whether there is a disposition to call it one o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker-


Cyril Keeper: We cannot hear you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We cannot hear him.


Jack Burnett Murta: I guess I have about seven or eight minutes left.
As I was saying before the interruption, what we have been talking about here for some length of time has not been nationalization of another railway or anything along that line. This in the mind of western Canadians-


Mr. Lewycky:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I cannot hear what the Hon. Member is saying. I honestly cannot discern what the Member is saying because of the noise. Maybe it is greater here than where other Members are sitting. I propose that we call it one o'clock.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) has a right to make his speech without any interference. You can hear the noise. The microphone and the sound system have all gone to hell. I do not know what it is like at the other end of the Chamber, but we cannot hear the Member speaking, and we cannot hear you, Mr. Speaker. Why are we sitting? Surely this is not in accordance with proper decorum and order in the House. Get somebody in here and repair the problem. Let us call it one o'clock and the Hon. Member can make his speech later.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that anything that would get close to the NDP would all go to hell.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) just rose and made a point with regard to the NDP. I am sorry but we could not hear what he said in this part of the House. This is not the way to carry on the business of the House.
June 21, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. There is a very serious technical difficulty. The Chair must admit that it is having difficulty hearing interventions from that corner of the House. If Hon. Members are being hampered in the due process of debate, that is to speak and be heard, perhaps we should adjourn at this time. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should adjourn at this time. 1 hope that when the House resumes debate on this subject, the Chair will give the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) his full ten minutes because we have hardly heard a word he has said so far.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 12.54 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, last Friday, union workers from the Davie Shipbuilding Ltd. shipyards at Lauzon, representatives of socio-economic organizations, mayors and business leaders marched in the streets of Lauzon and Levis to demonstrate their support for awarding the National Defence frigate construction project to the Scan group.
I spoke on that occasion and indicated my own support for this option as well. A petition with 5,200 signatures, collected in four days, was handed to me, a petition signed by people from all walks of life in the riding of Levis, and by Canadians from all regions.
1 hope this new development will be considered by Cabinet members before a final decision is made. This unique contract is very important to the Quebec City area, which depends on this type of government investment to continue its economic development.
I may recall that over one million people live in this area, and if this option is chosen, it will provide a reasonable level of employment for a number of years.



METRIC CONVERSION


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has locked up his last retail grocer, put cable around his last gas pump, and prosecuted his last floor covering dealer for using imperial measurements. There has never been a survey or poll taken which would indicate that the majority of the Canadian people want metric measurement. For this reason, the Progressive Conservatives, in Opposition, make the following commitment. All Orders in Council passed making imperial measurement illegal shall be rescinded, and the Canadian people will have freedom of choice. Canada would follow the course taken by the United States and the United Kingdom by implementing a voluntary program which would leave the pace of change up to the retailers, manufacturers, and consumers.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has lost control of his senses. The people of Canada do not want mandatory metric. When Members of the Conservative Party form the next Government we will return to a voluntary program, and grocers, floor covering sales people, and gasoline station operators will not be prosecuted if they wish to use imperial measurement.
The Progressive Conservative Party has adopted the following resolution: "We deplore the continuation of the policy of the Government of enforcing compulsory metrication in Canada and we will take, when in Government, any action necessary to abandon compulsory metrication in Canada."

[ Translation]



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Remi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, this morning, in the Quebec National Assembly, the Quebec Minister of Transport responded to the offer he received at the beginning of April from Air Canada to settle the Quebecair problem once and for all.
The Quebec Minister of Transport responded by nationalizing Quebecair. What is even more surprising, Madam Speaker, is that since April, the Quebec Minister of Transport has never been in touch with the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to enquire about the proposal that had been made by Air Canada.
Madam Speaker, the Government of Quebec is refusing the $12.5 million offered by the Government to Quebecair in order to stabilize the situation. In addition, it has turned down the federal Government's offer to help pay future debts of Quebecair.

June 21, 1983
Madam Speaker, it seems as though the Government of Quebec and the Minister of Transport are once again getting involved in a nationalist venture. On top of that, the announcement come just two days before Quebec's national holiday.
Once again, it is clear that this Government does not care at ail about the current situation at Quebecair or the interest of airline users.
Madam Speaker, I think that once again, we are seeing a Government that is only interested in making Quebec independent and is not concerned about the people of Quebec.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, increasingly, there has been talk of the possibility of establishing a national cigarette tobacco production board.
[Editor's note: Interruption caused by power failure.]
Madam Speaker, since I represent a riding that has a vested interest in the production of cigarette tobacco, since 90 per cent of the Quebec harvest comes from the riding of Joliette, I took the trouble to send a letter to all my Quebec colleagues especially, to show the Minister that I am certainly not opposed to the idea of establishing a national board. However, since a national board will be concerned with exporting tobacco, it will also have to monitor production and set quotas. Since Quebec produces only 50 per cent of the tobacco consumed in the province, I hope that in the event Canadian production would have to be cut back, Hon. Members and especially the Minister will agree to allow Quebec production to be maintained at least at present levels. 1 am mentioning this as a warning to the Government that it is highly unlikely Quebec producers would agree to cutbacks in production if that became necessary, since they are producing only 50 per cent of the tobacco consumed in the province. In the circumstances, I thought it would be a good idea to make my colleagues aware of this point. I have received acknowledgements from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and I hope all my Quebec colleagues will do likewise.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, yesterday Canada's own Admiral Robert Falls, the Chairperson of the NATO Military Committee, added his voice to those of many other western military leaders in condemning the nuclear arms buildup. The Admiral is particularly alarmed
at the buildup of battlefield nuclear weapons in Europe and says that NATO already has more weapons than it needs even before it deploys the Cruise missiles and the Pershing II missiles in Europe.
Admiral Falls is an accomplished military leader who is obviously familiar with the strengths and the weaknesses of NATO. For the benefit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), I might add that he is not someone who could be accused of being either pro-Soviet or anti-American. Yet Admiral Falls feels comfortable saying that NATO could unilaterally reduce its stockpile of nuclear weapons without upsetting deterrence or undermining our security.
The Admiral's statement is only the latest one that exposes the hypocrisy of the Government's policy of talking peace while throwing fuel on the arms race. The Government is already aware that the introduction of long-range Cruise missiles will destabilize arms control agreements because the Cruise missile defies verification. Arms control agreements depend on verification, not on trust.
In good conscience the Government can only make one decision, and that is to refuse to test the Cruise and press both super powers to negotiate a ban on long-range Cruise missiles now.



WORLD UNIVERSITY GAMES-PRIME MINISTER'S ATTENDANCE URGED

Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, from July 1 to July 11, Canada will be host to athletes from 97 countries who will be participating in Universiade '83 in Edmonton. This event is second only in size and importance to the Summer Olympics. It is an event that goes beyond athletic competition. It is a world event that builds friendship through competition, understanding through brotherhood, and peace through tolerance and good will.
The grand opening of this major international event will set the stage for subsequent competitions. It is expected that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) will play a prominent part in the opening ceremonies.
I have been advised, Madam Speaker, that the Prime Minister might not attend the grand opening of the Games. Why not? The country only has one Prime Minister. Surely when athletes from 97 countries, with all of their attendant dignitaries and officials come to our country, our Prime Minister should welcome them on behalf of all Canadians as he represents us all.
I ask the Prime Minister to rise in the House and advise the nation that he will be attending and will participate in the opening ceremonies of Universiade '83.
June 21, 1983



THE ECONOMY


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, economic indicators continue to show that inflation is on the wane and an economic recovery is under way. Statistics Canada has reported that the Consumer Price Index rose by only .3 per cent in May, as compared to April, this reducing the increase from one year ago to 5.4 per cent. This, Madam Speaker, represents the lowest annual increase since December, 1972, and it represents a reduction of 7.5 per cent from the peak of 12.9 per cent in June, 1981. This, Madam Speaker, is irrefutable evidence of the success of the six and five program.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David P. Smith: All the cynicism emanating from the other side cannot change the facts. More good news! Furthermore, the signs of an economic recovery are apparent as well. Canada had a growth rate of 1.8 per cent, inflation-adjusted, in the economy during the first quarter of 1983. That followed six quarters of decline. This is evidence, Madam Speaker, that recovery is under way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



METRIC CONVERSION


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, in the area of metric conversion it would appear that the Metric Commission has misled the Consumers' Association of Canada. All along, the Consumers' Association of Canada, because of assurances from the Metric Commission, has been promising consumers a simpler marketplace with fewer sizes, rationally related. This was supposed to be one of the advantages of conversion. Canadian canners and packagers are unwilling to convert their equipment because of the horrendous expense, so, consequently, we have cans and packages with a lot of funny numbers which are confusing to shoppers.
If, as the Metric Commission maintains, conversion is voluntary-sector by sector-the Canadian canning and packaging industry ought to be permitted to can, package, wholesale and retail in familiar imperial measures to keep industry costs down and, in the long run, to keep costs down at the supermarket checkout counters, thereby assisting in the control of inflation and at the same time protecting our trade edge with non-metric countries, especially the United States.



NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, Canadians today are suffering from the results of the Government's inept energy policies. Despite the Liberals' promises of oil prices at 75 per cent of the world price level, Canadians are now paying more at the pump than American consumers, while our oil and gas industry is in a state of chaos. Rather than helping Canadians, the National Energy Program has had a disastrous impact on the economy.
There is no doubt that Canada needs a national conference on energy pricing and taxation. Such a conference must include the federal Government, the producing Provinces, the consuming Provinces, as well as input from consumers and industry. In addition to a national conference on energy policy, there must be a national inquiry into gasoline and fuel oil pricing. No clear understanding exists today of what is a fair price for fuel, with price wars and price piggybacking going on across the country. Rather than dealing with a restrictive trade practices commission, we should have an inquiry into pricing which exists currently today. The Government must provide protection to consumers at the well head and at the gas pump. Therefore the country needs a national inquiry into the pricing procedures at the gas pump.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, as was mentioned earlier by our colleague for Bonaventure- iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold), Quebecair was nationalized today by the Quebec Government. The House is aware that I represent a region that is particularly lacking in air transportation. It is also a fact that under federal legislation on air transportation, the Government of Canada is obliged to maintain transportation by air to very remote areas for which specific requirements have been identified. I wonder whether there will be any legal or moral obligation on the Government of Quebec to maintain a service in a region like ours. Madam Speaker, perhaps I may point out that the kind of gifts being offered by the Government of Quebec to the people of Quebec today are strangely similar to the gift it gave us on June 23, 1982, when it passed a basic statute that retroactively excluded the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from all Quebec legislation. 1 think that this year, June 24 will be a particularly sad day for Quebec.

June 21, 1983
Oral Questions



THE ROYAL FAMILY


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, upon meeting the Princess of Wales yesterday she expostulated that they were "overwhelmed with the warm welcome of Canadians". We Canadians were overwhelmed with the Royal couple's idyllic love, social grace, and personification of the democratic system. What a breath of fresh air they represent, as opposed to the socialist hordes in front of me and to my left.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Perhaps the socialist gathering this evening at Kingsmere will be awakened to what their Royal Highnesses really represent-freedom-and will be awakened particularly to the fact that socialism destroys morale, terminates initiative and incentive, and leaves a nation apathetic and listless.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The mythological Royal couple represents the victory of the democratic head of Government over the frugal-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The mythological Royal couple represents the victory of the democratic head of Government over the frugal, melancholy mantle of imposed state control known as socialism. The Royal pair symbolizes the free world, no longer the divine right of kings, and in real flesh and blood. They are the living embodiment of over 1,000 years of tradition, of our parliamentary system and all the rights and freedoms-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: -we cherish so dearly, the traditions, languages, rights and freedoms which have been systematically eroded by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). To Your Royal Highnesses, our unswerving love and loyalty for all that you represent. Hurry back, and God bless.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peei):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it is really a follow up to yesterday's questioning of the Minister for apparently asking those in the country to follow his word as opposed to the Government's action.
Yesterday, in reply to the suggestion on my part that many in the Public Service have exceeded the six and five guidelines, the Minister threw out a challenge to me. He said, "I challenge the Hon. Member to prove that the average salary of employees working, for instance, for the National Capital Commission has increased more than 6 per cent". Would the Minister indicate to the House, when he threw out that challenge, was he unaware of the fact that in Main Estimates 84, the average salary in the National Capital Commission was $30,344, compared to 1983 when the average salary was $25,669, an increase of 18.2 per cent?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I would have been very happy to hear an introductory comment by the Hon. Member referring to the fact that today we have heard excellent news on the Consumer Price Index, that we have for the eleventh month a straight decline in inflation in this country-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: -and that from May of last year to this year, we have had an inflation rate of only 5.4 per cent.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: That is the smallest increase recorded since December, 1972.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I believe that clearly indicates that the measures taken by the Government, together with Canadians, have produced excellent results, and that in effect the six and five program, together with the other measures taken by provincial Governments, municipalities, and by everyone in the private sector, has produced excellent results for the country. We have succeeded in bringing inflation down quite significantly, and we will be able to ensure more jobs and more growth for the Canadian economy in the year to come, thanks to this excellent progress.
As far as the question raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, I must remind him, as I indicated yesterday, that one has to take into account several factors. Parliament passed legislation imposing a 6 per cent and 5 per cent maximum increase on public servants. That is the law under this Parliament, and that is what is being applied. The Hon. Member knows that collective agreements expire at different times, and Parliament decided not to roll back those agreements in effect. Therefore, there were increases coming into effect which were in excess of 6 per cent past last June and which would show up in those results. But what is important-[DOT]
[DOT] (M20)


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 21, 1983


Marc Lalonde: -Madam Speaker, the Hon. Members have not taken the trouble-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


AMOUNT OF AVERAGE SALARY INCREASE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. When inflation was on the rise in this country we were told it was due to world conditions, but with inflation coming down it is solely the Government's responsibility. Perhaps the Minister of Finance could answer a very simple question. Does he agree that average salaries in the National Capital Commission for 1984 will indeed be approximately 18 per cent above those in 1983?


Marc Lalonde: 1984?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Fiscal year 1984.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all I have to remind the Hon. Member that when inflation was high in this country he blamed the Government for it all. Now he wants to turn around and say it has come down, but no thanks to the Government. Again, he should make up his mind. Either we were to blame for inflation before, as he blames us for it, or not. But he cannot have it both ways.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the NCC is concerned, Madam Speaker, 1 do not have the figures at hand but I can tell the Hon. Member quite clearly that Parliament has passed a law, and the salaries of federal public servants are allowed to increase only by 6 per cent and 5 per cent when they are doing the same job, and this takes place as the collective agreements expire. 1 would ask my hon. friend therefore to check further into the matter.


MONITORING OF SALARY INCREASES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, would the Minister indicate to the House what guidelines have been given by his Department to ensure that, Department by Department, there are not little wrinkles to get around the guidelines through promotions and other such devices? Secondly, would he indicate what monitoring will continue to ensure that indeed these excessive average salary increases we are now witnessing in the Public Service do not continue?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as a former President of the Treasury Board the Hon. Member should know these matters are under the authority of the Treasury Board, not that of the Minister of Finance. But 1 can tell him without hesitation the Government has been very
Oral Questions
careful to make sure the law passed by this Parliament is being implemented and increases are not going to be more than 6 per cent and 5 per cent. That is the rule which is being applied. Obviously there are promotions, and changes in the situation of a particular individual, as I indicated before in the case of the Hon. Member for Yukon who changed jobs and also changed salaries.
I can assure the Hon. Member that the Treasury Board is exercising very strict control over this issue, and I think his comments about the Public Service are quite unfair and inappropriate.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be changing jobs and changing salaries shortly, too.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to his budget. In view of the fact that cable companies under the government's 6 and 5 program have already been allowed to increase fees to their subscribers, how does he justify slapping a new tax on cable subscribers? Does six and five mean 6 plus 5?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very interested in hearing that my hon. friend is promoting me to another, more elevated position, I suppose.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I want to tell him that I will not go after him for support or as an organizer.
As far as the tax is concerned, the Hon. Member knows that in the budget I announced a 6 per cent tax on cable subscribers. That tax has been justified on the basis that we needed to establish a fund to provide for Canadian broadcasting production. Part of that tax is going to be used to fulfil that particular objective. I hope my friend supports this because we have come out with a clear policy of encouraging Canadian broadcasting production, and that requires public funds. Indeed, if cable subscribers are going to benefit from the programming, they should be called upon to contribute to the cost of production.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it is not for me to tell the Minister where to go; the Canadian people will be doing that shortly.

June 21, 1983
Oral Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS


REQUEST THAT AUDITOR GENERAL BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT AUDITS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that figures just released by the Government in the past few days indicate, in the case of Canadair, the largest corporate loss in the history of Canada, and it appears that, if controls apply anywhere, they do not apply to controlling the losses of Crown corporations, will the Minister now agree that the Auditor General of Canada should have full access to the books of all Crown corporations and, in particular, the grandaddy of all Crown corporations, the Canada Development Investment Corporation?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, this is an issue on which there are various arguments, which we are seriously considering. When we present to Parliament our views on possible amendments to Bill C-153, it is an issue that we will be happy to have more to say about.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Figures released today show that the profits of the chartered banks are up some $1 billion for the past six months. The article containing these figures points out that the reason for this is that the spread between what the banks pay depositors and what they charge borrowers has increased, and therefore home owners, small-businessmen, and all kinds of other Canadian consumers are being overcharged by the banks. If the Minister is really concerned about inflation, why does he not take action regarding the banks and get them to reduce their charges to borrowers?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the spread. I would like to bring to his attention that the interest rate spread for the big five banks was 2.78 per cent compared to a five-year high of 3.08 per cent. The return on assets for all Schedule A banks, although rising to .52 per cent, was still below the five-year historical high of .66 per cent. So my friend should look at the record and realize what the situation is.
Secondly, if my friend looks at the profits of the banks two years ago, for the whole year, he will realize that they were roughly double what they were for the last six months.


Mr. Deans:: That was what we were telling you two years
ago.


Marc Lalonde: At that time a parliamentary committee studied this matter and came to the conclusion, two years ago, that bank profits were not excessive. That was the conclusion of a committee of this House at that time, so my friend should bear that in mind.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION AGAINST BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the historical reality is that for the past two years workers' wages have been going down, month after month after month. Bank profits have been going up. The bank pays a depositor 7 per cent and then increases that by 100 per cent because a typical consumer loan is now 14 per cent. That is the real cause of inflation. Is the Minister not concerned about this unfair gouging of consumers, which also causes a loss of jobs? If he is, why does he not for once take some action against the banks, instead of always talking about workers' salaries, which have been going down, not up?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that for the first time in five years, without the support of the NDP, by the way, Canadian workers will see their standard of living improving, this year, and they will be ahead of inflation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Again I remind my hon. friend that bank profits in 1981 were roughly $1.7 billion. For the six month period ending April 30, 1983, they were $900 million. That is equal to about half of the profits for the full year of 1981, and one should realize that this is two years later, and take inflation into account, et cetera. At that time those profits were studied by a parliamentary committee and found not to be excessive. I am not surprised therefore that my hon. friend would raise his usual rhetoric, but he should consider the facts again.


EFFECT OF BANK CHARGES ON CONSUMERS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance, if he were direct in the House, would know that the reason inflation has gone down in this country is because the Government has created circumstances where there are 1.5 million unemployed.


Mr. Nielsen:: Two million.


John Edward Broadbent: That is the real reason wage rates have come down, not because of the Government's silly program.
The Minister cited 1981, which was one of the years of record profits for the banks. He is now implying that it is a reasonable target. Will he not, I ask for a third time, recognize that consumers are being overcharged, home owners are being overcharged, and small-businessmen are now being overcharged by the banks? If he will recognize that fact, will he
June 21, 1983

take action, or does he really want to return to the situation of 1981, where the banks made their highest profits in decades? Will he show some genuine concern, in short, about inflation, and attack it where it is occurring, instead of making scapegoats of workers?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member says that the profits were record high in 1981. I told him that the matter was studied by this House in 1981.


John Edward Broadbent: It was the Conservatives.


Marc Lalonde: They were not found to be excessive. They were found to be appropriate profits. Far from making scapegoats of the workers, on the contrary our policy has all been aimed at trying to improve the lot of workers in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: As I said, for the first time in five years workers will see their standard of living improved in 1983, thanks to the policies we have followed in fighting inflation, without the support of the NDP, mind you. Therefore, as far as the general situation involving profits and interest rates is concerned, I believe that the solution is through competition. If the banks are overcharging, there are other financial institutions in the market, beginning with credit unions and caisses populaires, which are also in the business of lending money, and there is a great deal of competition. What we should do is to encourage competition between institutions. This is the line I have been following, and the one I intend to follow.


EXPORTS TO PACIFIC RIM COUNTRIES
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for International Trade. The Financial Post has just reported that Canada's prospects for international trade look extremely good in the 1980s, particularly with Pacific Rim countries. In view of the fact that Canada's trade in goods posted a surplus of $6 billion in the first four months of 1983, could the Minister inform the House whether the initiatives taken earlier this year by the Prime Minister himself, in southeast Asia, have contributed to this admirable record?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member I want to say that the southeast Asian market is our most rapidly expanding market and is of intense importance. I guess that if the rules of the House were to allow, I could read off, for the Hon. Member, an endless number of contracts which have been signed or are under their last stages of negotiation since the Prime Minister's visit to southeast Asia. Perhaps I
Oral Questions
would merely point out that exports from Canada to Asia over the past year increased at a time when Asia's over-all imports were going down, from $7.8 billion, to $8.3 billion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: I would further suggest that any Hon. Member who wants to know the value on the sale of Canadian goods abroad of trips such as the one the Prime Minister made to southeast Asia need only contact any one of the 44 senior businessmen who travelled with me and who were signing contracts on a daily basis as a consequence of the Prime Minister paving the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, today we have heard many platitudes coming from the Government side on the terrific success of the six-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I believe every single Member who asked a question today began by making a comment on the answer which had just been received. That must definitely be ruled out.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, concerning the six and five program, I have a question I would like to ask of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It stems from the fact that the six and five program was introduced in order to bring down inflation. It has been brought to my attention in my riding that adults employed on the Community Development Projects, unemployed people who gained employment under the Government's program, have received an increase over a two year period, of from $158 a week to $168 a week, which represents a 3 per cent annual increase in their incomes under the Government's program. Has the Government brought about a decrease in inflation on the backs of the unemployed?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it is that kind of question which really becomes very vexatious. It is not really a very serious problem. Through the Community Development Projects we are trying to extend the amount of money which, this year, will amount to several hundreds of millions of dollars, to help as many unemployed people as we can. Those moneys are paid according to the minimum wage standards in each of the Provinces.
If the Hon. Member has a problem with how much is being paid, I would suggest that he take it up with his provincial counterparts on the adjustment of their minimum wage requirements in the Province of Ontario.

June 21, 1983
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I would like to follow my first question with a supplementary. Is the Minister comfortable with the thought that while employees of the Government under the Northern Pipeline and the National Energy Board received 13.1 per cent and 13.9 per cent salary increases in the same period of time, the people he employs, who were unemployed, received 3 per cent per year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, what I am comfortable with is the fact that, through the initiatives of the Government, just since about one year ago we were able to bring the inflation rate down from well over 12 per cent to 6 per cent now, which will provide a tremendous amount of relief and support to all Canadians right across the country.


Mr. Lewis:: How is your unemployment rate?


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, last week the Solicitor General was widely quoted in the media as indicating that there were many people in Canada against whom Solicitors General surveillance warrants had been permanently issued. Is the Solicitor General now claiming that he was widely misquoted in those statements, or has he drastically altered the system which was in effect in 1980 when he took office, whereby each one of those warrants had to be reviewed and reissued at least every calendar year?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as my predecessor in office knows quite well, there is no authority under the Act for permanent warrants to be issued. In fact the articles which reported that some Canadians were under lifetime surveillance were quite inaccurate. I indicated that there were some warrants which were in place permanently, in the sense that they were renewed, but the Hon. Member is quite right in saying that they must be renewed every year. 1 am glad to have the opportunity to indicate that none of those warrants, and it is a rather small number which is renewed on a regular basis, are oustanding against Canadian citizens.


PLANTING OF ELECTRONIC INTERCEPTIVE DEVICES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the Solicitor General also relates to some past history. He will know that when he took office in 1980, no Solicitor General's warrant authorized any surreptitious entry for the placing of an intrusive device. Has he changed that procedure as well?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member, Madam Speaker, is incorrect about that matter. It is my view that the warrant authorizing the planting of an
electronic intercept includes in it the right to enter surreptitiously. That view has been sustained by the law officers of the Crown. It has been supported-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That's not what Justice Spence said.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -by two outside legal opinions which I obtained following my release of the report of the McDonald Commission. As far as I can see, there is no way in which a device can be planted pursuant to a Solicitor General's authorization under Section 16 of the Official Secrets Act. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that when he authorized electronic intercepts to be placed, he asked members of the Security Service to obtain the permission of the target? The suggestion is ridiculous.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. At the end of this month the voluntary agreement with the Japanese on the importing of Japanese manufactured cars will run out. Can he tell the House what the present status of the negotiations is between Canada and Japan over limiting imports of Japanese cars? Can he tell us exactly what he has achieved to date, since he has now been the Minister for some ten months? Can he tell us what he has been able to achieve? What is the status of the negotiations, and will he state whether or not there will be more than just a temporary agreement with the Japanese this time around?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, in answer to the latter part of my hon. friend's question about what I have achieved, I would have to say that I have always been taught that self praise is poor recommendation.
I want to say to him that the six-months restraint agreement that we achieved with Japan in relation to the import of automobiles was a marked reduction, as the Hon. Member will remember, over the number that had come into the country during the same period in the previous year. I guess that is progress.
In relation to the present negotiations, I would have to say to the Hon. Member that what I am seeking is to have an agreement in place by July 1. I am seeking to have an agreement that will run for at least the rest of the fiscal year. That is not just to January 1, but to March 31, so that the term of our agreement would expire at the same time as the agreement which the United States has with Japan. The Japanese cannot then stall our negotiations for any renewal on the claim that they are waiting to complete negotiations with the larger
June 21, 1983

market of the United States first. I hope to report to him on the negotiations before July 1. If that is not achieved, we will have to consider other options in those circumstances.


CANADIAN CONTENT-TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the Minister is talking about the American agreement. The Japanese are now producing in the United States. That agreement also covers trucks.
Could the Minister confirm that this will be part of the agreement between Canada and Japan? Will he also confirm that his officials are working on a Canadian content Bill that would implement some of the recommendations, if not most, in the automobile Task Force report as a contingency plan if the negotiations with Japan on the limiting of imports fail?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I have not authorized officials to work on the drafting of any such legislation. It might well be that legislation of that type may fall under the jurisdiction of the very distinguished Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I can say to the Hon. Member that the report of the auto task force will be carefully studied by Cabinet. Only after Cabinet has reached a conclusion on it would there be such action as negotiations on those points with Japan, or on the question of drafting legislation, i think it is important that we have a restraint arrangement in place for at least a further nine months while we proceed with the examination and consideration of the recommendations of the task force.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In light of the Government's proposals for restructuring Atlantic Canada's five major integrated fish companies and, I would add, the discussions that were held only last week between the heads of these companies and officials of the Minister's Department, is he now in a position to inform the House about the Government's plans in this area? How much money will be provided to bring about the amalgamation of these companies?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that the amounts involved here will be substantial and that all parties will have to contribute. As well, I hope those negotiations will be concluded in the very near future.


FUTURE OF SMALL INDEPENDENT COMPANIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, will the present five large companies, National Sea and H.B.
Oral Questions
Nickerson of Nova Scotia, Fisheries Products, the Lake Grop and John Penney Limited of Newfoundland be amalgamated into two companies, for example, one in Nova Scotia and one in Newfoundland? If so, what will be the future role of a large number of small and mainly specialized individually owned companies? Will they be in a position to compete with the government financially assisted companies?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, this is certainly a valid question. Like the Hon. Member, I have noticed that the smaller companies on the whole have fared better than the bigger ones. There is no reason to believe that they will be cornered by the bigger ones.
I am sure that my hon. friend understands that I cannot give any details of those negotiations and what their final outcome would be. I can tell him that I and other Members of Cabinet are overseeing that restructuring. I hope that an agreement would be reached with all interested parties in the very near future.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He will know that we amended the Unemployment Insurance Act in this House two weeks ago, which will make freshwater fishermen eligible for unemployment insurance. They have been paying into the fund for a number of years. Is the Minister treating this as a priority, and when will the regulations be drafted to allow unemployed freshwater fishermen to draw on the fund?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the House was able to support the special application of the unemployment insurance regulations to inland fishermen. We are now working on the regulations. I would expect that they would be applied to that particular group of workers for this particular fishing season, starting this Spring and Summer.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION-COSTS CHARGED TO FISHERMEN
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Freshwater fishermen must market their fish through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in Winnipeg. The Minister will know that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation's cost of operation is in excess of 35 per cent, which is taken directly from the fishermen's pockets and reduces their income substantially. Will the Minister do

June 21, 1983
Oral Questions
something about this very inefficient Corporation? And when will he report to the House that he has done so?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that I had the pleasure approximately two weeks ago of meeting with the Associate Minister of Resources of Alberta, who came to me to talk precisely about that topic. I would remind the Hon. Member that the Government of Alberta is a member of the board of the Freshwater Corporation. The matter to which he is referring is being investigated at the moment by the provincial authorities in Alberta.
On the other hand, I would remind the Hon. Member that when the Conservatives were in power they investigated the usefulness of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. My information is that, after having met with the fishermen of the three western Provinces, the overwhelming evidence was that that mechanism, in which there is room for improvement, of course, is the best mechanism by far to bring about stability and maximize the earnings of the fishermen.


PIPELINES
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since he has not been able to give any projections in response to repeated questions in the House as to when the Alaska Highway Northern Gas Pipeline will be initiated on the northern route, how can he continue to justify keeping the Commission in place, which has budgeted for more than $5.3 million this year, if he cannot also point specifically to something they are doing today which could not be done when the pipeline is in fact put in place, which could take anywhere from ten years or into the next century? Why are you paying your Liberal friends $5 million if you cannot justify their activity?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should know, if he is aware of the facts, that it was at the request of the industry that we are keeping this outfit in operation. The cost of this operation is paid through the Government by the industry.


An Hon. Member:: It is paid by the Canadian consumer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It costs the taxpayer nothing.


REQUEST THAT COMMISSION BE MOTHBALLED
Arnold John Malone: It matters not, Madam Speaker, from where the request comes. It matters totally how the Government of Canada accounts to its people. What we
have is an expenditure of $5.3 million, for which there is no accountability of activity. If the pipeline is not scheduled to be built in the foreseeable future, 1 ask the Minister again why he does not set this project aside until such time as he can get a commitment that the pipeline is, in fact, imminent and will be built in the near future, and then he can go ahead with activities. What activities are there today that cannot be done by the Commission that can be set up again and done tomorrow when the pipeline is being constructed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In my opinion, the Commission's role consists in maintaining the relations that are necessary to keep this project alive, until such time as it will be possible to proceed, and if the Hon. Member does not understand, I will say it again in French. The expenses incurred on this project are not paid by the Government but by the industry, which asked to have this program maintained, and it is the industry that is providing the Government with the necessary funding to pay the salaries to which the Hon. Member is referring.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. He is aware that at this time of the year the majority of the farmers who would be most affected by the proposed Crowsnest Pass freight rate changes would be unable to attend committee hearings, either in Ottawa or, for that matter, in most of the other major centres across the country. Is the Minister prepared to assure them now, through the House of Commons, that he will do all in his power to guarantee that if, as, and when the Bill goes to committee, the committee hearings will be held at a time when the farmers themselves will be able to attend the hearings and in centres accessible to the majority of farmers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I understand the Magna Carta of committees is that they decide on their own agenda. I would not dare introduce myself into their decision-making process.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I wanted to know on behalf of those people who are concerned if that answer would be forthcoming.
Is it the hope of the Minister and will the Minister express his opinion here in the House of Commons on whether he believes it is important that the farmers who are to be affected by the proposed changes should be given every opportunity to
June 21, 1983

appear at the hearings? And in order to achieve that end would it be the wish of the Minister that the committee, once seized of the Bill, should travel through western Canada at such a time and to such places as to guarantee that the farmers who will have to pay the loses will be given every opportunity to appear and have their views heard, recognizing that August 1 will have passed and the Bill would not necessarily, therefore, go into effect until next year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend insists on having my own views, I would have thought, first, that there would be a happy medium between listening to 140,000 people and listening to some. Second, 1 would have thought that the leaders of western farm organizations and others are representative of the western farmers. Many of them are elected, and many of them elected more often than Members of Parliament. I would have thought that their views would have been representative of the views of the farmers in the West.


Ian Deans: You are not letting the farmers be heard?


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday Admiral Falls, Chairman of NATO's military committee, said:
If arms control talks do not work, then it might become necessary to act unilaterally to reduce, especially battlefield nuclear weapons, because we have more than we need ... If we did that, I think we would find that we could demonstrate to the Soviets that both sides could stop the proliferation of nuclear arms.
Although Admiral Falls is under the authority of NATO, his salary is paid by the Canadian Department of National Defence. Bearing this in mind, would the Minister tell the House if Admiral Falls' statement reflects Canadian Government policy?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have not read the precise words uttered by Admiral Falls, but 1 do know that currently the requirements of the NATO defence forces are under review, and it may be that type of activity to which Admiral Falls is referring. There have been comments from time to time, as the Hon. Member knows, that arouse some debate upon the use of battlefield nuclear weapons. It is not surprising that Admiral Falls would refer to a subject of this kind and also to the possibility of reducing nuclear weapons. As the former Minister of National Defence well knows, at one time NATO did reduce its nuclear weapons in Europe by about 1,000.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs seems to have escaped the wording that it was
Oral Questions
a unilateral disarmament of which Admiral Falls was speaking.


REMOVAL OF UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WARHEADS FROM EUROPE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, with respect to the 1,000 nuclear warheads which the United States removed from Europe, and bearing in mind that was done over a four-year period without any reciprocal motion at all by the Warsaw Pact countries, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs believe that there is any possibility that a continuation of this unilateral disarmament will have any other effect than it has so far?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows at present there is a negotiation under way at Geneva at which certainly the NATO Alliance, through the United States, is seeking a reduction in armaments. We are always working in the direction not of a unilateral disarmament but in the direction of balanced and verifiable disarmament at lower levels of armaments. That is the policy of NATO. That policy was recently restated at the meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers at which we, once again, restated the intention of the Alliance to undertake deployment of weapons in Europe unless there were concrete results in negotiations now taking place at Geneva. That is the policy of NATO which I repeat for the Hon. Member.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
[Stage Direction]
MacBRIDE COMMISSION REPORT
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will know that UNESCO, through the United Nations, is promoting what is called the MacBride Commission Report, or the new International Information Order. What is the position of Canada in relation to that MacBride Commission Report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the author and the nature of that report. The question of information dissemination has been under debate at the United Nations. There have been differences of opinion as to how that is best resolved. If the Hon. Member has some specific items with respect to what he describes as a New Information Order, I would be glad to get the details for him.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, the Minister will know that Mr. Sean MacBride about five years ago was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize. But, more important, the whole thrust of the report is to

June 21, 1983
Oral Questions
restrict a flow of information from each of the countries and make that flow of information subject to the wishes of each particular government. Is it the position of Canada to support that kind of policy, or is the Canadian Government going to oppose it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should be in no doubt about the over-all policy of the Government of Canada with respect to the flow of information and the flow of ideas and people. We are presently undertaking in concert with other countries, very important negotiations in Madrid at the Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe. One of the objectives of Canada and other western countries is to ensure a greater flow of ideas and a greater flow of information. We are taking a stand, for example, against eastern European states, particularly the Soviet Union on its practice of jamming radio broadcasts, which is one of the ways of stopping the flow of information.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, which were presented by Hon. Members on Monday, June 20, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. One petition presented by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) does not meet the requirements.
* *
*



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley), Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters), London West (Mr. Burg-hardt), Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), London East (Mr. Turner), York East (Mr. Collenette), Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier), Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns job changes and salary changes. Is Mr. Jack Smith, special adviser to Micky Cohen in the Department of Finance, the same Jack Smith who was a special adviser in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I shall most certainly make enquiries and check on what the Hon. Member has just said.



ADVISER'S SALARY

Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, when the Minister makes his inquiry-and I am sure he will check into it this afternoon-would he please find out what this man is doing in the Department of Finance and why he is receiving $92,000 plus?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: It will be a pleasure to check that as well, Madam Speaker.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings.
Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]



FILING OF OBJECTIONS TO REPORT OF COMMISSION FOR PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that the objection signed by the Hon. Members for Rimouski-Temis-couata (Mrs. Cote), Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet), Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand), Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), Bellechasse (Mr. Garant), Abitibi (Mr. Gingras), Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais), Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold), Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Kil-lens), Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois), Hull (Mr. Isabelle), Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) and Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Quebec.
June 21, 1983

If the House agrees, I suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings.
Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed.



POINTS OF ORDER


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order or a question of privilege; perhaps Your Honour could determine which it is. Earlier today in the deliberations under Standing Order 21, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) used the Royal Family in connection with a partisan statement which he was making. This certainly runs contrary to the rules, practices and traditions of the House.
While the Hon. Member has every right to make partisan statements, I submit he has no right to use the Royal Family to influence debate. I refer to Citation 316 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads:
Besides the prohibitions contained in S.O. 35, it has been sanctioned by usage that a Member, while speaking, must not:-
(g) use the Sovereign's name for the purpose of influencing a debate;
Also I refer to page 426 of Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition where the author goes somewhat further by indicating:
The irregular use of the Queen's name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament. Where the Crown has a distinct interest in a measure, there is an authorized mode of communicating Her Majesty's recommendation or consent, through one of her Ministers . . . ; but Her Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of her responsible advisers; and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgment of Parliament would be immediately checked and censured ... This rule extends also to other members of the Royal Family.
I am aware that there was a lot of noise in the House at that particular time, but I submit the Hon. Member created disorder or breached the privileges of the House by that usage, and the record will officially show this. I hope, Madam Speaker, you would ask the Hon. Member for Simcoe South for an apology because his statement was certainly an affront to the Royal Family and an affront to the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member might have a point. I would want to look at the "blues". I am wondering whether the reporter was able to hear what the Hon. Member for
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier
Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) was saying. It was absolutely impossible for the Chair to hear what he was saying. I will look at the "blues" and take the Hon. Member's point into consideration.



MR. GAUTHIER-INTENSITY OF LIGHTING IN CHAMBER

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, because of a power failure in downtown Ottawa, the lights in the House of Commons have dimmed considerably today. The drop in light intensity does not seem to have had a very negative impact on the telecasting of the proceedings. Hon. Members will probably have noticed that comfort levels in the House were better than usual, at least as far as the glare is concerned. Madam Speaker, I wonder whether you could check with the television network and find out whether the televised picture was acceptable, and if so, whether you could take steps to have conditions in the House corrected or improved to make our environment a more pleasant one to work in.


Madam Speaker:: I must say to the Hon. Member that I do not have the impression that the usual telecasting was possible. In any case, the proceedings were not being televised live, because the cable companies were unable to function this afternoon. However, we do have a video tape of this afternoon's sitting, which will be broadcast this evening, and we will then be able to see what the picture quality is like. I do think the bright lights and the heat they produce are most uncomfortable and that is too much to ask Members to work daily under such conditions. I realize that the technicians want to give the television audience the kind of picture they expect from studio productions, but I am looking into the matter, and I have talked to an expert who is supposed to come tomorrow, 1 believe, and look at the lighting in the House, so he can advise us on how to get a decent picture that will be satisfactory to the television audience. I should add that this will affect the backbenchers, unfortunately, since it was necessary to increase the brightness of our lighting because the backbenchers are hidden by the galleries which cast a shadow on their faces, which is why we needed more lighting. If the backbenchers are prepared to make some concessions for the benefit of their colleagues, perhaps we will be able to improve comfort levels in the House. As I said before, these lights are very uncomfortable for people who have to work every day in the same room.

June 21, 1983
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition containing approximately 5,000 signatures which were collected by the Spirit of Saskatchewan Committee at Diefenbaker Park, Saskatoon, on Sunday, June 19, 1983, during the "Day in the Park" celebration sponsored by Saskatoon radio station CKOM.
This petition calls upon Parliament to support an application for a Saskatchewan franchise in the National Hockey League.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How did that happen?


Madam Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please resume his seat. I could accept his saying that he was sorry for having broken the rule, because I definitely saw the Hon. Member push the petition so that it would roll across the floor.
e (1510)


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present to Parliament, signed by 120 residents of the Northern Ontario towns of Mattice, Hornepayne, Nakina, Geraldton, Hearst, Cochrane, Capreol and Hanmer. The Petition refers to the massive lay-offs in the Canadian National Railways system, thousands of jobs being lost due to operational, organizational and technological changes, so much so that essential services in isolated areas are being reduced or discontinued. The petitioners' request is simply that Parliament instruct the CN that any further staff reduction should be by natural attrition only.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a petition from constituents in the riding of Hillsborough in the Province of Prince Edward Island-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We have had this discussion about Members rising in their place; the Standing Orders state definitely that they should be uncovered. I have to ask the Member for the time when she is reading her petition to remove her hat. The Speaker does not wear a hat in the House. 1 guess that is the signal to all other Members that they should not wear hats. I do not think the Hon. Member will be in discomfort because the lights are not very glaring; we have minimum lighting today. At any rate, for the few minutes it will take to read the petition, and I remind the Hon. Member it should not be long, 1 think the Hon. Member can manage without her hat.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to be able to-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member resume her seat. The rule states that, upon rising, an Hon. Member should be uncovered. 1 would ask the Hon. Member to remove her hat. This is a very simple rule. Thank you very much.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, we had a discussion about this last night. Two Members denied unanimous consent. One of them subsequently apologized and said there would be no such difficulty in the future. I have reason to believe that people will be reasonable at this point today and grant unanimous consent for such a-


Madam Speaker:: Order. What is the Hon. Member's point? Is it to insist on wearing a hat in the House of Commons or is it that she needs to protect her eyes from the glare? There is no glare today. The lighting system has broken down. We are on our support system. There is minimum lighting in the House today, so I do not think the Hon. Member needs a hat.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, it may be all right for you-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Lynn McDonald: -but even minimum lighting-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Lynn McDonald: The Chair noted it is considerably more difficult-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I know the Hon. Member is a relatively new Member, but she should read the rules. If she reads the rules carefully, she will know that it is not possible nor proper to talk back to the Speaker in this way. When the Speaker is asking for something that is included in the rules, the Speaker is only obeying the House in a sense because the rules are made by each and every individual Member. The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood is a Member of this House. These are her rules, they are not mine. I am simply applying them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lynn McDonald: The petition is from constituents in the riding of Hillsborough in Prince Edward Island. The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission television broadcasting regulations do not give women the same protection against abusive comments or pictorial representations as for racial and religious groups; that the Communications Minister has been willing to empower the CRTC to regulate broadcasting to ensure Canadian contentlir

June 21, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Order. 1 am sorry, but I seem to have to call the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood to order several times today. Yesterday I indicated to the Hon. Member that when presenting petitions, what is allowed is to read out the title of the petition, and that a Member should not read any argumentation that is made with regard to that petition. Therefore 1 would ask the Hon. Member to be very short, as I would ask any Hon. Member-


An Hon. Member:: What about the other one?


Madam Speaker:: It was very short. I would ask the Hon. Member, therefore, to be short and just give the House the title of the petition, which she has done already. Will she now proceed to the prayer?


Lynn McDonald: I was summarizing in view of your advice of yesterday. 1 was summarizing and was near the end of my summary of the petition.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There is no such thing as summarizing. The title, the prayer; that's it.


Mr. Rossi:: No wonder you are NDP; you are stubborn.


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


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition this afternoon signed by farmers from the Macrorie area of Saskatchewan. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party; that the Crow rate must be maintained; and that the railways of all Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transport system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternate plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I too have a petition which it is my duty and pleasure to present to the
Business of the House
House. The petitioners from a number of residences in the Province of Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that toxic chemicals are posing an increasing threat to the potable waters of this Province; that there is presently no legislation which will guarantee the safety and healthfulness of those waters; and that Canada's neighbour, the United States of America, has legislation entitled "The Safe Drinking Water Act, 1974".
Wherefore we, the undersigned, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to enact a safe drinking water act which will protect and enhance drinking water quality in all areas of Canada. It is signed by 66 Ontario residents.

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne):
That this House now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having been rung:


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. From where I am, I cannot see what is written on the hats that are being worn by some Members of the New Democratic Party, but I would ask those Members to remove their hats. We spoke about hats earlier and I will not have a ruling made by the Speaker which was in perfect conformity with the rules of the House being mocked in this way.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the motion of Mr. Lachance (p. 26521).
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to enter into debate on what may be the final stages of the second reading of a Bill which has proved very contentious and somewhat fractious, not only in western Canada but also in Parliament itself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) has the floor.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this Bill now for some time. A good number of Hon. Members have spoken on it. They have spoken on it from a number of different points of view. The New Democratic Party keeps talking about the whole question of what it would do if only it could nationalize the CPR, which would make it somehow run better and more efficiently than the CNR, which is already nationalized. How that argument would ever work in a practical sense, of course, escapes the understanding of this House of Commons, as it escapes the understanding of most people in the country, which is reflected, of course, by the some 16 per cent or 17 per cent of the popular vote which the NDP now commands. Other people have criticized the legislation for various other reasons: farm groups for their own vested interest; the elevator companies for one reason or another.
However, it seems to me that this debate about equity. It is not about nationalization or any other aspect of what has
June 21, 1983

taken place over a number of years. The debate on the changes to the Crow rate is a debate, I submit, Mr. Speaker, about equity. It is about equity between regions in this country.
We have seen the kind of nervousness which developed when Quebec itself got into the discussion of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. We have seen the kind of nervousness which was reflected by the very substantial change in policy on behalf of the Liberal Government in its outlook and its presentation of the Bill which we are now debating. The equity question came up, certainly, as it pertains to farmers in various parts of the country.
However, more importantly, the whole question of equity is most paramount when you look at the question of farm commodities, being grain vis-a-vis the livestock sector and also the special crops sector in this country. Therein, Mr. Speaker, at least in my opinion, lies the greatest weakness in this legislation-this whole question of equity. The Bill as proposed clearly does not give the kind of equity which we hoped we would see when we set out some months ago now on this very long process of changing and updating the transportation rate so that it would reflect more the realities of Canada.
We moved along through the process, the first stage of which was generally known as the Gilson process. It was generally recognized that while the Gilson Report had a lot of faults admittedly, it did have equity, or at least it tried to address the question of equity with respect to livestock. How do you treat livestock, which is such an important component of western Canada and western Canadian life? How do you treat livestock in a manner which is fair and equitable to the grain segment of our society? The Gilson process, in my opinion one which is shared by some other Members of my Party, at least tried to address that problem in a realistic manner. Unfortunately, Bill C-155 does not address that question and I can vote against the legislation on that basis alone.
There are other things that concern Members, of course, but the fact remains that the livestock industry and to some extent the secondary processing industry have been left out of this legislation. They must have a part in the development of western Canada and the fact that they have been left out is causing great concern. Many important voices, and I am talking about the leaders of the farming groups, have voiced this concern since the Bill was presented. At present there is a desperate move by prairie farm groups to try to find a way to include the livestock industry in this legislation.
The Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, has come up with a proposal now termed as freedom of choice, which would allow the producer to determine whether the federal Government payments will be made to himself or to the railway. That is an equitable approach. But the Government certainly has not given us any indication as to whether or not that will be adopted. The central and important question is that unless there are some changes to this legislation the livestock industry in western Canada is in danger of extinction over the coming year. That is a fact of life. Over the last number of years, Mr. Speaker, there has been a noticeable shift of the livestock
Western Grain Transportation Act
industry from western Canada to eastern Canada, along with, to a large extent, the packing industry. With the packing industry have gone jobs. Of course, we must keep in mind that it does not take too many people to raise and feed cattle for market, but it takes a lot of people to operate the industry as a whole. That shift of jobs out of western Canada will continue under this legislation. That is why the livestock industry is in the forefront of all the people who want a change, and it is also the reason why the livestock industry is so opposed to this particular piece of legislation.
This Bill does not promote equity. It does not recognize that the West has more to offer than just growing grain. It has livestock, special crops and the processing involved. All that will be lost if this Bill is allowed to pass in its present form. We in this Party have put forward what I consider to be probably one of the most innovative amendments I have seen in the House of Commons in a long time. It is the key to unlocking the door to equity in western Canada. It must go through. If it is not passed, certainly our Party must present it in the next election campaign and hopefully introduce it into legislation in 1984-85.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased to speak on this important issue, I wish I had half an hour to address my concerns over this legislation instead of just ten minutes. However, at the outset I do want to say that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has been here during this debate, unlike the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) who has spent virtually zero time here. It is not his Bill, but he ought to be concerned about it.
We are dealing today with a Bill of great importance not only to western Canada but to Canada as a whole. It is a myth to keep talking in this country about East and West, and we have to stop doing so. The fact of the matter is that when we talk about the enhancement of secondary industry in western Canada, that means a tremendous potential growth in eastern Canada. When a westerner buys a new refrigerator or another car or a new suit of clothes, generally speaking they are manufactured in central Canada. We should remember this.
For those people, Mr. Speaker, who doubt that there should be a Crow rate at all, I would point out that this country has a transportation policy based on the theory of competition. That theory works very well, Sir, in those parts of Canada where in fact you have competition. However, when you get into the landlocked regions of the country, there is no competition. The fact that we can ship iron and steel products from Toronto to Vancouver and back to Calgary cheaper than we can ship them directly to Calgary underscores why some form of special rate is needed on the Prairies. If we had in the Prairies a Port of Halifax or a Port of Vancouver, if we had a St. Lawrence River or a Great Lakes water system, then the debate in this House would not be about the Crow rate but about some other form of equitable freight rate without any kind of subsidy at all. What we are dealing with, as the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) said, is the principle of equity in transportation throughout the country.

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
I want to address to the Minister now, Mr. Speaker, some concerns that we have concerning ability to pay. I have underlined the Minister's own words in some notes I have here concerning his desire for the enhancement of secondary industry on the Prairies and the fact that the Bill as presently written has precisely the opposite effect.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It does not do the opposite; it does not do as much.


Arnold John Malone: It is difficult to believe that a figure of 31 million tonnes can be in place in this Bill when in fact the world has a need for a far greater amount of food. Now when four-fifths of the world suffers from malnutrition it is the wrong time to put a cap on the incentive to grow grain. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we need to look at the question of freedom of choice. That would allow the user of the railway system to put the money in his wallet, and the only way for the railway to get that money is to provide the service. If the rancher or the farmer has the option, he will choose to use the railways if they are offering the service. If not, he will truck his product to the local feed lots flour mills, or he will use other methods of transportation. If these alternatives are not open to the railway, then what we would have is the NDP plan of a guaranteed income. While that may have some ring for many in the country, this would be a guaranteed income for CN and CP rail, an annual income guaranteed to the railway companies irrespective of what other modes of transportation are there for the competition.
Now that I believe I have the Minister's attention, I want to address my concern relating to the point of the 10 per cent safety net. He and 1 will disagree on the 10 per cent number. I would argue that it should be closer to 8 per cent. However, the other part which is very important, to set that question aside for the moment, is that whatever the percentage, it simply means that the railway companies would know in advance that they would then have the opportunity to enhance development up to 10 per cent, to add to the cost of their shipping every year by 10 per cent, knowing full well that the farmers would pay the 10 per cent. There would therefore be no market discipline on the railway companies.
I want to make a personal suggestion to the Minister, and I will check with my caucus later. Instead of having the farmers pay 8 per cent or 10 per cent before the Government pays everything, it should be changed to having 16 per cent paid, with the Government then picking up everything after that. However, on the first 16 per cent, the producers and the railways would share the cost fifty-fifty. If we simply left it so that the farmer paid all of the first 10 per cent, then it is obvious that the railway companies would automatically know year after year that they could add on 10 per cent because it would be charged through to the farmers.
I simply say that if that kind of system is put in place, it will be used. I submit to the Minister that he should give due consideration to a formula where the percentage is higher, but
where there is cost sharing between the farmers and the railways of the country, because that would then bring about some market discipline. The railways would then have to give some consideration to bringing about efficiency on any extra costing.
The other reason that I believe we must consider the full question of the freedom of choice is that that is the only method by which we will ensure the enhancement of secondary industries on the Prairies. The Minister himself addressed that principle well on May 12, 1983. His turnabout, though, destroys the opportunity for the enhancement of industries on the Prairies by making it all paid to the railways.
The only way we can gain the advantage of Crow is if we export all the products. If we export all the raw products, then there is no manufacturing. We of prairie Canada know that that is not an acceptable resolution.
In 1976, 500 jobs were lost in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, when Burns' meatpacking plant closed down. In 1978, another 120 jobs were lost when Canadian Dressed Meats in Medicine Hat closed down. In 1979, we lost another 700 jobs when Burns' in Edmonton closed down. In 1979, we lost another 550 jobs when Swift's, in Winnipeg, closed down. In 1974, we lost an additional 200 jobs when Burns' in Regina closed down.
Therefore, in conclusion, I simply want to say that we of prairie Canada never want to return to the 1930s, when our exports were raw products and sons and daughters. One of the great phenomena of the last few years in prairie Canada was the rash of homecomings. I personally experienced, as I went to these homecomings, seeing all those license plates from Ontario, British Columbia, California, Colorado and Oklahoma. These were homecomings of the people of three or four decades ago who lived in prairie Canada when our exports consisted of raw products as well as our sons and daughters. However, we needed to have these secondary industries. As the West develops and enhances, so does central Canada. We need to have a policy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Arnold John Malone: -that will allow us the freedom of choice to use the kind of transportation that has existed and that will be good for all of Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-
June 21, 1983

Canadian National Railways-Acquisition of Cast shipping group-Government approval, (b) Possibility of freight rate war on Atlantic shipping routes; The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-Forestry-Request for extension of committee's terms of reference, (b) Request for early referral to committee; The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-National Revenue-Seizure of children's theatre company funds, (b) Effect on performing arts groups.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this morning the Standing Committee on Transport met in camera with the President of the Canadian National Railways, and we had an exposition of the matter lasting a good three and one half hours, and because of the uncertainty as to what might happen even later today or the next day or so, it might be appropriate for me to ask to be excused or to withdraw from this position on the Late Show.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement that the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East shall withdraw the item which has been submitted for the adjournment debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Agreed and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is customary in the House that the Speaker asks if there is unanimous consent for an Hon. Member to continue his remarks. I think that the Hon. Member was just completing his remarks at a very important point he was making, and I think that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member had exceeded his time. He had been given ample warning by the Chair. The Hon. Member had noted the Chair's warning and had continued his remarks. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, if he had observed the courtesy to the Chair, the Chair would have extended the same courtesy to him.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague says, it is not a pleasure nor a particular privilege but, rather, a solemn duty once again to participate in the debate which centers around the so-called Crow controversy. There is hardly anything in my experience in Parliament, which is now that of close to 11 years, which has so
Western Grain Transportation Act
aroused the sensitivities and emotions of so many Canadians and, indeed, on both sides of the issue.
The Liberal Government has done its homework on this particular issue. It has called in its so-called lOUs. It has sensitized the emotions and the attention of the lumber industry in western Canada, for instance, and the mining sector, telling them that unless they support the Government on these changes to the Crow, it will not be able to live up to the commitments that it has made in terms of the upgrading of our transportation infrastructure in western Canada. Indeed, the message was even more subtle. They are being told that if they do not get out of their closet and support the Government publicly on these matters, there may no longer be any cooperation from the federal Government in terms of grants and all of the other benefits which industry, particularly large industry, has become so accustomed to and comfortable with over the last decade.
Transportation in a country like ours, particularly rail transport, is a key element in determining our socioeconomic condition and the well being of our country. It is a very important element in bringing about an industrial strategy. I can understand the legitimate and serious concerns of other sectors of the economy, such as the wood converting industries and the mining industry because they, more than anyone else, have suffered very dramatically from a lack of productivity which has rendered our industrial strength in world markets rather vulnerable. It is not the fact that our workers are producing less but that we have paid too little attention to modernizing our plants and transportation infrastructure to get our products to market. We have lived through a period of deliberate neglect in these important areas. We have heard all kinds of promises and commitments of billions of dollars toward the upgrading of our rail transportation facilities in the West, but of course nothing has happened.
As I have said, transportation is and always will be the key element in any industrial strategy, particularly in a country which has a rich geography and where some of the key industrial areas are so far removed from the market.
It means more than that to farmers in the agricultural sectors. Rail subsidies that were designed to help farmers maintain a stable farm economy in our area have an important social content to them. Indeed, the rail subsidies that were placed to help western farmers are designed to meet some of these important social objectives both domestically and internationally. These reflect our official public policy to maintain a cheap food price policy. That is the important social component for which the Crow rate was in place and for which some of these rail subsidies have been made, besides providing an incentive for farmers to go west to begin to develop the Prairies.
If farmers were permitted to charge prices for what they produce that were comparable with other industrial commodities such as lumber and minerals that we sell abroad, food

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
prices in this country would have to at least triple. There is no question that if a farmer were permitted to receive a decent return on his investment and labour, food prices would have to triple. No one would be under any illusion as to what this would mean to our social and economic wellbeing in Canada. Obviously we could not pay the bill and it would be necessary to devise other means to subsidize those who would have to buy this expensive food.
Unfortunately, we are also exporting our cheap food policy. We are selling our agricultural products, particularly those for which the Crow rate is most important, our grain and cereal crops, to other countries at far below any reasonable cost of production. For instance, we are selling our wheat to the European Economic Community for almost 50 per cent less than what it is resold for within the EEC. In turn, the money that is earned by this exchange is used to subsidize European farmers, who have developed their own capacity to the point where they are now competing with us for our share in the world market. This is all as a result of the Government's decision to export our cheap food policy.
The farmer is charged with certain social obligations to feed the Third World. This is evident from the discussions about the food bank. If we were to sell lumber under a similar policy to that under which grain is sold, very soon the country to which we would be selling this lumber below the cost of production would run to GATT and remind us of some of the other treaty obligations we have under the OECD arrangement. We would be reminded that we cannot sell below the cost of production and subsidize the production of important industrial commodities. However, when you sell food, you can give it away to anyone you wish and no one complains. The reason for that is that other countries have not been as innovative as we have in finding ways to stabilize the farm economy and farm industry. It does not make sense.
Crow benefits were designed to support farmers. Instead, the subsidies that are inherent in the statute Crow rate are not going to the farmers or the railways. The subsidies are going to our customers. It is the Europeans, the Japanese and everyone else to whom we sell our grain that we are subsidizing.
I am a businessman in another sector although I still have my farm back home. As a businessman, I find it totally incomprehensible that we should sell far below the cost of production. In his cost of production I take into consideration a reasonable return on the farmers' investment and labour and the cost of transportation to bring the product to market. That is all part of the cost of production. I do not understand the logic behind selling this most important of our industrial commodities not only to the Third World countries that cannot afford to pay a higher price for them but to our partners in the OECD industrial world. Furthermore, we are selling our grain for half its worth to the Soviet Union so it can turn around and resell it within the East Block sphere of influence and use the credits we have given it as a gift to build up its strategic capacity. These are some matters which the Government has
totally ignored and which need to be considered before we can go about changing the Crow rate.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 want to return to the point when the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) asked that I be given extended time. You said that it had already been signalled. What I am noticing is that it really is difficult for Members to know what the signal is. I am cognizant of the fact that often that signal is given at the eight minute mark. As a result of this practice, some of our new Members end up being cut short.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, he is not making a point of order. If he wishes to have a private conversation with the Chair, the Chair would be more than pleased to discuss it with him.
However, the Hon. Member did go beyond his ten minutes. The Chair did its very best to communicate that fact to the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member just kept on speaking. The Chair rose and said that the Hon. Member's time expired, and the Hon. Member kept speaking. The Chair did its very best to interrupt.
There is a normal courtesy that is expected from Hon. Members with regard to the Chair. The Chair assures Hon. Members that it is a pleasure to reciprocate, but it must be a two-way street.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The normal courtesy is that the Speaker ask the House for unanimous consent for the Member to continue his remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Speaker rose to his feet and said that the Hon. Member's time had expired, and the Hon. Member kept speaking. The Hon. Member did not yield to the Speaker but stayed on his feet. I would suggest to Hon. Members that that is not the way in which they should choose to conduct themselves in the House.


Arnold John Malone: First, Mr. Speaker, I would not in any way ever ignore you. I just never noticed you since I was speaking to the Minister. That is where I was addressing my comments.
I am not asking to speak now but simply saying, on another point of order, that I think it is very important that we in the House have some idea as to what gripping your chair and leaning forward means when that happens at the eight minute mark. We do not know when we are supposed to sit down. That time is not the same for each speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the Chair does not do that. The present incumbent has never done that at the eight minute mark. The suggestion that that is what the Chair practices is not fair.
I suggest that if the Hon. Member wishes to have a conversation privately, the preent occupant of the chair would be pleased to do so. In the meantime, the Chair requests Hon. Members of the House to co-operate. Is the House ready for the question?
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg St.-James.
June 21, 1983


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the House is not ready for the question. I would like to contribute a few comments to this debate, and I shall try to do so in French, because there are people in Western Canada who speak French, and they should also be able to listen to these proceedings in their own language.
The point or points 1 would like to raise here are as follows: Why is this debate so important and why does our Party want to continue this debate on the Crow rate? Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is the following: Who is going to pay for the changes the Government wants to introduce in the House? There are only two groups that can pay for these changes. First, the CPR, the railways, and second, the farmers, since these changes must be paid for by someone. The question is who?
We get the impression on this side of the House that the Government wants western farmers to pay for the changes it is proposing. Is that fair, Mr. Speaker?
Both the CPR and the farmers have received subsidies from the people of Canada and the Government. Subsidies to the CPR will continue. There is no proposal before the House to take away from the CPR the subsidies it has received to build railroads in this country. But why is the Government proposing to take subsidies away from farmers? Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Government wants to make farmers pay more for grain transport in this country when it is seeing the results of these changes and wants to give more money to the CPR. Why, Mr. Speaker?
I have the impression that the Government is listening to the CPR bosses, to the detriment of our farmers.
We want to continue the debate in the House because we want to convince the Government it should listen to western farmers. The Government must realize that this legislation is going to cost farmers a lot. For instance, some farmers in the West have very modest incomes, as low as $9,000 or $12,000. They cannot afford a drastic increase in the cost of grain transport.
The Government wants to convince Canadians that the Crow rate has to be changed in order to upgrade the railroads.
Mr. Speaker, that is not a good reason and it is not the truth. If there is a good reason to invest in the railroads, those investments will pay for themselves. That is what investments are supposed to do, Mr. Speaker. An investment will pay for itself, and changing the Crow rate is just an excuse for the Government. The Government wants to convince Canadians that it has to change the Crow rate in order to have investments in the railroads. That is unnecessary, Mr. Speaker, because in this country, we need a better transportation system, and those investments are necessary, regardless of any changes in the Crow rate.
Mr. Speaker, there are other means of transportation, where people may be paying a certain price in one area and another price in another area. For instance, in our big cities, we have a
Western Grain Transportation Act
public transit system, we have buses, and while it costs more to carry a passenger who has a long way to go, everyone using public transit pays the same rate, regardless of the distance covered. We can reason that it costs less to run a bus over a short distance than over a long distance, but we are still charging all passengers using urban public transit the same price.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can have one rate for grain transport and another rate for other products. We have to subsidize farmers in our country because farmers in other countries are subsidized, and if ours are going to compete with farmers in other countries, they need those subsidies. In those countries . .. Here, subsidies have traditionally been for transport costs because our grain growers are located at a great distance from their markets.
Mr. Speaker, we in this Party believe that it is possible to maintain subsidies to farmers while at the same time increasing investment in the railroads. We must do both, and it is not fair to tell Canadians that we have to change the Crow rate to get any investment in the railroads.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has swallowed the reasons given by the CPR. The CPR wants us to change the Crow rate at a time when it is important to our farmers that the rate stays where it is today.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on an issue which is most important to my constituents and to myself as a farmer. I have spent a good deal of my life trying to raise grain, and have experienced some of the difficulties of farming, as well as being a Member of Parliament for almost 11 years. Time and time again I experience the difficulty in the House that every time we have been faced with an important issue to western Canada in the last couple of years we have been speaking under one form of closure or another. Therefore, it has been very difficult to express in a proper manner the issues which are important to those of us from western Canada who are affected not only personally but whose constituents are affected as well. Neither the Minister nor Liberal Members of Parliament are here to listen to debate under a closure motion. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) mentioned that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has spent some time listening to this debate, but basically we have to speak to all those Members because the Bill has been changed many times from its inception until it was presented in the House.
If they had to face farmers in Wetaskiwin at a Crow rate meeting, they would realize that their frustrations are abundantly clear. They are not certain what the Government is proposing and they are not certain about their future. At this time they are facing very difficult cost problems versus the

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
price they receive for their product. When they look at what is before the House, they find that they may be faced with substantial added-on transportation costs in the near future. It does no good for grain experts to say that the price of grain will increase to $10 tor $12 per bushel in the next five years. That is not satisfactory, because such statistics have been quoted to farmers in the past and, as we know, the price of grain today is less than it was in the 1970s and inflation has continued at a rapid pace during that time.
In the past, western farmers knew for certain that the cost of transportation for export grain would not change. All their other costs have increased, some slowly and some very rapidly. Time and time again they were faced with interferences. Clearly it is to the advantage of farmers to know one very critical cost, the cost of transportation. It has to take a reasonably predictable form. We do not see that in the Bill before us today. That is why Member after Member has risen to address the problem.
Actually there are a number of problems, such as variable rates, who pays the inflation factor, whether or not some grains are included, the 31 million tonne cap and the 10 per cent safety net which may not allow farmers in western Canada to produce barley or oats because the cost of transportation in five years will be so significant that if the price does not double they will not be able to produce those commodities.
Those questions should be answered. This is why farmers are asking us to participate in the debate and to deal with the problems before the Bill passes quickly into the other stages and suddenly becomes law. As Members of Parliament we must address the very questions which our constituents are asking. They do not understand the niceties of this place as we do. For years farmers have depended upon the hills and valleys of agricultural production. Some years are good ones-nature has been good, prices are good and reasonable profits result. In other years, as was the case in the last number of years, in most instances farmers have not even received their cost of production. If we allow the railways to set the price at which to move grain in April of each year, we may find that they will take advantage of the very fact that things are going well. We may find that the costs are up, but if things are not going well, perhaps the price will remain the same.
The point I am trying to make is the same as the one many farmers in western Canada are trying to make. We do not know enough about the costs of the railways which they attribute to the transportation of grain. We do not know whether or not they are correct.
I would like to return to the MacPherson Royal Commission of some time ago. At that time this problem was being addressed and the commissioners caused three studies to be made. One was done by the railroads, which showed that they were losing money moving grain. I believe that was back in the late 1950s or early 1960s; I am not sure of the date. Then another study was conducted by farm groups in western Canada who hired experts. That study showed that the railroads were making a profit moving grain. Then the Government commissioned a report, which report showed that the
railroads were breaking even on the movement of grain. There we have it, the whole gamut of what railways were being charged or were charging for moving grain. The Royal Commission was unsure whether they were making a profit. This caused the Commission a great deal of difficulty when it ruled on that area.
Recently we had the Hall Commission. It concerned rail line abandonment. Justice Emmett Hall made some recommendations with regard to the Crow. As well, he recommended that the lines on which the railways indicated that they were not making money should be turned over to the prairie rail authority and be operated by groups in western Canada until it could be shown that they were making a profit.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They recommended off-line elevators too.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Yes, that is correct. I know that my tractor put on the rails could pull 15 or 20 cars down the line nicely and it would not be at a very high cost. Options are available in western Canada. This is not necessarily the only one. That recommendation came some seven or eight years ago. Mr. Justice Hall recommended keeping the Crow and paying livestock farmers the distortions involved. I believe if we talked to him today about that recommendation he would say that there was no way to anticipate the inflationary costs of the 1970s, and 1 am not so sure he would make the same recommendation.
Now I would like to turn to the Snavely Commission. Supposedly Mr. Snavely conducted an impartial study. I would like to quote some of his comments during a recent interview. He stated:
I argue that you could give them less but they wouldn't have responded in the same way.
He was referring to the railways. He continued:
They would have been back at the public trough to get money to do what they had to do in the West.
Then he referred to the numbers in the Bill by saying:
These numbers are sufficient that the railways have no justification for coming back.
We are talking about public funds. We are talking about what the railways should and should not have. When we look in the Bill to see what guarantees the railways are giving to ensure that money from the investments will be put into transportation in the West, we have difficulty supporting the Bill. In committee the railways must give us some justification as to why the subsidy of $600 million is correct. I do not want to get into another argument with you, Mr. Speaker. I see my time is up in any event.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make a few comments on Bill C-155, an Act to revise the Crowsnest statutory freight rates for prairie grains. Some question may arise as to why I would presume to speak on a Bill such as this. However, I have a very keen interest in what
June 21, 1983

is taking place. I was born in the Province of Saskatchewan; I will not say how many years ago. My folks were some of the first homesteaders who moved in about 100 miles north of Regina. 1 missed by not too long being born in a sod shack. We lived there for a number of years and I learned what it is like to be raised on a farm.
My father was a great supporter of the United Grain Growers. I just learned recently that he served as secretary for a number of years. Therefore, I have some personal interest in what is taking place in the Prairie Provinces.
A little later in my life 1 had the privilege of walking a great many miles behind the harrow, driving a four-horse team and sitting on a gang plough, as well as taking part in the harvest operation. That was quite a long time ago. However, I believe farming is a very interesting, worth-while and satisfying activity.
It has been pointed out that while this Bill has a special application to western Canada, with its major changes in transportation policy it is of national concern and has national ramifications. The history of the Crow rate has been placed on the record by many Members speaking in the debate, so I am not going to yield to the temptation to restate it. The main point is that we have before us today proposals that adversely and substantially affect the whole economy of the western farm community. The proposals and provisions of this Bill undermine the economy and the social viability not only of the Prairie Provinces, but of the whole nation. Speaking on Friday May 13, as reported at page 25447 of Hansard, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) stated:
In fact, this is the third major piece of legislation that has come before this Parliament, after the patriation of the Constitution and our national energy policy which was announced over the last few years and months.
This is supposed to be one of the great landmarks in this session. With regard to the Constitution Bill, when it was introduced there was a great deal of debate. Only after being radically changed did it go through and become the law of the country. I must say that it still leaves much to be desired and the consequences of that measure have yet to be understood.
The second disaster was the National Energy Program. I can say without fear of contradiction, at least in some areas, that it was a colossal disaster. The effects were felt right across the country. Oil rigs pulled out of the nation, thousands and thousands of jobs were lost, the whole economy was shaken and we still suffer the consequences of that program. The two major Bills which preceded this one do not give us too much to brag about. This Bill is another in a series of measures brought before the House by the Government which leave much to be desired.
There are several principles which the Progressive Conservative Party insists are necessary and important in the consideration of this measure. One is that grain producers must have a statutory freight rate which preserves the benefits of the Crow and must be protected from open-ended escalation. This Bill does not achieve that objective. Under the terms of this Bill, producers will be paying double the existing Crow rate by 1985-1986 and an additional $160 million will be taken out of
Western Grain Transportation Act
the Prairie economy. They will pay five and one half times by 1991-92, which means that more than an additional $1 billion will disappear from western Canada. That is a very serious effect which this measure will have upon the Prairie economy.
Another principle is that producers should be guaranteed an efficient, cost-effective and reliable transportation system. With this Bill, there will be no railway performance guarantee for the first three years. Furthermore, under Clause 18, the grain transportation administrator has the power "to the extent that he considers it advisable to cease any activities" related to performance objective guarantees unless otherwise directed by the Minister.
I want to mention one more principle which must be recognized. The Government of Canada and the railways have a continuing obligation to provide a special low rate to assist producers competing with subsidized grain-export nations. It was put on the record today that subsidies in other countries are substantial. In the United States, subsidies account for about 33 per cent, 50 per cent in Australia, and other nations have various methods of subsidizing their product. In view of that, we must be competitive in international markets. Therefore, it is not only desirable but essential that the farming community have some guarantee and some assistance to meet the competition they face from countries with Government subsidy programs.
We propose that the railways should receive adequate and fair compensation for the movement of grain to provide the necessary capital and maintenance of plant and equipment. There is a false assumption or idea being sent abroad that unless the railways get a substantial contribution or subsidy, they will not be able to bring their rolling stock and trackage up to date, and, therefore, they will be placed at a disadvantage. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that there are other ways for the Government to ensure that the railways are taken care of without taking the money from the prairie grain farmers.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the NDP has asked to have Bill C-155 divided because, as we have said many times, it includes three separate issues which should be treated as being separate and unrelated programs of Government policy. These three issues are first, the grain freight rate; second, the upgrading of the transportation system; and third, the Dominion coal lands which we believe should be turned over to the Province of British Columbia. We have also advocated a much more sound use of the $930 million item budgeted by the Government which we agree should be used to preserve and create jobs and to improve transportation systems, provided the Crow rate agreement is kept intact.
Let me deal first with the grain freight rate. The inseparable price of Canadian confederation is tariffs for the industries of central Canada and low cost transportation for Atlantic and western Canada. These, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, are the facts of Canadian history and geography which tie us

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
together as a nation from west to east while recognizing the vastness of our country and the varying regional needs.
On June 16, I spoke in the House about the reasons why the Crowsnest freight rates must be maintained and I do not want to repeat myself in detail. We must keep the Crow to maintain the promise of Confederation and also to alleviate current costs of grain transportation to western farmers. Transportation costs should be shared by all Canadians just as costs of transportation and other systems are shared. Railways were more than fairly compensated for the Crow rate. The CPR has grown rich on land, mineral and forest rights given to it as part of the original agreement. However, we in this Party have said that if the railways can show definite proven losses on grain shipment, the taxpayers should assist with costs up to $380 million. But there must be no more giveaways.
On June 16, I referred also to the penalties which would occur in British Columbia if grain rates were increased by the Liberals and as advocated by the Tories. It would mean a 30 per cent cut in income for British Columbia farmers by the year 1992. That is something which many British Columbians do not realize. Also, Mr. Speaker, it would inevitably result in a diversion of grain through the United States on the new rails that the CP and CN are upgrading already. This of course would mean a loss of jobs, particularly for the shipping industry in British Columbia and for grain workers, longshoremen and many other tradespeople. It would also have an impact on British Columbia consumers who would have to pay five cents more for a loaf of bread.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I discovered by reading a book called "To Kill the Crow" by John Gallagher that the loss of income to British Columbians would be $3,553,000 according to Mr. Gallagher. British Columbians would suffer dramatically as would those on the Prairies and all Canadians.
The second issue that we felt should be dealt with quite separately is the whole question of the upgrading of rail transportation and the transportation system generally for the shipment of grain and coal and other products. This should be dealt with entirely separate from the Crow rate, Mr. Speaker. We have long advocated that improvements and modernization of the transportation systems are long overdue.
Some people have argued that we are against creating jobs and against transportation improvements. Those arguments are completely mythical, Mr. Speaker. We are strongly in favour of improvements. There must be improvement of rails and tunnels, and of course we would like to see a re-establishment of a modern boxcar manufacturing facility, particularly in British Columbia. The Modern Squamish Rail Car plant which employed over 300 people was done away with by the Social Credit and Liberal governments at a time when it was most needed. Of course, we would also see improved shipping facilities as an adjunct to this.
But we insist, Mr. Speaker, that no taxpayers' money be invested in the railway companies unless the people of Canada have equity in exchange. There must be no more giveaways to the Canadian Pacific Railway which has a history of exploiting them in order to escalate their own profits. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have advocated an investment of $550 million to improve rail transportation and to create jobs.
The third issue is the releasing of Dominion Government coal lands and is another issue which I do not believe the people of British Columbia are fully aware of. Back in the 1880s, the people of British Columbia gave the CPR a large coal deposit which was put in reserve with the federal Government. The plan of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will remove the price ceiling on this coal but it does not indicate who will own and benefit from the $450 million reserve. This resource belongs to the people of British Columbia and the federal Government should return it to provincial control. There has been no accountability by the Government on this question in debating this Bill.
I would like to refer again to the recently published book, "To Kill the Crow", by John Gallagher. The whole book is very relevant to this debate, and there are several excerpts which I believe are particularly relevant. I would first like to read a quote from Mr. Justice Emmett Hall:
If once tampering with the statutory rate is accepted or condoned or is an item on the bargaining table, all will be lost. For once the subject is on the bargaining table, it will be only a matter of time until it is lost step by step. There is no position to take except to adhere through thick and thin that the Crow Rate is not bargainable.
This has been the position taken by this Party, the only Party to say that we must maintain the Crow through thick and thin. As was written on the hats we wore this afternoon, "Maintain the Crow, Pepin must go."
Well, what positions have the other Parties taken on this issue, Mr. Speaker? We know the position taken by the Liberals. As Mr. Gallagher said, "the activities and positions of the federal Liberals are well known". He presents considerable documentation to prove the giveaways that are involved, both the denial of promises to western farmers as well as the giveaways to the railways. Incidentally, I learned that stockholders of the CPR were richer by over $134 million the day the federal Government's determination to repudiate the Crowsnest Pass Agreement was announced.
What about Members of the Progressive Conservative Party? Where do they stand aside from their attack on the NDP which occurred today? They obviously attacked us because we are their key opposition and because they know that we are the only ones who have been continuously in support of the Crow rate and of transportation improvements. Half of the Members of the Conservative Party are for a modified version of the Crow rate because they happen to live in the West. Certainly they are not for it in the same way that we have been for it. Half of the Members are against it. 1 would like to know where this leaves western farmers, Mr. Speaker.
What about the eastern millionaire who is the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party? We know that he has joined that other Quebec millionaire and that they take the same position on this Bill.


An Hon. Member:: What is wrong with being successful?
June 21, 1983


Margaret Anne Mitchell: How will they know what the people of western Canada want, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: 1 can see by the reaction, Mr. Speaker, that we have again hit a Tory nerve. I will leave it to one of my colleagues to continue references from Mr. Gallagher's book-


Arnold John Malone: That is a good idea.


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


Benno Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, has the Hon. Member overlooked the millionaire Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Yes, I guess I have.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to speak on a Bill which is commonly referred to as the Bill to amend the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. I will come to the Tory hecklers in a moment, Mr. Speaker. The question which is being debated today is actually a motion to close debate on this particular measure before the House. The reason given by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) who moved the motion yesterday, which is recorded at page 26521 of Hansard, is quite clear. The reason he gave the House for moving such a motion was that he felt there had been sufficient debate on this particular Bill. He suggested that the Opposition, particularly the New Democratic Party, was being obstructionist in terms of dealing with this particular piece of legislation.


David P. Smith: Right.


Neil Young: 1 hear my good friend, the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) saying, "right". He is quite wrong, Mr. Speaker; dead wrong. What the New Democratic Members of Parliament were simply doing was exercising their responsibility toward Canadians and their constituents. They felt they had the right to present a grievance to Parliament through petitions. It was in fact the motions placed by the Government House Leader on at least four occasions which led to delays in terms of the debate which was being conducted in this House. These were not motions which were moved by Hon. Members of either the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party.
The Table Research Branch, under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons, recently circulated a procedural paper entitled, "The Previous Question", which deals quite effectively, I believe, with what the Hon. Member for Rosemont did yesterday. In discussing The Previous Question under Standing Orders, the paper had this to say:
Western Grain Transportation Act
The Previous Question is a debatable superseding motion which must be given the right of way when proposed during a debate. The wording of the Previous Question motion as set out in Standing Order 56 (1) is: "That this question be now put". Essentially, the Previous Question has two functions:
(a) it is designed to limit debate since, until it is decided, it precludes all amendment to the main question-
Therefore, for Hon. Members on the Government side to even suggest that they were not trying to close off debate is laughable, to say the least, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to deal now with, at least my perception of what the Government is trying to do. That is, in essence, to hand Canadian Pacific Railway just another boodle of money, when it talks about changing the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. Because when one takes a look at the kind of boondoggle which Governments over the years have given to CPR, it rather boggles the mind. This is a company which has been living at the public trough since 1881.
If one takes a look at the subsidies and tax writeoffs this company has received over those years, one perhaps has a better understanding of this Government's relationship with CPR. In 1982 dollars, over the years, the CPR has been given billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in subsidies. When one looks at the number of companies which operate under Canadian Pacific investments, one sees that the list grows longer and greater and is something about which anyone in this House, and certainly Canadian taxpayers, must be rather concerned. The present value of Canadian Pacific, for example, is in the area of something like $2.9 billion. In 1981 alone, Canadian Pacific Limited owed something like $1.65 billion in deferred income tax, and that is according to its annual report. If that is adjusted to 1982 dollars, the present value of the deferred taxes alone which it owes the Canadian Government and the Canadian taxpayer is in the area of $1.83 billion.
Why all the haste? I came across some figures released by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada which list the amount of political contributions, for example, given by Canadian Pacific companies to both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party between 1978 and 1980. For example, the total 1978-80 political contribution to the Conservative Party was $190,257. The Liberals did slightly better than the Conservatives because in 1979 the Liberal Party received something like $198,476 from Canadian Pacific companies. In 1980 Algoma Steel gave the Conservative Party $5,000, and to be equitable it gave the Liberal Party $5,000 in the same year. In 1978 International Paper gave the Conservative Party $15,000. For some reason it took umbrage at the Tories and did not give them anything in 1979 and 1980, whereas in 1978 it gave the Liberal Party $15,123 and in 1979 they upped that to $25,572. In 1980 it decided neither of the two Parties were worth any more money and it gave them nothing.


David P. Smith: Shocking.


Neil Young: It was. I totally agree with the Hon. Member. Canadian Pacific, for example, in 1980 gave the Tories $35,000 and, again, it treated the Liberals, its buddies, to the same amount of money, $35,000. Cominco in 1979 and 1980

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
respectively gave the Conservative Party $5,000, and in the same years it gave the Liberals the same amount.


Arnold John Malone: And the NDP received nothing.


Neil Young: The NDP would not accept any money from them.


Arnold John Malone: That's right, and it would not get any, either.


Neil Young: Our Party believes that he who pays the piper calls the tune. We are not interested in that kind of money. We would rather take it from ordinary Canadians. Whether it be $5, $10 nickels or dimes, we appreciate it all, because Canadians understand we are a democratic Party which owes nothing to any vested interest in this country. Fording Coal Limited of Calgary is only a cheap bunch. It only gave the Conservative Party $415 in 1980 and gave the Liberals nothing.


An Hon. Member:: What was that name again?


Neil Young: Fording Coal Limited. Write it a letter. I am sure it will take all due dunning letters into account. Maple Leaf Mills, for example, gave the Conservative Party in 1978, $4,150; in 1979, $4,200; in 1980, $3,000. The Liberal Party in those three years only received $3,000 a year from that company, Mr. Speaker. The Conservatives must have done something between 1978 and 1979 because their contribution jumped from $397 to $5,553 and the Liberals received substantially more than that. 1 see my time has run out, Mr. Speaker. I hope this has been edifying for both sides.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament from central Ontario, not a westerner, it is not a pleasure to rise in my place a second time to categorically oppose Bill C-155. Why should an Ontario Member be so concerned about this Bill? I am concerned because it is fundamental to the success of all Canada that we have the best, the fairest and most economic national transportation system if this nation is to survive.


David P. Smith: Who wrote that speech?


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The Hon. Member asks me who wrote this. I do not need anyone to write my speeches, Mr. Speaker.
The last time I spoke the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) had announced the Crow changes some five times outside this House. He once again showed the complete disdain Government Ministers have for this House, following their leader's example. Since then there has been an amendment calling for a six month hoist of the Bill which made good sense to us on this side of the House as this legislation is every bit as important as the Constitution, or the language rights in the Province of Quebec.
Subsequently, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), a new closure artist, muzzled, hoodwinked and garrotted debate on this Bill, because under Standing Order 56, as soon as this part of the debate ends the question is put and the whole debate ends. We have a new Government bully
on the block, Mr. Speaker. A new closure kid with all guns blazing to limit debate on something as extremely important as our national transportation system. Closure has now been perpetrated some 20 odd times in this session. The people of Canada do not trust this Government and is there really any wonder why? They have every good reason not to.
We have seen the demise of so much of our rail passenger service in Ontario that it is pitiful. In my riding we lost a commuter train from Barrie to Toronto. Just imagine; Barrie is 50 miles from Toronto, a market of 2.5 million people, and that train was cancelled. The Minister has real foresight. Given the markets that are available and the extension of the triangle and what does he do? He cancels the commuter train. Now he wants to destroy the Crow and alienate the West.
Of course the question immediately comes forth: why does he want to do this? I suggest it is because of pressure from his Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Quebec Caucus who feel that if the grain subsidy goes to western farmers it will hurt the hog feeding operations in Quebec. That is balderdash. But once again, 74 Members of one Province are acting as the tail wagging the dog of Canada.
These people, Mr. Speaker, the NDP and Liberal-socialist coalition, would sooner take from the free enterprise small-businessman, the grain producer, and subsidize the railroad. That is what the Hon. Member from Regina stated last night. This Bill negates freedom of choice, which we on this side believe in, whether it be in grain transportation, metrication or linguistics. It means the freedom to grow the most profitable crops with a fair transportation system to markets. Everyone knows that if this is to come about a subsidy must be paid. The only argument is over the method, and again it should be freedom of choice.
I ask the House to reflect on Mirabel, which loses $1 million per week, not to mention the capital cost. There are subsidies for the subways, the highways, the airports and the hospitals so, of course, why not transportation?
If the subsidy, all $651 million of it, is paid to the railroads it will effectively lock out new investment in the West, totally discourage processing in western Canada and the diversification the West so badly needs. Farm income of some $3.5 billion will be reduced by one third. The farmer will have less income so the industrial heartland of Canada, where I come from, will suffer very deleterious effects.
No one denies that the railroads need more money. The Gilson report recognized that fact and it was quite acceptable to the West. But surely the farmer counts too. Ten years ago the farmer received $4.57 a bushel for his grain and today he receives $4.63 per bushel. This does not take into account the inflation factor, so who needs help at the time of the worst recession since the great depression?
The farmer must compete with subsidized grain from other countries. In essence these are the countries which obtain the subsidy, not the farmer. It has been estimated that British Columbia would lose 30 per cent of its income in about five
June 21, 1983

years, and that feed grain prices would rise dramatically. Is that how we built this country? No, Mr. Speaker, we built it with a narrow band of steel linking 4,000 miles of every type of terrain with a few million people, deeply in debt and against greater odds than the world had ever seen. We still face the same transportation problems, with only 25 million people spread across the great expanse of our country.
The farmer was promised a fair statutory rate 86 years ago and it must be perpetuated now. Farm income has dropped 35 per cent and the 31.1 million tonne cap will be a disincentive, not an incentive. Again, we on this side are appalled that the Government would subsidize railroads over the free enterprise farmer. By 1990 the railroads will receive a 1,000 per cent increase in the freight rates. In heaven's name, why? I am afraid it is because it is easier to control this country that way, Mr. Speaker; just as with Canagrex it is easier to control the production of food.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is all a grandiose scheme; state control.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: We are seeing, slowly but surely, state control by the people opposite.
The Members of the NDP pay lip service to the desirability of having this Bill held up. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) wants to know where we stand. Well, we stand for the fullest debate possible, to the last possible speaker. 1 would just like to read into the record from page 26549 of Hansard of June 20, 1983, in order to show who wants to keep this debate alive. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) moved that Bill C-185, and he meant Bill C-155:
-an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be not now read a second time but that the order for second reading be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
These are the people who want to debate the Bill. A little further along we heard from another speaker, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), who said as reported at page 26567;
In no way should he consider himself a candidate for the committee that will study Bill C-155. We want someone in the Chair who will be objective and take into consideration not only the wishes of the railway companies like the CPR. and the grain companies like Cargill, but also the wishes of grain farmers throughout Canada. We want this to be a special committee. We would like to see two NDP Members on the committee in order to provide some kind of fairness-
But they do not care about speaking on this Bill and opposing it. They just talk about it. Once again I ask you to check the record on the number of speakers this Party has put forward and the stand this Party has taken. I would also ask you to check on the sentiments of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who, as I have said so many times in this House, has forgotten more about grain transportation than those across the aisle will ever know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Arnold John Malone: What has Churchill got to do with grain?
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 heard one of the Hon. Members from the Conservative Party just now ask what Churchill has to do with grain? In doing so he of course is only echoing the thoughts of the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) who called Churchill a costly luxury which we could not afford. He echoes the thoughts of the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) who called for grain to go through Thunder Bay and not Churchill. If the Hon. Member is telling me by his rude remarks that it is the Conservative Party's official position that they want to get rid of Churchill, and I believe that is the case, then I am glad he has the honesty to admit it.
In rising to speak against the attempt by the Liberal Government to close off debate on the Crow issue, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to explain why we in the New Democratic Party, and why I as the representative of the Churchill constituency are opposed to the Government's legislation.
At the present time, the Port of Churchill is the closest route from the grain area to much of Europe. For many farmers, the cheapest way to ship their grain is through the Port of Churchill and into Europe.
The reason we are afraid of the legislation the Government is presenting is that it will allow for variable rates. Under the present legislation, all grain is transported on the same per mileage rate. That means that the rail companies will not be allowed to charge different rates on grain that goes from, say, Saskatoon to Churchill compared to grain which would go from Saskatoon to Thunder Bay or perhaps, if the railways had their way, even from Saskatoon into the States.
We are concerned that under the cover of updating the present Crowsnest rate structure, the Government is changing the whole direction of transporting grain in the West. Not only is the Port of Churchill threatened, but many of the lines from smaller communities to the central communities are threatened by the legislation as well. That is affecting the way of life and the economy of those small communities. It affects farmers and people who run stores in those communities. It affects the very real social life of those communities.
As Your Honour knows, we have presented a number of petitions in the House of Commons signed by residents of very many small communities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They realize, much more than the Liberal majority in the House, and much more than some of the people who have spoken on the Conservative side, how important the Crowsnest rate statute has been to their way of life. They are not being selfish. They are not looking strictly at their pocketbooks, although we know that if the legislation were to pass it would mean vast increases in the cost to the farmers of moving grain in that region. However, they also realize that if the legislation were to pass the whole fabric of rural society in western Canada would be destroyed. These are people who have grown up in small towns and who have farmed in those areas, people who have worked in the grocery and hardware stores, to

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
implement dealerships in those communities, the people who would face at best a very uncertain future.
Many people in this House grew up in small or rural communities and recognize that there is a legitimate social benefit derived from life in those communities. When the Liberal Government introduces legislation which attacks that way of life, it is attacking more than the pocketbooks of these people. It is attacking their values. They live in those communities because they want to be independent. They want to have control over their own educational system, to know their neighbours, and to work on the farms of their ancestors, their fathers and mothers. That will not be possible with the legislation, because it will promote the big communities. It will promote transportation of grain from Regina to Saskatoon. However, it will hurt the small communities. It will mean that every small community which has an elevator will see that elevator being closed. Since the grain will be taken to the larger centres by truck anyway, it will mean that one might as well do one's purchasing there. Therefore, the stores in small communities will close.
If one is to be travelling back and forth, why should one even live on one's farm anymore? Why should one not live in the big community and simply commute to the farm? That may sound like a pipedream or something which would never happen, but if one considers the entire history of the depopulation of rural areas in Canada, one will know that that is what has been happening for the last 50 years in Canada, and that this legislation will only accelerate the process. If an economic tool which helps rural communities is taken away, in the long run those rural communities themselves will be taken away. That is the concern of this Party.
As the Hon. Member for Churchill, I have other concerns as well. I mentioned earlier that by introducing variable rates grain will not go to the Port of Churchill. That means that the Port will eventually be closed down. That may be satisfactory to some Members of the Liberal Party, and certainly to some Members of the Conservative Party, but it would not be a happy occasion for the people who live in the town of Churchill who work at the port or in the tourist industry there. Most of the people who come up to Churchill to see the port, the whales and the polar bears arrive by train. Obviously, those trains will not exist if grain is going elsewhere. Therefore, by taking away the grain shipments, not only will the economic industry be killed, but the economic industry of tourism in that community will die as well.
As a result of this legislation, the communities in my riding where people work on the rail line, such as those in Wabowd-en, Gillam and The Pas, will fold or fade.
I ask the Liberal majority in the House to consider what the passage of this legislation will do, not only to the Churchill constituency, the Port of Churchill and other communities which will be affected, but also to the many other rural communities. I also ask the Liberals to look at what will happen to the larger communities in western Canada. As the Government takes more dollars from the pockets of the farmers in western Canada, it is taking money from the urban residents of western Canada. The $6,000 more which the
average farmer will be paying to the rail lines is money which will not be spent in stores in the cities of western Canada. It is money which will, for the most part, leave western Canada and never return. It is money which will go into the pocketbooks of the railways, but never into the economy of western Canada.
In an even more general area, I would like to point out that it is money which will never be spent in Canada at all. This will hurt not only the industrial towns where farm implements are built, where people are involved in the manufacturing industry. As money is taken from the pockets of farmers and small businessmen in rural Canada, as it is taken from the western economy, it is being taken from the entire Canadian economy as well. It is costing jobs in Churchill, The Pas, Humboldt, Yorkton and Melville. Money is also being taken from Regina, Winnipeg, Hamilton and all parts of the Canadian economy.
This legislation is very important. I, for one, am upset that the Government has moved the previous question to cut off debate, to cut off any chance to convince Hon. Members opposite who, by and large, are ignorant of western Canada. I mean that as no insult, but let us face the fact that the Government has only two Members from western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member will be aware that I have signalled him a couple of times that he should try to complete his remarks. If he has a remaining sentence, he may wish to finish.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not ask for unanimous consent to continue because the very nature of this Bill is to cut off debate. In closing, I would say that this legislation is much more important than the Government realizes. It is much more significant and I would hope that the Government would reconsider its actions and allow more debate, and perhaps educate themselves on the effects of this Bill.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the ten minutes available to me I want to concentrate not only on the effects of the Bill but on what significance it might have if it was changed in certain ways that have been proposed by our Party, specifically by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), in order to enhance transportation across Canada and specifically develop diversification in western Canada.
In order to do that I went back to two debates. The first was the debate of 1881 on the original Bill that formalized the agreement between the John A. Macdonald Government of the day and the CPR for the building of the railroad. I have been somewhat disturbed during this debate by the fact that the NDP have been railing against the CPR or against the railways as if everything they have done is wrong. If one reads the debates it can be seen that the purpose of the legislation was to create a transportation system which would bind the colonies together. That was the purpose and surely none of those
June 21, 1983

Members in the NDP want to say today that that was not a valid objective, nor 1 hope would they disagree with the vision of parliamentarians past.
On January 17, 1881, the then Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald said this:
Then will the fate of Canada, as one great body, be fixed beyond the possibility of Hon. gentleman to unsettle. The emigrant from Europe will find here a happy and comfortable home in the great West, by the exertion of the Conservative party.
The reason I use that quote is that the vision expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald, and other Members of that day was to take certain risks and develop and create opportunities for Canadians yet unknown and those whose citizenships were in other countries, so that they could come to this country and not only enjoy its freedoms but help in contributing to its economic well-being. It is my hope that the Government will remain sufficiently open in this debate to be willing to accept certain changes to the legislation which will enable us to develop further that vision. To date, I have not yet seen that willingness.
1 wish to raise a few issues with the Government in the time that I have.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for interrupting the Hon. Member. Since he has quoted Sir John A. Macdonald, whom I greatly respect, he must know that in 1867 Sir John A. Macdonald moved the previous question on the constitutional debate. He should keep that in perspective if he relies on Sir John A. Macdonald.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) uses another quote from our first Prime Minister. I am always pleased to identify with him as well-that is, our first Prime Minister.
1 want to quote a Liberal as well. The second quote I wish to read comes from the Crowsnest debate of June 18, 1897. I quote the Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Blair, who said:
But, Sir, while that is so, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that there are circumstances arising in a portion of this country, a country of vast extend and area, which render it imperative that the Government should lend a helping hand to the prosecution of certain works, if the inexhaustible resources which Canada possesses are to be properly and sufficiently developed. Instead of its being economy to stay our hands. I maintain it would be nothing short of waste if, upon careful study and examination of any proposal submitted to us, we are satisfied that the undertaking is one which will open up large resources of great value, the development of which will stimulate all other industries in the country and greatly add to its wealth.
That is the essence of the Conservative position in this debate. While the movement of grain is the principal position, it is also the opportunities that are involved. We see this debate as an opportunity not only to show the Liberal government but Canadians that as the region of western Canada diversifies, as my colleagues from central Canada have said, all regions of the country will benefit. That is the debate.
What is being proposed by the NDP is to once again turn back the clock. All of us who live on the Prairies have seen a diversification explosion on the Prairies over the last 15 years. Perhaps that timeframe could even be expanded. Nevertheless,
Western Grain Transportation Act
we are not only concerned with grain on the Prairies today but with poultry, livestock and dairy products. If any of us want to confine the production in the Prairies today for use only in the Prairies we would have to dramatically cut back on agricultural production right now. That is untenable and we will not accept that. But that is basically the position the NDP like to keep putting forward. They like to think of themselves as activists, but they are reactionary. They are reactionary in the extreme.
The point which then must be made in this debate is that when we look at the opportunities which this debate gives us compared to the propositions that the Hon. Member for Vegreville has put forward on behalf of our Party, we see a set of issues that we just do not feel develop the very potential that we believe is extant on the Prairies. I am sure that other colleagues from the Prairies have gone to meetings similar to those I have attended where farmers have stood up in question periods to ask when they will be able to diversify their agriculture. They ask, "When will we get value added production in our area? When will we get industries directly related to primary agricultural production in order that our children can stay in the areas relative to where they have grown up?" How many times have we heard that? The NDP is proposing a further demise of exactly that hope that so many Prairie farmers have had for their children. That is exactly what they are doing and that is exactly what this Bill will do.
The fact remains that the NDP are frankly now out of this debate. The only reason this debate serves them right now is, with the 16 per cent solution they now have in the country and with their fiftieth anniversary convention coming up in Regina on the July 1 weekend they are in desperate trouble they are trying to do anything and everything in order to finally save some place for themselves on the Prairies. That is the very place which was their bedrock support at one time in the 1930s but it is not there any more.
I am a strong advocate of Churchill and Arctic technology. I think it is a shame that we as Canadians have not further developed our Arctic technology. Let me suggest what we did in the period of time that we were in Government. In Churchill, we extended the shipping season further than at any other time. At that time the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, brought in the MV Arctic and the Pierre Radisson. He initiated an interchange between the CN and CPR. We always looked at Churchill as one of the four major grain spouts for Canada.
We can produce in agricultural but we must have legislation that will allow us to diversify. Do not give us a 10 per cent safety net which will give an average cost for the movement of grain that will not allow farmers to produce oats or barley. How will that help up in western Canada?
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, a ten minute time period is not sufficient. The bottom line for us in the Conservative Party is

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
this. We have an opportunity to develop further the diversification of western Canada, not only for the benefit of our region but for all of Canada. That is the purpose of our debate. That is the point we are making here in the House and that is the point we will make in committee.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I want to raise with you a question that flows from the motion before us at the moment. You will, no doubt, be aware of the wording of the motion, Sir. The motion as it is recorded in Votes and Proceedings is as follows:
That this question be now put.
I want to refer you in the first instance to Standing Order 1. It reads:
In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this House.
You may be interested to know. Sir, that in the nineteenth edition of Erskine May at page 378, Chapter XVIII, and I quote for your edification, although being as knowledgeable as you are you probably know it off by heart, the black type which reads "Previous question" and then we find:
A method occasionally employed in order to withhold from the decision of the House a motion that has been proposed from the chair is to move the previous question. This is a motion which compels the House to decide, in the first instance, whether the original motion shall or shall not be submitted to the vote of the House, and in the Commons the question proposed on this motion is, "That that question be not now put"-
You will have noticed, very quickly, I am sure, that there is a distinct difference between the motion we have before us and the motion used in the House of Commons which, by Standing Order 1, is the motion, we must follow. Let me point out the reason. The paragraph under the heading "Previous question" goes on to read:
If it be resolved in the affirmative, the Speaker is prevented from putting the original question, as the House has thus refused to allow it to be put. The original motion may, however, be brought forward again on another day, as the decision of the House merely binds the Speaker not to put the question thereon at that time. If the previous question be resolved in the negative, the original question on which it was moved must be put forthwith-
I do not want to go into all of the detail, but I do want to point out to you, Sir, that the reason the motion is worded in that way is very carefully set out. The Speaker of the day in the House of Commons put the previous question in this form on March 20, 1888. The Speaker decided that a motion "That the question be now put" was in fact a closure motion. Since there can be no debate thereon it was decided at that point that the wording of the motion had to be altered in order to achieve the desired result.
What this requires, as you are no doubt aware, is that a mover of a motion "That the question be not now put" would vote in the negative. In other words, the mover of the motion would vote nay and those opposed to the motion would vote yea in order to achieve the desired result, if the desired result were to stop debate and have the motion on the question.
I would ask you in the interest of House of Commons voting in the proper way, which I think is vitally important, and in the interest of not having the motion that was moved, I contend inappropriately, considered closure, which the Government has
steadfastly indicated that it does not want it to be considered, that the motion should be withdrawn. That motion should then be reintroduced in the proper form according to the citations of Erskine May.
It could go ahead, I suppose, but the unfortunate part of that could be that because Erskine May has so clearly set out the precedent, confusion undoubtedly would be the order of the day. Not only that, we would be departing from the requirements of Standing Order 1. 1 am sure there is no Member of the House who would wish that we depart from the requirements of Standing Order 1.
If the motion now before us were to be put, it would be in direct violation of Standing Order 1. It would be in direct violation of what the Government itself has steadfastly said it does not want to do. I think the Deputy House Leader would be willing to admit that that is true, that it is not the Government's intent to move a closure motion.
Given that the motion before us has already been interpreted as a closure motion, ruled upon as a closure motion at Westminster and accepted as a closure motion at Westminster, the Government might well want to ask the concurrence of the House-which I am sure would not be forthcoming-to alter the motion. Otherwise I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that the motion before us is an inappropriate one. If the Government wishes to move closure, it may do so in a quite separate and different way under a quite separate and different Standing Order. But it may not do by the back door what it will not do by the front door. It may not impose by some devious means that which it will not impose directly.
I would therefore ask if you would be kind enough to look into the arguments contained in this submission and agree that the Member who moved the motion, inadvertently, I am sure, be ruled out of order. If the Government wishes to proceed in this way I suggest that it move a proper motion rather than leaving the motion we now have before us in a way which could be and no doubt would be very confusing, and would be a direct contradiction of the rules of Parliament as they are applied by the British parliamentary system at Westminster and brought to Canada under Standing Order 1.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair is quite clear on the issue. I am perfectly prepared to rule immediately. However, if there are Hon. Members who wish to contribute to the well being of the Chair's mind, of course, I will recognize them. I will simply say as an indication that it has been an interesting expose of an interpretation of our Standing Orders. As some indication to assist Hon. Members I can say that the specific overrules the general in every case of interpretation and that is the course the ruling will be following.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is reassuring to know the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has read Standing Order 1. His problem is he does not seem to have read any of the Standing Orders subsequent to it. Regrettably, he is about as far out in left field as he could be. I would refer
June 21, 1983

the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain to page 49 of the Standing Orders of this Parliament. Where he will find Standing Order 56(1) as follows:
The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words, "That this question be now put."
It may well be that in the event the Standing Orders of this House did not address something, the rules of Westminster prevail, but in fact the Standing Orders of this House have addresed that point directly and right on. If the Hon. Member refers to page 26521 of Hansard for yesterday, he will see that the wording used by the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) when he moved this motion was in that exact form:
That the question be now put.
Also I refer him to Citation 452(1) on page 157 of Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition which reads:
The previous question is moved when the original question is under debate in order to force a direct vote on it, thereby preventing any amendments to the original question to be proposed. The form of the motion is "That the question be now put."
The phrases found in both our Standing Orders and in Beauchesne's are the exact phrase, to the letter, that in fact constituted the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Rosemont. I am afraid my honourable friend is about as far out in left field as I have ever seen him on a procedural matter.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point which is somewhat connected; perhaps I could seek your clarification. As reported at page 26540 of Hansard for yesterday, Madam Speaker in responding or dealing with the motion which is now under debate indicated:
-that the motion on the previous question is not closure, because after the House votes on the previous question, the debate on the main question will, of course, be resumed. When the previous question is put, this is done only in order to prevent the proposal of new amendments and to ensure that the debate continues on the main question.
There is some discrepancy between the Speaker's ruling and indeed that which is pointed out under Standing Orders 56(1) and (2). Either the Standing Order is being misinterpreted or when this motion is disposed of, according to the Speaker's ruling yesterday, we will then be in a position to go back on the debate of the original motion.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief. Of course the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is quite wrong, unfortunately, as is usual. He will note that the precise words to be used are the following:
That this question be now put.
1 draw attention to page 26538 of Hansard where it reads:
That the question now be put.
There is a distinct difference between "this question" and "the question". The wording as contained in Hansard and accepted by the Speaker is not the wording required by the Standing Order. The Standing Order is quite specific. The
Western Grain Transportation Act
Standing Order indicates that it must say the following. It does not give any leeway. It reads:
The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words, "That this question be now put".
I draw to the attention of the House that the Hon. Member who moved the motion did not use those words. It does not say that one can use any reasonable facsimile thereof. It does not say that one can alter words. It says that they must be in those words, and I contend that those words were not used.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Would the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) or the Parliamentary Secretary assist the Chair. At what page is the reference made to when the motion was put?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on page 26521 of yesterday's Hansard is in fact when the motion was moved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There seem really to be several points on the floor at the moment. We will begin with the issue of the reference to Standing Order 1 and the interpretation of Erskine May in that regard. It is correct, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain indicated, that in the British House the question is put in the negative. It is correct that in the Canadian House the motion is put in the positive and has been since 1867 and is referred to in Standing Order 56(1). As I indicated already, any reasonable interpretation as between the general and the specific provides that the specific shall be followed, and accordingly the motion has to be put in the positive in the Canadian tradition.
On the next subject matter, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain indicated that in accordance with Hansard the previous question was not put in precisely the language called for by Standing Order 56, that instead of reading, "That this question be now put", the wording was, "That the question be now put". I think it is the responsibility of the Chair to avoid dry legalisms in an attempt to interpret the Standing Orders. They are bad enough in some cases without a fuss over the difference between the word "the" and the word "this". It seems to me that nothing is lost to the House and nothing is lost to the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) who proposed the motion in the difference between the word "the" and the word "this". If I might refer to no interpretation other than natural justice, I think the Chair ought to accept the wording as put forth by the Hon. Member for Rosemont.
I see, for what it is worth, that in Votes and Proceedings the motion was moved in the exact language referred to in the Standing Order.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on the same point-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The problem I have now-and I will recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary in a moment-is the comments made by Madam Speaker yesterday and referred to by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). It is my view-and I am not entitled to
26624

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
rule on Madam Speaker's words; it is a somewhat difficult position for me to be put in-that on a review of her words Madam Speaker may choose to reword the sentences in such a way as to indicate that once the previous question is put it would follow automatically that there is no debate on the main motion, but rather that the main motion would be put. However, I understand that the Hon. Member for Vegreville and the House has an absolute right to hear that from Madam Speaker herself, not my interpretation of her words. The thing to do with that point of order is to take it under consideration and Madam Speaker at the next occasion will address herself to that point.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it has been drawn to my attention that when the Hon. Member for Rosemont moved the motion he did so in French, not in English. I have looked at the French verson of Hansard for yesterday and found it at page 26521 and in the French version of the Standing Orders it is exact, to the last letter. There is not one difference between the form as set out in the Standing Orders and what the Hon. Member moved in French. If there is any variation, it is in the translation, not in the language used by the Hon. Member when he moved the motion, so I think the Hon. Member does not have a point at all.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on the point I raised earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) contended very vehemently that the motion we are now debating is not a form of closure. He may know something about this motion that we do not know and that view may very well be shared by the Speaker inasmuch as she indicated the same words. Again I repeat:
-the motion on the previous question is not closure, because after the House votes on the previous question-
And the important point here:
-the debate on the main question will, of course, be resumed.
I think that is important. It is a very important ruling. I am not suggesting that you challenge the Speaker's ruling, but we as Members of this House can only go by the Speaker's ruling. We will have to take it from that ruling that was advanced by her at page 26540 of Hansard of June 20, 1983.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is perfectly correct. Madam Speaker has made a ruling to that effect, and unless for some reason she were to choose to review the wording that she had chosen, every Member in the House should be able to rely on it. There is no dispute in that sense. However, I want to indicate to the House that possibly the Speaker would like to review the words.


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, just for consideration by the Chair, by Madam Speaker, if she wishes to reconsider, at page 26540 of Hansard for June 20, Madam Speaker stated:
As for the last question put to the Chair, namely, what time limits apply in the circumstances, I must say that the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) are right. In
the opinion of the Chair, and after thorough consideration of how the new Standing Orders could be interpreted, the provisions of Standing Order 35(2) apply.
For the consideration of the Chair, Standing Order 35(2) reads:
When second reading of a government bill is being considered, no Member except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than-
It then goes on with 40 minutes, 20 minutes and 10 minutes. Madam Speaker, appears to have backed up her previous ruling which the Hon. Member for Vegreville has brought to your attention, that the debate will continue and, under the time limits we have, it would continue with ten-minute speeches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I wonder if I may explain that there is, of course, an interpretation of the Speaker's remarks which is perfectly consistent with the ruling, that is, that if the previous question as put to the House were to fail, that is to say it would be rejected in a vote, obviously the debate would continue on the main motion. The wording used and referred to can be interpreted in one sense, as I said, that the failure of the previous motion would mean the House would continue to debate, but I must point out-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if it is simply a matter of bringing the question that is now under debate to a vote, as is indicated by the Speaker's ruling, then the debate on the main motion, according to her ruling, would be resumed. That is the only interpretation that one can make.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we want to challenge the Speaker's ruling. When this Speaker gives a ruling, as when previous Speakers made a ruling, that is the ruling and that is it. It is not to be discussed unless you want to challenge it, and the procedure is there. I think we should accept the ruling as given for this reason: If it was not so, this would be the most sneaky way of introducing closure, a very, very sneaky way. I do not know what the Speaker had in mind, but it may have been that very thing, that by putting the question now and discussing it, we were not permitting a sneaky way of coming in the back door with closure. That is really what it would be if we did not have the ruling as given by the Speaker. I do not know why we want to question that ruling. It really makes sure that everything is above the table and not under the table.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I think we could go on all night trying to understand what Madam Speaker meant by the words being quoted tonight.


Mr. Kempling:: Go out to The Farm and ask her.


George Albert Proud: In order to proceed in an orderly fashion,
I think the best way is to proceed with the debate this evening, and at the next opportunity Madam Speaker could be asked to clarify exactly the meaning of her ruling.
I agree with my colleague who just spoke that Madam Speaker "seems" to have made a ruling, but I do not see this evening the relevancy of having a lengthy debate on the
June 21, 1983

meaning of what Madam Speaker indicated earlier. In order to proceed in an orderly fashion, I submit that we proceed with other speakers who may have an important contribution to make. I am willing, as I have been since the beginning of this debate, to listen to something new that Members may want to put forward between now and 11 o'clock this evening.
I submit that we are going nowhere. I prefer, as has been indicated by those who are here, that Members have the opportunity to put forward their views tonight, and at the first opportunity my very good friend for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) could ask the Speaker indirectly in the House or indirectly in other ways the exact meaning of her ruling. She is not in the Chair.
You, Mr. Speaker, are not going to say what exactly she meant to say when she said something earlier on. In conclusion, I submit that we should proceed with the debate and listen to what our colleagues have to say tonight in their contribution to the debate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances, that would be a most intelligent suggestion. However, let me just ask this question: Suppose we were to decide that the vote should come now, what then would we do? Would we then proceed on the basis of the apparent ruling by the Speaker that the debate on second reading could be completed in accordance with the existing Standing Order, or would we have the vote? Would we sit and wait? What would we do?
It would be very difficult for us to allow the vote to take place not knowing the consequences of that action that would flow from the ruling of the Speaker, if I may say so. It might be more appropriate in the circumstances if we were to adjourn for an hour until the Speaker could get back from wherever she is and clarify for us exactly what she had in mind. It would be fair to the Government lest they feel they would be cheated out of their motion. It would be fair to the Opposition.
1 would ask you, Sir, do you not think that since the actual vote hinges on the Speaker's interpretation of her own ruling and since it is entirely possible that the vote on the motion to have the previous question could well come at any moment, maybe you would take it upon yourself to call a brief adjournment and ask the Speaker if she would mind returning to help us out in this matter?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as a way of attempting to assist the Chair, may I suggest that, rather than an adjourning, so that Members on this side, not the Government side, who wish to speak will not be deprived of speaking time, if the rules of the debate are going to be changed, maybe we could sit here and Government Members could carry on this debate. That would not deny Members on this side the opportunity to speak. Government Members could carry on this debate until there is a ruling. We have heard that there are several Members opposite here who are anxious to speak. We would allow them the opportunity to take part in the debate while we wait for the decision of the Chair as to the meaning of the interpretation.
Western Grain Transportation Act


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear what is going on here. The NDP Members are again grasping at any flimsy excuse to try to delay the debate.
I would refer Your Honour to page 79, Citation 239.(2) which states:
Hypothetical queries on procedure cannot be addressed to the Speaker from the floor of the House.
That is what has been happening here, Mr. Speaker. There have been queries directed to you about what would happen in the event that certain events occurred, what would be the application of the Speaker's earlier comments in the event that situation A, B, C or D occurred. That is specifically prohibited by Beauchesne.
You have been quite patient, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be a travesty of all parliamentary tradition if this were allowed to go on. Surely the debate must continue. The people of Canada are entitled to have the issue discussed. They are entitled to be heard as witnesses in committee once the Bill gets there. Let us get on with the debate.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and observations to make about the advice given to the Chair by previous speakers in the sense that the interpretation of the provisions and the ruling of the Speaker should be dealt with now. There a number of important issues that would be determined in subsequent debate, and it is my contention that, if in fact the interpretation of the ruling moves a certain way, we would find ourselves in a situation where the possibility of amendment exists. It strikes me that the benefit to Canadians that would flow from some of the motions that would have been put forward in the form of amendments would be extremely useful to the House and the country at large.
It strikes me that this is very clearly a closure or time allocation manoeuvre. Members of the Conservative Party know very well that, as we proceed, this will in fact kill debate and put the Bill to committee following second reading.
In concert with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I would like to indicate to the Chair that it is important that an interpretation of the Speaker's ruling be brought forward so that we can determine what course of action we will follow from here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will assist the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) and other Hon. Members who are asking for an interpretation. The House will recognize that the weight of judgment should be given to the comments made by Madam Speaker. I find it to be a perfectly clear interpretation of her remarks as recorded by Hansard that in the event the previous question is put and the motion is negatived, then debate will continue on the main motion. I find it at the same time consistent, although not necessarily stated in her remarks, that if the previous question is put and carried, then there will be no further debate and there will be a vote taken on the main motion.

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
1 have done my best to assist Hon. Members with the interpretation of Standing Orders, Beauchesne and Madam Speaker's remarks, and I would suggest that debate continue, unless, of course, the House wishes me to put the previous question.


Some Hon. Members:: Question, question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) rises on a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly respect your interpretation, but nowhere in the Speaker's ruling is found the word "negatived" or the indication that it may be passed in the affirmative. The ruling simply reads:
-that the motion on the previous question is not closure, because after the House votes on the previous question-
It does not say whether it is negatived or passed in the affirmative. It simply reads, "after the House votes on the previous question". That is very clear, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Question, question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question? Does the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River rise on a point of order or in debate?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise in debate. It seems that my hon. colleagues on the Liberal side are again quite prepared to prevent debate on this issue.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the question that is before us tonight and has been before us for some time is of serious and extended concern to the people of Canada and that the Government has in fact imposed closure on this particular motion. Closure is understood as a mechanism by which debate is brought to a halt and the House is forced to divide on a question without having had, on an issue of this importance I would suggest, a proper opportunity to judge a number of alternatives. The Government has selected the course of action it wishes to follow. It has selected a course of action that is opposed by a large number of people in Canada and particularly by a large number of people in western Canada who will be harmed by this legislation.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are groups in the country that wish to see this legislation go ahead because of a serious need for improvement of the transportation system. Unfortunately, these groups are willing, because of the desperate need to get local economies going in certain regions of the country, to load the burden of paying for the rail system improvements upon a specific group of people, the people of the western farming community. It is unfortunate that the Government would see fit to place this kind of a burden on those people and to place other Canadians who depend upon an efficient transportation system in a position where the only way to develop and improve the rail system that is so desperately needed is to put the necks of fellow Canadians on the block. This is what has ultimately happened.
It strikes me that the necks that will eventually wind up on the block are those of the Members of the Liberal Party who presently form the Government of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that they will pay a terrible price for what they have done to Canadians.
The other unfortunate aspect of this debate is the complicity of Members of the Conservative Party with Members of the Liberal Party. We in the House have no doubt that Conservative Members have aided and abetted the passage of this legislation without adequate consideration of the underlying principles of the Bill. "Do it to your neighbour before he does it to you", is the Conservative way. In that light, we can understand their complicity with the Liberal Party on this particular situation.
Throughout the debate, I have been disappointed by some of the propositions put forward by my Conservative colleagues. They have suggested that the Liberal way is no good, and yet in aiding and abetting the Liberals, they are allowing that way to proceed. If they were in fact able to put up sufficient speakers to express the concerns of their local constituents, we would see a much fuller debate on this Bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Nonsense.


Raymond John Skelly: It is also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that Conservative Members, under the previous Conservative Government, said that improvements to the rail system were on the way, that there would have been no problem, and that it is the fault of the NDP that the Conservative Party hit the bricks. I think that, for the edification of the House and the country, we should look at what happened to that Government in retrospect. One of its biggest problems was its failure to deliver on the transportation system and failure to deliver on most systems in the country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They hired a fellow to write this Bill.


Raymond John Skelly: As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), has pointed out, it was those people opposite who put this particular solution that imposes such hardship on the farming community in the West afoot. There is no doubt that Conservative Members, in complicity with their colleagues across the floor, their bedfellows as it were, have laid this curse upon the West.
To suggest that the New Democratic Party has somehow caused a problem by kicking out the previous Conservative Government is false. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, it was the people of Canada who threw it out. They threw it out for moving a Canadian embassy to Jerusalem. They threw it out for its oil pricing policy. It is of no use to say that its rotten policy was any easier to swallow than is the current rotten policy put in place by the Liberal Government. What is the difference between one curse and another?
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker the Conservative Party of Canada is supporting an amazing position at this time, one that its Leader will ultimately support. I am speaking of its
June 21, 1983

present Leader, not the one who was retired in such an undignified manner. It is interesting to note the hypocrisy of the individuals in that Party who can say that the NDP put the previous Prime Minister out on the street. When that Prime Minister admitted he had made terrible mistakes, when that Prime Minister decided to take his Government and his colleagues to the people to ask for another mandate, that Party went right down the drain because the Canadian people had an opportunity to judge the merits of it. Now we have this tremendous hypocrisy when the Hon. Members of the Conservative Party can stand up in this House and say that the NDP did something nefarious in putting forward an amendment to a non-confidence motion which resulted in the fall of the Government, and later on those same Hon. Members turn around and turf that former Prime Minister right out of the leadership of their Party.
The incredibility of that proposition, Mr. Speaker, almost smacks of the "big lie" technique. Nevertheless, I expect those Hon. Members to preach it, to attempt to preach it, but there are a lot of people in Canada who believe that the Conservative Party and its masters in central Canada, on Bay Street, are the ones who have in fact done it to another westerner. That Party did it to the former Hon. Member for Prince Albert and now it has done it to the former Prime Minister of Canada. It is just not acceptable to that Party to have a westerner in control of the situation. Therefore, I would not want to hear another Hon. Member stand up during this Crow debate to say that the Conservative Party had any intention of doing anything to repair the railroad system in Canada. That Party needs to work pretty well full time just trying to keep its caucus together on the same track.
The other incredible message which that Party has been trying to deliver in this House, that in some way turfing out the former Conservative Government was anything less than a service to the Canadian people, is astounding. It has also been interesting to listen to the former Conservative speaker who felt that the Canadian Pacific Railway had done a great service to Canada. He spoke of John A. Macdonald. It is interesting to note that John A. Macdonald did not lead the Conservative Party. He led an organization which was called the Liberal-Conservative Party. There is no doubt about the common interest of both Parties which John A. Macdonald represented in the House in selling out the Canadian people.
The Canadian Pacific Railway did not do a service for this country. The people who built that railroad, who poured their savings into it, who had some trust in the Government at the time, fee! that they have been betrayed. Canadians, except possibly for the small covey of compatriots here who cannot see beyond their own noses on these issues, feel they have been betrayed. The Canadian Pacific Railway, in concert with the Liberal-Conservative Party, led by John A. Macdonald and the Bank of Montreal, skimmed Canada of 25 million acres of land, $25 million, a handout so incredibly rich that anyone to whom that was given would owe a duty and an obligation to this country to conduct the services which they had guaranteed to provide for time immemorial, virtually. Either that, or they
Western Grain Transportation Act
should turn back the resources which they were given, turn back the benefits which those resources have gained for them over the period of years. That is a fair offer, Mr. Speaker. We may be able to assume the burden of the taxpayers if in fact that corporation is prepared to do that.
A second item which is under consideration, and it has been mentioned before, is that there is something very obscene in placing a burden, a renewed burden on the taxpayers, and a very heavy burden on western farmers, in order to bail out two railroad systems in Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways. These companies are currently investing offshore, taking funds which they have earned in Canada, and instead of investing that capital in the upgrading of the railway system, instead of investing it in hopper cars and all the station improvements and equipment, they are taking it outside the country. From the point of view of the merchant shipping issue, in which I know the Conservative Party is interested, I cannot really help but wonder about the Canadian Pacific ships and how it can buy those ships offshore with Canadian dollars, how it can operate those ships without Canadian crews, and bank the money in Bermuda. It is astounding. It does not pay tax here. It provides no benefit here. In fact, it deprives Canadians of economic opportunity and, indeed, of employment. That is the kind of thing which the Conservative Party stands for, the old allies of the CPR. That is what the previous speaker from the Conservative Party was praising.
One of the most astounding advertisements for the Canadian Pacific Railway which I have ever seen was the one it released during the period of the Grey Cup. It announced the tremendous speed of a ship called the Beaverford, which fought off a German vessel during the Second World War. At that point in time, Mr. Speaker, it claimed that it was building for a new Canada. Yet the tradition of the CP ships-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacLaren):: Order, please. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleagues would be interested, especially my Conservative colleagues here tonight, in hearing a little more?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacLaren):: The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) has the floor.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I hear the Liberals over there saying, "Tell me something about metric". Well, we would not be in the mess we are in with metric if it had not been for the help of the New Democratic Party in supporting the Liberal Government in bringing about a change to metric-


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, a small reminder. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) just asked for permission to extend the time for him to continue his remarks. It seems to me the Chair should ask the House if there is unanimous consent for him to do so.

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacLaren):: I anticipated the answer by hearing several Hon. Members say, no. However, I will gladly put the question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacLaren):: The Hon. Member for Peterborough.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I cannot let the remarks of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) go by, Mr. Speaker, when he criticized the actions taken by the Conservative Government in bringing about what he called "detrimental results in the West", without saying that, contrary to what the Hon. Member might think or believe, it was the New Democratic Party which allowed the Liberal Party to come back into office through its motion of non-confidence. It was the Liberal Party-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The voters did.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: No, it was an NDP motion. It was as a result of that-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How come you are blaming all those voters?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I know that it bothers those Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, when they are criticized as being, it has been said, "the little red rump" of the Liberal Party. However, we would not have had a 20 per cent cut in Via Rail service across Canada if the NDP, in conjunction with the Liberals, had not brought down the Conservative Government in 1979. That is what we received in return for the Party's efforts.
It should also be noted that it was, Mr. Speaker, the NDP Members who remained perfectly silent, almost mute, on some of the issues which have most gravely affected the West. I did not hear the New Democratic Party supporting the Conservative Party when it saw the destruction which was brought about by the National Energy Program as it pursued the nationalization of one of the richest non-renewable resources in the West. It was the Conservative Party which protected the free enterprise system. And it was the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, in concert with the Government, which brought about the abolition of property rights in our Constitution. It was true that debate over the Constitution-


Neil Young: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. Property rights have never been in the Constitution. Property rights have been protected by provincial Governments for many, many years and they have never been included in any federal jurisdiction. For the Member to imply otherwise is really quite unforgiveable.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a short memory. I have to remind him that it was the Conservative amendment which brought property right back into the
Constitution, at least momentarily, until the NDP made a deal with the Liberals to remove it in return for NDP support on the Constitution. I know that bothers both Parties because they do not like to be considered in bed together, but there is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure from the anxiety they show here tonight there is no doubt in their mind, that they are just what they are reported to be: a socialist Party interested in the control of the free enterprise system, removal of property rights, and cancellation of 20 per cent of VIA Rail service. They put the Government in office which brought those things about which have been very detrimental-not to mention the National Energy Program-to westerners.
Perhaps they need a few more reminders from a Member from central Canada about the wrack and ruin they have caused in the West. Remember, it was the Conservative Party which fought long and hard to kill the NEP. It was the Liberals who supported the NDP when they asked for removal of property rights so that provincial NDP Governments, some of them in the West, could then control the acquisition of private property and protection of same within our Constitution. It was the Conservative Government, while it was in office for a short nine months, which brought in the Neil report. To refresh the memory of the NDP, that report brought back some semblance of branch lines, the removal of which from the west was being threatened.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Point of order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: They are upset again, Mr. Speaker.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering if the Hon. Member would explain a little bit about the Neil report. Is that the same report which refused to grant continuation of the line through Wishart in my riding, where the line disappeared because they refused to address the needs of those people?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, perhaps the Chair could give some consideration to advising Members of the NDP that this is time for debate, not a question period. I am sure that if they could get the unanimous support of their cohorts on the other side of the House, we would welcome a question period on the abolition of the Crow at the conclusion of the comments of every speaker. But I defy them to get in bed again with those on the other side of the House-


David P. Smith: We do not want them; you can have them.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -and get them to agree unanimously to a question period following each ten minute speech. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, that they would have a great deal of difficulty getting that permission from the Chair.
What about the longshoremen, Mr. Speaker? What about the people in unions who support very actively the NDP and its philosophy?


Mr. Crosby:: They do not support the NDP.
June 21, 1983


William Henry (Bill) Domm: What? They do not support them? Well, what happens in the West when there is a problem with grain movement? They look to the NDP who literally abandon them with their concern about property rights. I come from a riding, Peterborough, which as some people might not be aware, is made up primarily of union members and unions like the United Electrical Workers and United Steel Workers. They told the labour organizers of the NDP that they were not going to be told how to vote at election time. That is not the way you get responsible Government. The day that the labour unions rely on the NDP will be the day that their interests are sorely neglected.
Concerning the legislation before us dealing with the Crow, some Members of the Government and the NDP may be concerned as to why someone from central Canada would be interested in speaking on the Crow, which is perceived by a lot of people in Ontario to be a western issue. In reality it is not a western issue. It strikes fundamentally at our system of Government, our traditions and customs which have long been abandoned by the NDP, not to mention the Government of the day. Let us examine the Bill for what it really is, let us throw light on the subject. It is nothing more nor less than a scheme to reorder rural life in western Canada. It is like changing acres to hectares for the westerners. They would not stand for that. They do not appreciate the fact that the NDP in central Canada, and some Members from western Canada, would fall in the trap of the Liberal Government of the day and be so willing and so quick to charge the Conservatives with not doing their bit in the fight against the Crow. In reality we will put up two if not three times the number of speakers they have put up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: You see, Mr. Speaker, that is what you can do when you have a true national Party. That is one thing the Government cannot do. The Government cannot speak to the Crow where it affects the people through their representation in Parliament. The Government is void of credibility on the subject. When the Government brings in legislation that abandons 20 per cent of the VIA Rail service across Canada against the wishes of the CTC and against the recommendation of every reputable board or commission in Canada, then it is not being responsible in its duty to the people of the West.
We came to discuss the Crow, Mr. Speaker, and something was going to be taken away. Then the Liberals received from Quebec the hue and cry that they did not wish the farmers of the West to receive the subsidies; they wanted it to go to the railways. Then the Government had the gall to say on national television and in the media that it was going to do what Quebec wanted because Quebec had more votes.
The NDP and the Liberals have run out of speakers. They do not have enough representatives across Canada to carry a debate in the House against the Government which is running roughshod over the Canadian people on all issues. So I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government, to show its sincerity about discussing this issue to its fullest, agree with
Western Grain Transportation Act
the NDP once more, just as it is so capable of doing when the crunch is on. Let it say that after each speaker has finished speaking, there will be a question period in order that the confused NDP Members can get their questions to Members of the Progressive Conservative Party in order to get them answered in the House of Commons.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, that was really quite an amusing if somewhat neanderthal dissertation we just heard. I believe I heard the Hon. Member mention the Crow rate once or twice in his speech. The Crow rate is too modern and it is pretty hard for him to defend something that modern or that new.
I was interested in his comments that his Party protects free enterprise and is preserving small business. I have been interested in the reaction of some of the gas station owners in Peterborough who are losing business to a gas station operated by a bunch of fairly wealthy Members of Parliament.


David P. Smith: Name them.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: That is some preservation of small business in his home constituency. I never fail to be amazed by the insults to the electorate of Canada which the Conservative Party Members continue to heap on that electorate when they continually deny that it was the voters who kicked their incompetent Government out of office three and a half years ago.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It was the Tory delegates.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: It was the Tory delegates, my friend said. My goodness! Any Government that was incapable of counting was hardly worth keeping in office. The people of Canada demonstrated that when they went to the polls the last time.
It was also interested in his referral to the Neil report. With all due respect to my friend, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the Neil report was hardly greeted with open arms in my part of the country. I know that one of the main subdivisions in my constituency is the Inwood subdivision, one of only four lines, I believe, which run up through my area and one of the two lines which really runs into the heart of the grain country in my constituency. The Neil report recommended shutting the line down.
Hon. Members know that there are two or three small farming communities which have been around for, oh, a number of decades now, notably Broad Valley and Fisher Branch. If the Inwood subdivision is ever shut down, they may well die, which may well do away with communities which have a tradition in the area and the way of life for many of the people living there. We have all seen ghost towns dotted across the Prairies. I do not think we really want any more of them.
It is a very nice, small community, Arnold. You would probably enjoy it. You should visit it sometime.


Arnold John Malone: Crowfoot.

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: He will, in the next campaign.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I am sure he will, but it will not do his Party any good.
I am interested in the Tories' commitment to the debate. We have heard them maintaining that they are the real defenders of the Crow, yet if we consider the record of this Party when it was in Government, we find that it was really prepared to do much the same, if not to go even further than the Liberal Government has gone in changing the Crow rate.
I can quote a few little excerpts from a book by a writer named John Gallagher, entitled "To Kill the Crow".


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Do you guy gives royalties, Terry?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: No, but it is very worth-while reading. I would recommend it to all Hon. Members, particularly the prairie Members of the Conservative Party to my right. He points out that in all the Provinces, the provincial Conservative Parties have been supportive of changes to the Crow. The former Lyon Government in Manitoba was definitely in favour of changing the Crow. The current Conservative Government in Saskatchewan has sort of nicely pussyfooted around the issue and has basically not been terribly supportive of maintaining the Crow rates, even though it hedges its bets.
In Alberta, Arnold, you know-


Arnold John Malone: Alberta bound.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: -what the Lougheed Government's position is on the Crow rate. It is definitely in favour of killing the Crow rate. We all know that during the Conservative Party's term of Government, it was preparing to introduce substantially the same piece of legislation as we have before us today, a rather bad piece of legislation.
If the Conservative Opposition in the House really wants to stop this legislation, if it really wants to stand up for the farmers in western Canada and in Quebec and, really, by extension, the farm machinery manufacturers and steel companies in Ontario, as well as the iron ore companies in different parts of the country, it could do it, but I rather doubt that it will.


An Hon. Member:: They are committed to multinational corporations.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Exactly. The Conservatives are committed to the multinational corporations. They are committed to the CP rail. I am reminded that between 1978 and 1980, for those three years, CP's companies, including Algoma Steel, Canadian International Paper, Canadian Pacific, Cominco, Dominion Bridge, Fording Coal, Maple Leaf Mills and Pan Canadian Petroleum, donated $190,257 to the Conservative Party.


Arnold John Malone: And not one penny to the NDP.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: And not one penny, I am very proud to say, to the New Democratic Party. Therefore, we know where the Conservatives' votes will be. Perhaps, in some perverse way,
they will nevertheless be supporting the Liberal Government in its efforts to change the Crow rates, in its efforts to put more money into the pockets of Canadian Pacific enterprises.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why is it that you want the payment to go to the railways?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I am reminded that the Tories can ring bells in the House for a number of weeks for other corporate welfare bums. They can ring bells in the House for weeks in the interest of the oil companies.


Some Hon. Members:: But not for the farmers.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: But not for the farmers.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why do you want it to go to the railways? Tell us that?


Arnold John Malone: Guaranteed annual income for the railways, NDP.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I think you'd better put that hat on.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: The twisted logic that one sees around the whole debate is amazing.


Arnold John Malone: And hears.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Oh, yes, and hears from Conservatives and hears from Liberals opposite. We hear how this is to create tens of thousands of jobs, how this will be a big economic stimulus for the country. They speak of putting billions of dollars into the economy of Canada because of the Crow changes. Where is the money to come from? I cannot take money out of my right pocket and put it into my left pocket and suddenly be richer.


Arnold John Malone: You don't have any right pockets.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Where is the money which is to stimulate the economy to be found? It must come out of the pockets of other Canadians. If it comes out of the pockets of prairie farmers, how is that to help the manufacturing industry in Ontario? How is that to help the consumer on the Prairie when $600 million a year is taken out of the economies of the prairie Provinces? I am astonished by some of the twisted logic that the Liberal Government has used to support its side of the debate on the Crow issue.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One billion dollars added every year.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: The Minister says, "One billion dollars added every year", but I ask the Minister, where is the $1 billion to come from? It will come from the taxpayers of Canada and from the prairie farmers of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: It might help one sector of the economy, but it will hurt another sector of the economy. On balance, it ain't
June 21, 1983

gonna help the country very much at all. Unfortunately, the big losers will be the farmers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, no.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: The farmers cannot afford to pay any more money in their costs.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I listened to you all day and you all say the same thing.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: if further costs are added to the farmers' operations, those farmers will go belly up. The economy of the country will not benefit in the long run.
I will leave the subject there. Perhaps at some other point in the debate I will have an opportunity to carry on and make some other very well founded, very sensible points and, hopefully, try to pound some sense into the heads of the Government Members opposite.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to participate in the debate tonight and to respond to some of the comments made by my colleagues to my right, the Progressive Conservatives, and then of course 1 will also have some time for the Government as well with regard to this issue.
First, I would like to answer some of the immature ravings of various Conservative backbenchers about the way in which the New Democratic Party is somehow responsible for the defeat of the Conservative Government in 1979. I have said before that I think it is about time the Conservative Party put that issue behind them and realized once and for all that it was they who lost the election of February 1980 for themselves and not the NDP. 1 thought they had done this at their convention a couple of weeks ago.
Indeed, we moved the traditional motion of non-confidence as we were expected to move after the budget in December, 1979. We would have been criticized had we not moved such a motion. As we all know, the Government fell. That did not mean that the Progressive Conservative Party had to proceed to lose the election. Other Governments have been defeated in the House and have gone on to win subsequent elections. I really believe that it is a matter of growing up and taking responsibility for your own political destiny. The Conservatives should finally come to the conclusion that perhaps they did something wrong. In fact, I think they did come to that conclusion except that they heaped all of the blame on one man, their leader.
If there was something intrinsically wrong with the defeat of the Clark Government, they have added insult to injury by themselves getting rid of the very political person about whom they are so self righteous when talking about the NDP role. I just wanted to put that on the record. I am responding to what has already been said in the debate and in that sense I believe I am staying within the bounds of relevancy.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Every once in a while there are matters debated in this House on which Members who oppose a particular Government proposal have occasion to make predictions about the consequences of the particular legislation. Since those consequences can only happen in the future, they are always in the position of being unable to prove that what they say is the case. Therefore, it is a matter of trust and making a judgment about what the consequences of a particular piece of legislation will be. For our part in the House, we have made that judgment about what will happen to western Canada when the Crow rate is tampered with.
We share the judgment of former Chief Justice Hall that the minute one begins to tamper with the Crow rate an entire way of life in western Canada is being placed in jeopardy. That is what we are protesting in our debates. We cannot prove that this will happen, just like we could not prove in 1966 that the arguments for freeing up the interest rate would lead to higher and higher interest rates and mortgage payments. We could not prove the argument at that time that greater competition leading to even lower interest rates was wrong. However it did turn out to be wrong.
When we argued against the pre-build of the southern portion of the pipeline in 1980 and that the other portion of the pipeline would never be built, we could not prove that. But three years later that pipeline is yet to be built and that pipeline in all likelihood will never be built. Those who believed the Government then, that is the Conservative Party, and those who believed the Government in 1966, that is the Conservative Party, have been proven wrong on both of those issues.
We could not prove in 1977 that proceeding to block funding for medicare would mean the gradual erosion of medicare in Canada, yet it has. We could not prove it at that time. Again, the Liberals and Conservatives stood together.
We admit that we are at somewhat of a disadvantage. And even though we might lose this one we will not be comforted by the consolation of being able to say 10 or 15 years from now that we told you so and we were right all along; that first it was the Crow rate and then the Canadian Wheat Board, and on until we saw the eventual destruction of the economic structures that were built up over the years in western Canada to give western Canadians more control over their own economic life. That is what we are debating here tonight.
What is wrong with the Progressive Conservative position? We are glad to have them on the side opposing this Bill, although weakly and in a somewhat token manner. One day they help and the next day they decline. They are unable to make a decision. It is clear that the Conservatives would very much like to have this legislation passed so that this issue will be out of the way before the next election. As the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) so clearly pointed out, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." The same fellow who pays the Liberal Party is the one who pays the Progressive Conservative Party to the tune of approximately $200,000 each. They know that they will have to follow the same orders from the CPR. They want the Liberals to follow

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
those orders so that they can travel throughout western Canada talking out of both sides of their mouths; they are not for the Crow rate, they would tamper with the Crow rate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. On occasion Elon. Members interrupt on what they refer to as a point of order and it becomes evident later that it is not a valid point of order. 1 do not want to predispose any views but I hope Hon. Members will try to raise only those points which they firmly believe are valid points of order. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the relevancy of the comments. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) would say why his Party wants $650 million to go to the railways.


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


Blaine Allen Thacker: Why the railways rather than the people?


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


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that of the Conservative Party of Canada have made it clear that they would tamper with the Crow rate. The only difference between them and the Liberals is that they would tamper with it somewhat differently. The details of this Bill would be different under a Progressive Conservative administration but the principle would remain the same. That principle would be capitulation to the blackmail that the railways of Canada have been practising on the economy and people of Canada for some time now, in spite of all the subsidies for rail line improvement and in spite of all the hopper cars that have been given to them.
If the Progressive Conservative Party was in Government it would make the same moves. Only the details would be different. That is why we see Hon. Members weaving in and out of the debate and in and out of opposition to the Bill we see before us. They are torn between opposing the legislation and what they know they would do themselves.
That is why I was even more astounded at the hypocrisy of the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) who said that we were somehow responsible for the VIA Rail cut-backs. Who has done more over the years to bring discredit to the idea of Crown corporations? Who has most often declared that anything which does not make money can be sacrificed on the alter of profit motive? The Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is the Party that has heaped criticism for years on VIA Rail and passenger rail service in the country. They are the Party who created the political context through which it was possible for the Liberals, finally taking Progressive Conservative advice, to implement the VIA Rail cut-backs. Yet the Conservatives have the nerve to say that we are somehow responsible for those cut-backs. It becomes hard to swallow after a while.
The Liberal Government has the opportunity to show for the first time since I have been here that it has the ability to listen to Members of the Opposition and the opportunity to learn
from the energy that we are putting into this debate and our commitment to stop this Bill. A government which does not have any Members in the west should take a second look at what it is proposing to do to western Canada. The Government should rethink this whole Bill through and should drop the whole idea. The Crow rate has to be maintained. The Government can upgrade the railways in a half a dozen different ways and it would have our support in making an attempt to do so. But the Government does not have to change the Crow rate and do this on the backs of Canadian grain producers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, one cannot help wonder, after listening to the unimaginative, unconstructive, irrelevant remarks presented to this House and to this nation first by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), then by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), and lastly we heard the babblings of the little birds in the birds' nest from Birds Hill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: This Government has handled the problems of transportation in this nation irresponsibly. I challenge those people on our left to address the transportation problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) is rising on a point of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a legitimate point of order. When I was a kid my mother used to say "Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me." Nevertheless, I wish that Hon. Members would stop abusing the name of the riding which I represent by referring to it in the half dozen ways they have a habit of doing. The name of the riding is Winnipeg-Birds Hill. That is what I prefer it to be called out of respect for my constituents, if not out of respect for me, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The point is well taken.
The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I have no concern. I have the greatest admiration for the people of Winnipeg-Birds Hill. They made an error in judgment, as did a number of constituents in many ridings in Canada. I am quite confident after that speech is circulated in the Hon. Member's area that they will certainly not be repetitive in their erroneous judgment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: I want to address transportation problems in Canada. If the mainspring in those people who want to interfere with the discussion on transportation would ever unwind,
June 21, 1983

we would be able to get down to the subject matter with which we are concerned tonight.
Since I arrived in this House in 1972-and long before that-the national problem of transportation has been presented to the Government on your right, Sir, which has been the same government for too long. That problem abounds from coast to coast in Canada. It has deteriorated to the point that one sees wheels that go with boxcars and other cars on the railroad transported from Atlantic Canada to some other assembly point or repair point by trucks. They have travelled through your constituency, Mr. Speaker, and they have travelled through mine by the thousands of truckloads. What is wrong with the national transportation policy when the railroad does not even transport its own wheels? That problem has not been addressed nationally. It is high time that it were.
From the earliest days that I participated in the Standing Committee on Transport we were told repeatedly-not by CP representatives, the pet peeve of those on my left, but by the executive of the Canadian National Railway, one of the stars of the Crown corporations of this land-that unless something were done to assist the railroads with their transportation problems, we, the CN, could not bear up under the losses. That estimated loss was passed on to some members of this committee. It reached $140 million a year for the CNR. But that executive never dared, apparently, to put figures in the report of the transportation committee or in the CN's own report of its losses in dollars and cents.
Let us forget for a moment whether this may or may not be of benefit to the CPR. Let us bear in mind that we have a Crown corporation which serves this nation that needs assistance through this Bill. This had to be addressed either by direct subsidization or by some kind of adjustment to the Crow rate.
We seem to be able to support Crown corporations. I have not heard any of those Members from the NDP suggesting that $1.2 billion is too much for Canadair to lose, yet we are not talking in those kind of figures in this Bill. I have not yet heard the NDP Members complain about the subsidy for that transportation company named Maislin in the form of the free interest rate it got. Nor have I heard Members of the NDP complain that there may be a new investment development corporation and a Crown corporation to take over the Crown deadbeats.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Hon. Member does not intend to mislead the House, but he will recall that we were the first to bring attention to the recent Canadair troubles. We did it before the Tories brought it up in this particular instance. We also brought the Maislin-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. That is debate. The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Fred Alward McCain: The burblings from the birds' nest, Mr. Speaker.
There are things which have to be addressed. We have not addressed the inequities that have developed in the freight costs for the feed industry in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec; nor has the NDP. Never has this been mentioned. The Government has not addressed the problem of transportation from Atlantic Canada. I heard not a murmur from the NDP when the express service, so vital to the transportation of fresh fish, was cancelled and the line abandoned in Atlantic Canada. Let us talk transportation and let us quit the burblings.
We had a succession of studies done on behalf of transportation, particularly in western Canada, first the subject was brought forward by the western premiers. Those four premiers for in concert once in their lives agreed that some consideration should be given to the transportation problem in the west. Then there was a study done in 1973 or 1974 by the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. Again, that problem was addressed. There was no NDP support for any consideration of the problem at that time. Later we had the Hall Report. Some recommendations were made, particularly with respect to rail line abandonment. That was never thoroughly addressed by a government. In addition to that we had the Snavely Report which outlined unequivocally the losses of the railroads, including the CNR. It made it obvious that there was no way transportation could continue to exist with losses of that nature. That loss estimate did not come from the Conservative Party. It did not come from the NDP and it has been ignored to date by the Liberal Party.
When it was finally recognized that something had to be done we were presented with an omnibus bill which refuses to allow the subject to be addressed item by item as it should be. The evils of the omnibus bill are with us, and that is one of the reasons this Bill has not made the progress in this House that it otherwise would have made.
As I did when I last spoke on this Bill, I again want to point out that there have been suggestions for amendments to this Bill emanating from this side of the House. Had there been an element of favourable acceptance of the proposals for amendment, we would not find ourselves in a position where by one means or another the Government had to impose closure on our debate.
This Government has just not recognized all the problems that exist. The Government has failed to address the decline in the efficiency and the productivity of the rail system in the last 25 years. I have said repeatedly, as it applies to rail service, there is no service in Canada for which we have continuously paid more in excess of the rate of inflation and received less in the line of proper service than from the railroads of this country. Even the Post Office is lily pure compared to the railroads, as far as I from Atlantic Canada am concerned, Mr. Speaker. These problems have not been addressed by Government, yet they have come to attention through the discontent of the public using transportation services. They have not been addressed.

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
1 am sorry to say that I asked the Canadian Transport Commission to supply me with some estimates. Mr. Speaker, if you are about to cut me off, might I ask for unanimous consent to continue very briefly?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fred Alward McCain: I asked the CTC to supply me with estimates of the cost of the transportation of goods on flat cars. They are the simplest and cheapest kind of vehicle moved on the railroads. I asked what would be the costs on a tonne-mile basis to move a flat car containing 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 or 100 tonne loads. I was promised personally by the Chairman that I would get the Commission's estimate of these costs. That was about five years ago, and I do not have those estimates to this date. I also addressed the fact that the railroads were having difficulty dispatching their cars. Why could they do it better 25 years ago with a pencil, a pad and a telegraph key than they now can with computers? That has not been addressed.
I expected that the Government would address the multimodal problem, and asked whether it could in fact introduce efficiency into the transportation system. We watched in the City of Saint John while the bus company built its terminal downtown, and VIA Rail built its station about three miles away in the outskirts of the city. This could not work on a multimodal basis; but it was going to work for VIA Rail. That was the procedure; Government assistance to build a bus terminal in downtown Saint John and all Government money to build a VIA Rail station some three or four miles away in the outskirts of city. That is the way the Government has addressed transportation problems.
I have watched, as a Member of the House, as the Government said that the MFRA was the greatest thing since sliced bread for Atlantic Canada, but it has cut down its effectiveness. I watched while the Government introduced an intrasubsidy into the transportation structure of Atlantic Canada to assist transportation, industry, agriculture and farmers and fishermen, and that has been withdrawn. The Provinces were told under pressure, "We will give you X number of bucks to do some infrastructure but we will cut your subsidies anyway". That is the way it was addressed.
I challenge Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party to recognize that there are in fact transportation problems in Canada, that the Crow rate is in fact one of them, and that the area of Atlantic Canada which did not send a single NDP Member to this place would like to hear them attack the Government and be protagonists for transportation in Atlantic Canada. That is what we from Atlantic Canada would like to see from the NDP. There has not been a relative word uttered by the last three speakers from the NDP, not a relative word.
We must recognize that the country needs some adjustment to the total transportation package. We can look at greater efficiency of the movement of products in this nation. We need unit trains in some parts of the West to move coal and move grain. Why do we not look at that bay up there in the North of Canada? Why do we not estimate how much we could save if we spent a little money developing that? Why do we not address the problem and get this Bill into a form of which the Minister will say-


David P. Smith: That is right.


Fred Alward McCain: Just wait until I have finished; do not interrupt. If you develop your manners, you might be wiser and not get caught out on a limb. Why do we not address the problem?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This side of the House had the manners to extend the time of the Hon. Member by giving him unanimous consent to continue.


Fred Alward McCain: So you could be rude?


David P. Smith: I do not think we deserve a cheap shot like that. If he repeats it, it will be the last time he gets such an extension.


Some Hon. Members:: That is not a point of order.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend a good night's sleep for that gentleman in order to remove a little of the edge of his temper.
Let us address the transportation problem. Yes, unit trains have a place, but are they the only vehicle by which we should transport grain? Tank cars have a place. Is there not also a place for a multi-use car which might bring something back from the ports of Atlantic Canada or from the ports of the Pacific?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Or a pipeline.


Fred Alward McCain: Or even a pipeline. Why do we not adopt a reasonable position in which the Minister will acknowledge and allow reasonable amendments to the Bill? He could state what those reasonable amendments would be such that we would know the ground on which we walk. Then we would know where we were at. If he knows that amendments should be made, let us at least get the principle of them. Will there be an opportunity for freedom of choice in the West or not? Let us address Canada's transportation problems as we are addressing this single problem.
I thank Hon. Members in the House, including the Hon. Member who raised the point of order, for providing me with an opportunity to conclude my remarks.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order. Might I be permitted to ask the Minister a very short question?


An Hon. Member:: No.


Ian Deans: No?


Yvon Pinard: A long question.
June 21, 1983


Ian Deans: That is fine. It has been brought to my attention-


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Go ahead, ask
him.


Ian Deans: May I be permitted to ask the Minister a question at this point?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Sure.


Ian Deans: Am I correct in my understanding of a statement made by the Minister today that it is his intention to impose the changes to the Crow rate immediately upon it receiving Royal Assent and that there will in fact be in Canada during this crop year a two-price freight rate, with some paying less than others?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the question is fair. What I said to the press, if that is the reference that is being made, was that everything depends on the date the legislation is passed. If it is passed before August 1, being the beginning of the next crop year, it would be implemented. If it is passed after, obviously it will not be implemented or applicable as of August 1. I said to the press that there would have to be adjustment if the legislation is not passed before August 1; we would have to adjust to new circumstances.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, we have reached a stage in this debate where, with respect to the rulings applied yesterday and the confused state of the House, one wonders whether or not one is in cloud-cuckoo-land. As I recall it, yesterday there was a question in hiatus or deferred by the Chair with regard to a proposal put by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Then we had an attempt by the Hon. Member to whom is attributable the present motion that the previous question be now put. I distinctly heard the Chair at the time say that such a motion was not receivable, but somehow, although that Hon. Member has not spoken, that question has been received and has fallen into place. This was like an aircraft approaching a major terminal that had been in a staging area. The main question had to be settled, but the proposal was not receivable. Therefore in my respectful opinion it did not exist; it could not be received. Suddenly it finds itself on the table before the House. Here we are debating it. With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, how can a motion which was not receivable at the time suddenly find itself now the principal motion before this House?


David P. Smith: It was an order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It was not an order. With the greatest respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), that motion was declared by the Chair as not receivable and could not be put. With the greatest of respect, there is no sense in the procedures of the Chair trying to live in cloud-cuckoo-land. This situation must stop. We have been driven into this. There is no way that a motion, not in a
Western Grain Transportation Act
position to be received, could be made at that time. There was no way that the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) who proposed the motion could have it brought forward again. One could try that scenario in different situations. You can see the crazy pattern this House would be in. A motion to be received must be made at the right time and under the appropriate circumstances. It is almost as though if I were to suddenly now make a motion, and I know that I cannot make a motion to amend the main motion-


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just make sure it is a point of order and not debate. I do not want debate.


David P. Smith: I would refer Your Honour to page 26538 of Hansard for yesterday where the Speaker is reported as having said:
The motion has been properly proposed by the Hon. Member for Rosemont. It is in order.
The Speaker ruled that the motion was in order. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is now reflecting on a decision of the Chair. He cannot do that. The Speaker has said the motion is in order. We are not to be subjected to analysis of her decision by the Hon. Member. He may not reflect on a decision of the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there is again the question of whether the Hon. Member can rise and debate if he wishes-


David P. Smith: It was a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a stupid idea, that any time one disagrees with a Member who has the floor, one may rise on a point of order. It is the usual trick under the guise of a point of order. Whether I reflect upon a ruling of the Chair is not a point of order for the Hon. Member to raise. It is a question of debate. Usually when people from that side rise on a point of order, they do so spuriously. This has to be stopped. This is one of the reasons I am speaking tonight. I want to make sure that Hon. Members such as the Parliamentary Secretary get the idea through their heads once and for all what is a point of order and what is a point of debate. Unless there is a valid point of order Hon. Members must, regardless of the Member who has the floor, allow that Hon. Member to continue to speak and not interrupt. Having said that, there is nothing that says, while I must accept the ruling of the Chair, that I have to agree with it.


David P. Smith: You cannot reflect on it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can do that. 1 do not have to agree with the ruling of the Chair. After all, there is such a thing as the ultimate. Just to prove the Parliamentary Secretary wrong on his point, that I cannot reflect upon it, let me point out that it is certainly open to me or to any Member of the House, after a ruling by an occupant of the Chair, whoever that person may be, to put down a motion of censure. That is the ultimate reflection. Therefore, there is in reply to

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
the statement that one cannot comment upon a ruling of the Chair the question, what is a motion of censure but a total rejection of the ruling?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am not sure what is going on in the House at the present time. The Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to contribute to the debate on what is generally referred to in this House as the previous question, that the question now be put. It seems to the Chair that the Hon. Member is now debating something which took place a day earlier. First, it is a little late to raise a matter at this stage of the debate. Second, if the Chair is to apply the rule of relevance, as it is charged to do under normal rules of debate, I would invite the Hon. Member to be relevant to the matter now at hand.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Just give me a chance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: With all respect, I will certainly give the Hon. Member for Edmonton West a chance to make his point, but surely it has to be related to the matter now before the House. If the Hon. Member is disputing the conduct of the Chair yesterday, that is an entirely different matter. I would caution the Hon. Member because he is treading, to put it mildly, on dangerous ground. The Chair recognizes that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West is an experienced Member of the House, and I say that with all respect. I will listen to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to you, and I underline "greatest respect", in its true legal sense which you understand I am relevant. The motion before the House is that the previous question be now put. With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, I have heard speeches today that have roamed from the subject of transportation to breakfast at high noon. The debate was not on the motion that the previous question be now put. Hon. Members were discussing the general subject of transportation. Now I am questioning the precise value of this motion as to whether the previous question should now be put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but if that is presently the thrust of his argument, that is quite in order. I have no dispute with the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), but I was led to believe that he was going in an entirely different direction and possibly questioning the conduct of the Chair yesterday. However, the Hon. Member should continue his remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Again, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have called into question the very being of this motion? Surely to goodness I can call into question the propriety of that motion, just as Hon. Members in the past have questioned in this debate and others the acceptance of a motion when a six months hoist is proposed. We have heard those things ridiculed from the Government side, if Government Members gave attention to the motion, and some did. But that is the purpose of the motion that is before the House. I have questioned the
validity of the motion and its origins. I have questioned how it came to be before the House when, in my book, it was not possible for the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) to put the motion.
The Speaker has made a ruling. I must accept that ruling, although I do not have to agree with it. This is not withstanding the remarks of the Parliament Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) who is, with the greatest of respect to him, a relative juvenile parliamentarian.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. The Chair has allowed him extra time because of the interventions, but his time has now expired.


Some Hon. Members:: More, more. Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I notice that there is an Hon. Member in the House who is without his jacket and in shirt sleeves. I thought that I should perhaps point that out.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you did not confuse me with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). 1 am happy to be afforded this opportunity to speak against the motion to put the previous question, because 1 believe that limitation of debate on Bill C-155 at this time would not serve the purposes of the Canadian public well.
The changes to the Crow rate that the Government proposes will affect most adversely the fortune of Canadian grain farmers. This afternoon when the House Leader for the NDP asked the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) some questions, it became very obvious that the Government's intention is to push this legislation through as quickly as possible so that farmers who are busy now and will be again in the early fall will not have any opportunity at all to appear before a committee to make their views known.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we must deal with the wider implications of this legislation. For example, in a book called "To Kill the Crow" by John Gallagher, the author includes some quotations from earlier Cabinet memoranda that illustrate that what is happening today is simply the thin edge of the wedge. Mr. Gallagher quotes from a 1981 memorandum as follows:
A key question to be decided by Cabinet will be how far to go in seeking a remedy for these problems, particularly during the initial period of a modernized Crow regime.
The Minister of Transport will be proposing that, because of the sensitivity of the Crow issue in Western Canada, the initial steps should be fairly limited and cautious. At the same time, the new framework that would be created should be designed to permit continued evolution over a period of years in response to changing circumstances.
This continued evolution that is spoken of, Mr. Speaker, is not something that western Canadian farmers look forward to with any joy.
Again, from a 1981 Cabinet document, Mr. Gallagher quotes:
June 21, 1983

The arrangements put in place as a result of the negotiations should be made subject to review after a specified period-perhaps four years. At this point, it should be possible to make changes that would accelerate agricultural diversification and other desired results, on the basis of experience gained with the initial set of measures-
Again it becomes very obvious that what we are dealing with in this legislation is the thin edge of the wedge. I think it is of absolute importance that we continue the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) rises on a point of order.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, there are proper times and occasions for the Whips to march up the middle of the aisle of the House of Commons. Right now is not one of those times.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 would appreciate it if there could be a little more order in the House.
Let me continue on whether the question should now be put.
I think it is absolutely essential that debate on the basic Bill should continue because the people of Canada are just now becoming aware of some of the issues that are involved. For example, some 25 million acres were given to the CPR for the building of the transcontinental railway and for the continued operation of that railway. Many of those lands happened to be Indian lands.
Right now we are facing a situation in which Indian people across the country are having a great deal of difficulty getting some recognition of their rights to some of their own lands. Yet in the 1881 Statute that set up the CPR, the CPR was allowed to march in and have those lands alienated with no respect whatsoever for the aboriginal title. It would be nice if the Indian people who are now seeking some kind of land entitlement could have the same consideration shown to them by the federal Government as was shown to the CPR when the CPR was given its chance to select lands.
The effect Bill C-155 would have on British Columbia is just becoming known. When the changes were first announced, there was fairly widespread recognition of the benefits that would flow to British Columbia from improved rail facilities. As a result of this recognition, Mr. Speaker, spokesmen for the major forestry companies and for the Government of British Columbia indicated their support for the changes because the changes would lead to the upgrading of the railway. But there are a couple of things that must also be taken into account. The first of these is the fact that the higher freight rates that would be charged for hauling grain to Pacific coast ports would make the diversion of some of this grain to United States ports in the Gulf of Mexico very attractive. This would have an adverse effect on the Port of Vancouver. That is one reason why I think the people of British Columbia must think twice before they hastily endorse Bill C-155.
Bill C-155, Mr. Speaker, leaves the 50,000 acres of the Dominion coal lands in the hands of the federal Government and, as you know, these lands were turned over to the federal
Western Grain Transportation Act
Government at the time of the original Crowsnest Pass agreement. Now when this agreement is being abrogated, I believe it is only just that these lands, which represent some of the finest coal lands left in British Columbia, should be returned to the people of British Columbia rather than be left to the mercy of an Order in Council from the Cabinet.
As we consider the need to continue this debate, I believe it is important to perhaps pay tribute to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who, more than anyone else, has helped keep this issue alive, not only here in this House of Commons, but also right across Canada. By his campaigning for the cause of the prairie farmers and for the cause of the small communities across the Prairies he has done a great service to people all across Canada. We of this Party believe that an injury to one part of the nation is an injury to the entire nation. We will not see harm done to the fabric of prairie communities, because those communities will not be destroyed without that having an adverse effect on the total fabric of the nation.
I believe it is important, then, Mr. Speaker, that we have a chance to postpone any final vote on this legislation until the farmers have had an opportunity to appear and voice their views. I urge the Government again, in the words of our House Leader, to split this Bill. I would like to read a letter written by that Hon. Member on May 19 which indicates our basic position, and I quote:
Dear Mr. Minister:
It is the opinion of the New Democratic Party that Bill C-155 is an unacceptable omnibus Bill that must not proceed in its current form. At second reading, Members of Parliament are required to vote on the principle of the legislation. With only a single vote. Bill C-155 would require Members to pass judgement on three distinct and vital issues. Attempts to speed legislation through the House in this form have not proven successful in the past and they result in unnecessary confrontations in the Chamber.
We propose this basic division of Bill C-155
1.	Upgrading rail transportation
2.	Releasing coal lands
3.	Grain freight rates
It is not possible to deal sensibly with legislation that interlinks these complex issues. Our initiative prompting a vote at the first reading stage of Bill C-155 indicated our dismay at the Minister of Transport's comments outside the House which foretold the intention of the Government to proceed with an omnibus Bill.
Our House Leader concluded by saying:
I am available to meet and discuss this with yourself and the House Leader for the Official Opposition and await your convening such a meeting.
The Hon. Members of our Party, Mr. Speaker, would still appreciate this kind of consideration from the Government. This Bill should be split. It deals with three separate principles. We should not be asked to deal with all of them at the present time. I feel there is a need for continued debate on Bill C-155. Our Party does not want to vote on it now. I therefore urge Hon. Members not to accept the motion that the question be now put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it is with no great pleasure that I rise tonight to speak at the end of the debate on Bill C-155.
This Bill does three things. It does away with the historic Crow rate, which is a right that has existed for Canadian farmers since 1897, a right which existed to attract people into parts of this country which were far from cheap ocean transport, without a great deal going for them in terms of climate.
As well this Bill has some proposals to improve the transportation system of this country, which I do not believe anyone is arguing about. There were some arguments put forward by some Hon, Members of my Party to point out better ways of spending the same amount of money; ways which would retain more control of the CPR and CNR and work toward the good of the people of Canada, ways which would get more "bang for the bucks", so to speak.
The third part of the Bill which is before us deals with the Dominion coal lands, a block of coal which has a current value of some $480 billion.
As the agricultural spokesperson for my Party, I considered at this stage of the debate of doing a thorough analysis-and I have the notes here-of what this kind of proposal does to farmers in western Canada, eastern Canada and in central Canada. It forces grain producers to give up some privileges to livestock producers in the way that it shifts production of livestock from one corner of the country to another in a vain attempt to give the impression that there is some economic development going on because of this policy. However, I have decided to use what time remains to me, Mr. Speaker, not to talk about what this policy does to the farmers of this country, but what it does to us all as Canadians.
Since this is the principal stage of debate where we should speak about principles I believe it is time to take a few moments to reflect on what the railway and transportation policy has attempted to do in this country. We have a kind of geography from which it is very nearly impossible to carve a country, Mr. Speaker. This was not a place where you would look at a map, understand the geography and decide that this is where a country should be. It makes absolutely no sense, geographically, economically or politically to have a country where we have this country of ours, Canada. It is held together because we are a stubborn race which insists on imposing East-West guidelines, East-West transportation and East-West communications, in spite of a more natural tendency for trade, communication and our social activities to go North-South.
What this proposal does is cut one of the fibres which holds this country together. It is a policy which was used to populate the West, the Prairies. It is a policy which we are now watching this Government abandon. It is an important move, Mr. Speaker, because it says to the people of Canada that a promise is no longer a promise and a deal is no longer a deal. It is killing the trust which has to exist if this country is going to continue as a country. It is taking away the one basic policy
which held western Canada together, which created an incentive for people to go and populate that area. What is happening is very similar to what would happen if some Government someday-God help us from such a Government-came along and said, "We have done all the economic studies. Bilingualism costs the country so many millions of dollars, so let us do away with bilingualism". The reasoning and logic is very similar here. The Government has brought in some economic thinkers who do not understand what makes the country tick, what holds it together, why it exists. It has looked at a very narrow item, has decided it is costly and therefore it should go. It has ignored what that does to the other minorities which exist in this country, not only Francophone minorities, but the Indian people who also had deals which were supposed to last into perpetuity, as long as the rivers shall flow and the grass shall grow. Here we are taking a proposition that was to last into perpetuity and the Government is saying, "We do not like it, we will break it and not pay any attention to that part of the country. We will give up on the East-West ties that bind this country together and introduce a policy the economics of which will force us to trade in a more North-South pattern". If this policy is implemented, transportation from western Canada will no longer have an economic reason to go through the St. Lawrence Seaway, it will go south to the Mississippi River system. It will take away jobs from the people of the central part of the country where they are now, and there is no way this country can survive such a policy.
This Bill should not pass second reading tonight. It needs more time. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That this House do now adjourn.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Madam Speaker:: The motion is defeated.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member resume his seat, please? It is past eleven o'clock and according to Standing Order 45 1 must now go to the motion to adjourn the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He voted and he was not entitled to do so.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, he was not entitled to vote.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I will hear the Hon. Member's point of order tomorrow. 1 cannot hear him tonight. The question, therefore, is that this House do now adjourn.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One of the Liberals voted improperly, and that is what I am talking about. He came in after.


An Hon. Member:: What is going on?


Madam Speaker:: It is eleven o'clock.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I cannot help that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: It is past eleven o'clock. I must now go to this motion.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: 1 can hear points of order tomorrow, I can hear points of order tomorrow. It is now eleven o'clock and 1 must go-


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I will hear them tomorrow. It is past eleven o'clock. 1 must now, according to Standing Order 45, go to the motion that this House do now adjourn, and hear the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Madam Speaker; a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I just told the Hon. Member that it is past eleven o'clock and I will hear his point of order tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, 1 did not recognize the Hon. Member. I have now told him that I cannot hear his point of order tonight; I will hear it tomorrow. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order.

June 21, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member must understand that my dilemma is not that I do not want to hear the Hon. Member's point of order. I do, but it is past eleven o'clock. In all fairness I have to go now-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: -to what the Standing Orders indicate that I should do, that this House do now adjourn. I must hear, in all fairness, for the time he has allocated to him, the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, time and time again you have heard points of order; time and time again you have heard points of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He has a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, time and time again you have heard points of order. Madam Speaker, I have two very straightforward points of order.


Some Hon. Members:: No way.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. It is past 11 o'clock. Points of order may be dealt with tomorrow. I refused to hear the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on a point of order. I cannot hear the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I have to be fair.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it pertains to the vote. There are two very simple points of debate; two very brief, calm, simple points to make. One pertains to the vote of a Member whom the Hon. Member for Regina West saw come into the House after the vote had started. I think he should be heard. The second point is, with great respect, that despite my excellent French, I did not hear the translation of the number of the vote on each side. I would like, Madam Speaker, to hear the numbers in both official languages, and I think the Hon. Member for Regina West should be heard with respect to the illegality of the vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Normally this ought to have been translated. Although the numbers were given to me by the Clerk only in French, the yeas 91 and the nays, 120, I did say in English that the motion was defeated. I will now hear the Hon. Member for Regina West on the supposed irregularity on the vote.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, if it was an 11 o'clock adjournment, then the result of the vote was announced after
11 o'clock. The Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ostiguy) literally crawled in on his hands and knees during the vote, and recorded his vote. I do not give a darn whether it is after 11 o'clock or not, it is an improperly recorded vote, purely and simply.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member need not make a speech about it. I did not see the Hon. Member.

Could the Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ostiguy) perhaps tell me whether he entered the House when the vote was already under way?


Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Yes,
Madam Speaker. When I entered the House, the vote had already started. The bus I took at the Confederation Building to come up to the House was a few minutes late. I would therefore ask the Chair to delete my name from the list of Members who participated in the vote.


Madam Speaker:: The vote of the Hon. Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is therefore struck from the list of Members who voted against the motion, and consequently, the number of nays is 119.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I have the peculiar responsibility now to address a [DOT] question that I posed some time ago. Because of events that took place earlier today at an in camera committee meeting, 1 rose in my place at five o'clock-I will wait, Madam Speaker, until Hon. Members have gone back to the barbeque to which Conservative Members were not invited-


An Hon. Member:: And the bar.


J. Michael Forrestall: And the bar which Conservative Members have been denied for some time now.
As I was saying, Madam Speaker, before it got rather noisy-


An Hon. Member:: You are always drunk.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 21, 1983


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I rise only to indicate to you that at five o'clock this afternoon I had indicated that because of the events of this morning at an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, during which Members of the Standing Committee on Transport were afforded a full and very frank explanation by Dr. LeClair, the President of Canadian National Railways, of the circumstances involving their negotiations with CAST for its takeover and assumption of business, for me to rise and engage in debate during this traditional period of time might in fact compromise or jeopardize the possibility of any further negotiations.
As a result of that and as a result of the very frank and full exchange we had, and while we are not entirely happy but are more than satisfied with the level of exchange-and I am sorry and apologize to you, Madam Speaker, that you were not advised of this earlier-at five o'clock this afternoon, I sought and received unanimous consent to withdraw my question. 1 simply advise you of that now, Madam Speaker, and that I tend to regret a comment that was made a moment ago.


FORESTRY-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMMITTEE'S TERMS OF REFERENCE. (B) REQUEST FOR EARLY REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, my rising this evening is pursuant to the question which I asked on June 15 of this year, and I wish to expand somewhat on my presentation of that evening.
Robert Keen, Director of Statistics in the Canadian Forestry Service, has said that of all the developed countries in the world Canada has the poorest forest inventory. Canada's forests are subject to a dangerous myth; the myth that our trees will go on forever no matter what we do.
Of the 800,000 hectares of timber the industry harvests each year, a mere one-quarter is artificially replanted or seeded. Given that another quarter or so of that will regenerate reasonably well on its own, the depressing conclusion is that only half of the cut forest each year has a prayer of returning one day. Adding to that the current rash of forest fires, insect invasion and the linking of air pollution, particularly acid rain, to the damage and death of our forests, the industry is in serious trouble.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) recently attended the Canada-U.S. Forestry Services meeting. This attests to the fact that acid rain is a growing contributing factor to the demise of our forests. The major contemporary problem with Canada's forests is a severely reduced supply of harvestable timber. The following quote places the problem in context:
The forests provide a renewable resource. Until the last decade, however, Canadians have often regarded forests as something to be exploited and have depended too heavily on natural regeneration rather than scientific management for optimal regeneration. We are now suffering the results of this attitude. Much of Canada's high-quality, old-growth forest has been harvested; much that remains accessible is overmature and defective. Fires, insects, disease and wind destroy two-thirds as much timber as is harvested annually. Local shortages of commercially suitable wood have developed in every province in recent years, and conflicts of interest over land use are increasing. One-eighth of Canada's
Adjournment Debate
productive forest area has deteriorated to the point where huge tracts lie devastated, unable to regenerate a merchantable crop within the next 60 to 80 years. Each year some 200,000 to 400,000 ha of valuable forest are being added to this shameful waste.
These are disturbing statements. We must come to the realization that the gradual deforestation of Canada will have serious effects on the economy if it is not reversed.
In my home Province of New Brunswick-and I am repeating this for the fourth time in this House-the forest industry is the largest. Some 30 per cent of New Brunswick's employment and 36 per cent of the Province's gross domestic product are forest related. Our Province's forest industry has been devastated by the spruce budworm. The spruce budworm is the most destructive forest insect pest in Canada; the annual wood loss cause by the budworm exceeds that from any other cause. In southern New Brunswick in the 1970s there was a loss of between six million and ten million cord of softwood. This approaches an eight to ten year supply of wood for the principal consumer and employer in that area.
Because of these factors I believe it is imperative that we keep our forest alive. To reduce or deny protection to the forest from the budworm would only have very adverse economic effects on the Province. The basic thrust of the forest protection plan in New Brunswick is to prevent the insect from harvesting the trees, and to permit man to do the harvesting.
The use of pesticides and herbicides is absolutely vital if we want to keep our industry going. These chemicals have been used in New Brunswick during the past 31 years with no proven cases of injurious health effects. Extensive studies are constantly being done to make sure that the safest chemicals coupled with the safest levels of application are used. While everyone associated with the forest industry would prefer not to use chemical insecticides to control the budworm, the consensus view of most experts at this time appears to be that there is no acceptable substitute presently available.
The provincial Department of Natural Resources, like myself, is anxious to see that this issue of forest management is pursued. The industry is using the facilities available to it now, but we need more research and genuine interest in this field. To let a $24 billion a year industry deteriorate slowly, while we watch, would certainly put this country in an economic situation from which it may not recover. We have a renewable resource in its forest products and spinoffs which has the potential of making Canada great again. I urge the Minister of the Environment to actively seek a program which will save this industry now; save it from an extinction that will inevitably come about if nothing is done.
The very broad base on which this industry must be studied has been pretty clearly outlined. We need to address the problem of insects, blight, disease, fire and the lack of reforestation. We must address a long-term policy, bearing in mind that those non-productive lands today may not be productive again for 50 years. And if we add to those lands a million acres

June 21, 1983
Adjournment Debate
a year, as we are presently doing, it is inevitable that somewhere down the road all of Canada will suffer from the economic suicide which we are committing.
It is, therefore, the responsibility of the Government of Canada to take the lead in a problem which is common to virtually every Province in Canada. To take this lead, Madam Speaker-the first step-1 urge the Minister again to please make a meaningful reference to the House of Commons committee on forestry so that it may study, hear evidence and reach conclusions as to what Canada can do to preserve and increase the potential which the forest industry has exhibited for so many years.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member inferred that the Minister had been lax in meeting the challenge presented by the forestry industry. That is absolutely false. In the debate held on May 30 in this House, the Minister was able to describe what this Government has done to resolve the most pressing problems in the forestry industry. And it has done a great deal. One example is the development of a forestry strategy for Canada, published in 1981. This situational analysis also provided short-and long-term approaches to meeting the national forestry challenge.
About a year later, in August 1982, the Minister signed a new federal-provincial agreement for the development of forestry resources in Nova Scotia. Under the agreement, the federal Government will be spending $27.8 million to develop private woodlands in the province. A few weeks later, the Minister became responsible for subsidiary agreements in the forestry industry, previously administered by DREE, and for the allocation of $70 million to a wide range of forestry projects, for the year 1982-83. He also undertook to negotiate similar agreements with the other Provinces. To that end, he published the first major plan of action for the implementation of the Canadian forestry strategy, namely the policy statement
entitled "Summary Plan for Forest Renewal". That document will serve as a background for the negotiation of agreements with the other Provinces. Such agreements will lead to a gradual increase in federal expenditures to the point where they are expected to reach in 1987 a minimum $130 million each year.
The Government has implemented a second plan of action with respect to its Canadian forestry strategy. What is involved here is a support program for the six forestry colleges and faculties in Canada. I am proud to repeat today that this Government has committed $15.5 million up to 1987 to help forestry faculties upgrade the level of education and research at the graduate and post-graduate levels.
I ought to mention a third action plan which has just been launched with respect to research and development. First of all, the Government and several provinces have signed forestry research coordination agreements which have already enabled us to identify and coordinate forestry research requirements and priorities. I am pleased as well to point out that, thanks to the Government's Special Recovery Program, the basic research infrastructure of the Canadian Forestry Service will be expanded earlier than expected. An investment of nearly $60 million has been earmarked for expanding research laboratories in Victoria, Sault Ste. Marie and Quebec City, and for building new research facilities in Fredericton.
Madam Speaker, I conclude by saying that the Minister of Environment (Mr. Roberts) has certainly not wasted any time to meet the forestry challenge, and that the Government has established a solid basis for the major action programs which are needed.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.
At 11.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 22, 1983