1983-10-13

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 11, 1983 consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 34 (Mr. Benjamin).
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak to Motion No. 34 today, a motion which, as Hon. Members know, provides for the elimination of Subclause (4) of Clause 17. This subclause in its present form provides that the Administrator:
-may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
I am pleased to speak to the amendment put forward by this Party, because unless the amendment is passed by this House, the economic, social and cultural effects will be devastating. I am speaking not only about farmers facing the spectre of widespread branch line abandonment, the Wheat Pools facing elevator abandonment and the heavy capital costs associated with the development of inland terminals, but also the effects we can expect on the social fabric of this country as a whole through the undermining of rural communities and the cooperative system.
[DOT]	(1110)
Thus, I would submit that Clause 17(4) is not "in the best interests of the grain producers". It is really the opening of a back door branch line abandonment policy, despite the Government's avowed commitment to the upgrading of branch lines. The move toward trucking an increased percentage of grain now served by rail through, in many cases, branch lines threatens the viability of small communities, many of which will be crippled by the closure of these lines. This is a phenomenon we have witnessed all too often in the past, as many of my colleagues have attested. As well, the resulting longer hauls and the increased expenditures for producers,
while leading to a reduction of costs to the railways, will result in a higher total system cost to the producers.
The proposal of the Government touches upon the whole system of gathering, marketing and transporting Canadian grain. First, the decision with respect to the use of trucks and the concomitant rail line abandonment is centralized in the hands of the Administrator. One must question to what degree the Administrator's decisions will be based on very narrowly defined economic criteria and the "fudged" facts put forth too often by the railroads, and not on full economic and social impact studies.
My colleagues have also identified the effect which the closing of branch lines will have on small businesses and rural communities. No less important than the economic impact is the social impact on the network of small and vibrant farming communities which are often held together by rail service and wheat co-operatives. These are a legacy of our past and an important part of our future Canadian mosaic, one we cannot destroy to help the railroads simply gain more money and provide less service.
As well, I wonder if the Administrator, in taking the decision to move to trucks, will consider the very important negative impact such a move will have on the consequent financial burden to municipalities and provincial governments. Of course, the burden of keeping our railways in good condition is a federal one. The burden of maintaining road services is a provincial or municipal one. Under the system proposed by the Government, in which the heavy, bulky agricultural products of concern to us here are moved by large trucks, the maintenance costs will be tremendous. Is the Government, then, proposing to keep up the roads which will be overused as a result of its policies? Of course not. The burden of paying for the trucking of grain products will be shifted to the taxpayers of the Provinces involved, increasing the tax burden on the producers. 1 would submit that this is not "in the best interests of the grain producers".
There is nothing contained in the Bill to redress this problem. Cost transfers, which are provided by this clause, do nothing to reduce the total system costs. This represents simply another form of cost transfers, not cost savings.
It is primarily for these reasons, and for many of the reasons which my colleagues have given throughout the course of debate on our motion, that I would urge all Members of the House to pass Motion No. 34.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to join with my colleagues this morning in supporting Motion No. 34, put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), because I believe

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act that in this motion we have come to terms with the very important social reality which could have great influence in the Province in which I live. Transportation has been the backbone of life in Saskatchewan since I was a child, and will continue to be so I am sure. The distances one must travel in Saskatchewan are unique. The pioneers who came to the country realized that unless there was an adequate transportation system put in place, they could not continue to exist there.
Today we are discussing a Bill dealing with the essence of that lifestyle which was built on the growing and transportation of grain. The motion we are advancing ensures that truckers will not be subsidized for carrying grain in areas where there is existing railroad transportation. To my mind that has a very reasonable ring to it. The transportation system in western Canada is what you might call the arteries of the economic life of western Canada. This motion is attempting to sustain that economic life system.
If a person has had an opportunity to visit Europe or other countries, he will find there are different ways to move things, naturally. The easiest way to move large-scale products like grain or ore is by water. Unfortunately, Saskatchewan does not have that system.


Mr. Malone:: Saskatchewan canal.


Robert Joseph Ogle: My colleague from Alberta suggests we build a Saskatchewan canal. I think that would only be an Alberta idea; we could not possibly do that in Saskatchewan. However, the most economic way of moving goods is by water through canals and rivers.
The second most economical way to move large quantities of goods is by rail; there is no question about that. If a person has had the opportunity to visit Europe, he will see that the Europeans have engineered their rivers and canals. Indeed, they have set up a network in almost the whole of Europe in which water is the major transportation mode. However, in parallel to that, double-railed all the time, they have the rail transportation system. Economically that is the simplest way to move heavy, bulky products like grain or ore, plus passengers or anything else which has to be moved in a particular direction at a particular time. They have a trucking system but that is at the bottom; it is not the lifeblood of the whole system. I think in North America there has always been a very strong automotive lobby which has pushed the production of automobiles and trucks out of proportion to their value in the long run. That lobby has forced many places to build road systems to carry that traffic.
However, Mr. Speaker, this motion simply says that we do not want a subsidy to be paid to truckers for trucking grain in areas where there is an existing rail line. We feel, and I think rightly believe, that will bring about the abandonment of particular rail lines. When that happens-and I can use many examples from Saskatchewan, when railroad lines are abandoned and track is pulled out-the lives of the people who live along that particular area are changed. They are changed in a
way which causes them to abandon their homes. It means the abandonment of schools and social structures that are part and parcel of the province from which I come.
Also, I would like clearly to mark out that the reason we are proposing the motion is that we are basically thinking of the farmer, the person who is at the bottom, for whom the whole structure has been set up. The farmer who is at the bottom will be the last one to be protected in the Bill. What we are requesting is that the farmer be the first one to be looked after in the Bill, because the trucking system will not be set up to help the farmer. As we know now, if the motion is not carried, most of the trucking firms that will get the work will be the big trucking companies, many times also operated by the railroad. Therefore, a subsidy would be going to those very routes that would be least interested in keeping the railroad in that particular place.
I call upon my colleagues in the House and all those who are concerned with the welfare of the western Canadian farmer in the rural areas of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba to consider seriously what we are proposing here, and to use the power of Parliament to carry the motion that we have proposed to ensure that the rail lines will not be abandoned because of something that is legislated in the House.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Motion No. 34, which would eliminate Subclause (4) of Clause 17. Subclause (4) allows the Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, to enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
It is the contention of our Party that such agreements would never be in the best interests of the grain producers and certainly would not be in the best interests of the many communities across the Prairies, because, in effect, Subclause (4) would facilitate branch line abandonment on the Prairies. This would have disastrous effects on a great many Prairie communities.
I think all Hon. Members in the House are aware that branch line abandonment is not a new phenomenon. It is something that the railways have been attempting for years, something at which they have been disastrously successful. Branch line abandonment is not a phenomenon that is limited to the Prairies. In the last two years, in my own riding on Vancouver Island, there have been attempts by both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to abandon branch lines to Lake Cowichan. In the submissions that I have made at different times to try to prevent such abandonment, I have pointed out the effects that this would have on our communities.
The increased movement of lumber by truck would mean that already crowded highways would be further crowded and the cost of highway building would be shifted directly on to the taxpayers of British Columbia. The Social Credit Government
October 13, 1983

of British Columbia has never done a tremendously good job of providing good highways for the people of Lake Cowichan anyhow.
There would be an increased use of energy. I am not sure about the shipment of grain, but for shipping lumber, approximately four times as much energy is required to ship lumber by truck as to ship by train. By putting more traffic, especially heavy truck traffic, on already crowded highways, we would be increasing the danger of accidents. 1 know the difficulty of trying to drive on some of those highways on Vancouver Island with some of those large, articulated trailer trucks, with both lumber and logs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is straying somewhat from the purpose of the amendment now before the House. The Bill, I remind him, deals basically with the transport of grain. He is now speaking of lumber on Vancouver Island. I would invite him to come back to the amendment.


James Douglas Manly: I am very pleased to come back to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, but I was trying to use the situation on Vancouver Island as an illustration of the fact that branch line abandonment all across Canada does have a disastrous effect upon communities. In fact, when we consider the social, environmental and the total economic costs, it really argues against abandonment. Clause 17(4) is basically a move to facilitate branch line abandonment. While it talks about being "in the best interests of the grain producers", it is in fact not.
In returning to the point, I would like to emphasize that, if anything, the situation is more critical for communities on the Prairies than it is even in my own riding. I suggest that it is clauses such as this which make people on the Prairies very suspicious about the intent of the entire Bill to change the basic Crow structure. They see this Bill as an attempt to destroy the infrastructure which has been built up over the years, including not only the branch lines but the local elevators that will be left unserviced by those branch lines as trucks are used to haul grain directly to the larger inland terminals. Branch line abandonment would be served by giving subsidies to trucking so that they would be able to syphon off increased volumes of grain hauling. The trucking firms which would get the subsidy would obtain more of this business and that, in turn, would result in lesser use of the branch lines, which would ultimately lead to the promotion of the argument by the railways that the branch lines themselves were not successful.
Therefore it is on that basis that we in our Party are very concerned that Motion No. 34 to withdraw Clause 17(4) be accepted and that the Government commit itself to maintain the infrastructure that is needed on the Canadian Prairies so that those communities, those farms and services, will continue.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate on our motion which I believe all Members of the House should support if they closely review
Western Grain Transportation Act the economics of our reasoning. Motion No. 34 specifically seeks to strike from the Bill Clause 17(4), which is a provision to facilitate branch line abandonment, the closing of country elevators and the development of a system of inland terminals through a diversion of a portion of funds available for transportation subsidies to trucking.
I understand that this measure evolved from the proposals put forward by the Tory Transport critic, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), in some ways supported by the Deputy Minister of Transport, to get back in the Bill a means of providing subsidies to the various trucking companies that would ordinarily be going to the railways.
I believe that most people who have followed the debate closely know that the general impact of the Crow changes on the Prairies will mean a loss of 30,000 or 40,000 of the smaller rural farms, particularly in northern and more rural areas. In some cases, these areas are not even served by branch lines but are basically being served presently by some form of trucking into the rural elevators, on to the branch lines and on into the central pools to the eventual destination of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Churchill or the Lakehead.
I believe all Members need to be reminded from time to time of what is happening in terms of the consolidation of certain trucking interests who are very clearly interested in seeing this kind of Crow Bill go through unchanged. Clearly, they would not want to see the NDP amendment accepted and would prefer to see the special deal that has been made between the Tories and the Liberals go through.
I believe it is worth reflecting on the announcement which was made in March of this year and was noted in a story by Albert Sigurdson in a story in The Globe and Mail. The headline was "Trucking: CN Now Runs the Nation's Biggest Trucking Network". All that delayed CN from getting that trucking network up to that point was obtaining the missing link operating licences it needed in Quebec . What CN is now operating in Canada is some 3,000 pieces of highway equipment. They claim this is the most efficient and effective marketing operation for trucking in the country.
There are three key areas we have to look at if we are going to pass this part of the Crow Bill unamended. I believe, and my colleagues from the Prairies also believe, that we need to have Clause 34 changed in the way that we have proposed to take away the possibility of trucking companies picking up the freight subsidies. In our estimation, three key things will occur if the trucking companies can dig in, whether it is CN, which is now the largest trucking network in the country, CP or any other operation. These three things are branch line abandonment, elevator abandonment and the massive development of inland terminals.
Let me deal first with branch line abandonment, something that has been occurring at a great rate for many years. Branch line abandonment would be compounded by allowing federal funds, particularly federal subsidies, to go to trucking companies, which in some cases may be more efficient. I am certainly

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
not arguing that we for some strange, unknown reason go to some less efficient mode of transportation. My colleague the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) made the point quite correctly. Anyone who has studied the costs per unit of moving heavy commodities, whether wood, grain, iron ore or coal, knows it is more cost efficient, almost regardless of what quality of highway is constructed, to move by rail instead of by road. You simply shift very extensive costs to municipalities and provinces if you move very heavy axle weights at certain times of the year either on gravel or on paved highways.
Branch line abandonment would be compounded, certainly in a lot of rural and northern areas of the Prairies, for a very simple and obvious reason. If the subsidy would make the trucking even marginally more competitive and the Administrator had the power or the authority to say "Okay, we are going to have trucking firms bringing all of the grain from the north Peace down into the main line areas," the smaller elevators would have to consolidate.
The ones who would lose in this operation, as most Members know, are the existing country elevator systems which are really the three prairie Wheat Pools. And getting the gravy on the other side will be the private grain trade. One does not have to go too far to find a political connection between the private grain trade and the two larger Parties in this House.


Arnold John Malone: The next thing you know, people will be making a profit.


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member from Alberta says the first thing you know is somebody will be making a profit. I have watched with some degree of pain what has been happening in my area as certain products have been shifted from rail on to the road. For a very short period of time it appears there is some kind of job creation going on, that the truckers are getting more jobs, that there are more trucks on the road and there are a few more service operations open. But you have to look at it in a more global context in terms of what happens when a branch line is abandoned. I think Mr. Justice Emmett Hall's Royal Commission's evidence on this made it quite clear. When the branch line closes and the country elevator goes, what happens? What is associated with the country elevator? There might be a butcher shop and a little grocery store, perhaps a gas station. If those go, then what happens? Kids have to be bussed farther to school because the small school in the community has moved. What you have is a complete reconsolidation.
A very dramatic facelift on the Canadian Prairies would occur if there are not changes made such as the one that we are making. It is all very good for the Liberals and the Tories to say, "Well, trucking is more competitive". I would be the first one to be calling for an amendment if all that we were talking about was making it more competitive. We have to look at the global and social costs of these kinds of massive changes. It is abundantly clear that if trucking corporations in certain areas-I am not saying in all areas-of the grain trade are to get this kind of subsidy, we will see branch line
abandonment; and immediately behind that, as demonstrated historically decade after decade already, we will see elevator abandonment and the pools will start to lose their own members from the existing elevator system. The trucks will be going right by into the centralized inland pool operations.
It will have a direct impact on the largest and one of the most efficient grain elevator systems ever constructed in the world, namely the one now being constructed in my constituency of Prince Rupert. Both of the main pools, the Alberta and Saskatchewan pools which are the key components of and key financial participants in that elevator system which will cost about $300 million, stand to lose if the Liberals and Tories continue with their existing position on this amendment. We stand to lose with Motion No. 34 by allowing the subsidies to go to the trucking operations, because the majority of the grain that is going to be moving through the Port of Prince Rupert comes from the northern and rural areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan, areas that are now served in some sense by branch lines and by rural pools. They will simply no longer operate in that way.
If we were more sensitive, we would be calling for a much broader and careful articulation and evaluation of what the impact of the over-all Crow legislation is going to be four or five years from now. The farmers are saying that they will lose 30,000 or 40,000 rural farms. If this amendment does not carry, we will lose X number of country pools, we will lose more branch lines and we will see increased costs shifted to municipalities to keep the roads open and provide the depth of pavement required for the axle weights needed for hauling grain by rubber.
The costs to Canadians generally of not being very careful with amendments such as this and including them in the Crow legislation go far beyond what a Liberal or a Tory Member might say. We might hear them say: "Well, all we are saying is that if it is more cost competitive to go by rubber, then go by rubber." That is true, Mr. Speaker, very true. What we need to do in this country is to become more efficient and more cost caring. But at the same time we have to take a look at the history of what has happened in the farming community by not being very careful about applying principles that are in the long-term interests of the farming community, which are in the long-term interests of the Port of Prince Rupert and to a balance of trade in this country which is $6 billion a year from grain. I think all Members of this House have a responsibility to look very carefully at this amendment and to support it.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter this debate, which is my first opportunity at this stage of the Bill. This Bill affects my riding and the people of the Peace country very much. It will have an impact that cannot be measured in terms of today but in terms of the future of our whole area.
First, I want to pay a compliment to the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and to various other Members of my Party who worked so hard all summer long on this particular piece of legislation. They put in hours and hours of
October 13, 1983

tedious work. Their work has been well done and the people in my area want me to pay them the most sincere compliment.
1 also wish to compliment the Chairman of the Committee. 1 have worked with him in the past and I know he is a very fair and capable individual. I know from the comments I have had from my colleagues who served on the Committee that they were very pleased with his chairmanship, and I just want to relay that message to him.
As far as I am concerned, this amendment we are dealing with today is probably one of the most significant amendments to this particular piece of legislation as it relates to the people of the Peace country. The reason is simple. We are in a unique situation in our part of the country. We have large pockets of farming population that simply do not have rail lines in the immediate area. The Canadian national average is something like 20 miles. For every farmer to move his grain from his fields, his farm, into the elevators, he has to transport it about 20 miles. In my area I have several people who have to transport their grain something like 120 miles, six times the national average. Obviously, this is six times the cost to those individual farmers who are already dealing with very high costs because of the region of the country in which they live.
I am shocked and stunned that the New Democratic Party can put forward an amendment such as this and have us believe that it is in the interests of producers. It is incredible because the very people hurt by this amendment are none other than the producers, in particular the producers of the Peace country. Clause 17(4), as it presently stands, reads:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
There are two parts of that clause which I really like. One is "in the best interests of the grain producers", and the second is the whole business of "the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport". I think this is significant, as a Member of Parliament representing that part of the country. It is the only means of transportation in much of my riding simply because we do not have rail lines. Now the NDP is saying that we should do away with trucking not allow it to exist in the system. The NDP is saying that we should not allow the Minister or the Administrator to make a payment to farmers who have to truck their grain 120 miles.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Why don't we just build a railway?


Albert Glen Cooper: I hear the Hon. Member. That is a wonderful solution, I really appreciate it. I wish he would sit down with the Minister and convince him of that. He knows as well as I that that is not a viable solution or possibility at this point. We would love it to happen. We are working toward it, but we know that in the short term we have to have some form of trucking subsidy for our farmers. This amendment will simply not allow it.
We have been fighting for the particular concerns of this area for a long time. My predecessor, Ged Baldwin, worked
Western Grain Transportation Act
for years to bring to the attention of the Government across the way the concerns of our farmers in terms of the difficulties they face in grain transportation. We worked hard to bring that to the Government's attention. When there was a change in administration in 1979, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) worked very hard for our region and was making some progress. In a very short period of time we would have seen an off-line elevator concept which would have met the needs of those people. Now, because of the NDP-Leberal coalition, that has been eliminated. The NDP wants to go even further and eliminate the possibility of those farmers ever receiving any kind of help with a very expensive proposition they virtually face every day of their farming lives.
The whole purpose of looking at the Bill was to look after the concerns and difficulties of producers. Of course, Members of the New Democratic Party have pretended to be the great champions of those people, but I would like to know who they are representing with this amendment. It sounds to me as if it is the people in Regina, central Edmonton or perhaps even Winnipeg. It is certainly not the farmers, especially those in the Peace country. Those farmers need recognition for the difficulties they face because of the uniqueness of that particular region of Canada.
The region to which I refer is one of much potential and opportunity. We have literally thousands of agricultural acres which are not in production. They could be and will be brought into production when it becomes feasible to develop the land and the costs of production become a viable option. The only way we could see that happening would be if we allowed some kind of recognition of the unique difficulties faced by these people.
This particular amendment is a totally regressive motion, a backward movement rather than a forward one. I speak in the strongest possible terms against it. The present wording in the Bill is important because it recognizes the unique needs of the people of the Peace country. I will vote against this motion with the greatest of pleasure.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter this debate and to talk a little sense after the words of the previous speaker. I support this NDP amendment.


An Hon. Member:: How many grain farmers do you have?


Lynn McDonald: It is true that I do not have a large number of farmers in my riding. There are certainly a large number of ex-farmers and a large number of garden plots. That is an important question. We have excellent fruit markets and vegetable markets. We are not high in agriculture, but I want to address the system.
Certainly the people in my riding are concerned about transportation policy, agricultural policy and about having an efficient system which works equitably for all concerned and is fair to producers. Many people in my riding are former farmers and producers. They are sympathetic, and I am certain they very much favour my speaking on behalf of the

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
farming producers of the country. All my constituents like to eat and want to continue to do so. Agriculture affects everyone in the country. I should have thought that was perfectly obvious.
The purpose of this amendment is to delete Clause 17(4), which reads:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
We have heard a little nonsense and we have certainly seen crocodile tears about poor truckers and about more subsidies to truckers. I would like to give an example of what is happening in the trucking industry. This example suggests that it is not the poor little truckers about whom we have to be concerned but about who is behind all this. We have trucking companies now being taken over by CP in anticipation of the House not passing this amendment, going along with the Government's plans and making the trucking industry more profitable.
I would like to refer to an article which appeared in The Leader-Post of Regina, Saskatchewan, on September 22, 1983. It reads:
CP trucks announced this week it has purchased four Saskatchewan trucking firms, including one in Regina, which have been merged to form a new company.
The new company consist of personnel, facilities and equipment of Kissner Transport Ltd. of Regina, Lay's Transport Ltd. of Meadow Lake, North Central Expressways Ltd. of Saskatoon-


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Clause 17(4) does not deals not deal with the trucking industry. It deals with providing a mechanism by which producers can choose to ship by truck and receive the Crow benefit.


Mr. Benjamin:: It has to do with the trucking industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the Hon. Member for reminding the Chair of its duties. The Chair was listening attentively to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). My contention was that she was leading into the subject matter of the amendment before the House.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly what I was doing.


Mr. Evans:: Nonsense.


Lynn McDonald: If the Hon. Member will let me continue the quotation, I think he will see that it is relevant. I want to deal with this as a system. One aspect of the policy is that it has long-term implications. It affects the trucking industry, rail, the size of communities, rural communities and families across the Prairies. There are many implications. I want to deal with as many as I can in the ten minutes available to me.
I would like to suggest how they are all connected. The neck bone is connected to the shoulder bone, etc.


Mr. Cullen:: That is a great song but not much of a speech.


Lynn McDonald: We live in a system. What one part does affects the other. There are four companies which have been bought out in anticipation of changes in the Crow legislation. The new company will operate as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CP Trucks, according to the news release. I think that is extremely important. Who would deny the relevance of CP to every discussion we have had on the Crow so far? The article continued:
The agreement, which is conditional on the approval of provincial and federal regulatory agencies-
That is the agreement we are talking about now.
-is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.
Kissner, who will be general manager of the new company, said the companies will operate much the same as before except under CP Trucks ownership. "Were owned by CP, but we're running it as a separate company totally."
The four firms had revenues totalling $10 million last year and covered almost the entire Province.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member but I am beginning to wonder if the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) did not have reason in the first place. I have been patient with the Hon. Member and, as usual, have given the benefit of the doubt to Hon. Members who are addressing the amendment.
I should remind the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members that we are dealing with the duties of the Administrator and not the corporate structures of companies. There may be a faint or distant relationship to the subject matter now at hand, but again, as I have mentioned on previous occasions, the Standing Orders, traditions and procedures require that at report stage in the House of Commons we address our remarks specifically to the amendment at hand. This is not an opportunity like the one Hon. Members have on second or third reading stages to wander in many directions, as provided for in the rules. I would invite the Hon. Member to attempt to relate more specifically to the amendment as it is written.


Lynn McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This subclause relates to motor vehicle traffic in the western region which is made up mostly of the three prairie Provinces. My colleague is speaking about the enlargement of a railway trucking firm in the Province of Saskatchewan that is doing so in anticipation of trucking grain and getting branch lines abandoned. That is the whole point of the Hon. Member's argument. I submit, Sir, that she is perfectly in order when talking about motor vehicle transportation in the western region.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I take at face value the comments of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Nevertheless, the Chair has an obligation to attempt to relate the remarks being made by the Hon. Member who has the floor to the text of the amendment. I do
October 13, 1983

not want to engage in debate with Hon. Members, but it seems to me that we sometimes wander very far afield. I do not criticize or question in any way the validity of the arguments being made. 1 would simply ask Hon. Members to try to relate more clearly and specifically to the amendments. 1 give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.


Lynn McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I had only one further sentence to quote which I think will help to make very, very clear the relationship my remarks have to the amendment. 1 hope the House will be patient. 1 am a sociologist and I am interested in social systems. 1 do think we must look at this situation rather more globally. Other Hon. Members have referred to the social impact of the legislation before us and I do not see why I should not be allowed to do so also.
In any event, I wish to quote only one further sentence from The Leader-Post article, and it reads as follows:
He said the consolidation was in line with the rationalization of trucking services proposed by the Saskatchewan Highway Traffic Board and the Saskatchewan Transportation Agency. He denied that any of the companies were in financial difficulties.
"It hasn't been done because people are in difficulty. It's a business move. They (CP Trucks) came along and we were agreeable."
This is clearly relevant to the whole question that is before us, Mr. Speaker. Let me return to that question so that there will be no doubt. The subclause that is before us reads as follows:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
My argument, Mr. Speaker, is that unless we look at the subject globally and see it as an economic system, we may come to the wrong conclusion about what is in the best interests of producers. There are direct costs and there are indirect costs. One of the indirect costs will be increases in taxes to producers to pay for the additional roads that would be required and the additional upkeep of those roads due to additional road traffic. This becomes a direct cost to the producer when he pays his taxes. We should take that cost into consideration; it may seem invisible right now. It is not actually contained in the Bill but it is a cost that will eventually be borne by the producer and it is something that we must look at. In order to have an efficient system, we must look at direct and indirect costs, immediate costs and subsequent costs.
Let us look at a few of the economic facts, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read from the testimony of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who has obviously been concerned with returns to producers but is also concerned with the efficiency of the whole system. His testimony reads as follows:
Mr. Chairman, further to the reasons for my subamendment, it is an economic fact that when you reduce volumes on a rail line, that increases the costs of the rail line and the losses per bushel on the rail line. So on an existing branch line, the minute you make agreements to provide for movement of grain off that line by motor vehicle transport-
Western Grain Transportation Act Motor vehicle transport is clearly the issue that is before us.
-you thereby reduce the volume on that rail line, increasing the costs and the losses per bushel on the rail line, which then provides the railroads with the perfect excuse to apply for the abandonment of the line.
This policy will lead to further branch line abandonment and branch line abandonment will lead to higher community costs, higher social costs to families and to small rural communities. The Hon. Member went on to say:
So where lines have already been abandoned-and I think it is about 2,500 miles-it would make some sense for the administrator on behalf of not only the minister but also on behalf the grain producers to enter into agreements... But where there is a branch line in existence, surely we would not want to contribute to the excuse to abandon the thing.
Now, this is being practical and realistic. It is agreeing that there are problems which we cannot turn back the clock to solve. This indicates that we must protect the communities that are currently being served by branch lines. We do not want to see those branch lines abandoned. We would like to see that those communities do have adequate protection and that will not happen unless we remove the subclause that is before us now.
Let me continue by reading some of the economic implications contained in the Hon. Member's argument:
There are extra elevation charges the minute you start hauling grain. It means an extra loading and unloading when you haul grain by truck; it adds an additional loading and unloading. It adds one set of additional elevation charges if you take it from one country elevator to another one on a different line. When the farmer brings it to his country elevator and the truck takes it out to another elevator, it adds an additional loading and unloading of that truck, additional elevation charges and handling charges, compared to what the case would be if the farmer took it to his country elevator and the rail picked it up.
That is the efficient system, the system we have had so far and the system we do not want to see abandoned. The Hon. Member continued:
If you insert an additional movement, that is an additional cost to the grain producer.
We do not want to see additional costs incurred by the grain producer and that is why we see some hypocrisy in the clause that we would like to see deleted when it talks about returns to the grain producers. We wonder what position the grain producers will be in if this provision is allowed to go through.
I shall continue reading the economic argument of the Hon. Member:
If you start moving grain, export grain or non-board grain, off existing branch lines from primary elevators, to a primary elevator on another branch line, as I said earlier, all you have done is reduce the volume of movement on that branch line, increased the costs to the railroad and increased the losses per bushel. So why jeopardize a branch line that is viable? Ones that were considered light grain-dependent lines 10 years ago, with increased production, are now medium to heavy grain lines. Why place them in jeopardy? We are having enough problems keeping the branch lines we have left as it is.
I think we do have to consider the ecological aspects of this policy, Mr. Speaker. If we are to move from rail transportation to trucking, that means that we already have the disruption of the environment created by the rail lines as they exist and there will be additional disruption of the environment and additional use of scarce energy resources. Trucking is certainly a form of transportation that requires extensive use of non-

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
renewable resources. It means that we are not using resources that are scarce as wisely and as frugally as we should.
I would also like to make a pitch for "small is beautiful", Mr. Speaker. We have small communities to protect. There is a certain wisdom in keeping things on a reasonable scale. I think we ought to have more respect for that.
Social costs are costs that we cannot put a dollar figure on. There are social costs when communities are disrupted, whole towns closed down, people forced to move and services decline as the people who have services to offer move out to a larger town seeking more business. Those are social costs which have not been calculated, but there are economic costs that can be calculated more directly. When communities have to close down, families have to move, schools have to be relocated, churches have to close and reopen somewhere else. All kinds of voluntary associations that have been the backbone of rural community life are disrupted.
This is the kind of society that is precious to Canadians and we want to protect it. We must look at the social consequences of the policy that is before us. I strongly urge Hon. Members to support this very reasonable amendment as it will allow greater protection of community life and will be in the best interests of our ecology and of using non renewable resources very carefully. It is a reasonable amendment and I would ask support for it.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to five Members of the NDP speak this morning, I would like to deal with Clause 17(4). The five NDP Members talked all around it and about some other clause, but not about Subclause (4). I want to outline for them exactly why Subclause (4) is in the Bill, why I support it, why it is in the interests of producers and in the interests of the country as a whole.
In the first place, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) spoke of undermining social structures. Where there is a rail line, Mr. Speaker, and you suddenly have a rock fall, sometimes it is hard to get repair equipment in so it might take several days to have the rock fall removed. In the meantime, the elevator is jammed and producers have to get their wheat to market or there is no money coming in for them. Are they to sit and twiddle their thumbs, as the NDP suggests, waiting for the rail line to be fixed? No, Mr. Speaker. The Administrator will make arrangements for trucks to haul the grain.
The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) said this subclause is not in the best interests of producers. I can tell him that it is in the best interests of the producers. The sociologist NDP Members had better stay and listen, because if we do what the NDP wants us to do, it would undermine the livelihood of prairie producers and put them out of business. They want their grain moved to market, and whether a Member comes from Toronto or anywhere else, she should know that. The grain must be moved to market and if
there is something which impedes the railway, then it must be moved by other means. That is only common sense.
There are times when the railway lines are hauling canola or coal or something else and are completely jammed. There are times when the rail cannot get into the station. Members to my left from B.C. do not know what they are talking about. I have seen 50 farm trucks in a line, waiting for the elevators to clear and for a train that cannot come. Surely in those circumstances the Administrator should have the right to make arrangements to truck the wheat to the next elevator where there is no blockage. The wheat could then go to market and the farmers would have money in their pockets.
The NDP talk about the social structure being undermined, but the very thing they put forward would undermine the social structure of the prairie farmer. And they talk about subsidizing truckers. There is nothing in the Bill about that. Truckers do not want to be subsidized; they want to haul for a reasonable price. This clause would do nothing to subsidize truckers. Where does the NDP dream all this stuff up? Where do they find it? It is not in the Bill.
If anyone is away off the beam, in the Prairies we have a saying-"You are all haywire". Everyone who spoke for the NDP this morning is haywire. None of them talked about the right Bill. This Bill would help the prairie producer, not hinder him.
In wintertime I have seen the rail lines so blocked that an engine or a snowplow cannot get in. Sometimes the snowplows are busy on the main lines so the branch lines suffer. But what happens on the highways? The snowplows get in next morning. Sometimes the rail lines are blocked for a week and B.C. Members who know all about this should put that in their hat. The trains cannot get in. What is to be done then? Are the farmers to sit there and let their wives go without any money, or their kids have no money to by a school lunch, because they cannot sell their wheat? The Administrator will arrange to hire the trucks and move the wheat on the highway that has been cleared. That would be in the interests of the producers and the truckers would make a dollar. They will not be subsidized.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) spoke of the global effects of this clause. Let him talk to the farmer on the quarter section who needs some money in his pocket about global effects and he will tell you where to go. He will not say you are "haywire" either; he will use the proper language.
Truckers cannot be nationalized so the global effect is adverse to the CCF-or the NDP philosophy. Truckers are independent. They want to work for a living and they want to get a dollar when they earn a dollar, but they do not want to be subsidized. The NDP should know that. It is easy to nationalize a railway. We did it with the CNR and the NDP wants it done with the CPR. That is the global effect the Hon. Member is talking about.
I am talking about the welfare of the individual farmer, the man on the soil, the man who milks ten cows every morning to make a living, the man whose wife has to go out and gather the
October 13, 1983

eggs, whose kids go out and pick the carrots. They are not rich but they have a desire to work and to do things for the country. They want to make their own way but the NDP want to deny them the right to earn their own living by selling their wheat. They say the wheat has to go by train.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The man from the Island says "No". He says there is never a time when you can use a truck in the best interests of the producer. Such nonsense. Truckers contribute to the economy of the country just as much as the railways do. Truckers are able to step in and fill the gap when the railways cannot deliver.
I can go along with the arguments the NDP make about abandonment of lines, but there is nothing in this subclause about that. I have gone through abandonment. I have sat in homes and have seen the farmer and his wife cry because the line was being abandoned. I have gone to the Board of Transport Commissioners and pleaded with them to leave the railway lines, so I know what I am talking about. This clause has nothing to do with abandonment. Its purpose is to get the grain to market so that the producer can put the money in his pocket.
The NDP talk about trucks ruining the highways, but I wonder if they know what they are talking about. The hopper trailers used by trucks today carry 110,000 pounds or about 900 to 1,000 bushels. They have sufficient axles that the actual toll on the road is less than that of a small truck with one axle and a small tire.
Highway construction is not immature in this country; it is mature. Highways are built for the type of axle that is used on them. A proper subgrade is built and a proper base course, so the only thing that wears out after years and years is the surface and that is a very small part of the costs. The surface can be renewed and the axle load can be regulated. The Member from B.C. who knows so much about trucking should put that in his hat. Highways will not be ruined. A lot of this happens in wintertime when the highways are frozen, but even the inadequate roads constructed by some municipalities because they do not have sufficient money are able to carry heavy loads. They are gravel and they are frozen. Every road in Alberta in winter is hard surfaced, not with asphalt. Jack Frost does the job for them. Those roads carry the traffic.
When one talks about wearing out roads, what better way to wear out roads, if they have to wear out, than by hauling the grain of the producer so we can put some money into the pocket of the producer? Every one of those five speakers of the NDP was completely haywire. They are talking about the wrong clause altogether. We are talking about the interests of the producers and the economy of this country.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in this Chamber and to follow the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). He has had a long and
Western Grain Transportation Act
very creditable career in politics in Canada. Much of what he said in the last ten minutes reflects his enormous amount of experience after 30 years as a Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: In the Province of Alberta he was the Minister of Highways and the good people of his area, and throughout the whole Province, I might add, always referred to having "Taylor-made" roads in that Province.
It is with that wisdom, I am sure, that he tells us something very important which relates to this amendment, and that is that the fundamental issue which we are talking about is the question of efficiency. The New Democratic Party has used the word "efficiency" and I intend to use it also. The NDP believes it is efficient to keep a railway system because it wants to keep the railway system. I submit, Sir, that efficiency is not desire. It is the bottom line as measured in dollars and cents.
I would like to use an example which I believe even the NDP can understand. In a nearby constituency there is a branch line which serves one community. In that community they use four trains a year to remove the grain. Calculating a train at 100 cars, it would mean that train would have to make some 66 trips on the average of 4.5 cars per stock lot. An engine, Sir, is around 80 tonnes. In addition to the engine there is the caboose, plus the cars, plus a whole network for fixing up the railway bed. In virtually everyone's judgment, that rail line is not likely to stay in service ad infinitum. What is the answer of the NDP? When the line is abandoned there will be no service for the farmers, although the NDP claims it is looking after the farmers. The reality is that trucks are more efficient in some instances. In the majority of other instances, the train is more efficient.
Surely it is not difficult to comprehend that to have a rail line which moves only grain, which has sometimes as many as four 80-tonne engines, would be a cheaper way of moving grain. The actual data indicate that a train can move grain at one-fifth the cost and one-twentieth the pollution. However, surely on the short hauls in some directions, to have a whole network which services the train, its engine, its caboose and all of its line people, may not be as efficient and trucks may be more viable.
That is the data I have and I submit, Sir, that when those situations come into play, obviously the farmer ought not to be the one denied the service, but rather Government should opt for different modes of transportation. There is a $651 million subsidy, not for transportation but for the railways, and under what philosophical judgment should the railways receive that support from the Government at the expense of any other mode of transportation?
If it could be clearly demonstrated that many persons with little baskets could carry the grain to Vancouver, the Port of Churchill, or the Port at Thunder Bay, cheaper and more efficiently and our economy could be enriched, then all those social arguments which the Hon. member for Bow River said were for naught would in fact come into play in the argument

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act of the NDP. There is always a dollar left over as a result of efficiency, so there can be a social heart and concern. It is just utter nonsense to hear people say we should spend more money to keep up inefficient policies because of a social conscience. One does not have to be a socialist to have a social conscience. But one must be able to recognize that if one can operate a society with efficiency, then the wealth in the nation is assured and one is able to have that social conscience.
We must look at the fact, then, that it takes approximately 60,000 bushels of grain per mile to make a railway efficient. We do have some branch lines in which trucking would operate very efficiently. That gives different options and alternatives. From 1974 to 1979 the then Minister of Transport, Otto Lang, removed 2,300 miles of branch lines from the Prairies. I submit to you, Sir, that had the NDP policy been in place then, none of those people on the abandoned branch lines would have had any option. Their railway would have been gone. There would have been no support for trucking. Those communities would have shrivelled and died. That would have been the answer of the NDP.
When the facts dictate it is more efficient to move by truck, and the Grain Transportation Authority makes that judgment, then the trucking mechanism should be available. There is lots of business for the railways. There can be flexibility. It may well be that farmers will not easily be able to get rid of some of their wheat because it will not sell for export or for flour, but he will then have the choice of selling it to a nearby feedlot and he will be able to use the trucking system to deliver to a place where the railway does not run.
I submit to you therefore, Sir, that the argument which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood (Ms. McDonald), as well as other Members of the NDP, that what the Government is really doing is shedding itself of a federal burden and transferring it to the Provinces, is not the main point. It is not the dispute between the federal and provincial governments; it is the case that there is only one taxpayer. That taxpayer wants the most efficient transportation system irrespective of how it is accomplished.
The argument which should be made is that, while we will pay a certain amount of money for the maintenance of railway beds, the railway grain lines move one commodity. When one spends money for highways, one not only moves grain but uses those highways for many other purposes.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, the rail system is used today when carload shipments are made. The lumber train hauls a full load of lumber, the potash train hauls a full load of potash. The same with coal, grain and the like. The days of a train hauling mail, groceries for the store, parts for the machinery shop and a few cream cans are long gone. I submit, Sir, that the cost burden which must fall on the grain producer for the shipping of grain in less than trainload quantities is such that, if there is a more economical option available to the Grain Transportation Authority, then surely the NDP would not deny that saving to the region involved.
The bottom line, Sir, is efficiency. We need to have the greatest level of efficiency possible, and rail is demonstrably most efficient only when you can move larger volumes. Many farmers will be denied service unless they are able to use the trucking option. It increases their ability to deliver products to markets other than export markets.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 35
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 25 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"the grain producers, but such agreements shall not provide for the movement
of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which
have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission."


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little bit incongruous to be standing to speak to this motion because it assumes that Motion No. 34 is lost. I am sure that you, along with other Members of the House, will recognize that Motion No. 34 was really the key motion and that the arguments our Party made over the last couple of days on that motion have persuaded both the Liberals and Conservatives to vote for it. I am also sure that it is incomprehensible to the audience watching to have us arguing about a motion which assumes another motion has already been lost when we have not even voted on it. But such is the case so we have to argue as if Clause 17(4) has not been deleted.
I think to get the sense of this it is necessary to read the clause as well as the amendment. Clause 17(4) provides:
October 13, 1983

The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interest of the grain producers.
The amendment reads:
-but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission.
That makes it impossible, Mr. Speaker, for the Administrator to have grain hauled by truck from an elevator where a rail line is operational. If you were to review the arguments of many Conservative Members over the last couple of days, as I did to some extent, I am sure you would find that in arguing against Motion No. 34 they put up a good number of arguments in favour of Motion No. 35. So I am sure that we will have the support of the Conservatives for this particular amendment.
For example, the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) thoroughly explained the need for trucking in his area of the country where there are no railways. I submit that Motion No. 34 would not have made any difference to his particular situation because if there are no railways, trucking must be and will continue to be used. It was a little difficult to follow his arguments on that basis.
I also noted that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) spoke about the irrelevance of the arguments of the NDP and was himself-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. However, I should remind him that the House has come to a decision relative to Motion No. 34 and the debate on that motion should not carry on any longer. His comments must now be addressed to Motion No. 35 which is before the House.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the two motions are so intertwined that it is impossible to eliminate a reference to one without the other. We have not voted on Motion No. 34 so we have to assume that it is still there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: No. I am sorry, that is not the way things should be considered. For all practical purposes the House has left Motion No. 34. It is quite true that the determining outcome of that will occur at the time of the recorded vote. However, in a sense, there has been a preliminary determination. A voice vote has taken place.
However, there must be a clear distinction that what we are now debating is no longer Motion No. 34 but, rather, Motion No. 35. It is contrary to proper procedure, to logic itself, to come back to Motion No. 34 at this time. The Hon. Member, if he so wishes, if I may be helpful, may bring forward any argument he wishes, but if he keeps on relating to Motion No. 34, he is clearly out of order. I invite him to proceed with Motion No. 35.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognize your ruling.
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Evans: Do you understand?


Mr. Fisher:: Will you live by it?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: In discussion on Motion No. 35, what we are attempting to do is to ensure that the clause which is being amended, Clause 17(4), cannot be used to assist the railways, the CTC and the Government of Canada in the abandonment of railway branch lines. Clause 17(4) could obviously be used by the railways in the process of abandonment. This particular clause will ensure that Clause 17(4) cannot be used for the abandonment of railways.
Even now, in many parts of Canada, in many parts of the Prairies, movement of grain by truck is being used to assist the abandonment of railways. For instance, in my constituency is the Carleton line, which is a short line just north of Saskatoon going into the Prince Albert district. The Carleton line has been partially abandoned but is still operating to some extent. Last week I received a number of calls concerning the line from farmers who said that they are not getting cars and, therefore, the grain is being trucked from those elevators to Saskatoon or to a main line. Therefore, when we review the abandonment of that line next year, the CNR will say: Look, we did not move the 60,000 tonnes required to keep the line in business and, consequently, we will have to abandon it."
The amendment would disallow the Administrator, the CTC and the CNR the right to use trucking as a method of abandoning the lines. So, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Flis:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) is rising on a point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: I know you have been very lenient, Mr. Speaker, with the New Democratic Party speakers, but we are discussing Clause 17 which has to do with the duties and functions of the Administrator. There is nothing in Clause 17(4) that refers to abandonment or even suggests that it would lead to abandonment. The NDP moved Motion No. 35 and, as Your Honour ruled earlier, I wish its Members would stick to Motion No. 35 as it relates to Clause 17(4). All we have heard from speaker after speaker is "abandonment", which has nothing to do with the duties and functions of the Administrator.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert heard the Parliamentary Secretary's comment. I am in the middle, and I must come to some kind of judgment. The Chair, in terms of relevancy of remarks concerning the amendments at report stage, has time and time again invited a number of Hon. Members to make an effort at least to demonstrate to the Chair in what way their remarks are related to the amendments. Once again, I would invite the Hon. Member for Prince Albert to do just that.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I could make a considerable argument on that particular point, but just to bring the

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act arguments into context as far as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) is concerned, the amendment which we are discussing very specifically states:
"the grain producers, but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission".
I submit that Clause 17(4), without the amendment, will be used by the CPR, the CNR, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Government of Canada to go ahead with their planned abandonment of branch lines on the Prairies. Therefore, the reason this amendment is being put before the House by our Party, in view of the arguments that the Conservatives have been putting before us in the last two days against the Clause that we are trying to amend, is to ensure that the Administrator, by the authority that he is given in Clause 17(4), will not be able to use trucking to assist in the abandonment of branch lines. Therefore, the whole impact of our arguments on Motion No. 35 is based on the fact that it would be possible to use that amendment to abandon rail lines.
A number of Hon. Members have spoken on the effects of trucking and the efficiency of lines. That is the key to this particular amendment. If efficiency is used as an argument to abandon lines, it ignores the social impact of abandonment. It ignores the needs of rural communities. It ignores all the other factors which are part of abandonment of branch lines on the Prairies.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member could be allowed to continue if there was unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed that the other Hon. Members in the Chamber did not choose to allow my hon. colleague to continue.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We're not.


Cyril Keeper: I know there is no disappointment on that side of the House, but certainly on this side of the House we were deeply impressed with the wisdom of his remarks. I am sure that every Member of the House knows in his heart that my colleague was making very telling arguments. That is why they would not let him continue.


John Leslie Evans: Of course, it was irrelevant to the amendment.


Cyril Keeper: A colleague of mine suggests that other Members in the Chamber do not have hearts. I would not say that at all.
At this moment in the Chamber we are dealing with Motion No. 35, which is a motion to amend Motion No. 34, relating to trucking of grain, and Clause 17(4), all of which comes under the purview of the Crow legislation which is now before the House.
The policy that is being promoted by the Bill that is before us, whether it applies to subsidized trucking or to the handling of the Crow rate itself, has the same fundamental flaw in it; that is, that the action being undertaken by the Government in this instance, I understand, supported by the Conservative Party, is detrimental to the farming community and to grain producers. What is being debated is the fact that the Administrator, by virtue of the Government's action, would be given authority to subsidize the movement of grain by truck, by motor vehicle.
Our Party has suggested that this provision be amended so that the subsidies would be limited to cases where rail lines have already been abandoned. We put forward this amendment because grain transportation is a vital part of the grain industry which, in itself, is essential to the western economy and economic health of Canada as a whole. Our Party fears that if these subsidies are permitted to take place on existing branch lines, the railways could use their own trucking companies to haul the grain and thereby reduce the amount of grain being transported over the branch line. This would provide the Government with statistical justification for further abandonment of branch lines.
We oppose trucking subsidies where branch lines already exist because the whole process of branch line abandonment across western Canada and particularly in Saskatchewan has been very detrimental to small rural communities. We believe that the removal of branch lines is the elimination of the most efficient and cost-effective way to transport grain.
We are appalled that not only is the Government contemplating the abandonment of these lines, but it is proposing a subsidy for trucking which would naturally lead to the further abandonment of branch lines. We know that branch line abandonment is a sensitive issue in the West since there has been a great deal of protest over previous efforts to abandon branch lines.
Our amendment makes it clear that we would limit these subsidies on lines that have already been authorized for abandonment by the Canadian Transport Commission. In those cases there has already been an opportunity for public hearings at which communities could state their case. There has been the opportunity to examine the social and economic impact of the abandonment of a particular branch line.
While there may be some debate whether a certain branch line is economically viable, we should at least grant the people and the communities who depend on those branch lines the
October 13, 1983

opportunity to present their views with regard to the necessity for the continuation of those branch lines.
That is the central part of our amendment. We make reference to the Canadian Transport Commission because we believe it could hold public hearings before branch lines are abandoned in order to give communities the opportunity to state whether they believe a railway's argument that a branch line is uneconomical is valid. As well, they could indicate to the Commission the extent to which the subsidy of truck transportation has contributed to the reduction of transportation on the branch line. This may then indicate to what extent the Government has actually subsidized the creation of a situation which it has then used to justify abandoning a branch line.
Citizens could document the increased costs in terms of road maintenance as a result of branch line abandonment. They could then argue whether the abandonment of a particular branch line would be a saving to the economy or a simple cost transfer from the railroad, which is under federal jurisdiction, to the roads, which are under provincial and municipal jurisdiction. Canadians already carry a heavy burden with their property taxes and it is unimaginable that the federal Government would subsidize something which would lead to increased property taxes for Canadians. If the Government wishes to do this, the people in those communities which are affected should have the opportunity to be heard since it is a simple principle of democracy that every citizen have the right to speak out on Government policies before they are implemented. This gives the Government the opportunity to reconsider its policies and possibly abandon them.
1 believe our motion is reasonable. If trucking subsidies are to take place, it should only be in those areas where there are no branch lines. The subsidization of trucking on branch lines is the same as subsidizing a reduction of branch line use, which will provide the justification for the abandonment of that branch line. If the Government decides to permit the subsidies, it must allow the local people who will be affected by this drastic change in policy to voice their opinion so the Government can reconsider its action and withdraw its policy.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, when I perused the newspaper this morning, I found that the Conservative Party stood at an unprecedented 62 per cent in the polls and that the NDP, at the same time, stood at an unprecedented low of 14 per cent. I wondered why this had happened, but now, after having listened to the speeches by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) and the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), I know the reason full well. The people of Canada know full well why they stand so lowly in the polls.
We on this side of the House have had one aim in mind when dealing with western grain transportation. That is to secure the lowest cost and most effective system to benefit the farmers. Just think what would happen if this amendment were to carry. Let us consider a branch line which services two or three elevators. Suppose that the culvert is washed out and that line is inoperable until repairs can be made. In our view, it
Western Grain Transportation Act should be possible for the farmer to have his grain trucked to another elevator without having to bear the full cost that he would entail if the Senior Grain Transportation Commissioner had not had the power available to him which we propose. This would be impossible if what the gentlemen to my left are saying was accepted.
I wanted to make a very brief presentation in order to demonstrate that what they are saying is nonsense and that the amendment does not make sense. If they continue in this vein they will not stand at 14 per cent in the polls, they will stand at 4 per cent.


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


John Leslie Evans: Question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Question.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the extraordinarily brief presentation, would the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) entertain a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) wish to entertain a question?


Dave Nickerson: I certainly would, Mr. Speaker, but I think it would be necessary for you to get the consent of the House for the Member to ask his question because it is not permitted under the rules governing report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should perhaps explain to the Hon. Member that he has not exhausted his full ten minutes. Within that time span he can, if he wishes, receive a question, but that is his decision.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased if I am allowed by the rules to receive a question from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James.


Cyril Keeper: I thank the Hon. Member for having the courage to submit to a question, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: I noted the Hon. Member was mesmerized by today's Gallup poll. I took note of the fact that his speech was so short that it is facilitating the passage of the Crow Bill through the House. Is the Hon. Member more concerned with fleeting popularity than with the actual economic circumstances of the prairie farmers?


Mr. Kempling:: That is a dumb question.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: And the answer is yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: In a sense, even though questions are allowed, they must be relevant to the amendment. The extraneous matter brought in by the Hon. Member

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
for Western Arctic was, in the Chair's opinion, a lead-in to the substantive discussion of the motion. However, the question having been put, I will allow the answer.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is it is not fleeting. It is a long-term trend.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: I can assure the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-St.James that there are very many Members within the Conservative Party who are quite prepared to argue at length so that the Crow Bill can be improved, and it will, as I said before, facilitate the transportation of western grain to the benefit of the producers of western Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: The answer was a lot better than the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the House ready for the question? I see the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). Is he rising to speak?


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this motion we are speaking to at the moment would amend an amendment to the original Bill, an amendment from the committee. It attempts to spell out some further duties for the Administrator, as you know. It is correct, as the Hon. Member points out, that we opposed this provision in committee. We opposed the addition of specifying powers to the Administrator to enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers. We have had that debate. We just finished it. You begged us, Mr. Speaker, not to go back to that debate.
We thought in committee and argued in the House that this was an unnecessary power to mention. I would remind the House that the Administrator has a considerable amount of power in the Act already without making those extra powers quite explicit. The problem with making the powers more explicit is that it is not a completed circuit. The Administrator is being asked on behalf of producers to enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport, but there are no funds being allowed. There are no funds in this Bill. There are no funds available to complete those agreements.
What we are left with is a conclusion based on the testimony given at the committee hearings, where the former Deputy Minister of Transport indicated that the only source of such funds would be the funds available for keeping up branch lines. The funds would have to come from the branch line program. This is why many of my colleagues referred to branch line abandonment. We concluded, I think correctly, that this particular provision would permit the Administrator to provide funds, which would be in the form of a subsidy over and above what the farmer or the elevator company is prepared to pay, to
move grain-to trans-ship it from an existing branch line to a larger volume line with a heavier traffic flow not too far distant from it.
I think the conclusions drawn in the arguments made up to this point are probably correct. The effects were laid out quite clearly. What we have proposed, since this is part of the Bill at this stage, is to ameliorate the problems that it creates the way it is worded. We have attempted to restrict those subsidies, which we have assumed are going to be there, for use only on lines that have already been abandoned. We think this is the second best option.
I remind the House that during the course of discussions concerning branch line abandonments there were both task force reports and, at actual CTV hearings, suggestions that there should be short-term subsidies to producers and elevator companies to provide trucking service and off-line elevator services. None of them has ever been implemented for any period of time, but that has been discussed a great many times.
I would argue, if we are going to persist in having Clause 17(4) as it is now in the Bill before us, that to protect the interests of producers in those communities which do not have high-volume lines, an amendment such as we have proposed in Motion No. 35 is vital to those people. In Saskatchewan about 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the producers use lines that could be so affected. It is not something that is not relevant to a lot of producers; it is. It is something that we think could have been addressed by the Administrator who is, as the Act says, an agent of the Government of Canada through the powers, duties and functions previously described in the Act in the same provision. It gave the Administrator powers, according to the original Act and the Bill as it has come to us from committee, to:
-make recommendations to the Minister and such system participants as the Administrator considers appropriate to increase the capacity, reliability and efficiency of the grain transportation, shipping and handling system-
I think that would give the Administrator all the powers he needs to include truckers and trucking in those instances where it was deemed possible. Yet in committee it was felt necessary to spell that out, and so we have Clause 17(4). The fact it is spelled out now draws attention to some of the misuses to which it could be put. I would like to go into that for a few moments after the lunch hour.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.

October 13, 1983


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, there is an application in place before the Canadian Transport Commission by the CNR to abandon the Collingwood to Meaford, Ontario, rail line located in the riding of Grey-Simcoe. The CNR claims that this section of the line has been a losing proposition as far as freight revenue and the cost of maintenance are concerned. However, what has not been realized by the CNR is that there is already a plan afoot to develop this portion of the line into a tourist railway operation to serve our four seasons tourist area, an area that depends heavily on tourism as a major part of its economy.
Therefore I call upon the CNR and the Government to withdraw this application and hold reconsideration of this decision in abeyance for some three years to give the area the necessary time to develop and to put into operation such a tourist railway oriented operation. This would be a shot in the arm which would not only benefit all aspects of the southern Georgian Bay area but other areas of the country as well.



MULTICULTURALISM


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on a serious matter today which primarily concerns Canadians of Ukrainian heritage but in many ways affects all Canadians concerned with the preservation and enhancement of the multi-ethnic and multicultural nature of the country.
The facts are that two Cabinet Ministers, who were scheduled to address the Fourteenth Ukrainian Canadian Congress in Winnipeg on October 8, cancelled their speaking engagement without an explanation. Their replacement to speak to the Congress, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLar-en), would have done better to stay away. Instead, he delivered such an offensive address to the delegates of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress that it prompted 500 delegates to send a letter of complaint to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) describing the Minister's remarks as "inappropriate, condescending and ... totally lacked perception of the nature and tone of this Congress". One delegate, reflecting the views of many, said that passages of the Minister's speech were "patronizing and playing on stereotypes".
Also he was quoted as saying about Ukrainian ancestors:
-stalwart peasant in a sheepskin coat, born on the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for ten generations, with a stout wife and a half-dozen children-
We on this side of the House call on the Prime Minister to demand a total public retraction of those statements from the
Minister concerned, and that the Minister of State for Finance be required to send a letter of apology to each delegate at the Canadian Ukrainian Congress for his discriminatory remarks.
More appropriate words would have been those of the Prime Minister in 1961, the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, when he said about multiculturalism:
__Canada is a garden ... into which has been transplanted the hardiest and
brightest flowers of many lands, each retaining in its new environment the best of the qualities for which it was loved and prized in its native lands.
That is the quote the Canadian Ukrainian Congress will hear when the Conservative Party and our new Leader form the next Government of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, it is about time Parliament faced a few unpleasant facts about the administration of criminal justice in the two northern Territories. The proportion of the population in prison is two, three and four times as high in the Territories as in the South, yet we have no reason to believe that northerners are any more immoral or criminal than anyone else in Canada. In fact a recent report of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) indicated very clearly that crime in the Northwest Territories "refers mainly to disorderliness and minor anti-social behaviour", unlike the case for the South where there is more serious, premeditated crime.
The prison population in the Territories consists disproportionately of native people, yet again we have no reason to believe that native people are any more immoral or criminal than non-native people. Indeed, common sense and humanity suggest otherwise.
The criminal justice system in the North is overwhelmingly our responsibility, from policing through prosecutions, to the courts, unlike the case for the rest of Canada where the Provinces have prime responsibility. Thus I have asked the Justice Committee of the House to take up the issue of the administration of criminal justice in the North as a subject for study and resolution. We must explore with our colleagues in the territorial legislatures, native organizations, and the people who run the current system, better ways to adapt it to the needs of the North. Experiments in the involvement of native people and their justice councils have begun and should be further explored.

October 13, 1983



GARRISON DIVERSION


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) are scheduled to meet in Halifax this weekend with the Secretary of State for the United States and with other American environmental officials. It is an excellent opportunity for Canada to state strongly its objection to the Garrison Diversion Project which threatens our country's waterways, particularly in my home Province of Manitoba. Canada has not fared well in its efforts to halt the project, and I submit that the federal Government is largely responsible for that failure. Its efforts have been half-hearted.
This failure was most apparent when a contract was awarded for the construction of phase one of theLonetree Reservoir Dam. With this weekend's meeting in Halifax, and with the recent resignation of the American Secretary of the Interior who was an ardent Garrison proponent, Canada now has a real fighting chance of halting further construction. I strongly urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment to tell the United States in no uncertain terms that we want, at the very least, safety features built into phase one of the Lonetree Reservoir, and that we want the American Government to abandon future phases.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, Members of Parliament such as myself, the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), and the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), find ourselves each year having to ask the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to allow the World Series to be shown in northern areas through the use of CBC microwave facilities. It seems incredible that the CBC, which prides itself on fulfilling its mandate of service to all Canada, should force this kind of game each year. No one is happy with the results. Northern viewers are kept waiting until the last moment before they know if the games are on. Northerners feel discriminated against again because of their place of residence.
Therefore I ask the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to instruct the President of the CBC to begin a policy review which will cover the kinds of instances where the CBC has to break its schedule in order to broadcast major events to the North. A change in policy would allow northerners to enjoy the same service as southern Canadians and would give the CBC the necessary lead time to supply that service.



THE ECONOMY


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, this Liberal Government is all mixed up. With a lot of fanfare the Government appointed a commission to ascertain how to remove the economic distortion in the agricultural sector stemming from the statutory rate. Then, when Gilson and his committee said to pay the shortfall to the producers, the Government did the reverse and is paying it all to the railways-all $625 million.
Again, the Government spends money to increase jobs. Then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) removes part of the capital cost allowance on farm machinery for the first year, with the result that scores of farmers cancel orders for new combines and put up with their old equipment, and hundreds of jobs are lost.
The Government talks about the private sector making investments, and then enacts a capital gains tax on instalment buying of land in western Canada where the retiring farmer is required to pay the total capital gains tax at once, so aging farmers cannot sell, and this freezes investment in land in western Canada.
Even when the Government comes out with a good policy, for example, the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan, it blows it by cancelling the program just when it is speeding up, leaving hundreds of Canadians with footings but no houses and no money.
This Government is as mixed up as Mulligan's stew. That is a bad example, as Mullingan's stew is good to eat and this Government is good for nothing, except to hand millions to the railways while a million unemployed Canadians exist on UIC and welfare. The Liberals are really a mixed-up crowd.


Some Hon. Members:: More! More!



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, eighteen months ago the House was debating legislation affecting young offenders. One of the major provisions of the Bill was to change the year of majority from 16 or 17 to 18 years. We were warned at that time to go slowly, not only because of the social adjustment that would need to take place but also because of the tremendous cost that would involve for the Provinces.
Officials of the Province of Ontario appeared at that time and said that there would be $80 million in capital costs alone to make that adjustment. For Saskatchewan it would cost $20 million, and now we have heard that for the Province of British Columbia it will cost $20 million for this year, plus $20 million
October 13, 1983

in increased operating costs this year, and an additional $20 million for operating costs next year, making a total of $60 million.
The Attorneys General of the Provinces have asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to move slowly and not implement that legislation in the foreseeable future. I would urge the Minister of Justice to listen to the Attorneys General and not implement that legislation until the Provinces are ready to enact it in a proper way. If the Minister is interested in good and just legislation, and in justice for all, he will listen to his provincial counterparts.



EDUCATION


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, a major institution in the constituency of Saskatoon East is the University of Saskatchewan. The University of Saskatchewan, like many other universities across Canada, has found itself in an extremely grave financial situation this year because of the large number of students who have been forced to go back to school because there are no jobs in the marketplace.
1 received a letter today from a fifth year student in the University of Saskatchewan, Wayne Schlapkohl. His letter explains very clearly the difficulties that lack of financing is causing for students. Library hours have been shortened, and the library has cancelled a massive number of journal subscriptions. The hardware in the various physical sciences laboratories is becoming outdated. The computer facilities are scarce. Classes are incredibly large. He cites as an example the fact that the Psychology 110 class has 550 students this year. Buildings are in need of repair, and major problems are being created because of lack of funding for the administration and professors. Mr. Schlapkohl claims that, because of this, the professors are frustrated and the general quality of teaching has gone down.
I say to the Government of Canada, the Governments of the Provinces, and everyone who is interested in post-secondary education, that because the unemployment situation in Canada means that many young people do not have jobs, a new strain is being put on university and other post-secondary education facilities. I would call for immediate solutions to that problem.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was present at a ceremony in memory of peace officers killed in the line of duty. At that service which was held recently, he was given, on behalf of the Canadian people and the spouses of those who
died, a book of names and a plaque, to hold in trust until an appropriate place could be found in the Parliament Buildings for their display.
This is not the first time, Madam Speaker, that I have stood in my place to ask that action be taken on this matter. It has been over a year since I passed on a similar request to the appropriate authorities. I thought that some action would already have been taken.
May I suggest once again that the Peace Tower would be an appropriate location for such a memorial? The atmosphere of hushed dignity and reverence makes the Peace Tower a fitting place to remember the valour of these brave men and women. I urge the Solicitor General, now that the book and plaque are in his possession, to take immediate action to ensure that they are placed promptly in a prominent and appropriate location in the Centre Block of the Parliament Buildings.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, this week marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Macassa gold mine in the Kirkland Lake region of my riding. This week also marks the eighth consecutive week that the Canadian mining industry has not had a voice in Cabinet since the resignation of the former Minister because of tax evasion charges.
The Canadian mining industry employs over 274,000 people from coast to coast, and in 1980 it represented 4.7 per cent of the Gross National Product. It is an industry that is far too important to ignore for this length of time.
A former Minister of State for Mines released a mineral policy discussion paper in March, 1982, and the House has yet to see any concrete or constructive policy proposals made by the Government based on this lengthy report.
As a Member of Parliament who represents a riding in which mining is of the utmost priority, I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to make the appointment of a Minister of Mines one of his top priorities. Now is the time for the Canadian mining industry and the hundreds of thousands of people associated with it to have a strong voice to represent their interests and concerns in the federal Cabinet.

October 13, 1983
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Considering the human drama that is unfolding in the Gaspe, is the Acting Prime Minister ... But here is the Prime Minister! I shall repeat my question.
Considering the human drama that is unfolding in the Gaspe, has the Right Hon. Prime Minister met or tried to meet personally with the Premier of Quebec in order to break the stalemate on a matter that is absolutaly vital to the Gaspe area?


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


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker.
I know the Prime Minister is starting another series of trips across the country, as he announced and will spend two or three weeks trying to meet other heads of government in order to conclude agreements. It is therefore rather surprising that he does not take five minutes to call the Premier of Quebec on behalf of the people of the Gaspe-


An Hon. Member:: Did you call him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Prime Minister has referred to a $250 million program for the Gaspe Peninsula, announced more than five months ago by a number of his ministers. Could the Prime Minister inform the House when the people in the Gaspe will be hired under this program, and could he also inform the House how many people will be involved and what the duration of their employment in the Gaspe will be under this $250 million program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is asking me the same question I was asked yesterday by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


An Hon. Member:: He was not here!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He could have asked about what I told the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday, namely, that the office in Rimouski would be opened within the next few days, and that the funds we had committed would be spent as the projects were carried out. For instance, I know that as far as transportation is concerned, we have already spent $20 million of the $50 million that were allocated, and I can say that everything is proceeding according to plan, as far as the creation of jobs is concerned. Again, I am sorry we were
unable to reach an agreement on priorities with the Government of Quebec, but as I told the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday, that should not prevent us from earmarking these funds for a disadvantaged area of the province-the member for Central Nova knows what I mean-that must be helped with public funds.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, it is just like the Government to appoint a public servant in an office in Rimouski to help people in the Gaspe Peninsula. That really makes a lot of sense.


An Hon. Member:: Ask your question!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the question, in this increasingly sad and difficult situation, is as follows: In view of the fact that the plan was announced five months ago by his own Cabinet colleagues-two years ago he himself went to the Gaspe to announce the program-five months ago, he was advised that the program was imminent, will the Prime Minister, in view of the emergency situation that continues in the Gaspe and is affecting human beings, both individuals and their families, could the Prime Minister table in the House a schedule specifying the amounts to be spent and the jobs that will be created in the days, weeks and months to come in the Gaspe Peninsula, and could he do so as of today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand why the Leader of the Opposition is so upset about the fact we are opening an office in Rimouski. The alternative would be to run everything from Ottawa, but I think it makes sense to have Government employees in this area to help the ministers implement these projects, and I fail to see why the Leader of the Opposition should criticize this form of decentralized administration.
As far as the actual projects are concerned, as I said in my first reply, certain funds have already been committed for airports and harbour facilities. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has gone to announce other projects as well. However, I repeat that when we announced the major development plan for this very disadvantaged region of the province, we did not do so on impulse, spontaneously, without preparation, a little like the Leader of the Opposition seems to ask questions. The problem has been given serious thought and has given rise to a program that will be spread out over 15 years, and it would be misleading the people of this area to say, as the Leader of the Opposition seems to want me to say, that we are going to spend all this money in the first month or the first year. It will be spread out over a number of years, just as the problems in this area of the province have grown over many decades. A major decision was necessary to help this region, and our ministers have done their share. Once again, I am sorry this has to be a federal rather than a federal-provincial undertaking, but I really do not see why the Leader of the Opposition is so upset.
October 13, 1983


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to a plan that was given serious thought, so serious, in fact, that in 1980, in January and February, the unemployment rate in the area was 9.5 per cent, and has now risen to 18.4 per cent, in a highly disadvantaged area.
My question is very simple and very straightforward. Could the Prime Minister table in the House a schedule specifying the number of jobs to be created and when, when the local population will be able to benefit from the programs promised under $250 agreement? To date, nobody, not even his dog has been hired! Table your schedule.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is complaining that no dogs have been hired. Madam Speaker, dogs may be his priority but our priority is human beings, and we are hiring them.
Many of the projects announced are already underway, and believe me, these are not projects for cats and dogs but for human beings.
The press releases were published. If the Leader of the Opposition wants us to buy advertising space with public funds to announce what we are already doing, we shall do so. However, perhaps his research office would be better off asking the Government for the press releases we published as we were announcing the projects. Let him do his homework and study his lessons, first, before asking questions.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary, and it is not about homework and lessons. Today, in the poll results, Canadians are reminding the Prime Minister that whatever his lessons were, their practical application has not been successful.
Madam Speaker, my question is the following. If the Government was so serious about its proposals for a recovery program for the Gaspe, why is the Prime Minister today refusing to engage in a direct dialogue with the Premier of Quebec, after acknowledging yesterday that it had not been possible to conclude a joint agreement between Quebec and Ottawa on this long-term program?
In the circumstances, should not a responsible Prime Minister promise the House today to get in touch with his Quebec counterpart, for the sake of a region that has suffered more than enough?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I wish to appeal to the Hon. Member's common sense. He referred to a dialogue with the Quebec Premier. I am constantly in touch with him. For instance, on the matter of the community funds we want to spend in the municipalities, we have been seeking ways to solve this problem, and I have been doing so personally for many months.
Oral Questions
It is a simple matter, Madam Speaker, and perhaps the Hon. Member for Joliette could give us the benefit of his innate knowledge. We want to spend public funds to create jobs in the municipal sectors. We have been trying for months to get permission to spend those funds. Municipal councils and mayors have complained to me. I got in touch with the Premier of Quebec, and we are trying to find a formula under which, as I said before, we will be able to spends public funds in Quebec municipalities.
If the Hon. Member believes he has a magic solution, let him call up the Premier of Quebec and tell him what it is. As far as accusing me of not having a dialogue with the Premier . . . Madam Speaker, I have been trying to find a solution.
The Hon. Member knows how stubborn and unpredictable the pequiste government is. It does not like co-operating with the federal Government.
Why are the Hon. Member and his leader hiding behind an ideology I know they do not support, to blame me for not co-operating with a government that wants the province to separate from Canada?


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was talking about co-operation with the provinces, but if I recall correctly, he himself repeated not long ago that as far as he was concerned, co-operative federalism was dead, and now he is complaining about a lack of co-operation on the part of the provinces! My question is as follows: If the Prime Minister wants a solution, I would ask him to inform the House, whether in the circumstances, he feels co-operative federalism is really dead. If so, then why is he trying to mislead people by referring to genuine co-operation and consultation with the provincial premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would not be surprised if the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party did not know the answer to this question, since he is a newcomer on the political scene, but the member for Joliette ought to know- unless he is asking questions for the sake of indulging in rhetoric-that the kind of co-operative federalism I criticized consists in the federal Government giving funds to various provinical governments to spend, while they get all the credit. That is exactly what is happening in the case of the municipalities I referred to earlier.


Roch La Salle: That is not federal business, and you had better reach an agreement with Quebec!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member would listen. We have public funds, we want to create jobs, we want to spend those funds to create jobs through community projects which, for the most part, do not come under the direct jurisdiction of the municipalities but are initiated by individuals or groups that apply for funds. The Government of Quebec is saying: Give us the money, we are going to spend it. That is
27990

October 13, 1983
Oral Questions
the kind of co-operative federalism I am against, when the federal Government does not exist as far as the people are concerned, when the federal Government can only exist through a proxy, the provincial premiers. That is not how we see federalism and I do not think the Hon. Member's leader sees it that way either. That is why we are quarrelling with the provinces because they want to spend the federal Government's money.


Madam Speaker:: Order!


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I thought the questions put by the Leader of the Official Opposition today were excellent, and if I may say so, I thought they were pretty good yesterday when I asked them the first time.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The fact is that right now thousands of Canadian families are paying anywhere from $200 to $300 more per month on a mortgage than they should have to pay, given the prevailing rates, because they are locked into mortgages which they took out at 18 per cent to 23 per cent some time ago. Considering that the Minister of Finance had questions put to him two days ago by this Party, and yesterday by the Conservative Party, on this important matter, and he has not provided a specific answer, will he now give us a commitment and, more important, will he give a commitment to those families who are suffering, that the Government of Canada will do something about the overpayment which these families must make at this time?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for having pointed out that we have had the opportunity of taking our weekly peek at the Leader of the Opposition, whom we are happy to receive in this House today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: What a sweet tempered man you are.


Some Hon. Members:: Twenty-three per cent!


Madam Speaker:: Order, Order, please.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it seems the Conservatives would like me to say the "bi-weekly" peek. Perhaps I made a mistake.


An Hon. Member:: You made your mistake a long time ago.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the question raised by the Hon. Member is concerned-


Mr. McDermid:: You are off on another month's trip. Tell us about your next trip, Pierre.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair cannot follow the debate, so I expect that many Hon. Members cannot.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I have made strenuous representations to a large number of financial institutions to bear in mind the plight of individual Canadians. In a very large number of cases action has been taken, not only following my own representations but following representations by individual Members of Parliament.


An Hon. Member:: Not true.


Marc Lalonde: I hear a Member of the New Democratic Party saying that he has not been successful.


An Hon. Member:: Not in my riding.


Marc Lalonde: I would suggest it is probably because the Hon. Member has not done his job properly. I can point out to the Hon. Member a number of cases which Hon. Members on this side have settled on their own without asking the Minister of Finance to do their job. Steps have been taken. A large number of cases have been settled and arranged.
The Hon. Member wants us to go further and legislate in this regard. I have also received representations, as I indicated, from a number of Hon. Members on this side of the House on this subject over the last few weeks. We have been examining this question. There are obvious advantages to it, but there are also problems. One of the problems which the Hon. Member should bear in mind is that anything we do will have a cost implicit in it. We are concerned that this should not mean that it would lead to some increase in the total amount of interest rates which people will have to pay for mortgages, because if you force institutions to allow repayment, let us say with a three month penalty in all instances, you may face a situation where institutions may have to bear that in mind in terms of the total amount they have to charge in terms of the rate of interest.
We are examining this matter. If it can be resolved in a way which will be to the advantage of the consumer, you can be assured that this Government will take steps in that regard.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTERVENE WITH CHARTERED BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I point out to the Minister of Finance that during the 18 month period when Canadians had to renew their mortgages at that exorbitant level of 18 per cent to 23 per cent interest, the chartered banks of Canada made $2.5 billion in profits. I would say to the Minister of Finance that the banks are not exactly suffering. In the United States at the time when President Kennedy had comparable concern with the steel
October 13, 1983

industry in his country, he took immediate action by telling the Companies either to bring down the price of steel or expect Government action against them. Will the Minister of Finance take comparable action with the banks in Canada, and tell them to renew those mortgages at a rate where Canadians can now save money which they ought to be saving, or the Government of Canada will take immediate legislative action?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would tell the Leader of the New Democratic Party that his question deals with only a small part of the problem. If he looks at the correspondence which he has received, and certainly I have received such correspondence from citizens and Members of Parliament, he will see, no doubt, that a very large number of those cases do not deal with banks. They deal with trust companies and other financial institutions which have had to go into the market to borrow, let us say, on five, ten and 15-year bonds. These institutions have loaned also on a long-term basis, five or ten years. They are in a situation where they have borrowed money on the long term and which they have loaned long term also. Now the Hon. Member wants the Government to tell them they should renew on short term at a different rate. There is a cost to these institutions for that. That is what I am trying to tell the Hon. Member.
We are examining the situation so that institutions will not take the opportunity, on the pretext of any action the Government might decide to take, to charge the consumer at large more than they would otherwise have charged. I believe this is a serious problem which needs and deserves careful consideration. Anything we do here should be for the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the point we make is simply that the financial institutions were making lots of profit at that time and the least they could do now is to share some of the burden with the families who are affected by exorbitant mortgage rates.


REQUEST THAT INTEREST ACT BE AMENDED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has responsibility for the Interest Act. Considering what the Minister of Finance has just said, that institutions other than the banks are involved, will the Minister bring in, say next week, a bill which will amend the Interest Act, to permit families to renew their mortgages by paying only a three month penalty? That would be an example of concrete action which would show Canadians that the Government actually cares, and would replace the empty rhetoric of which we have heard so much from the Government?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has pointed out, we have been consulting. We are very much aware of this problem. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that mortgages which have been put out by trust companies
Oral Questions
are under provincial legislation and many of them are not subject to federal law. That is also one of the problems which
we face.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Study the law.


Judith A. Erola: I want to stress that we are very much aware of the problem. We are examining all ways in which we feel we can make sure that both the borrower and those who are doing the lending are treated fairly.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. FUAD K. MOHAMED, MINISTER OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE YEMEN ARAB REPUBLIC
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw to the attention of the House the distinguished presence in our gallery today of Mr. Fuad K. Mohamed, the Minister of Development for the Yemen Arab Republic.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Government will be shortly announcing its decision on Unemployment Insurance premium rates for 1984. We know that expenditures under the Unemployment Insurance Program for this year are estimated to be $11 billion. Given the Government's track record, that situation is going to get worse. I raise my question to the Minister in the context of the recommendations made by the Economic Council of Canada and the statements made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Will the Government be announcing, along with the premium rate schedules, what steps it proposes to take to make the Unemployment Insurance fund a more efficient mechanism for job creation?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I do not anticipate making the kind of statement which the Hon. Member has described at that time. There is now, as I think the Hon. Member knows, a mechanism within the Unemployment Insurance Act, namely, Section 38, which does provide a method by which funds which would otherwise be paid out for income support can be used to support workers in job creation. We have had considerable success with the use of that provision over the past year. It may be that at some particular time we might focus in again on whether there is some way in which that mechanism can be improved. However, I do not anticipate making the kind of suggestion for changes which the Hon. Member has described

October 13, 1983
Oral Questions
at the same time at which we bring forward the establishment of rates for the coming year.


PREMIUM RATES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, 1 assume the Government has had consultations with the other two partners in the unemployment insurance scheme, namely, employee and employer representatives. If so, is the Government satisfied, following those consultations, that a further substantial premium increase can now be absorbed on top of last year's substantial increase, without curtailing job creation? That is the question which the Government has to address.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the consultations to which the Hon. Member refers have indeed taken place. I will be making recommendations to Cabinet very shortly about what the levels should be for the forthcoming year.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to address my question to the Minister of State for External Relations.
On Tuesday of this week Carleton University held a benefit for Tariq Ahsan, a Ph.D. student who has been a political prisoner in his homeland for approximately 24 months. It was fully 16 months before a charge was brought against Mr. Ahsan, and he still awaits trial for a charge unrelated in any way to violence or sedition. He is what one non-governmental organization terms a "prisoner of conscience". I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs is aware of this case. Could the Minister tell us what measures the Canadian Government is undertaking on behalf of this gentleman, and, by extension, all citizens of the world who are incarcerated without the assurance of a prompt and fair trial?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, I am also familiar with the matter. Given the state of international law today, it is not possible for the Government to intervene in a foreign country on behalf of non-Canadian citizens. This is one of those instances. The only thing we can do, and we do it in the framework of bilateral relationships with Pakistan, is dialogue with officials of that country regularly on matters of common interest. Human rights is one of those. We have done that repeatedly. The Secretary of State for External Affairs on his last visit to that country had conversations on that subject at the highest level. The Department is continuing these efforts. The case of this gentleman, Mr. Ahsan, has been talked about.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs perhaps I could direct my question to the Prime Minister. I had not realized that the Minister would be leaving for his meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Shultz this soon.
In light of the bombing raids inside Nicaragua last month, with at least one plane being provided by the CIA, and the combined air and sea attack on Nicaragua's main oil port this week by the CIA-backed group FDN, does the Prime Minister know if the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his meeting with Secretary of State Shultz this weekend, plans to discuss our very grave concern about the growing number of CIA-backed attempts to cripple the economy of Nicaragua and ultimately overthrow its Government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the subject of sending arms to Central America has been condemned by us on a number of occasions, the last time by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the UN General Assembly meeting. I do not know specifically if that particular point will come up in the discussion to be held tomorrow or the day after between Secretary Shultz and our Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I think so. I will make sure and I will call my friend this afternoon.


Pauline Jewett: Would the Minister or the Prime Minister get in touch with the Secretary of State specifically on the CIA-backed attacks? That is what I was asking about.


EXTENSION OF CREDIT BY CANADA
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, would the Minister of State for External Relations be able to inform the House today whether the Government has now approved its pledge of an $18 million line of credit to Nicaragua?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not too sure. I am sorry, I am a new man in the game.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I saw a report on that subject. I will make sure and communicate this afternoon with my hon. friend.


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Economic Develop-
October 13, 1983

ment. 1 have in my hand a Cabinet document marked "Confidential", dated September 16, 1983, entitled "Special Recovery Capital Projects Program", and under a section entitled "Status of Preliminary Project Approvals" it states that, with two exceptions, preliminary project approval has now been given to all the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will please refrain from quoting from documents and go immediately to a question.


Mr. Nielsen:: Why not? Is that a new rule?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister brought to the attention of his Cabinet colleagues that it was the Minister responsible for Public Works who was foot dragging and abrogating his responsibility to the residents of New Brunswick, I ask him if he would now give assurance to the tens of thousands of unemployed people in that Province, including the 76.8 per cent of the construction work force who are jobless in the city of Saint John, that these projects will indeed be implemented, with or without the approval of the Minister responsible for Public Works?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, 1 have some difficulty in understanding what the Hon. Member is referring to.


Mr. Stevens:: You usually do.


Donald James Johnston: When this question was addressed to me the other day I pointed out that people in New Brunswick, I believe, are very happy, as I am sure he is, with the enormous amount of work which has gone into that Province under the Special Recovery Capital Projects.
You can ask the people of New Brunswick about route 11, about Newcastle, and about the Moncton Core development, or about the Saint John drydock, which 1 know is a matter of concern to them. Ask them about the Maritime Forestry Research Institute. I have not heard the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury complaining about that. It is in Fredericton and is one of the most important research institutes going in under this program. Ask them about the Forest Rangers School. As I recall, that is in New Brunswick. So I do not understand what the Hon. Member is talking about.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, that is ridiculous. He indicates everything is tickety-boo in New Brunswick, and he knows full well that is not the case.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, will the Minister go down there and ask the four or five hundred people about to be laid off from the Saint John drydock what they think of his program, or the 3,500 people about to be laid off in Chatham, New Brunswick? Will he go down there and clean up that mess in New Brunswick which the Minister
Oral Questions
responsible for Public Works is either unwilling or unable to do?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it is true I have not had the opportunity of asking all the people in New Brunswick, but I have had the opportunity of asking the Premier of New Brunswick and he seems to be very happy with the Program, very pleased with it, as a matter of fact. My colleague, the Minister of Public Works, participated in that meeting, and I am sure that if the people of New Brunswick really felt the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member, the Premier might have raised them with us during that meeting.


AIR CANADA
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I am sorry the Solicitor General is not here but I am sure the Minister of Justice will have seen today's media reports which state that the Solicitor General said yesterday the RCMP submitted a report to the federal Government on the investigation into alleged improprieties in the selection of Air Canada's new headquarters office in Montreal.
The Minister will recall yesterday he informed this House, as reported at page 27940 of Hansard, in responding to a question by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, that "the investigation is not entirely complete in all respects".
One of those statements is false. Is it the statement of the Solicitor General or is it the statement of the Minister of Justice that is false?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for raising the point. I advised the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants this morning, and I notified the Chair, that I would be rising at three o'clock to say that after Question Period yesterday I learned from my departmental officials that the RCMP have now in fact completed that investigation into the purchase by Air Canada of its new headquarters site in Montreal. They have communicated their findings to the Department of the Attorney General of Quebec. The matter is therefore now entirely in the hands of the Attorney General of Quebec.


POSITION OF CHAIRMAN
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I fully expect that the Minister has read the report, and I fully expect the Minister of Transport has read the report. Quite apart from any recommendations which may exist in that report with respect to the laying of criminal charges, can the Minister of Transport tell us whether there is anything in that report

October 13, 1983
Oral Questions
suggesting any conflict of interest involving Mr. Amyot in the selection of the building in Montreal? Is the Government now considering, or is it to consider, anything in the report which might affect the continued employment of Mr. Amyot in Air Canada?
[DOT] (M50)


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I think that, as the Minister of Justice has already pointed out, the matter of conflict of interest is one which will now be referred to the Attorney General in Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Dick:: That's for criminal matters.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is a matter that was purely and completely in the hands of the legal process. I have just received a report on the particular situation this morning. I will be having an opportunity over the weekend, I hope, to review it carefully, to discuss it and examine it with the appropriate officials. At that time we would have to make some judgments, but at this time we have not had the opportunity to do so.


REFERENCES TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Erik Nielsen: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. He cannot weasel out of it that way. I said, quite apart from any criminal charges that are possibly being considered, the question of conflict of interest stands apart. Is the Government considering the references in the report to conflict of interest which would affect the continued employment of Mr. Amyot? He told the House yesterday that there was no anticipation that Mr. Amyot would resign. Is he just as certain today as he was yesterday?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to make it very clear to the Hon. Member that it is a matter that I treat with some degree of seriousness and will therefore give the report the proper attention it deserves. When we can make those kinds of judgments, we will make them, not according to the timetable of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: A little nervous over there.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On October 8, over the past weekend, the Ukrainian Canadian Committee
held its fourteenth Triennial Congress in Winnipeg. The federal Government was represented by the Minister of State for Finance, who gave a speech on behalf of the Government which was received by that body, and by Ukrainian Canadians, as being offensive and containing racist stereotyping. The Minister quoted, with approval, the speech of Clifford Sifton wherein he described central Europeans as follows:
I think a stalwart peasant in a sheep-skin coat, born on the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for ten generations, with a stout wife and a half-dozen children, is good quality.
The Congress has written to the Prime Minister complaining about the speech and the references made by the Minister of State for Finance. What is the Prime Minister going to do about this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know of the speech, but I do know the Minister and I am absolutely certain that he intended no racial or other slur.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I can only describe the remarks of the Minister of State for Finance made to the Congress as being in the tradition of Earl Butz.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I want to ask the
Prime Minister a supplementary question. He gave a lot of free advice yesterday as to the activities of a member of the other place. I want to ask him whether or not, since this man is involved in the policy-making of the Government, he will tolerate this kind of racist statement with respect to a very important component of our population, or whether he will try to slough it off and suggest that this is not an inappropriate, offensive kind of speech, as indicated in a letter from the Congress, which was adopted unanimously.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I repeat, I do not know the speech. I would be happy to look at it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It's been delivered to everybody's office.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do know the Minister. He is a man of high sensitivity and culture. The Hon. Member says that he was quoting something?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The speech that was delivered to my office and to your office, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, but I understood the Hon. Member said that he was quoting something about-


Mr. Andre:: Another Grit.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who was he quoting, Madam Speaker, and in what context?


James Aloysius McGrath: He was quoting from the speech.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, no, I undestand-

October 13, 1983


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Clifford Sifton.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member, in asking his question, referred to a quote in the speech. Who was he quoting?


Harvie Andre: A Grit.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who was the Minister quoting? That is what I am asking him.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Supplementary!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was a quote of your friend, Clifford Sifton.


John Horton McDermid: Double standard again, Madam Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: With approval, with approval!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Come on. Have the courage to say it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: With approval!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What a lot of-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You're good at giving advice, but-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What a coward!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Horton McDermid: Double standard!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What standard? What does Clifford Sifton have to do with me, you imbecile?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I heard the Hon. Member. He was asking for a supplementary. However, at this time we are already five minutes late in recognizing the NDP. Therefore, I must recognize the NDP because we are five minutes late moving to that party. I recognize the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Nystrom:: My question is for the Minister of Industry.


James Aloysius McGrath: Saved by the NDP.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I don't think it is funny either.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you have the honesty to say who you are quoting, somebody who has been dead one hundred years, you creep? What a phony.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Madam Speaker. Last week a senior official of FIRA said that an increasing number of foreign investors are not keeping the promises they made as a condition of entering Canada. The Minister knows that he has the legal sanctions of the Act to ensure that those conditions are kept. Why has the Minister not taken action to ensure that they keep the conditions when they enter this country? If he does not take any action, how can he expect us to take FIRA seriously?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very good point, and the officials of FIRA have been most vigilant in looking at each one of these cases which, I understand, represent only about 6 or 7 per cent of the total cases that have been decided, where the company in question has not lived up to its original commitment. After investigation, we discovered that most of those conditions were not lived up to because of market conditions. As the Hon. Member knows, the capacity utilization throughout the industrialized world is 50 per cent, 60 per cent, or 70 per cent, in many sectors. So, it is very difficult for an applicant to live up to a commitment of investment when those conditions exist internationally.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Supplementary.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, in the last three months, the Minister has allowed 99 per cent of the takeover applications to go ahead, which is even worse than Jack Horner.


CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES-LEASING OF INSULIN FACILITIES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think we know that one of the most important inventions by Canadians was insulin, by Banting and Best. Last week Connaught Laboratories, owned by the CDC, let it be known that it intends to lease its insulin-producing facilities to a foreign firm. I would like to know what the Minister is doing, or what FIRA will do to ensure that the production of this very important product remains here in Canadian hands.


Edward C. Lumley: First of all, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is very specific in his choice of figures about approvals. He also forgot to mention that last year, through FIRA approvals, we negotiated $3 billion of investment by firms in this country. That investment will create jobs, and I have always thought that is what the NDP is pushing. He also forgot to mention that we created or preserved over 30,000 jobs through FIRA proposals last year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: How about insulin?

October 13, 1983
Oral Questions


Edward C. Lumley: I think he should just broaden his scope a little bit in the selection of his statistics.
With respect to the second part of his question, the Hon. Member knows that I cannot divulge, by law, the specifics of any application. However, he can be assured that we will look at that application very closely in keeping with the recommendation that was made.


Madam Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Provencher on a supplementary.


MULTICULTURALISM
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister regarding the affair in Winnipeg, at which Ukrainian Canadians commemorated the famine of 1932-33 in which approximately seven million people died. On that solemn occasion his Minister of State for Finance made remarks of which the Prime Minister has now heard. However, if he had not even heard about those, he received a letter from the delegates in which they describe the Minister's statements as "inappropriate, condescending and totally lacking perception of the nature and tone of this Congress". In light of those words, and in light of the Prime Minister's constant commitment to the Constitution and the enhancement of multicultur-alism in the Constitution, what will he do about those kinds of statements from his Ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have just had a word of explanation from the Minister. He tells me he was quoting from Sifton, a well known politician and Minister who was responsible for immigration from the European countries to the West. I understand the offensive quotation is one in which he would have spoken about the sturdy families, and stout women, and so on. I do not know who was being insulted. I know if I were told that my great-great grandfather came from France in homespun cloth and in wooden shoes, and that he was not very clean, I would not be ashamed of him. I am proud of my ancestors and I do not feel slurred because someone is describing how they arrived from Europe decades or centuries ago.
If the Hon. Member is trying to get this House to forget a recent slur by a Senator from his Party, on the Indians and about how they should be killed, that shows that is the name of the game.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. Boniface.


Mr. Bockstael:: Madam Speaker, my question-


Some Hon. Members:: Supplementary!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have to be fair to all Members in this House. I have allowed the Hon. Member a supplementary question, and now I must go to the Hon. Member for St. Boniface who has been seeking the floor since the beginning of the Question Period.


PETRO-CANADA ANNOUNCED CLOSURE OF HIGHWAY RESTAURANT
Robert Theodore Bockstael: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is responsible for Petro-Canada. At Warren's Corner on the TransCanada Highway opposite the Royal Mint in St. Boniface, Petro-Canada owns a 24-hour truck stop service station and restaurant which has provided valued service to local residents, tourists and truckers for 30 years. Petro-Canada has announced the replacement of this facility with a simple self-serve gas bar without a restaurant.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: "It's Ours." Fix it up.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think the Hon. Member could save us all those details-


Harvie Andre: Axworthy, your Cabinet seat is safe.


Madam Speaker:: -and go to his question.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Could the Minister obtain a commitment from Petro-Canada that proper tourist and truck stop facilities will be restored on this site concurrent with the reopening of the gas bar service?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I would-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: Build a post office.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Every Member is at least entitled to be able to listen to his answer. I believe that is what the Hon. Member for St. Boniface would like to do, and I would ask the House to co-operate.


Mr. Chretien:: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the particulars of this question. Of course, it is a decision for the corporation to make. I know that there are some people in Winnipeg who have been complaining about this problem in serving the local population. I will get in touch with the corporation and ask them when they are making changes to make sure that the public receives the best service possible from the corporation.
October 13, 1983_____________________________COMMONS DEBATES


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, October 12, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have the usual Thursday question for the Government House Leader and request that he inform the House what business we will be dealing with for the remainder of this week and as far into next week as he can take us.
I have also spoken with him, and he realizes that I will be making this offer today, concerning the seven outstanding reports of the special committee on parliamentary reform which, after one and one-half years of steady work, produced ten reports-seven of which are still on the table-with total unanimity from the committee. They have now completed their work with the tenth report.
I discussed this with the Government House Leader at a House Leaders' meeting on September 14. At that time, he indicated that he would be speaking to his Cabinet colleagues to see whether or not we could pass all of those reports before prorogation which, I understand, is to happen some time before Christmas.
Anticipating that he might say something about consultation, I would think that the month that has transpired since September 14 would have been sufficient time for that kind of consultation. Since I believe, unlike he, that those reports will die with prorogation unless they are passed, we, and I understand the NDP also, are very concerned about implementing those seven reports which go to the very heart of meaningful parliamentary reform. I am informed by the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that there was no agreement not to move concurrence in those reports. He informs me that no such agreement was entered into.
In any event, 1 am prepared to ask the Chair to seek unanimous consent to pass all seven of those reports today, at once, without any debate. 1 understand from talking with the Hon.' Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that he is prepared to commit his Party to such consent. It will take two or three minutes to complete that process so we will not hold up any time in the House of Commons, and we will have those seven excellent reports in place which will give some substance and meaning to the reform which we have all been seeking for so many years. I would ask the Chair to seek that consent from the House.
Business of the House


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the first part of the Hon. Member's question refers to the business of the House for the next few days. We shall continue, and I hope complete, the debate on Bill C-155, the legislation we shall be considering today, tomorrow and next Monday and Tuesday, unless otherwise specified. Regarding the latter part of the Hon. Member s remarks, I am surprised, and agreeably so, that the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) should show an interest in parliamentary reform. 1 am prepared to believe that this suggestion is not a matter of political expediency but reflects a new desire for improving our parliamentary institution without drum rolls or trumpet flourishes and also, I should hope, without bells. In the circumstances, if the Hon. Member for Yukon wishes to make concrete proposals for parliamentary reform in general, covering both the House of Commons and the Senate, an important part of our Parliament, for reform that also reflects the present experiment, 1 can assure him that we are prepared to collaborate fully in order to negotiate these changes in a reasonable manner that will provide the basis for a sound and lasting reform. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that we are now examining these reports and are prepared to negotiate their application, and meanwhile, 1 hope he will follow up on his undertaking to negotiate in good faith on adjustments to be made in the light of our present experiment based on a major reform proposed in the third report of the same special committee on parliamentary reform.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, 1 still request that you put that question seeking unanimous consent. It might appeal more to the Government House Leader, who now appears to be shying away from the adoption of those reports which have been approved by all Parties in committee and are ready for approval, that while I cannot make a more reasonable offer than to pass them all without debate, since it will only take two or three minutes, I will sweeten the pot for him and say that we are also prepared to pass all of those reports standing on the Order Paper dealing with Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments without debate, because they come from that joint committee with the approval of all Parties and with unanimity. We will pass all of those and it will take only two or three minutes to do that.
I also offer to him to pass Bill C-96 through all stages in one day and Bill C-168 through all stages in one day. I cannot be more reasonable than that, but I would ask you, Madam Speaker, to seek consent for dealing with those seven unanimous a 11-Party reports from the committee and see who opposes that consent.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we are now testing a number of changes in the Standing Orders proposed in just one of the Committee's reports, the third report. I fail to understand, and once again, I do not doubt the Hon. Member's good faith or I prefer not to doubt it, but I fail to understand, when Parlia-

October 13, 1983
Business of the House
ment agreed unanimously to a trial period of at least a year to implement just one of the Committee's reports, why today, the Hon. Member is suggesting that we implement immediately, without a trial period, not just one but seven reports that go to the very heart of our parliamentary system, since some of them concern the supply procedure.
If the Hon. Member could explain his motives, perhaps we would harbour fewer doubts as to his good faith and the sincerity of his desire to improve the institution. That was why the members of the Committee agreed not to propose adoption of the reports to which the Hon. Member is referring. So once again-and I checked with the Committee chairman who is in the House today and who declared publicly that 1 was right- the members of the Special Committee decided not to play politics with parliamentary reform and agreed not to propose adoption of the reports, because we must take into account the general context of parliamentary reform and because we want changes that have been tested before they become permanent.
In the circumstances, I would again refer the Hon. Member to the members of this committee. 1 would ask him not to play politics with reform, and I again wish to express my sincere desire for negotiating these changes in good faith, keeping in mind the general context of parliamentary reform.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Madam Speaker, because my position as Chairman of the Committee was brought into question by the words that were spoken, I want to say that there definitely was an understanding by the members of that Committee that these reports would be arrived at by consensus, that there would be unanimous decisions on the understanding there would be no move to concur in the House.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, what we are dealing with now is quite important. With regard to the question of understandings, that this Committee would work for a year and a half within a vacuum, with nothing being done and nothing flowing from it, was not the case. I have to say that to the House. Many Members can attest to that. There were members on the Committee who worried very much as to whether or not the work of the Committee would be acceptable to the Parties and whether or not, under those circumstances, the work would lie on the Order Paper as part of history. That was a concern of members of the Committee. But to take that to the stage of saying there would never be parliamentary action, especially when the Committee did act by way of consensus, if in the event there was consensus in the House of Commons, is to carry this matter much too far.
I say to my hon. friend, for whom I have a great regard and who is Chairman of the Committee, that what is happening today, at least with respect to my Party, is that we are indicating unanimity in terms of those reports. I do not know what the position of the New Democratic Party is with respect to this matter, but it would be interesting to hear that. I am
not saying the NDP has held back in any way. I believe it is important that the questions be put so that we understand in the House whether, if it is found there is resistance to consensus, that resistance can be overcome. It was not done on the basis put to me and to the House by the Government House Leader.
Surely there is not a member of that Special Committee in the House of Commons who would not take the position that if the reports are accepted unanimously in the House of Commons, we ought not to proceed with them. Surely that is not the case at all. That Committee was not working for nothing. We did not invest 18 months of our lives in that work, we did not compromise and come to understandings, to have these reports lie on the Order Paper. We hoped they would not die.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am going to put it strongly to you, Madam Speaker, that we worked damned hard and damned well to have this matter come to some fruition. An offer has been made. Whether or not it is accepted will lie in the hands of the Government, but an offer has been made. I assume my friends in the new Democratic Party who worked hard on this matter feel the same way. But there was never any understanding that the matters would not be proceeded with.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I do not want to deal with the understanding. It is quite clear that we cannot achieve parliamentary reform unless we are prepared to adopt the recommendations of the Committee.
I want to suggest two things in answer to questions posed to me. First, as far as the rules that are apparently in place on a trial basis are concerned, we are prepared to implement those, either permanently or to negotiate in a short period of time any minor changes that might be necessary, in order to make those the Standing Orders and rules of the House of Commons.
Second, as far as the seven outstanding reports are concerned-and I use outstanding in both terms; they are outstanding and they are indeed outstanding-I want to suggest that, as far as this Party is concerned, we would be prepared to pass them forthwith, without debate. If we can do so today, all the better. We believe the reform of Parliament is essential and that Parliament, given that there is a much better mood here today than there was, say, a year ago, would work even better if we were to undertake to put into place the recommendations of the Committee. I was a member of that Committee for a period of time, on which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), sits as Vice-Chairman along with the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). We believe that the implementation of those reports in total would make for a more workable and more responsive and responsible Parliament.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), who was such an outstanding impartial Chairman of that Committee-and I
October 13, 1983

say that to him in all sincerity-has implied that there has been a breach of an agreement. I think the hon. gentleman misunderstood the agreement because 1 made it very clear on the last meeting day of that Committee that the agreement that we would not move concurrence only held while the Committee was deliberating. Once it had completed its work that deal was off, and that was clearly understood by most, if not all, members of the Committee. That certainly was my understanding. I regret very much that the hon. gentleman would suggest we would be a party to a breach of such an agreement.


Thomas Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, an agreement to me is an agreement. There was no such understanding as explained by the Member who just spoke.


Mr. Collenette:: Madam Speaker, as a member of this Committee before I was elevated to Cabinet-


Mr. Beatty:: Being appointed to this Cabinet is not an elevation.


David Michael Collenette: -I must take issue with my colleagues on the other side and support the Chairman of the Committee. It is true we did not have any agreement in the words of "an agreement", but there was a general understanding along the lines explained by my colleague from Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre). 1 regret that this kind of debate is taking place on the floor of the Chamber. Perhaps we could settle it outside the Chamber.


Madam Speaker:: At any rate, perhaps that is a good suggestion. I leave it to Hon. Members, but I do have an obligation to ask the House if it will give its unanimous consent to move acceptance of the seven reports on parliamentary reform.


Erik Nielsen: Without debate.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Huntington:: One big game after another. What a phony show.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Serge Joyal ^Secretary of State): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the report on the Canada Student Loans Program for loan year 1981-82.

Henry Perrin Beatty: for leave to introduce Bill C-692, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that all Canadians, no matter where they reside, will be able to exercise one of the most fundamental rights in a democracy, the right to participate in an election. If this Bill passes, it will prevent the repetition of a shocking incident during the Central Nova by-election where a Canadian citizen living in the United States was investigated for participating in the by-election.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,433 and 4,927.


Mr. Gass: What amount was spent by the Government for the subsidizing of nuclear power (a) during each year 1971 to 1981 (b) inside Canada (c) outside Canada?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Department of

October 13, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Energy, Mines and Resources and the Export Development Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b) Federal Government expenditures supporting Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's research and development program and Atomic Energy Control Board's regulatory functions:
	($ Millions)
1970-71	76.6
1971-72	89.5
1972-73	87.0
1973-74	96.3
1974-75	97.9
1975-76	107.6
1976-77	115.5
1977-78	140.6
1978-79	133.5
1979-80	137.5
1980-81	147.3
1981-82	173.2
Notes:
1.	Excludes $822.7 million additional appropriations for forgiveness of heavy water plant loans.
2.	Excludes $87,531 million budgetary expenditures covering write-off of Gentilly 1 debt.
3.	Excludes $85,491 million budgetary expenditures due to forgiveness of interest on Gentilly 1 and Douglas Point reactors.
4.	Excludes $25,239 million budgetary expenditures due to write-off of NRU reactor.
5.	Indicates mission oriented research (i.e. AECB activity related research including special safeguards).
(c) Outside Canada, during the years in question, there were three sales which were supported by financing from the Export Development Corporation (EDC). Each sale involved concessional financing arrangements which could be regarded as an element of subsidization. The calculation of the precise amounts of pure "subsidies" paid in external marketing would require the release of commercially confidential information.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Advisory Committee under the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	Yes. (See below).
2.	(a) The Committee advises the Corporation on those matters related to trading and dealing in fish, fish products or fish by-products referred to it by the Board.
(b)	Prices to fishermen; freight subsidies; fuel tax exemption; quality control and fish station construction.
(c)	It met twice. It is required to meet at such times as determined by the Board of the FFMC.
(d) Advisory Committee Newsletter, July, ary, 1983.	1982	and Janu-(a)	(b) (i) Background and	(b) (ii) Term of	(c) Remuneration since date ofMembers	Expertise	Appointment	AppointmentM. C. DeAlexandra	Commercial Fisherman	2 years Jan. 29/82	$2,214.65G. A. Bird	Fisherman	2 years Jan.29/82	1,635.10B. C. Buckley	Commercial Fisherman	2 years Jan.29/82	0J. W. Corman	Fisherman/ Trapper	2 years Jan. 29/82	2,019.78B. Lyall	Acting General Manager Ekoloktotiak Co-op	2 years Jan.29/82	1,532.04W. M. Kennedy	Self employed fisherman contractor	2 years Jan.29/82	803.89T. Paupanekis	President of Fishermen's Union Norway House	2 years Jan. 29/82	1,787.43(Chairman's expense).	honorarium $100	per day	plus	travelling
(Member's honorarium $50 per day including travel time).
There now exists eight vacancies on the Committee.
(d) No other direct funding is provided; however, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, etc., are covered by the FFMC.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Mr. Forrestall:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a rather ancient tradition in the Chamber that Starred Questions are attended to with some degree of promptness, usually within 48 hours but certainly where it might be somewhat difficult, not more than three or four days.
I placed Starred Question No. 5,038 on the Order Paper on September 21. It is now October 13. About a week or ten days
October 13, 1983

ago 1 asked the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary whether he could look into the matter, if not to avoid being seen as not responding to the question, at least to preserve the tradition and right. 1 wonder whether he has now had a chance to look at it.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's remarks about his Starred Question is somewhat confused. He alleged on September 30 that Starred Question No. 5,038 had been around for some ten days or two weeks. In fact it was dated September 21 and would have appeared on the notice paper only on September 22. His Starred Question had not been around for that length of time; it had only been around for some six to seven days. We will certainly get to that question at the earliest possible moment.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary was quite unintentional in what he said. In order for it to have appeared on the Order Paper on September 21, it would have to have been submitted somewhat earlier. I appreciate his attention and reiterate my concern that, in accordance with the tradition of the House, urgent Starred Questions are dealt with as expeditiously as possible.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 35 (Mr. Benjamin).
Madam Speaker:: Last Thursday I expressed a number of reservations concerning certain motions in amendment to Bill C-155. I am now prepared to rule on the procedural acceptability of these motions.
Before doing so, may I take this opportunity to thank all Hon. Members who participated in the extensive procedural debate for their very valuable contributions. I must say that these contributions have facilitated the Chair's deeper understanding of a very complex and technical piece of legislation. I am grateful for the arguments they have set forth.
During the debate Hon. Members often referred to the desirability or merit of certain proposed motions. Of course, that puts the Chair in a rather awkward position. I must
Western Grain Transportation Act remind Hon. Members that unfortunately such remarks could not be taken into consideration by the Chair in reaching a decision since only the procedural acceptability of motions concern it.
When I made my preliminary remarks in relation to Motion No. 1, I indicated to the House that this was an attempt to place into the Bill a disguised preamble. Although the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in presenting his argument used the term "statement of purpose and intent , I am not convinced that there is a substantial difference between such a statement and a preamble.
In his very valuable contribution to the procedural debate, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) quoted Citation 779(3) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition as follows:
Where the Bill, as introduced, does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one.
In my view, the effect of Motion No. 1 would be to introduce a preamble into the Bill. However desirable it may be to some Hon. Members-and I understand that it is to many Hon. Members-the introduction of such a preamble is contrary to our rules and practice. Therefore I have no alternative but to rule that Motion No. 1 is not acceptable.
With reference to Motions Nos. 2 to 19 inclusive, 59, 64, 66, 67, 70, 129, 134 and 135 to which I referred in my statement to the House last Thursday as substantive amendments to an interpretation clause, I have not been convinced otherwise. Hon. Members argued that a great many of these motions attempted to move definitions from clauses later on in the Bill and place them in Clause 2, which is the general interpretation clause in the Bill. Of course, this is a novel approach.
In his presentation the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) quoted from May's Nineteenth Edition that it was perfectly in order to move clauses from one part of a Bill to another part of a Bill. The Hon. Member is quite right in this regard. However, the motions in question do not attempt to move clauses but to move definitions into an interpretation clause which covers the whole Bill. This is the dilemma faced by the Chair. The fact that these motions, as argued by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, could be considered to be within the scope of the Bill and within the terms of the Royal Recommendation does not necessarily ensure that they are in order, and this is not the Chair's main concern. What concerns the Chair is that substantive amendments are being proposed to an interpretation clause.
In my preliminary statement I referred to a ruling of one of my predecessors in this regard. For the benefit of Hon. Members I would like to quote from Citation 773(10) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads:
A substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification to the interpretation clause of a bill.
In my view to transfer definitions limited in scope to parts of a Bill to the general interpretation clause which applies to the whole Bill enlarges substantially the effect of the definitions, and this is not an acceptable procedure. Likewise, to modify

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
existing definitions substantially or to add new definitions substantive in scope is not procedurally acceptable.
Hon. Members have argued that Motion No. 14 was consequential to Motion No. 164 and therefore should be put to the House for debate. This does not alter the fact that Motion No. 14 proposes a substantive change to an interpretation clause and as such is irregular. The fact that the Chair has not accepted Motion No. 14 does not affect the admissibility of Motion No. 164, which can stand on its own.
The Hon. Member for Yukon argued that Motion No. 145 was not necessarily consequential to Motion No. 129. After having reviewed the Hon. Member's arguments and having reconsidered the two motions, I am still convinced that Motion No. 129 proposes a substantial change to an interpretation clause and therefore is not acceptable. However, in relation to Motion No. 145, I have to agree with the Hon. Member that it is not necessarily consequential to Motion No. 129 and that it should be put to the House.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) referred to the fact that several motions to delete certain definitions in Clause 34 and Clause 54 were consequential to motions upon which the Chair had some doubt as to their acceptability. While there might appear to be some relationship between those motions, it does not alter the fact that certain of the motions delete lines in the Bill, and a motion to delete stands by itself. Therefore, with regret, I have no alternative but to rule Motions Nos. 2 to 19 inclusive, 59, 64, 66, 67, 70, 129, 134 and 135 out of order.
I would like to turn to the next grouping of motions about which I had some doubt as to their procedural acceptability, namely Motions Nos. 20 to 23 inclusive, 28, 36, 41, 54, 57, 80, 81, 85, 89 and 166. In my statement to the House on October 6 I indicated to Hon. Members that these motions appeared to go beyond the scope of the Bill.
After hearing the arguments, the Chair has not been convinced otherwise, with two exceptions. Motions Nos. 36 and
41,	as argued by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), merely restrict the powers of the Administrator as provided for in the Bill. The Hon. Member's explanation has raised enough doubt in the mind of the Chair to allow these two motions to be put to the House. It is my intention to group Motion No. 36 with a previous grouping, namely, Motion Nos. 37 and 38. Each motion should be voted on separately. Motion No. 41 will be grouped with Motions Nos.
42,	43, 44, 45 and 46, with separate votes on each motion.
Before concluding my ruling on this grouping, I wish to
inform the House that I have carefully studied the extensive remarks of Hon. Members in relation to Motion No. 57. Even though it was argued that the intent of this motion was similar to that of Motion No. 156, it is not the role of the Chair to rule on the intent of Hon. Members in proposing motions but only to rule on the procedural acceptability of these motions. The Chair still finds Motion No. 57 to be outside the scope of the
Bill. I must therefore rule that Motions Nos. 20 to 23 inclusive, 28, 54, 57, 80, 81,85, 89 and 166 are out of order.
The next grouping concerns Motions Nos. 87, 139, 146, 147, 150, 153, 155 and 165. All of these motions, with the exception of Motion No. 153, go beyond the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading.
In the case of Motion No. 153, the contribution of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has raised sufficient doubts in my mind and I propose to allow this motion to be put to the House. I intend to group this motion with Motion No. 154 for debate, but they will be voted on separately.
The Hon. Member for Yukon also commented on Motion No. 155. This motion seeks to authorize payments to parties other than the railway companies, which is not contemplated in the Bill. This is contrary to the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading. For this reason I must rule Motion No. 155 out of order.
After careful study, the Chair is still convinced that Motion Nos. 87, 139, 146, 147, 150 and 165 are contrary to or beyond the principle of the Bill, and I therefore rule them out of order.
Motions Nos. 104 to 114 inclusive, 172 and 173 infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, as I indicated in my preliminary statement on Thursday last. Motions Nos. 104 to 114 inclusive, if allowed, would permit a shipment in excess of 31.1 million tonnes to qualify for the Crow benefit, and Motions Nos. 172 and 173 would add new crops to Schedule I. These motions would involve expenditures not covered by the Royal Recommendation or would extend the objects and purposes or relax the conditions and qualifications as expressed in that Recommendation. For the benefit of Hon. Members, I refer them to Citation 773(7) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition.
As I indicated on Thursday last, Motions Nos. 51, 73, 86 and 151 are contrary to the principle of the Bill and infringe upon the Crown's financial initiative. The Hon. Member for Yukon suggested that Motion No. 86 would have the effect of decreasing the charges on the public purse and hence does not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. While the Chair is persuaded by this argument, the motion is, nonetheless, still contrary to the principle of the Bill in that it proposes to freeze the prescribed rate charged by railway companies to producers for the movement of grain, whereas the Bill, as agreed to at second reading, contemplates an annual rate change under certain conditions. In my mind, this renders the motion contrary to the principle of the Bill and is therefore unacceptable. Motions Nos. 51, 73 and 151 are also ruled out of order.
On October 6 I stated that Motions Nos. 74, 152 and 157 are new propositions which are clearly outside the scope of the Bill. I went on to say that Motion No. 157 proposes to place in the Bill a new Part IV concerning "Shipper Share Limitations". The argument presented by Hon. Members has not convinced me that this is not a new concept. While protecting the farmers may be a highly desirable addition to the Bill and is, as far as the Chair can see, acceptable to many Members of the House, it is not procedurally in order, and that is the only
October 13, 1983	___________________ COMMONS
aspect that concerns the Chair. As Motion No. 74 is consequential to Motion No. 157, a decision with respect to Motion No. 157 would also apply to Motion No. 74. Thus I find Motions Nos. 157 and 74 out of order.
Motion No. 152 proposes to extend the Crow benefit to the grain producers of the Peace River district, which, likewise, is not covered by the Bill as read a second time. Thus I also find it out of order.
Motions Nos. 75 and 116 to 126 inclusive are clearly irrelevant to the Bill as amended by the committee and reported to the House and thus they are out of order for the reasons 1 gave on October 6. Members are referred to Citation 773(4) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Motion No. 174 proposing to amend the title, as I said on October 6, will be ruled on by the Chair when the motion is reached.
The Hon. Member for Yukon has suggested a grouping of certain motions in relation to the rate structure proposed in the Bill. 1 am prepared to accept this suggestion. However, in order to accommodate this proposal, certain other motions will have to be grouped with them for the purpose of debate.
Therefore, Motions Nos. 63, 68, 69, 99 to 103 inclusive, 115, 127, 128, 130 to 133 inclusive, 136 to 138 inclusive, 140 to 144 inclusive, and 148 and 149, are grouped for debate with the voting steps as follows: Motions Nos. 63, 68, 69, 103, 115, 130, 133, 138 and 142 are to be voted on separately. A vote on Motion No. 99 will dispose of Motion No. 100. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 101 will dispose of Motion No. 102; a negative vote on Motion No. 101 will require a vote on Motion No. 102.
A vote on Motion No. 127 will dispose of Motion No. 128; a vote on Motion No. 131 will dispose of Motion No. 132; a vote on Motion No. 136 will dispose of Motion No. 137; a vote on Motion No. 140 will dispose of Motion No. 141; a vote on Motion No. 143 will dispose of Motion No. 144, and a vote on Motion No. 148 will dispose of Motion No. 149.
In summary, and for the convenience of Hon. Members, 1 will enumerate all those motions ruled out of order. They are Motions Nos. 1 to 23 inclusive, 28, 51, 54, 57, 59, 64, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 89, 104 to 114 inclusive, 116 to 126 inclusive, 129, 134, 135, 139, 146, 147, 150 to 152 inclusive, 155, 157, 165, 166, 172 and 173.


An Hon. Member:: What's left?


Madam Speaker:: You can debate the rest.
There are other points that I must address which arise from the able arguments put forward by Hon. Members during the procedural debate. The Hon. Member for Yukon has questioned whether or not the Royal Recommendation which the Government has attached to its amendments has been provided in the required form. This is an interesting point. It is also novel in that such arguments have not been raised since 1969 when the present report stage was first introduced and adopted by the House.
The Hon. Member had no objection to the original Royal Recommendation accompanying Bill C-155 and, to this end,
DEBATES_____________________________________________28003
Western Grain Transportation Act
quoted Citation 541 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. However, the Hon. Member feels that Citation 548 of Beauchesne's is in conflict with Standing Order 79(6), which states:
(6) When a recommendation of the Governor General is required in relation to any amendment to be proposed at the report stage of a bill, at least twenty-four hours written notice shall be given of the said recommendation and proposed amendment.
I can understand the Hon. Member's point of view but I do not agree with it. He bases his argument on the words "once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced)" which can be found in Citation 540 of Beauchesne's. However, it is clear to me that the present practice of covering a report stage motion with a specific Royal Recommendation as required by Standing Order 79(6) goes back to 1969. It is the final sentence of Citation 540 which convinces the Chair That the Hon. Member does not have a case on this point, and I quote that citation:
And this standard is binding not only on private Members but also on Minister whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the Royal Recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
I am in agreement with the views expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that the interpretation to be given to this sentence is that Ministers may obtain new or supplementary Royal Recommendations which are attached to report stage motions and printed on the notice paper.
I thank the Hon. Member for Yukon for having brought this point to the attention of the House, but I can only suggest that the apparent anomalies or inconsistencies ought to be considered by the Procedure Committee.
The other matter I wish to address was brought to the attention of the House by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain when he expressed his concern that the Bill was not properly before the House. The Hon. Member argued that the long title does not cover the content of the Bill. With respect, I must disagree with this view. As I stated in a ruling I made on June 20 of this year, when the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain raised a similar point during the second reading debate, the Bill is properly before the House.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Alt-house) has the floor.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I was pointing out some of the powers given to the Administrator in this Bill and was commenting on Motion No. 35 which would amend one of the provisions of the Bill that was added in committee. It seemed to me that the powers of the Administrator had been quite generally stated in the original Bill and that the addition of Clause 4 simply spelled out a power concerning agreements for the trucking of grain which had already been available to the Administrator, but did not deal with the question of where the money would come from.

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
In committee, the former deputy minister said that the only source of funds was the branch line fund. 1 should like to draw it to the attention of the House, however, that the funds for developing branch lines are inadequate. Approximately $1.6 billion will be required to upgrade all the lines already guaranteed by the CTC to the year 2000, but under $1.1 billion has been allocated for that purpose, leaving a shortfall of $500 million. There was some doubt about where the funds would come from to provide the trucking proposed in Clause 4.
In previous speeches my colleagues have shown that there would have to be some qualifications on the use of subsidies for the trucking of grain from other elevator points and from other branch lines. We therefore added the requirement that such agreements for the trucking of grain from branch lines should only apply to those lines where the CTC has had a hearing and heard the views of all the affected parties in the communities and has decided that the rail line should go out. Only in those instances should trucks be used to transfer grain to main line points. I think there is no other choice. The question of who gets the subsidy or what trucks should be subsidized, has not been properly dealt with in the Bill and it leaves the whole question of where the subsidy starts and where it ends. Should we adopt the system of having the grain moved f.o.b. from the farmer's combine? If some trucking is done under subsidy for some farmers, then who should be eligible and who should not?
We are trying to clarify those questions by simply stating that any agreements that would include subsidization should apply only to areas where elevator points exist and where the CTC, through the normal, legitimate process, decided to close down the line. That would leave the farmers in the area with no choice but to haul the grain long distances themselves. As an interim measure, for an adjustment period, the Administrator would be permitted the option of setting up a trucking program for a few years until adjustments could be made if the motion were to pass.
I think it is only fair that the clause be restricted to those instances because it is too difficult to decide where the subsidy should go. There are already many arrangements between farmers and truckers and between elevator companies and truckers. To interject a partial form of subsidy into that system would only make things uncertain. We would not know which companies could survive and which could not. From some of the statements that have been made it would seem that the program would aid the amalgamation of trucking firms under the aegis of the two major railway companies which are already running the largest trucking firms but have not yet gone into the business of trucking grain, although they seem to be moving in that direction.
I see that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. I hope the House will consider this amendment which would limit the funds the Administrator could spend on a trucking program to those branch lines closed down by a CTC ruling.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate on Motion No. 35 introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina
West (Mr. Benjamin). Like Motion No. 34, it seeks to restrict the use of trucks for hauling grain. We proposed Motion No. 35 to cover the situation in the event that Motion No. 34 is defeated. Our preference would be for Motion No. 34 but if it is rejected by the House, then we urge serious consideration of Motion No. 35.
We are pleading with the House to ensure that rail lines not be abandoned. We are imploring Members of the House not to allow a whole new radical system of grain transportation to be introduced on a gradual-or not so gradual-basis in western Canada.
As was mentioned during debate on Motion No. 34 and on Motion No. 35, the rail line system is essential to the movement of grain, particularly in Saskatchewan. Large numbers of small towns and villages are scattered through the Province, connected by a network of roads. The population is scattered over a larger area than in Alberta or Manitoba. The rail system is essential to get grain from various points collected into a central system so that it can be sent to both coasts and to Hudson Bay. To introduce the possibility of moving significant amounts of grain by truck would be devastating to that rail system as well as to our road system. What we in this Party are afraid of, Mr. Speaker, is that the Bill as it now stands will allow the Administrator, the Government and the railroads to start the process of moving grain by truck and producing statistics to indicate it is no longer justifiable to move grain along certain rail lines, then eventually abandoning those lines.
Some Hon. Members in the Conservative Party and, I believe, some Members of the Liberal Party have accused the New Democratic Party of being reactionary, of trying to protect an outdated system. What we are trying to protect, Mr. Speaker, is a way of life in Saskatchewan, a diversified agricultural community. We are trying to protect all these small rural villages and towns because we believe that this is an essential way of life in Saskatchewan which must be protected and should not be destroyed. Sheer economics alone should not determine the social fabric of rural Saskatchewan. There are other considerations to be taken into account as well. That is why we implore Hon. Members of the House to accept the amendments which we are proposing.
The economic arguments which have been advanced are mischievous arguments in some ways because only certain economic aspects are taken into account, not the whole. Very often the cost to rural municipalities and to the Province for maintaining a road system is ignored. For the record, Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from the submission to the Transport Committee hearings in Regina on August 8, 1983 by Mr. Charles Phelps, President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. He said as follows:
If the Crow rate is abolished the railways will have the flexibility to charge different rates on different lines by charging higher rates on lines that are less profitable, lower rates on lines that are profitable. The railways will have an economic level to persuade farmers to truck their grain to certain points and abandon others. This tactic, coupled with the presence of large inland terminals.
October 13, 1983

will force the farmers to haul to inland terminals or pay higher freight rates to keep their local elevators open. If they are forced by this economic pressure to haul to inland terminals, the local elevator will close and, as recent studies have shown, the local community will decline very quickly after the local elevator has been shut down. This will have a serious negative impact on the nature and viability of rural life in small towns.
I implore Hon. Members to listen to these words. Mr. Phelps is pleading for the hundreds of small towns and villages in Saskatchewan, for a way of life. Surely neither the Conservative Party nor the Liberal Party believe it is socially desirable to only have three or four large communities in Saskatchewan with no viable small towns and villages throughout that Province. Surely Hon. Members of both these Parties do not believe that the good life is just in the large urban centres. These Hon. Members cannot ignore the study which was filed with the Committee by Randy Passmore of the Planning and Research Branch, Saskatchewan Department of Municipal Affairs, and prepared in May of 1982. The study is called "The Impact of Increased Grain Movement on Rural Roads". It is a fascinating study which goes into specific detail about the impact of road costs on various districts if abandonment occurs. For the record, I would like to read his general statement in the opening paragraph:
A 50 per cent increase in grain truck traffic on the rural road system over the next five years could mean an additional 5.6 per cent per year in incremental maintenance and reconstruction costs, or roughly $3.4 million per year in 1981 dollars. Rail line abandonment will amplify the effects of increased grain handling. Limited abandonment could add another $1.8 million per year to maintenance and reconstruction costs. In some areas this may be great enough to warrant special consideration-including the possible reconstruction to pavement standard of a portion of the Primary Grid system. If the Crow rate is changed in such a way that it results in an inland terminal system, the cost of municipal and provincial road maintenance could reach $150 million per year (in 1981 dollars).
This study is predicting major increases in costs to the Province of Saskatchewan and to the taxpayers of Saskatchewan if there is large-scale trucking and the abandonment of branch line systems. Who will bear those costs? The taxpayers of Saskatchewan. What is occurring, Mr. Speaker, is a transfer of costs from the railroads to the public of Saskatchewan. This is unfair. It is unfair that the federal Government, through this legislation, should pass that cost on the Province of Saskatchewan and to the provincial taxpayers.
I am surprised that the Official Opposition is in fact encouraging this. That is a Party which has stood on many occasions for the interests of our western provinces. Yet with this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, it is opening the door for the transfer of costs to the Province and its taxpayers. I am surprised that Hon. Members of the Conservative Party who represent Saskatchewan are not on their feet opposing the original piece of legislation with repect to trucking. In fact, they were responsible for the amendment which allows for trucking to be introduced. I am surprised they did not consult with their provincial colleagues in Saskatchewan and were not warned by the Department of Municipal Affairs as to what it would mean to the taxpayers of that Province, and I am surprised they have indicated to the House that they will be opposing our amendment. I implore them to reconsider, Mr. Speaker. I can understand that Hon. Members from
Western Grain Transportation Act
Alberta, where the population is not as dispersed as it is in Saskatchewan might not understand how important it is for Saskatchewan to maintain the railroad system.
In conclusion, I plead with Hon. Members of the Conservative Party to reconsider their stand, particularly on Motion No. 35, and I hope that they will join with us in voting for it.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments on Motion No.
35 which we are debating this afternoon. I support the motion which basically protects the branch lines going into many of the small delivery points we have throughout western Canada. Without this amendment some trucking firms, specifically Canadian Pacific Transport, could force the closure of a number of branch lines in the constituency I represent, as well as throughout western Canada, especially small delivery points. I say there can be a conflict of interest there, Mr. Speaker, and it is developing now and could come about if we do not accept Motion No. 35. Just this past week Canadian Pacific Transport announced it is purchasing four trucking companies in the Province of Saskatchewan: Lays Transport of Meadow Lake, North Central Expressways of Saskatoon, Swift Current Freight Lines Ltd. and Kissner Transport Ltd. of Regina. It makes me wonder why all of a sudden CP Transport is purchasing small and medium-sized independent trucking companies in Saskatchewan. I place no blame on the trucking companies which have sold out. It shows the good management and enterprising spirit with which they built up those trucking companies over the years, and they now have the opportunity to sell, hopefully, for a profit on their investment. But I believe CP is buying these trucking companies in anticipation of Bill C-155 passing, which would provide not only their rail lines with a guaranteed annual income but also their trucking division as well.
My fear, Mr. Speaker, is that if this amendment is not passed, wherever CP has a branch line and they see they can maximize their profit by taking grain out by truck instead of rail, they will surely bring grain out by truck and allow some of those branch lines to die. Their argument would be that the grain is not going out over the rails so there is no need for the rails to be in place because the main reason for the rail was the movement of grain. However, if the Administrator, who is responsible to the Cabinet, enters into an arrangement with CP to truck grain out from that delivery point, they have a conflict of interest because they are not doing it in the interest of that branch line but in the interests of maximizing their profits. I suppose that is a good business deal for CP but it is not a very good deal, socially or economically, for the people who live in the communities serviced by those branch lines.
With that conflict of interest which could, and I expect will, exist there, we will find that some branch lines have to suffer to the benefit of none other than Canadian Pacific. Previous speakers in this debate have mentioned that with the removal of a branch line the delivery point would die altogether. There would be no real need for the elevator if the branch line is

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act gone, because the grain would be trucked out directly from the farm or possibly some gathering area to a larger terminal elsewhere, either on the main line or at some inland terminal. Once the elevator is gone there is a ripple effect which takes place throughout the community. If there happens to be a town at that delivery point, it will suffer because revenue generated and turned over many times because of the grain hauled into the local delivery point will no longer exist for the community. Of course, if that happens it can lead to many other social problems for the specific community or delivery point. The local butcher, the grocery store, whoever may have a business at that particular delivery point, will be out of pocket, and I do not think that is a very good situation.
In connection with this, Mr. Speaker, regarding Madam Speaker's ruling this afternoon on the motion to include the Peace River area under the statutory rate, I thought back to a community in my own riding which would have been affected as well, the Goodsoil area. They used to have an elevator very close to Goodsoil at a community called Peerless. That community eventually had its elevator closed down because of the high cost of trucking grain to another point. I say that because you are not aware, Mr. Speaker, that the elevator at Peerless had no branch line to service it. It was actually a gathering point where farmers hauled their grain. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool was thoughtful enough to service the farmers in that area, but because of the branch line not being there, eventually the elevator closed up and the farmers now have to truck their grain much farther.
I suppose the point I am trying to make is that an elevator without a branch line will not last very long if it relies totally on trucking. Under this amendment there may be some branch line sometime down the road that the Government would see fit to phase out or close down or refuse to upgrade, forcing trucking of our grain out of those areas, and as soon as that happens the elevator surely will die. If that happens, if the local farmers and officials have no control, I suppose so be it, we tried to do everything we could to prevent it. But in this situation, if this motion is not put in place, we will have Canadian Pacific Transport taking away business which could have gone over the rail lines which sustain the life of many of our rural areas. In some of these communities there might not even be a store at the delivery point, but there is a focal point because there is a branch line and an elevator and they add to the local economic and social good of those communities. It is one of the things which has held communities together in Saskatchewan so well, and I am sure in Alberta and Manitoba too.
I would be very concerned if the branch lines were to die because of conflict of interest between Canadian Pacific and CP Rail, the railway company. I would ask that other Hon. Members within the House support Motion No. 35 put forth by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Incidentally, if my memory serves me correctly, it was supported by the Progressive Conservatives in committee. I would very much like to see them stand and give support to the motion
which, as I have outlined, would be a sustaining force within this piece of legislation. I would still prefer to see the legislation not through as a Bill encompassing the statutory rate, rail line upgrading and the Dominion coal blocks. However, if we cannot have the Bill split and it does go through, amendments like that found in Motion No. 35 would do something to protect not only the farmers who live in western Canada on smaller branch lines, but also our communities along those branch lines that go into the districts, hamlets and towns that are so much a way of our life in western Canada. If we do not put in motions like this, we will eventually lose our way of life, which is very unique, just as each region of Canada has a unique way of life.
I believe in co-operative federalism. This is one of the things on which the Government, the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party can come together and show that there is co-operative federalism in Canada.
I see that Your Honour is motioning that my allotted time has run out. I thank you for the opportunity to intervene here this afternoon.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, once again we are getting a taste of the NDP hypocrisy. In Motion No. 34, it proposed a motion which-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -which would lock out the-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Order. The Speaker called him to order this morning.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -which would lock out the trucking industry in terms of the whole scheme of grain transportation. In Motion No. 35 it is saying, "Trucking, yes, but only in those areas where the branch lines have been abandoned."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Subsidies in those areas.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I notice that the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) tried to skate around those motions somewhat because I sense that he realizes that there is some merit in allowing the trucking industry to become more deeply involved in the whole scheme of grain handling and transportation. I should also say that I always enjoy the comments of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake because he always does make a very positive contribution and certainly speaks with much more knowledge than some of the other Hon. Members in his corner of the House. I think he has pointed out some areas where trucking can play a very useful role, not only by enhancing the entire grain gathering and handling system, but also in terms of providing better and more efficient service to the producers.
We have dealt with this motion in committee. The NDP wants to restrict the application of trucking only on those lines that have been abandoned by the order of the Canadian Transport Commission. We can certainly support the spirit and thrust of that. We did in committee and we will do so here again, because it is not this Party's desire to accelerate the
October 13, 1983

abandonment of branch lines in western Canada. As a matter of fact, our record is pretty clear on that account. I think that our record of performance clearly speaks for itself. However, placing this particular motion before the House and having it incorporated into Clause 17(4), notwithstanding the good intention of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), in the event a branch line became unserviceable for a period of time if there was a bridge washout or if the line was soft, would preclude the opportunity to truck that grain, affecting the ability of producers to deliver, thereby affecting their cash flow position. 1 point that out because, notwithstanding the good intention, it could very well tie the hands of the Administrator if this particular amendment were to be incorporated.
1 know that the New Democratic Party seems to be trying to make the case that if one allows trucking one will accelerate the demise of the branch line system. They carry this point a little too far, so much so that they tend to deliberately mislead and spread fear and anxiety. I think it clearly overstated the situation. If we read Clause 17(4), we find that it states:
That the administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
That is pretty clear. It certainly does not set out to accelerate the branch line system as the NDP suggests. That is simply not true. We are really proposing to provide a service to the grain producer in areas where farmers have in fact lost their branch line, or where they have never had a branch line. As the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) and the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake pointed out, there are areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan which have never had branch lines in existence or have lost them through the abandonment process.
I repeat that our Party's commitment to the retention of the branch line system is very clear. When we were in Government, our policy was that we would maintain branch lines in those areas where the elevator companies thought that they would be providing facilities and service to the year 2000. We believed it was the elevator companies that were in the best position to determine whether they would maintain an elevator system or whether they would build such a system on a given branch line.
It was based upon their knowledge of the facts that we assessed and indeed rationalized the branch line system. In the course of so doing, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) commissioned a one-man study to consider the retention of branch lines which were up for abandonment under the previous administration. Concerning some 1,500 miles put under the aegis of PRAC, the Prairie Rail Action Committee, he recommended that a good portion be guaranteed to the year 2000. That recommendation was ratified by the Governor-inCouncil, with some 500 miles placed in the permanent network and 236 miles frozen for five years pending the testing of the off-line elevator concept, which was a recommendation advanced by the Hall Commission. Seven hundred miles were referred to the CTC for the purpose of examining the necessi-
Western Grain Transportation Act ties and conditions surrounding the maintenance or abandonment of those particular lines.
We certainly are not a Party which designs our policies around the rationalization of the branch line system to the extent that we will end up with 50 or 60 centralized locations-quite the contrary. Where there is a need for service, where the line can be developed and the elevator system is developed in the interest of serving the producer, it is in everyone's interest to ensure that that branch line system remains in place.
I repeat, that those producers who are situated in isolated areas, such as the northern parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta, are the ones who have been shortchanged concerning the grain handling and transportation system.
We have a system that has been developed on the basis of equity in which there is a pooling of all the receipts and expenses. However, when we look at northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta, we see that many of those producers must haul their grain over a distance of from 60 miles to 100 miles. That imposes a very heavy cost upon them. If we consider the freight rate under the new regime, the increase in the freight rate will escalate more dramatically for them than for the producer in Regina or Saskatoon. Therefore, they will be doubly affected. I submit that there could have been an important role for the off-line elevator concept to serve those producers in the northern parts of all three prairie Provinces if that concept could have been tested. It could have restored some sense of equity and equality in the whole system, but unfortunately that has not been done. I very much regret the fact that the Government chose not to test the off-line elevator concept.
I believe the New Democratic Party is really working against the principle of equality and greater equity for all grain producers by trying to lock out the trucking system. By virtue of its tactics, the NDP is denying producers that opportunity, and the amendments which it has proposed deny the trucking industry, and therefore the producers, that opportunity, particularly those producers who have not heretofore experienced a sense of equity or fairness.
Fairness, equity and a semblance of equality is a cornerstone and a very fundamental principle of our entire grain handling and marketing system. Since many areas have been shortchanged in terms of the fulfilment of that principle, I believe that, as we are debating this important piece of legislation, we should try our very best to restore equity and fairness so that all producers would be treated equally in terms of their handling and transportation costs. We believe that subclause (4) which would allow the Administrator to become involved in negotiating a contract for the trucking industry to provide a service to producers which they have not yet received would go a long way in fulfiling an objective which I am sure all Members of the House want to achieve.
In conclusion, our Party's position is certainly not one which would aid and abet the demise of the branch-line system. That

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act is not the principal aim of our amendment. The object of our proposal is to try to develop the best system, using all modes of transportation available under the most effective and efficient system so that it can increase the producers' cash flow, improve their welfare and thereby permit the spin-off benefits associated with the grain industry to permeate the total economy. For that reason we will have no difficulty in supporting this particular motion. However, I want again to draw to the attention of the mover of the motion the fact that it is somewhat restrictive and may very well be defeating a purpose which I am sure Hon. Members would want to achieve.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Motion No. 35 which is an amendment that would protect the farmers who now use branch lines from having those branch lines unnecessarily abandoned. The amendment states:
-the grain producers, but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission.
This is a very useful amendment and one which, I have noticed, has received some positive arguments from some Conservatives. We have not heard this today but, as I said before, they are very flexible. For example, a couple of days ago the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) commented on the situation of the Kelfield branch and pointed out that people in the area wanted to save their branch line because it was their preference. My impression is that branch lines are the preference of most farmers on the Prairies and that they want to save their branch lines. Of course, if this is not possible, they will want assistance with long distance trucking, and no one disagrees with that.
This motion provides for both those situations precisely. It provides that long distance trucking should not be used to undermine or destroy the viability of a branch line, but also allows for the provision of a suitable substitute if the branch line, for good reasons, I would hope, is abandoned. While I have not heard this raised this afternoon, I hope the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and some of his colleagues will speak on that very point.
The problem with the Bill as it stands without this amendment is that we would see the railroads working on both sides of the street. They would be running the trucking company that would be competing with their own rail lines. While we have been told, and it may be, that small truckers would be involved in this transportation system, the fact is that the pattern has been for the railroads to buy up or force out the small truckers. Undoubtedly, not every last one has been forced out of business or bought out, but perhaps this will be done if the railways encourage this House and succeed in having this Bill passed without this amendment. This pattern of buying smaller trucking companies has been evident in many parts of the country. In fact, one does not have to live in Saskatchewan to know that the effect of allowing railroads to dominate the trucking industry is very damaging to branch lines and to the communities that depend on those branch lines. We have certainly seen what happens in Ontario when rail lines are abandoned and railway supported trucking companies are allowed to run alleged competition with the railroad. Since companies like CP can arrange their cost figures internally, they can make rail transportation appear expensive and therefore inefficient to the point where it must be abandoned. At that time, of course, the railway trucking company will find itself with a monopoly, one which it had arranged. This is the type of eventuality we want to prevent from happening to the farmers in Saskatchewan.
It is unfortunate that the Government has not done any studies to compare the total costs of grain transportation by rail and grain transportation by truck. However, there is a comparable case in a study that was done by the State of Iowa. I submit that before such a step is taken in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta there should be a study conducted that is comparable to that done in Iowa. That study compared the total benefits to the user, to the railroad and the public with the total costs of paying both the railroad and the trucks to haul the grain. Those are the direct costs to the producer. Of course it is necessary to give primary consideration to these, but they are not the only costs to the producer. The producer may very well be paying other costs for road transportation. This is what the State of Iowa provided for in its study. The costs that a producer pays as a citizen of his municipality and a taxpayer-and as a citizen of his Province and taxpayer- are for the maintenance of the highways on which these trucks travel. It is possible to reckon those costs to get a reasonably reliable objective figure. No doubt it would be different from place to place. Canadian weather perhaps would be a little different from Iowa weather, but this would not put the costs totally out of the ballpark. The Iowa study estimated the amount of grain that was being moved by the railroads and converted that into the number of truck loads. It was estimated what it would cost in added maintenance for the highways to move goods by way of highways. That is not the cost the farmer pays to the trucking companies. That is the additional costs farmers and other citizens of that State pay to maintain the road, in effect to subsidize the trucking company. It is not just the subsidy paid perhaps to the truckers directly or perhaps to the producer to pay the trucker; that is an open and above board subsidy. The hidden subsidy is not being reckoned by the supporters of this Bill. It should be reckoned before we plunge the farmers into paying the hidden cost. The hidden cost is the cost of maintaining the highways for the extra wear and tear exacted by these large trucks. Trucking companies do not pay much of that. According to any reckonings in Ontario, Iowa and other places, what they pay for the use of the road is less than what it costs in the wearing out of the road.
Therefore, what will happen if this Bill goes forward without the amendment in Motion No. 35 is that the railroad will be dumping part of its cost on to the local farmer producers, on to the municipalities, which includes the farmers, and on to the provincial Governments, which also includes the farmers. It does not include for the most part the shareholders of the railroad.
October 13, 1983

If the railroads claim they have a case for dumping that cost on to the farmers, let them put forward that case. They have not done that. They have not attempted to. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) in promoting the Crow Bill has also not attempted to estimate that cost or to bring any figures forward for public examination.
One example of how very heavily this cost will affect the farmers has been suggested in the area around Arelee where farmers who had this experience found transportation payments doubled. This is leaving aside the cost of maintaining the roads through the Province and the municipality. As well as paying 13.8 cents per bushel to ship to Thunder Bay, according to the Crow rate, they also have to pay 13.6 cents per bushel to ship by road. Previously, they could haul it just two miles to the northeast branch line elevator. Once that was taken from them, some of the other elevators were sometimes small and full and there were varying distances they had to ship, the cost to a great many of them was almost the same as the cost of shipping on the rail from that larger central point to the Lakehead. In other words, by closing the branch line the railroad doubled the cost to the farmer to ship his or her grain. This is in addition to the further hidden cost which those producers must pay as taxpayers in Saskatchewan to maintain the highway. The railway would prefer not to pay the cost of maintaining the railway. Therefore, by a back door route the railway dumps the equivalent of that cost on to the farmers whom they are supposed to be serving. One of the primary objects of the creation of the railroad and of the massive subsidies given to the railroad was to have them haul the grain and other such necessary commodities.
I think it is very important that Motion No. 35 be unanimously supported by this House. It does not in any sense disadvantage farmers who find their rail line has been abandoned. It does not in any sense hinder provision to them of adequate trucking services. It is very carefully defined so as to indicate that the only restriction, the provision of trucking services, perhaps by the railroad itself, shall not be used to destroy present branch line service.
I see that you are indicating my time is up, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope we will hear further from our friends to the far right who previously have spoken up in defence of the farmers.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Before 1 recognize the next Hon. Member, may I deal with the proceedings on the adjournment motion?
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Shipping-Monitoring of UNCTAD
Western Grain Transportation Act agreement-Effect on Canada, (b) Request for release of studies; the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers)- National Defence-Fatal accident at Lac-la-Biche-Establishment of board of inquiry, (b) Age of equipment; and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. ]Vlanjy)_Employment-Request for forestry job-creation program.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 35 (Mr. Benjamin).
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended to speak to this motion, but having sat through most of the day listening mainly to Members of the New Democratic Party talking in defence of this motion, I feel I should put a few facts on the record.
First, the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is an amendment to Section 17(4), which reads:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
The amendment would alter the effect of that subclause only on those branch lines which have already been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission. The original Bill as referred to the committee did not contain Clause 17(4). It was an amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) and adopted by the committee. The committee adopted it obviously because it thought it would make Bill C-155 a better Bill. While I did not vote on it, I agreed with it. I thought it was a sensible amendment to provide greater latitude in the transport of grain and to make better use of other modes of transport.
All day we have listened to tales of woe about how this will mean the end of branch lines in western Canada. I think it is nothing more than a red herring being hauled across the trail of this Bill to continue a filibuster which the NDP has obviously mounted against this Bill. That should come as no surprise to any of us because Members of the NDP said forthrightly from the very beginning that they would use every tactic in the book to delay passage of this legislation.
The effect of the amendment which was defeated in committee would be to provide the opportunity for the Administrator

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
to enter into agreements with trucking firms or to allow producers to enter into agreements with trucking firms for the transport of grain by truck when it was in their best interests. It is only logical to conclude that although Clause 17(4) indicates that the Administrator may form an opinion, he would not form an opinion unless he consulted with the shippers and producers involved. I find it rather strange that Hon. Members of the House would believe that the Administrator would be so incompetent as to enter into such an agreement based only on his opinion. Of course this is a legal way of phrasing legislation and does not mean that it precludes consultation. The effect of the amendment would be that he has the ability to enter into agreements only in areas where branch lines have already been abandoned and where there is no longer the opportunity to move grain by rail.
What is the point of having Clause 17(4) if we virtually negate its purpose by accepting Motion No. 35? What surprises me most is that the Conservatives, having achieved the inclusion of Clause 17(4) in the Bill, will now emasculate it by supporting the NDP counterproductive amendment. I do not know how they can square that with their desire to have Clause 17(4) in the first place. It is not what I would have expected from that Party.
I know that all committee members have worked at this diligently. I was surprised in committee when the Tories supported this rather nonsensical amendment. I say "nonsensical" in the sense that it destroys the sense of the subclause it amends. This clause does not deal with the abandonment of branch lines, with the corporate make-up of trucking firms or with how they operate. It deals only with the powers of the Administrator. In my opinion most of the debate we have heard today has been extraneous to the issue. I agreed this morning with the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) when he indicated the necessity for Clause 17(4), but I believe that that necessity will be almost totally negated if we accept the NDP amendment. Therefore, I urge the Official Opposition to change its position on this, to be consistent and to support the amendment achieved at committee stage of the Bill.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, in supporting the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), I would first like to clarify for the record what that amendment is. It reads:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 25 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"the grain producers, but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission."
It would clearly limit any subsidy paid for the trucking of grain to delivery points which are not served by a branch line.
In speaking on Motion No. 34, I stated clearly that the New Democratic Party position could be summed up, in relation to both this amendment and the previous one, as being that we want the best possible results for the grain producers of western Canada and for the people of Canada at the least
possible cost. As far as we are concerned, this would rule out any proposal which would end up giving grants and subsidies to anybody and everybody who comes along.
I was somewhat mystified by some of the comments on this amendment by Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, as I was when the previous amendment was before the House. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) made comments which led some of my colleagues and me to believe that he was opposing our amendment. Later he suggested that he was supporting it. I can only conclude that the Progressive Conservative Party has shown a remarkable degree of consistent inconsistency throughout the entire Crow debate. Not only has it changed position as to whether or not it supported the so-called reform of the entire package, as it shilly-shallied, flim-flammed and went back and forth on whether it was for or "agin" it, it appears that the same representative, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, seems undecided as to whether or not he is in favour of, or opposed to, the amendment before us. I suppose we should not be surprised. It is rather typical of the schizophrenia implicit in the nature of any Party with a contradictory name like "Progressive Conservative"-two words with opposite meanings. Its record in this whole debate, as has been the case in many others since the resumption of this session on September 12, has indicated that as well.
Before lunch the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) seemed to suggest in a brief dissertation that the Gallup poll result reported this morning was somehow indicative of the position that Party had taken since September 12, forgetting that the polling was conducted prior to the recommencement of this session. I am willing to bet that the Conservative Party will fall in the next Gallup poll; there is not much dispute of that. One of the major reasons for that will be what the Hon. Member for Western Arctic mistakenly suggested was the cause of the current result, what has been going on in the House over the last month, as that Party changed its position two or three times on the reform of the Crow and took a schizophrenic position on this particular amendment. If it is not a schizophrenic position, I hope one of its Members will rise to make its position clear.
In the same way as the new Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party wants to provide jobs for all living and breathing Conservatives, to people with only that qualification, Conservative Members also want to ensure that they can give out subsidies and contracts to every Tory contractor for the next 15 years before considering anyone else. If that is their only purpose, I suggest that they had better come clean. Perhaps one of them will edify us as to what is their real purpose in either supporting or opposing the amendment before us. We are having a difficult time trying to analyse- never mind their motivations, we would never question those- what they intend to do. Do they know what they are doing, Mr. Speaker? With this point as with many others, it seems to be a matter of just offering contracts to their friends. This is illustrated by the speech of the Conservative Party Leader as reported in the Montreal Gazette on May 18 dealing with the
October 13, 1983

subject of jobs for the boys. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) said, "Oh, there'll be jobs for Liberals and NDPers ... but only after I've been Prime Minister for 15 years and can't find a single living, breathing Tory to appoint". Is that their reasoning? I would not suggest that it is, but perhaps it is the reason they have taken their position or non-position on this amendment as it relates to passing out grants and subsidies helter-skelter to either truckers or railways or anybody else they can find.
According to statements that Members of that Party have often made, that position is so untypical because the tories are always knocking subsidies and grants. They want to let the market work. Now not only do they want or not want to provide subsidies for western grain, which have a very good historical reason which still continues, but they want to extend it to others and they go on and on. They want to give subsidies to anybody who seems to want them.
Conservative Members are now going to trust a bureaucrat to make the decision as to whether or not these subsidies are worthwhile. The Conservative Members who are knocking big Government and the bureaucrats are now going to trust a bureaucrat to make the decision as to whether something is a worthwhile objective or not without any other kind of supervision. They want to hand out subsidies and grants by the truckful to all the boys. 1 leave it to my colleagues on my right to decide whether or not that is relevant to their purpose in this debate or the larger debate on the Crow rate. Do they still even know what their position is?
Underlying the positions taken by the various Parties on this particular amendment and on the matter of the Crow as a whole is the basic nature and purpose of the various political Parties. Where do we get our support and campaign funds from? Looking back, Mr. Speaker, the official record of political contributions in Canada shows that in 1982, the Liberal Party received $50,000 from Canadian Pacific Limited and the Conservative Party received $50,000 from Canadian Pacific Limited. In the three previous years, 1981, 1980 and 1979, $128,000 was given to the Liberals by CP Limited and 12 affiliates and $134,000 was given to the Conservative Party by CP Limited and 12 affiliates. It is interesting to note that the figures for CP Limited alone indicate that its contribution to both Parties has doubled in the last year. Why is that?
I refer to another article which is related to this matter, "Unshackled from Crow, Profits Plow" by Barry Wilson published in the Western Producer at the end of September, 1983. That report shows very clearly that the profits for CP Limited have absolutely skyrocketed in the period of time since CP has begun to smell the gravy train coming. Is there perhaps a relationship between where political Parties get their money from and the positions they take and which corporations in our society profit from those positions? No one is suggesting that an individual politician is corrupt and no one is suggesting that a Party is corrupt, but perhaps a political and economic system that allows this sort of thing-
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) rises on a point of order.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had the intuition to ask you to remind the Hon. Member who is speaking what clause we are dealing with, but I have decided instead to ask you to remind him what Bill we are dealing with.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has been listening closely to the Hon. Member and attempting to relate his remarks to the amendment before us. However, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West has the floor for another minute.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that political donations can be traced through official Government records, we can see that there may indeed be a relationship between where political Parties get their financing and what position they take on issues in the House of Commons. That position can be measured against the profit performance of such companies as Canadian Pacific Limited and CP Transport at a time when we have amendments and resolutions before us such as we have today.
One has to wonder if in fact Members of the Conservative Party have a position on this question and whether or not they will make up their minds. We hope that they will. We hope that they will support this amendment and join the New Democratic Party in trying to get the best results for the people of Canada at the lowest possible cost. Let us not simply shovel out money by the truckload from the gravy train. That serves no useful purpose.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be afforded the opportunity to speak on Motion No. 35. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the various contributions that have been made to this motion as well as previous motions by Hon. Members of the NDP and very occasionally by Hon. Members of the Conservative Party and even more occasionally by Hon. Members of the Liberal Party.
When listening to Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, I have noticed that many of them have made a great deal out of the fact that some of us from the New Democratic Party who are speaking on this motion come from British Columbia or from Toronto or from other parts of the country other than from the Prairies. This is quite true. Our entire Party is involved in the struggle over the Crow rate. I suppose that prairie farmers would much sooner listen to someone from Vancouver Island defend their interests than put up with the rather horrifying silence from some of the Members of the
COMMONS DEBATES_________________October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Conservative Party who have not had the gumption to get up and speak on these amendments.
It was rather interesting although depressing to note than when an amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) was before the House earlier this week and last, at one point ten Members from the New Democratic Party spoke on his amendment and only one Member from the Tory Party spoke. It makes us wonder about the kind of support that these Members are giving to their own constituents who are concerned about this issue.
I shall refer specifically to Motion No. 35, Mr. Speaker, to would amend Clause 17(4) of the Bill which now reads as follows:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
Motion No. 35 would amend that by adding the following words:


but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission".
Very frankly, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is at best our third choice. Our first choice is to keep the Crow rate intact. We believe that this entire Bill is harmful to the prairie communities and to the Canadian economy in general. We would like to see the Government withdraw this Bill. That has been the basic intent of our Party and continues to be the basic intent of our Party. However, in some particular cases, we have some recommendations to make that would help to ease the hardship that this Bill will cause. Those recommendations represent our second choice.
With regard to the use of trucks to haul grain, our second choice was represented by Motion No. 34, which would have deleted the entire section, because we feel that subsidies to the trucking of grain will in fact be used to facilitate the abandonment of many branch lines on the Prairies by the railways. It is not true that we are trying to lock out the trucking industry; we simply do not want to subsidize it through branch line abandonment. We do not want to subsidize the trucking industry at the expense of many small communities that would suffer a great deal if the lines were abandoned.
I would like to quote briefly from the testimony of Mr. Charles Phelps, President of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, when he appeared before the Transport Committee in Regina on August 8, this year. He said:
Local governments are required to spend twice as much for road building and maintenance every time hauling mileage of farm products is doubled. Furthermore, rail line abandonment in many areas of Saskatchewan has become a significant contributor to the overall strain on the rural road system. This change has produced a direct reduction in the elevator delivery points in Saskatchewan, but has also concentrated traffic on some road lengths and added to the hauling distances.
Later in his testimony he said:
Continued rail line attrition will have a significant impact on municipalities' budget allocations and priorization. There is no doubt in our mind that the
proposed Crow rate change will make necessary demands of the municipalities for additional services. Policing roads and enforcement of traffic load limits on each and every municipal road will become a necessity. This adds to the total cost of every rate payer within the municipality as well as to the taxpayers of Saskatchewan. All additional direct costs, whether maintenance, construction, or reconstruction related, will affect the disposable income and the taxable income of the rural producer. As the costs escalate, greater discrepancies will occur rurally, and the family farm will be eliminated, never to return.
In this Party we hope that Members of the House will support Motion No. 34 which would eliminate Clause 17(4) altogether. If it is not supported, then we urge upon the House the wisdom and justice of Motion No. 35, which also stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
Motion No. 35 would limit subsidies to truckers to those areas which are not presently served by branch lines. We do not want to pay for a system of subsidies that will subvert the basic life of the community and will subvert the transportation system already in place. Some of my colleagues have pointed out the links between some trucking companies and the CPR. It is a well known fact that if any subsidies are available, Canadian Pacific will find some way to get its hands on them. It is a fact that over the years Canadian Pacific has received a total of $106 million in subsidies and 43 million acres of land for building the railway and putting the infrastructure in place. Now it wants to get out of its agreements and be subsidized for introducing a system of trucking.
I was interested in the speech given by the Hon. Member for Vegreville who brought up the question of bridge washouts. I would be interested to know where he was when this issue came up and was answered in committee on September 8.


Mr. Towers:: He was there.


James Douglas Manly: He might have been there, but it would have been helpful if he had paid attention to the question and answer. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) asked the same basic question as follows:
The problem I see with Mr. Benjamin's subamendment "shall not from the primary elevator system" is that in my riding there is a branch line that goes down to Cardston, which is quite a ways off the Lethbridge-Medicine Hat line, and periodically the bridge goes out, and it seems to me that under those circumstances your subamendment would block the administrator from paying for that grain to go from the Cardston primary elevator.
The Hon. Member for Regina West answered that by saying-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


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


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have listened intently and with some concern to the debate on Motion
October 13, 1983

No. 35. On the one hand, the Liberal Party decided to give everything to the railroads and on the other hand, the NDP decided to stand in the way of any advancement whatsoever. I should like to make the position of this Party perfectly clear.
The situation of the primary producer in the wheat producing areas of the Prairies must be recognized. Certainly some rail lines have been abandoned. There are some people, however, who would suggest that more lines should be abandoned.
1 should like to put on record some of the work done by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). After an investigation, he recommended that 490 miles of line be placed in the permanent network up to the year 2000. He also recommended that 236 miles of line be frozen for five years pending the Hall recommendation to test the off-line elevator concept at Fisher Branch in Manitoba. This is basically what we are dealing with in Motion No. 34, which was debated yesterday, and in Motion No. 35, which was debated yesterday and today.
There is a good deal of confusion on the subject, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the Liberals are willing to give everything to the railroads, saying, "We cannot look at the position of the primary producer". The NDP, however, say, "We stand in the way of any advancement whatsoever". But this is the twentieth century, Mr. Speaker, and we have trucks that have 18 wheels under them. This Party would like to see better railroads and better roads and advancement in all areas of grain transportation. The result would be a better position for the primary producer.
Some Members of the NDP have said that the Conservative Party is all for rail line abandonment. I want to say to the NDP through you, Mr. Speaker, and to the producers, that no one has fought harder for the preservation of rail lines than the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw. At several hearings in my own riding we have made strong representations for the preservation of the rail lines. To disregard the suggestion that there might not be points where trucking would be useful for off-line elevators is irresponsible, and that is the position of the NDP.
It is probably no coincidence that newspaper headlines today show that the NDP has dropped to a new low of 14 per cent in the polls. That is a reflection on the type of irresponsible argument we have heard for a number of days. The Liberals have also dropped to a new low-23 per cent, which indicates that they want to give everything to the railways. Do not think for one minute, Mr. Speaker, that possibly the primary producer does not understand the situation better than anyone sitting in this House. He is out there on what I would call the firing line. He realizes the problem as it exists. It seems that the New Democratic Party has disregarded the fact that there may be a producer who is 50 or 100 miles from a rail line and where trucks would certainly be an advantage. That advantage should be used in the best interests of the primary producer. If we must, let us build better roads. If one goes back in the history of agriculture, in 1905 some 95 per cent of the people were involved in agriculture. They produced enough food to feed themselves, basically.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Jesse Philip Flis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The history of agriculture is very important and very interesting. However,
I would remind the Hon. Member that we are concerned with a transportation Bill. What would guide Hon. Members on this side in how to vote for this subamendment proposed by the New Democratic Party would be if the Hon. Member could explain to the House why Conservative Members are willing to support the NDP subamendment to their Clause 17(4), which almost makes it null and void. I am having great difficulty in knowing how to vote on this because Clause 17(4) is a clause brought in by the Conservative Party. Now it is willing to support the NDP amendment which wipes out its own clause, which was proposed in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call to the attention of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) that debate at report stage must be strictly relevant to amendments which are before the House.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just coming to the relevant part of why trucking is so important to the primary producer and to grain transportation. This is what we are talking about. If Hon. Members opposite do not understand that, then we are going to have a very difficult time to communicate the greater import of Motion No. 35. What 1 was saying-which was very relevant to the motion we are discussing-was that in 1905, 95 per cent of all the people in North America were directly related to agriculture. Today it is less than 4 per cent. Yet they produce enough food to feed everyone. If we are going to stand in the way of progress and say we are not going to build roads and, on the other hand, as the Government would say, we are going to abandon all branch lines, then we are going to have some problems. We must take the best of both, and that is what we in this Party have tried to do in respect of Clause 17, so that the producer can benefit both from a better branch line-as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) pointed out in his recommendations-better trucking and better roads. This would strengthen the position of the primary producer.
It has been my observation that on Motions Nos. 34 and 35, the New Democratic Party, particularly, has been playing politics. It has been digging itself deeper and deeper. If it is not careful, the headlines will not read only 14 per cent in the polls but the pools will show that Party going down to 10 per cent or 12 per cent. I believe what we are seeing here is a Party struggling for survival. In order to save their seats, Hon. Members are making some irresponsible statements in the House with regard to the situation of transportation which exists, in reality, for the primary producer.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my good friend, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) talk about how irresponsible this Party is with respect to Motion No. 35. I understand, though, he is going to be supporting Motion No. 35. I wonder, therefore, why he is making those kinds of comments. I believe it shows that he is speaking for the sake of speaking. I am not

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
sure if I could really trust him when he makes that kind of speech, then later on votes for the motion.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My direct reference was to Motion No. 34, which was absolutely out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House is debating Motion No. 35. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The debate, Mr. Speaker, is on Motion No. 35. I know the Hon. Member for Assiniboia is a relatively new Member of the House, but he has been here for at least four years, I believe, and he should realize that we have finished with Motion No. 34. He is out of order in speaking about something which the House has already dealt with. There is going to be a deferred vote. He cannot go back and reflect on Motion No. 34.
Another comment of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia which I found very strange coming from a person who is a farmer, was that this Party is totally anti-trucking. I wish he would read Motion No. 35, because what that motion says, if paraphrased, is that where there is not a branch line or a rail line, we should be subsidizing trucking for the farmers who have to live there. Therefore, if the Hon. Member is concerned about trucking, this is the motion which would allow some money to subsidize trucking for communities such as Jedburgh, Wishart, Bankend and West Bend. I hear the Tories making fun of some very nice towns and villages in my riding, and in the riding of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Anguish). I feel those people are great people and deserve help. Under Motion No. 35 those people would get some assistance. They would receive that assistance in a way that would not punish people who live on branch lines. Under the current legislation, the money which would go to subsidized trucking-the Hon. Member for Assiniboia knows this- would come out of the rail line rehabilitation fund. In other words, some money is taken out of one pocket and put in a different pocket. People who live on branch lines would not have enough money to have these lines rehabilitated.
What we in this Party are saying is that there should be some subsidization for trucking for people who do not have a rail line. That money should come out of the money which is going to be allocated by the Crow Bill, which is before the House today. Therefore, Motion No. 35 would amend the Bill. In fact, it would amend Clause 17(4) of the Bill. It would allow for grain producers to be subsidized to truck their grain where there is no branch line, and I believe that is fair. I believe that is an argument which should be supported, not just by the Conservative Members of this House but by my friends in the Liberal Party as well.
I know the Hon. Member across the way, the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), is concerned about people who live in far-reaching communities. He is nodding his head. I am sure he would be concerned with making sure that people who live in small and isolated communities are not discriminated
against by a very centralized and bureaucratic transportation system.
In trying to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, as a well-intentioned soul from Ottawa West, I will give you four very good examples from my riding. We have four rail lines which we have fought to keep in the Yorkton-Melville area. One goes into Humboldt-Lake Centre. In fact, one also goes into McKenzie, and I do not see the Hon. Member for McKenzie (Mr. Korchinski) in this House very often.


An Hon. Member:: Never!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Someone said "Never", but it is not quite never. I saw him here once, I believe, this session. One of our rail lines goes from Preeceville to Kelvington. It goes through a lot of small villages and through some bigger towns. Those people, about four or five years ago, banded together to form a "Save Our Rail Line" committee, Mr. Speaker, and they were successful to a certain extent. They were able to persuade the CTC and the powers that be, through a lot of work and lobbying, that the rail line as far as Preeceville, the largest town, should be preserved. But so far we have not had that kind of luck with the rest of the rail line. It runs on through Lintlaw, into Kelvington, which are in the riding of the Hon. Member for Mackenzie. I remember that about 13 months ago I and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) went to the CTC hearings in Kelvington to present a brief, along with hundreds of other farmers, to save this rail line.
If this rail line is not saved, Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 35 would allow some funds to be used to subsidize the trucking of grain for those farmers who live in the towns and divisional points along that particular rail line. The priority is to save the rail line, rehabilitate it, but if it is not, then this Party would like to see those farmers subsidized in trucking their grain.
Another example, Mr. Speaker, is a line in my riding which also formed a "Save Our Rail Line" committee. A couple of little places, one called Willowbrook, the other called Jedburgh, with a line into the city of Yorkton. We tried to save that line but we lost the fight. What are the people in Jedburgh and Willowbrook going to do?


Arnold John Malone: VIA Rail.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: There is no VIA Rail going into Jedburgh. In fact, at one time Jedburgh was a booming little town. It had a few stores, a barbershop, service stations and garages, a good school, grain elevators, but then gradually it went downhill. The final blow was when the railway was pulled out of Jedburgh, because when that happened farmers decided to haul their grain to other places like Theodore or Melville and other communities in the area.


Benno Friesen: Elbow.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Once again, I have wealthy Conservatives from Alberta and B.C. making fun of my small towns and
October 13, 1983

villages, Mr. Speaker. But I am very proud of those people in those towns. They deserve some help and assistance in hauling their grain to market because they help feed some of these wealthy Tories from Alberta and British Columbia.


Benno Friesen: You are so pious.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They help build a strong economy. In many cases these people came from eastern and central Europe as pioneers and built a province and country. They settled land which was difficult to clear, some of it submarginal. They worked hard and they must be defended in this House, as should their sons and daughters. So I do not appreciate any smart-aleck remarks by city Tories of British Columbia or Alberta about the poor and ordinary people in some of our villages in Saskatchewan.


Arnold John Malone: My city has 160 people.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, whether there are 160 people in a town or 80 or 50, they are important to me.


Arnold John Malone: That is right.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not apologize for that. I know all Tories do not feel that way. I know some who respect people, but obviously some of them do not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I call his attention to the rule that requires strict relevance in debate on amendments at report stage.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is hard to be relevant with all those irrelevant Tories around.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have given you a couple of very good examples which I think would persuade a fair person such as yourself from Ottawa that we have a case for making sure people in the small villages, towns and hamlets are not discriminated against. I know the Hon. Member for Assiniboia agrees with me; I can see crocodile tears now rolling from his eyes. 1 think sometimes he understands that we should not discriminate against people in small communities.
There is another rail line which starts in the town of Foam Lake in my riding and goes into the riding of Humboldt-Lake Centre. It goes through a little village in my riding called West Bend, into a town called Bankend and Wishart, both in Humboldt-Lake Centre. Once again a valiant fight was put up for people in those communities to try to save that rail line. But it was not saved, and Motion No. 35 will say that where there is not a rail line, such as on the line from Wishart to Foam Lake, we should subsidize the trucking of grain and help those farmers haul their grain to market. In this case it will be perhaps the town of Wynyard, Lestock, Foam Lake, Elfros, or any other villages which might be nearby. That is what Motion No. 35 is going to do. That is why we have to make sure it passes. I am thankful that, I think from what I am hearing, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party would agree with that. I hope we can persuade Government Members across the way that it is important that the funding be there under the Crow
Western Grain Transportation Act Bill and it not be taken from the rail line rehabilitation program.


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Hon. Member would allow me to put a question to him?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the unanimous consent of the House, because the Hon. Member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Flis said no.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this amendment which would ensure that moving grain by truck would not be allowed from shipping points on rail lines not yet abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission. We are concerned about the continued existence of rail branch lines on much of the Prairies. We really do find it disconcerting and disappointing that our friends to the right of us here-


Arnold John Malone: Far right.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Yes, to the far right, as my friend points out. They really are not sharing our concern for small prairie towns. We have also noticed a lot of inconsistency in much of the debate which has come from my friends to my far right, the extreme right, on the subject of preserving rail lines in western Canada as it relates to the shipping of grain by truck. A couple of days ago we heard the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) saying there are areas where lines have already been taken out and there are major problems for farmers who find themselves several miles from elevators. It is in the best interests of producers to have something in this Bill to give them an equal opportunity to get their grain to market as persons who happen to have their farm situated along a main line or large elevator. Here he was seemingly supporting the concerns of the producers, yet this afternoon he is criticizing our Motion No. 35. It does not seem to follow, Mr. Speaker.
An interesting comment came from the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) a few days ago when he said that his Party believes in free enterprise and that the trucker is an entrepreneur. He is the person they are trying to protect. They were also trying to protect the producer so he could get his product to market most efficiently. That is rather amazing, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the two major trucking companies which have darn near a monopoly on the hauling of grain on the Prairies, are owned by CN and CP. Indeed, I am told that just within the last few months, to protect their already very healthy profits, CP has bought four small truck-

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act ing companies in Saskatchewan. To me, this indicates that CN an(? in hauling by truck, will not provide an especially efficient system for the producers. They will probably supply much of the same darned thing that we have right now, with the two rail companies having a monopoly and providing considerably less than satisfactory service to the producers on the Prairies.
In the debate a few days ago on Motion No. 34, we heard the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) complaining that many farmers had no choice but to ship by truck because there were no branch lines in their areas, much the same as had been said by others. What I found to be contradictory in his comment was that he was supporting a resolution, indeed Clause 17(4), a clause which will lead to more abandonment of rail lines on the Prairies and to more cases such as those he was lamenting in his speech a few days ago.
Protecting the branch lines has really become a matter of life and death for many prairie communities. I do not really exaggerate when I say "life and death", because for many communities the railway is really their raison d'etre. Without the rail lines in their area, the elevator goes. Your Honour might have visited smaller prairie towns. Indeed, I could take you into a number of communities in my constituency where the entire focus of the town is the grain elevator. If the rail line goes, the grain elevator goes. If, instead of hauling his grain into Fisher branch, a farmer starts taking it by truck into Ashern or Arborg, more likely Arborg, he will stop there to buy his parts and fertilizer. Indeed, he will do his grocery shopping and make his clothing purchases in a different town. That will affect the businesses already in place in the town to which he previously delivered, perhaps Fisher branch in this scenario. The Government wants to thin down the small businesses in these small towns on the Prairies.
It is equally surprising that my friends to the extreme right who claim to be such good friends of small business show such a lack of concern for small businesses in so many small towns in prairie Canada. It really goes beyond small businesses. Once the businesses die and the people decide to move on to other communities, the services go. Last fall, the Canadian Transport Commission held hearing in Fisher branch, in my constituency, on the subject of abandoning the Inwood subdivision. A number of groups, including students from the high school, made presentations to the CTC, really arguing this same point, that without their rail line their community would go. The high school students made a very good presentation, very well thought out and presented, expressing their fear that abandoning the rail line could eventually lead to the closure of their school. This, I am sure Your Honour will agree, would be a very harmful and sad event to happen in any small community. So when I say that it is a life and death struggle for many of these towns, I really do not think that I am overstating the situation.
When Hon. Members speak of a more efficient system of transporting grain such as hauling grain by truck, they are not
really considering the whole scenario or the additional costs to the local areas. For instance, the cost to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allocated to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motion No. 35. I hear my friends-I use that word in the meaning that we give to it in the House- from the NDP speaking of inconsistencies. I just want to draw the attention of the Chair to the inconsistencies that I see. First, there is the view that trucking is hard on the highways, as I have heard from Members of the NDP. 1 have heard that the big trucks rolling over the highways will destroy the roads. One of the Members of that Party even mentioned that the former Premier of a certain Province had done such a terrible job that there are many gravel roads left. However, we all know, and we now see that the NDP is recognizing this, that if one is hauling grain on a single-axle three-ton truck, one is going down the road with six tires under the truck, or if one is hauling grain on a straight tandem, one has ten tires on the road, or if one is hauling it on a semi, one has eighteen tires on the road. It does not take much sense to figure out, in the same way as does any department of highways in any Province in Canada, that that is why loads of more poundage are allowed on tandems and on semis than on single-axle trucks or, indeed, a three-ton with dual wheels.
Speaking of inconsistencies, it is strange what I heard in this House the other day, that trucks would destroy the roads, trucks would destroy the community and trucks would add an additional burden to the municipalities. It is now apparent that Members of the NDP, with their amendment, have realized that it makes for more efficiency and for more sense to have an organized movement of grain through using larger trucks than most farmers, in my area anyway, have the ability to purchase.
We heard the last Hon. Member speaking of the big companies that would haul the grain. I am not sure, with the amendment put forth by the NDP, who will haul the grain. I am not sure, and I hope someone can tell me, if there is to be an off-line elevator concept with this motion, or are the lines to be completely abandoned and, along with that, the elevators abandoned and, the farmers hauling their own grain through an arrangement with the Administrator, when the NDP said he should not have such authority? Or will there be elevators maintained in an off-line concept? There would be duplication in that case. There would be a handle when the grain came in, a handle when it went out and a handle when it was unloaded at the other end. We do not know the exact meaning of this amendment.
October 13, 1983

Mir. Nystrora: Are you supporting it?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: We do not know whether Members of the NDP will use their influence, and I really hope they do, because in all the areas in my riding where abandonment has taken place, the farmers have gone to the local elevator companies and asked, "Would you leave the elevator here?" The elevator companies all say, "Oh, no, we cannot leave our elevators here because there is not a rail line". The farmers ask, "Will you upgrade your elevator to handle a tandem truck and a semi?" They say, "No, we cannot because there is not a rail line". I hope that the NDP and Members in the western part of Canada will use their influence to persuade those elevator companies to leave their facilities where the lines are abandoned. It makes sense to have off-line elevators where there is not a railroad. We have discussed that in the House on several occasions.
The other day I heard the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), and I believe he was speaking from experience, speak concerning areas in the northern part of his riding that could be served by a trucking amendment. We know that in the Peace River district a trucking amendment could be to the advantage of the people in those ridings. However, as we have often said in the House, what the producers in western Canada want most is to have their rail lines. The Government has made a commitment to upgrade those lines. We were shocked when, after we put forward our amendment, we heard the deputy minister say that his undersdanding was that there would be a trade-off between branch line rehabilitation money, which is not part of this Bill, and some form of trucking assistance. We had not anticipated that occurence at all because the Government had made its commitment for branch line rehabilitation. In my riding where there is the Dodsland sub and the Matador sub, they will no longer be able to haul grain without the continued rehabilitation funds. The commitments made by the federal Government were accepted in good faith by the elevator companies as well as by the producers in those areas.
Therefore, when we consider the off-line elevator concept, I hope the New Democratic Party means that it will use its influence, as we would and the producers will, to maintain an elevator system where a line has been abandoned. If it does not do that, the whole amendment will fall through the slats. There will not be any advantage to the producers of grain in western Canada.
We have heard, and continue to hear, about the large trucking companies. I know of approximately six trucking companies in my area, such as Loppacher Turners, the Leys Brothers, Roberge, Kindersley Freighters and Biggar Transport. All of those firms have four or five trucks. There is also Smith Transport in my area-I do not want the NDP to get upset. It belongs to Hershel Smith in Sanctuary which is a town of 15 people where he has five employees. It is small businesses such as those which we are talking about when we deal with the trucking companies. We are not concerned about
Western Grain Transportation Act
companies that have had the ability to generate over $10 million in revenue in the last year, such as those four companies which Canadian Pacific took over in Saskatchewan. While I have not seen them hauling grain, I am not concerned about them because they have their licensing and their authorities. That is why Canadian Pacific purchased them, not to haul grain.
The people who will benefit from a trucking amendment will be primarily the producers and the small independent truckers who own from three to six rigs. Those truckers spend their money in the local community, buy their fuel from the local bulk dealers, buy their tires from the local garage and have their maintenance done locally. In addition, they provide a payroll in those small communities in western Canada which essentially do not have any other industry. When one considers the benefits coming from an employer who employs five people in small communities, and I mean small communities such as mine which has 25 people, one realize that be is probably more beneficial than the railroads are in Melville, Biggar in my constituency, or Wilkie. They spend their total income within those small communities.
I hope the next New Democratic Party speaker will be able to explain whether their amendment will provide for an offline elevator system or whether the elevators will be removed as they have been in the past, because there is no railroad. That has happened on every line in my part of Canada that has been abandoned. I hope those Members will use their influence, as we have, to maintain the off-line elevator.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, since Hon. Members may have forgotten, Motion No. 35 reads:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 25 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
the grain producers, but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines
which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport
Commission.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Could we hear that again?


Pauline Jewett: Seriously, I believe that Hon. Members have forgotten that the motion simply asks that the agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on the rail lines which have not been abandoned, and I emphasize, on rail lines that have not been abandoned.
Another point I think I should reiterate is that the federal Government, under Transport Canada or the CTC, has not conducted any studies to ascertain the impact on highway and road costs, provincial and municipal budgets or total system costs.
While I do not know if Hon. Members have looked to comparable areas to see how problems have been dealt with there, I have studied the State of Iowa, which is an intensive grain growing area. That State underwent a transfer of grain movement from railway to road into inland terminals similar to the proposal in Bill C-155. It was discovered that the

October 13, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act highways there had been worn out by heavy trucks up to three times faster than the Government of Iowa could afford to repair or replace them. As a result, the State of Iowa developed a program to subsidize existing railroad branch lines by keeping the grain moving by rail. I refer Members particularly to the 1982 Iowa railroad analysis update, which I read some time ago and feel would be useful to introduce in this debate.
I am sorry that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is not here, but I wish to read the following excerpt, for the benefit of Government Members, from the railroad analysis update:
The assault on Iowa's railroad system has resulted in a sense of urgency on the part of the Iowa Department of Transportation and the General Assembly to develop means for preserving those lines necessary to the state's economy.
An article by John Gallagher states:
The first thing the Iowa Department of Transport did was to conduct an economic analysis-
Which is what we are asking for among other things.
-of all the branch lines in the state which provided the basis for the 1978 Iowa Railroad Plan. This plan was updated in 1980 and 1982.
Basically, it compares the benefits which the state will receive from the preservation of service on the various segments of the railroad system with the cost of maintaining such service. The analysis of the state railroad system is computerized and can easily be drawn upon and updated.
When a railroad requests permission to abandon a branchline in Iowa, the benefits and costs derived from the 1978 study are updated and a revised benefit/costs ratio is computed. The slate can then intercede in the hearings and protect the interests of shippers and the public.
I am sure Hon. Members have not realized-and I see one sleeping.


An Hon. Member:: What is his riding?


Pauline Jewett: It is the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) who is sleeping.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Now he is awake.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) referring to Highway 30 which runs from Cedar Rapids to Clinton, Iowa, or is she referring to Highway 64 which goes from Dubuque to Davenport, Iowa, and includes the community of Comanche?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question because what Iowa did was not to pick one or the other. It looked at the whole system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: I hope all the people in the gallery are enjoying this.


Pauline Jewett: Let me continue. We are talking about the cost-benefit question. The article continues:
Benefits are calculated in three parts:
User benefits-the "total annual transportation and handling costs savings''
to shippers if a line is upgraded and not abandoned.
Railroad benefits-the "net contribution a rail line makes to a railroad's
viability if the line is rehabilitated rather than abandoned." If this is a profit it
is added to the benefits; if it is a loss it is subtracted.
Public benefits-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the Chair is having difficulty relating the documents to the amendments specifically before the House.


An Hon. Member:: And so is she.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that you are very quick to call our Members to relevancy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Douglas Keith Anguish: It is very hard for a Member in this House to stand up and try to be relevant to the Bill when there is all this chatter over here. If you did your job in the Chair-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair has listened very carefully.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please sit down? The Chair has been listening very carefully to the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and invites the Hon. Member to continue and relate her remarks to the amendment before the House.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I do believe they are quite relevant. I am talking about the cost-benefit analysis that ought to be done.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear that the New Democratic Party has run out of speakers who know anything about Bill C-155.


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


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has the floor, and she has an opportunity to make her point.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I was trying very hard to show why there should not be an abandonment until there is a cost-benefit analysis done. I was referring to the Iowa study because Iowa did abandon railways and then discovered, on the basis of the cost-benefit analysis, that it had made a mistake. I thought that was really quite relevant to the motion. Also, I just wanted to convince my friends that I did know what I was discussing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 13, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: I just wanted to make the third and last point which concerns public benefits. It does relate to the cost-benefit analysis that I think we should be undertaking and are not. The article continues:
Public benefits-"the primary public benefit from an upgrading project is highway cost savings resulting from additional trucking avoided if the line is upgraded rather than abandoned." The quantities shipped in the past on the line in question are converted to equivalent truckloads, their destinations determined, and the impact on the highway system computed.
The point I wanted to make is that that kind of analysis has not been done by the CTC and that it should be done before we proceed any further with the Government's Bill. By passing this motion we would facilitate such studies being done.


Some Hon. Members:: More.


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to enter into debate on Motion No. 35. Before I begin my remarks I want to compliment the Hon. Member who preceded me on her excellent speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Albert Glen Cooper: I found it extremely informative and it is one that I will be quite happy to circulate in my riding.
This whole business of trucking and the transportation of grain, as 1 have expressed earlier in speaking to Motion No. 34, is extremely important to the Peace country. As I have said so many times in the House, it is extremely important because we have a really serious problem with a lack of railway facilities. When you lack rail facilities, you do not have any alternative but to use trucks.
Motion No. 34 caused me a great deal of concern. I was surprised the NDP brought in such an amendment because I know its Members have spoken time and time again about representing the producers who are represented by those people in the Peace country. They could not accomplish that with Motion No. 34.
In Motion No. 35 we are into a little different situation. In that motion it is stated grain can be shipped from points which have not been abandoned on existing rail lines. That is why in my riding that does not affect me. I do not have rail lines that have been abandoned. It is difficult to abandon something that has never been put there in the first place. I see some Government Members on the other side. I want to bring that to their attention. I would very much like a rail line in this part of the country. Failing that, we want the opportunity to use trucks. I think it is important at this point in the debate to bring into focus how serious and how important trucking has been to the Canadian people and the various Canadian industries over the last few years.
In the mid-1940s, shortly after the Second World War, things were beginning to happen in the Peace country in the North. In that particular region of the country there was really
Adjournment Debate
only one form of transportation. Of course, it was trucking. We in the North have grown up with a real sense of gratitude for truckers and a real sense of their significance and importance. Had it not been for the truckers, the entire North, right up into the Territories, areas like Yellowknife and Hay River, would simply have not been opened up and developed. The same thing applies when we talk about grain in my area, areas that are still new land, land that has to be brought onstream, brought into production, and land that will create employment and employment opportunities for the people in my region. That will filter throughout Canada. You cannot accomplish that with railways when they do not exist. Your only alternative is to look at trucks.
I can see that the time is running out very quickly. I want to say very clearly that any motion that deals with trucking and transportation of grain is an absolute must. We must allow that to happen because it has to be allowed to exist in order to protect regions such as the one I represent in the Peace country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss further a concern with respect to the ratification or the putting in place about a week ago of new UNCTAD arrangements respecting liner conferences. I originally expressed my concern, in a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), about the apparent absence of monitoring or any ongoing analysis which might give direction to the Canadian maritime industry; indeed, not only them but the users of vessels for import and export.
I was concerned because at the time, as reported in Hansard for October 3, the Minister indicated:
I recognize his concern and would certainly undertake again to ensure that a proper monitoring and analysis are done. We would try to prepare such an assessment for him.
That was the first time I had heard that any monitoring would in fact take place, but we do not know the form of that monitoring. We are not clear as to what kind of analysis will be prepared. In any event, the Minister should not do it for me, he should do it for the industry that is so vitally and deeply involved. It is of some major consequence because it involves 40 per cent of our exports, 40 per cent of our imports and a massive amount of trading. I think we are up around $5 billion in waterborne transport trade annually. That is an enormous

October 13, 1983
Adjournment Debate
amount of money for the movement of goods both in and out of the country.
Perhaps I could express my concern a little more directly. Now that the Government has in fact indicated that it is considering certain measures with respect to the new agreement, will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to make these measures or proposals known to the marine industry or those who use that industry before they are implemented, so that the community of interest can make an input from its point of view? Then the Government, trade people, external people and transport people will understand exactly what they need to learn from the experience under this form of control in the liner conferences. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will give some undertaking to review what is under consideration before it is in fact put in place. There is an obvious advantage to this both from the point of view of the industry and the point of view of the Government. I am sure it would be facilitated by the extension of such a courtesy.
More generally we are concerned about the absence of a policy. We have known we were approaching 57, 58 or 60 signatories that would represent the required percentage of volume by movement exported and imported. We have known this for some time. We knew that the latest round of UNCTAD talks would likely produce an agreement, but we still had no policy in place. This is what we are concerned about.
This can be demonstrated by the fact that shipping lines- some Canadian-owned offshore registered, some offshore-owned but shipping in and out of Canada on a quasi-regular basis-have already approached Canadian embassies in South America and elsewhere in the developing world seeking that policy and certification which might in fact lend them the opportunity to claim they are in fact designated Canadian carriers. We have a vital concern about that, but the policy should be clearly stated. It should reflect industry's concern and be clearly stated. It should be an understandable policy and one that clearly enables our embassies to give proper direction so that confusion will not flow to carriers who seek to act as designated Canadian carriers.
The Parliamentary Secretary's advice to us on this matter tonight will be appreciated. I know it will be concise and I know it will be informative. He certainly is aware of the difficulties being faced by waterborne carriers now that in fact the new code of ethics is a matter of practice.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, as someone who chaired a special parliamentary task force on how Canada can improve its trade with other countries, and as someone who has a Private Member's Bill in the House dealing with a Canadian merchant marine, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member on being such a champion of the marine industry. I know of the interventions he has made with the previous Minister, and now with the new Minister, on the establishment of a Canadian
merchant marine, on all related issues and on the issue of UNCTAD that he raises tonight.
At the United Nations Diplomatic Conference on the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences, Canada abstained in the vote for three reasons which I would like to give to the Hon. Member. First, Canada feared that the implementation of the cargo-sharing provisions, of the code which were 40-40-20, and the rights afforded national lines might lead to higher freight rates. Second, it was felt that some uncertainties existed in the text in regard to the nomination of national lines, their right to membership in conferences and the dispute settlement procedure. Third, it was feared that the implementation of the code might result in a marked change in the competition in international shipping on which Canada has relied and benefited.
Because these concerns remain, it has appeared preferable for Canada not to accede to the code but to keep the question under continuing review in the light of developments in Canadian shipping policy, international shipping policy generally and in the implementation of the code in particular.
In May, 1982, the Government of Canada organized a seminar on the code where various interested parties such as representatives of shippers, ship owners, labour and Government expressed their views on the implications of the code as well as on the options open to Canada. Both Canadian shippers and ship owners firmly opposed Canada's ratification of the code. I know that many of these shippers and ship owners are well known to the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).
It is believed that the effects of the code on Canadian shipping interests will be limited as the code will apply only between two contracting countries. The majority of the Canadian trade is with other OECD or developed countries and only two of these countries have adopted the convention to date. These countries, Germany and the Netherlands, have entered a reservation stating that the provisions of the code will not be applied to intra-EEC trades and intra-OECD trades on a reciprocal basis. It is understood that some other OECD countries will likely adopt the code and that all EEC countries have agreed to enter the same reservation.
Although our liner trade with developing countries is small, there is concern nonetheless with the practices of some developing countries which have unilaterally applied the cargosharing provisions of the code and, in some cases, gone beyond the code. Canada is considering what actions might be taken on a bilateral basis to protect Canadian interests in such situations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Government will be pleased to keep the Hon. Member informed of any change in the Government's approach as it continues to monitor this question.
October 13, 1983


NATIONAL DEFENCE-FATAL ACCIDENT AT LAC LA BICHE- ESTABLISHMENT OF BOARD OF INQUIRY. (B) AGE OF EQUIPMENT
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise to speak at this time but I must deal with that tragic accident that occurred at Lac La Biche, Alberta, on September 30, in which three young lives were snuffed out.
I appreciate having received the letters General Theriault sent to members of the families and I should like to put them on record. The first one is to Mr. and Mrs. Ian McKinnon, R.R. 2, Lousana, Alberta. He wrote:
1.	Please accept my most sincere condolences, and those of the Canadian Forces, following the death of your son, Richard Hebert Norton, in a vehicle accident at Lac La Biche, Alberta
2.	1 very much regret that such peacetime military service accidents do occur from time to time. Canada and the Canadian Forces are indebted to your son for his service to his country. Signed G.C.E. Theriault, General
The same letter went out to Mr. and Mrs. Norman Duguay at 203-4811, 67th Street in Red Deer. The third young man was from Airdrie just outside my constituency. His name was McDonald.
One of the concerns 1 expressed in the question I put to the Minister that day was that no one would be made a scapegoat as a result of the malfunctioning of any equipment that they used. We all know that the trucks that those members of the force used were anywhere from 30 to 40 years old. It is very easy to understand how a vehicle of that vintage could malfunction. I was as concerned with the Minister's answer to my question, reported at p. 27665 of Hansard, when he said:
I would indicate to the hon. gentleman that indeed there is going to be a board of inquiry. I will seriously consider, having received the report, what portion of that report can be made public.
We are not at war, Mr. Speaker. Surely the parents of those young men are entitled to know exactly what happened. If the Government failed to provide the proper equipment for members of the force we should know about it. Neither the Minister nor anyone in Cabinet nor Government should hide behind someone in the forces and use them as a scapegoat. If there was a malfunction of equipment, then it is easy to understand how the accident happened. I would hope that members of the force would give a little more credence to the human aspects when something like this happens.
I was contacted by neighbours of the families involved who were very upset and angry at the lack of consideration shown by the Department toward the families. The accident happened at noon on a Friday. There is a very fine gentleman who is padre at the Canadian Forces Base, Penhold. I know that if the Department of National Defence had contacted him he would have driven over to see both families and to notify them of what took place. Instead, a call went through from the Colonel Belcher Hospital in Calgary and a minister in Three Hills, which is quite far from where the family lived, went to see them. He did not know the family or any of the details of the accident. It is too bad that things happened this way. I
Adjournment Debate
think that in time of peace greater consideration could be given to people caught up in this sad situation.
The padre from Penhold is a friend of mine and I know he would have gone to see the family and help explain things to them. There were only two boys in the McKinnon family and now the oldest one is gone. The neighbours speak very highly of the family and certainly the family is suffering. More consideration should have been shown. I understand they were told a car would pick them up to take them to the funeral which was supposed to be at two o'clock on a Wednesday. They waited until a quarter after one. There was still no car. The car had broken down, but they had not been notified of this. To me, this is totally unacceptable. As I said earlier, the minister from Three Hills was the one who told them on the Friday night that their boy had been killed and that they should call the funeral home on Saturday morning. They could then find out exactly what the details were. They phoned the funeral home and found it had not been contacted at all. It was not until Sunday night that they actually knew what was going on.
Certainly I feel that the Department was really lacking insofar as its treatment of this family is concerned. I believe we can do better. I know that you and I agree on that, Mr. Speaker. It is the responsibility of all of us because when anyone joins the force, that person becomes a part of us and we are a part of that person. I would hope that the members of the force would take this into consideration and not be so impersonal when it comes to deaths in a family, especially tragic deaths such as these.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hudecki) and on behalf of the Minister himself, I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has given me an opportunity to discuss matters relating to the tragic accident at Lac La Biche. I would like to join him, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister in offering condolences, not only to the families mentioned by the Hon. Member in the House today, but to the extended families and friends of those who died as a result of this tragic accident.
I was in this Chamber when the Hon. Member directed his question and his supplementary on October 3, 1983 to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais). I want to strongly object to the inference made in his supplementary question considering the road worthiness of this type of vehicle. Although the fleet is aging, all the vehicles are maintained to a set standard and in accordance with stringently laid down CF vehicle maintenance policy. If the vehicle cannot meet those standards, it is not used.
It is much too early to make judgments on the cause of this accident. I can only repeat what the Minister stated in the House in response to the Hon. Member's question, that it is a given that the board of inquiry is competent and that an
28022

October 13, 1983
Adjournment Debate
objective analysis of the facts surrounding the accident will be made.
The inspection policy specifies that the driver will check the following before the vehicle is taken on the road each day: tires for wear, inflation, pressure and security, all lights and turn signals, windshield wipers, horn, handbrake, fluid levels, all engine belts for wear and tightness, and must ensure that the fire extinguisher functions. Any defects noted must be corrected either by the driver or vehicle technicians before the vehicle is taken on the road. Technical inspections are carried out by unit technicians every six months or 10,000 kilometers, whichever comes first. These inspections are detailed checks of the complete vehicle and associated systems. All detected deficiencies are corrected after these inspections and the vehicles are grounded or taken out of service until these deficiencies are corrected.
In effect, semi-annual inspections serve as a preventive maintenance measure because partially worn components which are about to fail are replaced. In addition to the semi-annual inspections, independent teams are formed in brigade groups and bases across Canada and Europe to validate the standard of maintenance in units.
I see you are indicating that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to conclude by saying that, knowing the Minister as well as I do, I know he will give credence to the human aspect of such a tragedy. 1 know that this humanity will be reflected in the Department of National Defence under his leadership.


EMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR FORESTRY JOB-CREATION PROGRAM
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on September 28 I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) about the need for a job creation program in the forest industry which would begin to meet the needs of some of Canada's young people. I mentioned a continuing rate of 22 per cent among Canada's youth, to which the Minister objected, saying that in fact the unemployment rate for young people was under 20 per cent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, an OECD report released the day before had predicted that the 22 per cent unemployment rate would continue through 1984 and only drop by one percentage point in 1985. But whether the rate is 22 per cent, 20 per cent, 19 per cent or even 18 per cent or down to 10 per cent, the fact is that right now there is a tragic waste of our young people.
This was brought home to me earlier in September when I, along with my colleague in the British Columbia legislature, met with a group of about 60 young workers who were part of an EBAP program working out of Sooke. During the last several months they have been involved in thinning and pruning and soil rehabilitation. They knew the program was coming to an end at the end of the month and they asked us what hope there was of a continuation.
I made some investigations and found that all EBAP applications were finished as of September 30 and there was no specific forestry component in the new Canada Works Program. When I asked the Minister about this he finally admitted that the forestry program was indeed coming to an end. He said the Government was considering ways of supplementing it. He quite frankly pointed to the Government of British Columbia for its failure to support federal initiatives in forestry. Mr. Speaker, I would be the last person to defend the Social Credit Government in British Columbia with its abysmal record in forestry as in every field of human endeavour. Right now it is engaged in a repressive restraint program involving a cut of 25 per cent across the board in all Government staff. This will seriously hurt the forest industry in British Columbia. Of course, the Province has consistently dragged its feet in concluding a federal/provincial forestry agreement that would enable federal funds to flow into a decent forestry program. However, Mr. Speaker, my point is that provincial failure cannot be an excuse for the federal Government's refusal to act. Forestry is just too important, not only to British Columbia but to Canada as a whole. This is an area where the need of our young people for jobs is directly related to the need for a forestry regeneration program and job creation, not only now but ten, twenty, thirty, fourty or even one hundred years down the road. We should be putting some of our young people to work in this area.
I was very impressed with the submission made to the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada by the Association of British Columbia Professional Foresters. I wish every Member in the House could read that submission. I would like to read just a few of the facts they have in their brief. In Canada more than
800.000	hectares are harvested annually in our country, but less than 25 per cent are planted or seeded. The Canadian Forestry Service estimates that 25 per cent to 50 per cent of the area harvested annually fails to regenerate or reverts to non-commercial weeds. In British Columbia more than one million hectares need reforestation and that Province is adding
20.000	to 50,000 hectares to the situation annually. Recent B.C. budget cuts will increase the problems, as I pointed out.
If we look at the Canadian Forestry Service we see that the number of person years available for research has declined by more than 50 per cent since 1968. This is indicative of the federal Government's neglect of that area. If we were going to properly meet the needs in British Columbia alone there would be a need for another 2,000 provincial foresters, 400 more specialists and 7,000 additional forest technologists.
The Canadian Forest Service is part of Environment Canada. The amount of $69.4 million was allocated to this branch. In the same Environment Ministry, $146 million has been budgeted for the Atmospheric Environment Service and $275 million for Parks Canada. It is a national disgrace that the federal Government spends twice as much money monitoring the weather and climate as it does of our forests.
October 13, 1983

The federal Government's own Department estimates that the benefits of improved management would create 100,000 new jobs, increase product sales by $22 billion, increase exports by $12 billion, and create additional tax revenues of $3 billion. Therefore, the Commission recommended that federal initiatives in forestry job creation programs be continued and expanded.
While we believe that forest management work, silvaculture and other activities should not be viewed as a source of low income employment, we do support any initiatives that result in improved management. 1 urge the Government not only to consider the question, but also to act now and bring in a long term program that will meet the needs of our young people and the needs of our forests.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the Transport Committee was in the Province of British Columbia in August hearing various witnesses from the Government of British Columbia, the Mayors of British Columbia and representatives of the various industries, such as the forest industry. The one thing all of these witnesses told us was, "Get on with Bill C-155 because it means more jobs for British Columbia". This is why 1 fail to understand why the Hon. Member will stand up and say what he is saying tonight, yet daily oppose Bill C-155 which will create much needed jobs in the Province of British Columbia.
In putting on my other hat on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), I would like to provide the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) with a more detailed reply to the Hon. Member's questions raised in the House on September 28. The Hon. Member posed two questions. I will expand on the Minister's response to the question concerning the Government's initiative to help unemployed youth first, and then on the efforts being undertaken by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to help the unemployed forestry workers.
In the past few weeks, the Minister has announced several initiatives to help unemployed youth. The consolidated direct
Adjournment Debate
job creation program announced on September 12, 1983, has a major thrust directed toward providing opportunities for young people to learn, develop and practice the skills necessary to enter into and remain in the labour market. The Job Corps and Career Access Programs are geared to offer this kind of assistance to young people.
The Canada Works Program, and the Local Employment Assistance and Development Program, known as the LEAD Program, will also provide many young people with employment opportunities to gain valuable work experience. Including the recent Summer Initiatives, CEIC will spend approximately $474.1 million this fiscal year to provide 179,200 youth with work experience.
The Hon. Member also had a question concerning initiatives to help forestry workers, especially in British Columbia. As the Minister stated, the Employment Bridging Assistance Program, which was a joint federal-provincial initiative, was seriously jeopardized by the British Columbia Government's decision to withdraw funding. Although provincial funding ceased on June 30, 1983, the federal Government, through CEIC, made up the provincial shortfall and continued support for the forestry projects for another three months.
The EBAP was designed to provide term employment to unemployed forestry workers to maintain their skills and livelihood during the recession. Funding for the program was providing through provisions of Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I see that Your Honour is giving me the signal to close. I would just like to close on this note, by telling the Hon. Member that if he is really serious about creating jobs in British Columbia then he should get up on his feet and be counted in support of Bill C-155.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
At 6.30 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 14, 1983.