1983-05-16

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, May 13, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is my purpose at this point in the debate to draw the attention of the Members of this House to the importance of this initiative to Canada's economic development as a whole and to regional development.
Canada, as we know, has always been a country of regional particularities and it is the stronger for that. Economically strong regions in association and in co-operation mutually benefit each other, and also, of course, benefit the whole country.

Together with the budget measures announced recently by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the transportation plan will be one of the main driving forces of our economic recovery today. In addition, and this will be more important in the long run, it will help provide a stimulus for economic development in the years to come. Among all the measures taken by the Government to promote economic recovery and development, the western transportation measure certainly is one of its most important initiatives. Although basically aimed at strengthening the agricultural and transportation sectors of our economy, it also constitutes a multifacetted and long-term measure that will have a positive and durable impact on many other sectors of our economy. It is therefore a vital part of the Government's general strategy for getting Canada out of the worldwide economic recession.

Agriculture and transportation are two of the principal pillars of the Canadian economy. Agricultural production,
traditionally an economic mainstay, now generates 16 per cent of the Gross National Product. It accounts for 10 per cent of Canada's total exports. The efficiency and hard work of Canada's farmers has contributed greatly to our export earnings and contributed also to a situation in which Canadians spend a smaller proportion of their incomes on food than is the case in most other countries. Canadians spend on average less than 17 per cent of their incomes on food, second only to the United States in the entire world.
The transportation sector is equally important. Without a sound, efficient and reliable method of moving Canada's products to markets within the nation and from there to world markets, our country's position as one of the world's great trading nations would be severely undermined.
[DOT] (mo)
It is a historical fact and a fact of some interest that many of the early European explorers came here not so much to find Canada as to find a way around Canada, that is, in search of the Northwest Passage to China and the Orient, in pursuit of trade and of commerce. They failed in that endeavour, or so they thought. But when the first transcontinental passenger train reached Vancouver in 1887, it seemed to many at the time to be at long last the realization of the dreams of those early explorers. The fabled passage had been found, with the added benefit of the riches of a new land to be worked and husbanded. That it was achieved through a combination of water and rail transport rather than through water alone was a matter of minor moment. The important fact was that the great nation-building link had been established at last.
What we are seeking today, some 95 years later, with the western transportation initiative is to achieve a modernization of those passageways of commerce. The goals are the same as they were for the railway builders of the nineteenth century- the furtherance of nation building and the expansion of commerce, both goals in the interest of all Canadians wherever they live and whatever the livelihood they pursue.
The construction of the western railway system was, as I said, both in the interests of commerce and of nation building. Indeed, it was part of the Confederation bargain, necessary for the settlement of the West and for moving its products to markets. Likewise the establishment of the Crow rate in 1897 in return for the building of a new line allowed settlers' goods into the West and grain out at low freight rates. It served its purpose well in its time. But as other speakers have indicated,

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
another major new adjustment is now necessary, in large measure to free the new Canadian West from the constraints and distortions caused by the old rate structure. The western transportation initiative is, therefore, nothing less than a major new phase of Canada's development, which, like many other phases before it, will benefit not only the new West but the nation as a whole.
The general economic benefits of the initiative can be discussed under at least two headings. One consists of those benefits which will flow from the construction activity itself which will be felt over the short and medium term. The other set of benefits, eventually more important for our children and grandchildren, will be the modernization of the transportation system which will contribute to making the Canadian economy much more fit to meet the economic challenges of the twenty-first century.
Let me deal first with the short and medium-term effects. In the short term the initiative means that thousands of construction jobs can be started up almost immediately-laying the rails, building the bridges and tunneling the mountains. This is indeed already under way as a result of interim financial assistance to the railways. There will be an immediate need for steel rail and wooden ties, providing useful work for the steelworkers and forest product workers, too many of whom have been idled by the world recession or forced into other occupations where their acquired skills are not now put to best use. From the wages paid out to them there will be an important multiplier effect which will be felt significantly by those who service these industries, especially in the steel and forest products communities that have been so devastated by the international recession.
But that is just a start. Over the coming decade, as the system is put in place and begins to show results, many sectors of the economy will be called upon to respond. Stronger agricultural production will require more farm machinery, fertilizer and other farm inputs and services. Manufacturers will be called upon to produce the rolling stock to move not only the increased agricultural products but other western resources and products, such as potash, petrochemicals and coal which can be moved confidently to world markets by a reliable transportation system. The railways will be equipping themselves with the most advanced communications, traffic control and safety systems, providing important new opportunities for our high technology industries.
The Government estimates that the $16.5 billion to be spent by the railways between 1983 and 1992 will lead directly and indirectly to $34.8 billion in industrial sales. We estimate that nearly 375,000 person-years of employment will be created during that period with a resulting labour income of $12.2 billion.

I may also add that during this decade, Canadian industry and Canadian workers and production teams in various
industrial sectors will upgrade their skills and develop new ones. Skills, that is, expertise and know-how in the field of new means of transportation and communications, will themselves be a marketable commodity to be exported to many other countries that are obliged to modernize their transportation network.
In this new era, knowledge and information are as valuable as material products, and skills will be a new and important asset to the future of our economy as a whole. However, as 1 said before, Canada is a country made of economic regions that complement and rely on each other, and as a result, we must also consider the many ways in which the economic spinoffs associated with the construction phase of the western transportation measure can be shared among Canada's various regions.
As the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology, I am particularly interested in this aspect. Although we are speaking of a western transportation measure, the scope of this project is such that all regions can expect to feel the impact on their respective economies.
The proposed distribution of spinoffs is equitable and has the additional advantage of being economically sound, in that it builds on the strength of each region so that all regions are able to contribute to a project that in the final instance, will benefit each and every one.

It is also because this is a western transportation initiative that it is appropriate that the new Canadian West should be the main focus of the economic activity generated by the project. The four Provinces of the West will, when taken together, absorb about 57 per cent of the economic stimulus provided by the anticipated $16.5 billion of expenditures over the next ten years. Over the same period more than 157,000 person-years of employment could be created in the four western Provinces with all the spin-off and ripple effects which, as I have already indicated, augmented payrolls bring in their wake.
British Columbia, with a projected share of one-third of the $16.5 billion to be invested by the railways, will be the main site of construction activity. The major challenge of doubletracking through the mountains will create thousands of contruction jobs. These will be supplemented by jobs created to upgrade terminals, expand existing and build new repair shops. The mining, metal fabrication and forest industries will be significantly affected. It is expected that the new economic activity associated with the western transportation initiative will generate 87,000 person-years in British Columbia alone.
The timely expansion of port facilities on the Pacific coast will ensure that British Columbia is properly poised to move the increased product that will be delivered on a modernized and improved railway system. The federal Government has contributed millions of dollars to the expansion of the bulk coal handling terminal at Roberts Bank in the Lower Mainland and
May 16, 1983

the Ridley Island grain and coal terminals near Prince Rupert. Work on the development of these superports is well under way.
Almost as many person-years, more than 70,000, will be brought into being in the three other Provinces of the Canadian West which will, of course, be the principal ultimate beneficiaries of the initiative as a whole. About one-quarter of the funds to be spent by the railways over the years 1983 to 1992 will be spent, we estimate, in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Alberta's share alone should amount to $2.7 billion. And the largest shares of these expenditures, by the way, should be in metal and wood fabrication, which can be expected to contribute to that diversification of the Alberta economy which is desired by Albertans in general. Manitoba and Saskatchewan will also receive equitable shares of the work to be done. Some 25,000 jobs will be created in these two Provinces in such projects as new repair facilities in Moose Jaw and Winnipeg. Again, as in British Columbia and throughout the nation, there will be related multiplier effects felt by other economic sectors.
The provinces in Central Canada-Ontario and Quebec- will also share in the economic activity resulting from the western transportation measure. We expect that 37 per cent of the $16.5 billion which the railway companies will be spending will go to Ontario and Quebec. In the short and medium term, the main impact on Ontario and Quebec will be the purchase of rails, rolling stock and locomotives. All this will be the result of an increase in railway capacity in Western Canada. Expenditures on transportation equipment in Ontario and in Quebec should account for 60 per cent of a total of over $6 billion that will be spent in these two provinces. During the decade, these expenditures, with those in other sectors, are expected to create 135,000 person-years in Ontario and about 60,000 in Quebec. At this point I would like to say that the entire western transportation measure will have no harmful effects on the distribution and routing of grain to Eastern Canada. Up to now, all major studies have shown that the grain transportation and handling industry will experience healthy growth and will continue to do so within the foreseeable future.

The cumulative economic impact on all four Atlantic Provinces could be 23,500 person-years, half a billion dollars in labour income and total industrial sales of $1.6 billion.
Those are some of the dry statistics of what I regard as the short and medium-term effects of the economic activity to be generated throughout the country by this most important new Government initiative. It is a plan, I believe, which allows all parts of the country to make significant contributions to this vital national project. It will strengthen all of the regions by building on their own strengths and existing natural advantages.
Western Grain Transportation Act
But I would be remiss if I did not also share with you some of my hopes and expectations about the way the western transportation initiative will strengthen the Canadian economy as a whole. This program is much, much more than a job-creation program although it is surely also that. The 375,000 person-years of work it will bring into being, which will be, as I have said, equitably distributed throughout the country, are an important element in the Government's program for Canadian economic recovery from the world-wide recession.
But the western transportation initiative is also an investment in Canada's future. In the first instance, to be sure, it is an investment in the long-term development of the new Canadian West. You have heard this before, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I assure you that it deserves repetition. The existing rate structure for western rail transport distorts the western Canadian economy and locks it unreasonably into patterns of the past, restricting its flexibility in responding to the challenges of the future. The deadhand of the past restrains the West from making the best use of its natural economic advantages. This is a loss not just to the West; it is a loss to us all.
Without an improved western transportation system, these distortions will continue to exist. As long as the existing rate structure remains, the West will be restricted in its ability to diversify its economy. There will be a disincentive to western Canadian farmers to diversify their production.
Western Canada has many other products that will be in growing demand on world markets as the recovery strengthens, presenting an opportunity for the rapid growth and development of the western economy. As always, the geography of Canada means western producers of all products, grain and non-grain, face a major challenge-getting their products to those world markets. Maintaining the Crow rate compounds the problem by leaving our competitive western producers at the end of an inadequate transportation system. The changes to the Crow provide the impetus and financial leverage required to put in place a transportation system that gives western Canada access to world markets and will enhance our image as a reliable, cost-competitive exporter.
The economic development of the entire west is at stake. And the development of the West on its own terms, utilizing its own economic opportunities, making its own economic decisions is something which can only benefit all Canadians.
Too often, economic issues are discussed as if participants were either winners or losers. That has never been, and should never be, the basic principle of our Canadian economic union. This union should be seen as an agreement under which all Canadians are winners within the context of a wise and properly administrated policy. The western transportation measures are one of those wise policies by which all Canadians stand to gain, both now and in the future. That is why these measures deserve the support of all Members of this House.

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister which is more in the nature of a political question. Basically, the Government does not have any Members in western Canada; there are two in Manitoba but none in Saskatchewan or Alberta and these Provinces are going to be fundamentally affected by changes in the Crow rate. Does the Minister not think it is inappropriate for a Government that does not have any representation there to make fundamental changes in the nature of western Canada which will result from the change in the Crow rate?
I am not disputing with the Minister the fact that the Government does have the legal right to do that; of course it has. It is the Government of all of us and is elected as such.
Perhaps I can give an analogy. Suppose this Party or the Conservative Party were the Government with strong representation in western Canada but no Members in Quebec and we were to make some fundamental changes in the economy of Quebec against the wishes of Quebecers. Would that be politically proper? I do not think it would but I would like to ask the Minister to comment on it. Perhaps this is a question which has not been asked about the Crow.
Does the Minister think it is politically right that a Government with virtually no representation in western Canada should make fundamental changes to the economy of western Canada when those changes are opposed by the people there? If we were to do that in Quebec there would be a revolution.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is suggesting that a Government which might not be represented in a particular sector of the country should effectively abdicate its mandate to govern the country. That would be to say, I suppose, that if a Party were not to have representation, say, in northern Ontario, which is a very substantial part of Ontario, it could not take steps to improve the economy of that particular region.
This initiative has been the subject of consultation by my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who is in the House today, of a kind and to an extent that has perhaps never been seen before. In addition, when the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway says that this is politically a move which he questions, I would point out to him that the Liberal Party, which is the Government, had a very substantial representation from its membership throughout the country which represents the voice of many people in western Canada.
The issue was the subject of a very substantial resolution during the national policy convention which the Liberal Party holds on a regular basis, unlike some other Parties in the House, and that convention was fully supportive of the measures the Government is taking.
I reject out of hand any suggestion that the national Government of this country should abdicate its responsibilities because it is not represented in a particular region. I would suggest that the only way that a Party would never be represented in a region of the country is if it were to leave the
impression with Canadians that the problems of the people in western Canada are not our problems. But they very much are.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hon. gentleman neglected to mention that the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan Alberta and Manitoba-what is left of it-opposed this plan. It made that plain and it made it public. It wanted to keep the statutory freight rate for grain producers.
I would like to ask the Minister, believing in free enterprise as he does, if he considers it proper for a Government to take taxpayers' money and use it as capital for investment in any project, without there being eligible for some kind of return on that investment? In other words, money which has been put into Canadair and a few other projects is money over which Canadians have some ownership, control or some say, whereas in the case of the railways it is a straight gift. Would the Minister not agree that it would make sense for Canada-Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) would stop trying to prime the Minister with an answer, which will not be correct in any event. It shows a lack of courtesy on his part and it certainly indicates that his Cabinet colleague does not know a damned thing about this subject when it has to be whispered into his ear what to say.
Would the Minister not consider it more proper, in return for funds put up for capital, for Canada to take increased equity ownership in Canadian National for the value of that capital which they receive, and equity shares in Canadian Pacific Limited, in order to be eligible for any interest or dividends, or any return on that investment? Why just hand it out so that only Canadian Pacific Limited shareholders will receive the return on the investment made by the taxpayer?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at that question coming from the Hon. Member. Apart from his social and economic philosophy, I believe I have a great deal in common with some of the views which he expresses on occasion, but not in this area.
First of all, he suggests that we increase our equity in CN. We own 100 per cent of CN; I do not know how we could increase our equity in CN. If there are dividends paid out by CN, I know of no other recipient of those dividends than the Canadian Government. It may be in part a misunderstanding of the nature of a corporation and the activities it carries on which leads the Hon. Member to express the kind of philosophy which he is putting forward for review by us here today. There are many activities where the federal Government on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer elects to subsidize a particular private sector activity, and in such case we do have a very major return on that investment, Mr. Speaker, in increased jobs and in increased services to the Canadian public. But more importantly, what Hon. Members seem to forget is that the Canadian Government is a 50 per cent partner in every private sector corporation in this country through the fiscal system. That is how our fiscal system works. That is what its
May 16, 1983

purpose is, to allow the Canadian people to participate equitably in the profits which may be realized from any activity in the private sector. I often feel that Elon. Members in the New Democratic Party tend to forget that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister spoke about winners and losers. I wonder if he would agree with me that the livestock industry and secondary processing industry will surely have to feel that they are losers, because the original Gilson compromise had 81 per cent of the money going to farmers and 19 per cent to the railways, which was designed to do away with the distortion which the Crow rate had come to cause over the years. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) then knocked that down to fifty-fifty and as a result of the representations of the Quebec caucus it went down to 100 per cent to the railways and zero to the producers. Does the Minister not agree that the livestock industry is the loser in that context?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in the long term everyone is a winner out of this proposed initiative. As I understand the formula, if you take the Lakehead feed grain price and deduct the cost of transportation, certainly it will reduce at a slower pace than might have been the case under the other proposal. However, everyone is a winner under this proposal and the winning is just a little slower than it would have been under the first proposal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Last Friday afternoon the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) raised a point of order which maintained that the ten minutes allowed for questions and comments following Members' speeches in the eight-hour period, at second reading of Bills, should not be counted as being a part of that eight-hour period. The Chair heard arguments on Friday afternoon, has considered the arguments raised during the weekend, and is now ready to rule on the matter.
In addition to those arguments, in coming to a conclusion the Chair considered the third report to the House of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, the present Provisional Standing Orders, as well as our practice established since the coming into force of the Provisional Standing Orders.
The third report of the Special Committee sets out specifically a new procedure for second reading of Bills which it splits into three distinct periods, and I quote from that report:
Your Committee recommends that the first three speakers be limited to forty minutes each, allowing for a contribution from the three Parties, but not to be followed by ten-minute exchanges. This would then be followed by speeches of a maximum length of twenty minutes for the first eight hours followed by ten-minute exchanges in each case, if required. Thereafter speeches would be limited to ten minutes without the provisions for exchanges.
The Chair understands that the Special Committee intended the ten-minute period to be included in the eight hours.
Secondly, it seems evident from reading the specific Standing Order 35(2), which sets out expressly these three distinct periods, that the second of those periods in subparagraph (b) provides for a total period of eight hours during which
Western Grain Transportation Act
speeches will be limited to 20 minutes in length and may be followed by ten minutes of questions and comments.
Thirdly, our practice, as developed since the beginning of this year, confirms the intent of the report and the Provisional Standing Orders in that sense. The ten-minute questions, answers and comment period has always been included within the eight hours.
I thank Hon. Members for bringing this matter to the Chair's attention as it has permitted a study of the matter. It is my conclusion that the time taken for the ten-minute question and answer period must be added to the actual time of speeches in determining the total eight-hour period during the second segment of consideration of second reading of a Bill.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a new point of order for your consideration, having ruled on what I thought was a valid point of order raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), with respect to the interpretation of the new rules. We all understand that this is on a temporary basis and we must look at the rules as they are in fact in the Standing Orders now during this trial period.
My point of order relates to another aspect on which I would ask for a ruling from the Chair. The wording of the new Standing Orders with respect to time limits on speeches relates to different stages in the proceedings, whether it be second reading or indeed with respect to any state of the proceedings. What it is silent on, though, is with respect to the rules which will apply in the event, as we now have it in this particular debate, of an amendment being brought forward by a Member which is accepted by the Chair on second reading. Therefore, the Hon. Member for Regina West rose and moved a motion, which is accepted by the Chair, to put a completely new and novel dimension on this debate in terms of the subject matter for consideration by the House.
His motion, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was simply that this matter not be now debated but be suspended for consideration for a period of six months. That puts a new item before the House for consideration, Mr. Speaker. When we look at the rules and at the Standing Orders, it refers to eight hours with respect to the matter under consideration. It does not talk about second reading. It talks about a stage or item under consideration. My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, is that when a motion, particularly in the case of second reading motions, is brought forward, as we know, we are very much limited in the type of amendment which is acceptable and will be accepted by the Chair under our rules on second reading. There are very few amendments which are acceptable on the part of the Chair. Therefore, when we do have a motion of amendment which, in effect, is accepted by the Chair and by the House, it seems to me only reasonable that we should have full opportunity of examining that matter which is then under consideration.
This is a matter of some considerable substance. This is an excellent Bill on which to raise this point because what the Government is purporting to do under this legislation is not a

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
trifling or incidental matter; it is attempting to change what has been referred to as Magna Carta of western Canada in terms of transportation policy.
Therefore it becomes extremely important for Members of Parliament, in fulfilling their responsibility, to be able to have an adequate or reasonable period of time for debate. The rules should be so interpreted because we are, after all, Parliamentarians representing our constituents. We should not be thwarted on a narrow or limited reading of the Standing Orders if there is a question or ambiguity.
With respect to the wording of the matter under consideration, we are now considering technically and for all purposes the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina West which asks the House to vote on the proposition that this Bill be stood over for six months and brought back for consideration at that time.
When we have consideration of important legislation which is so highly emotional, and such importance is attached to it by people, particularly those in one important region of Canada, it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of the Standing Orders should be that when we have an amendment at second reading the time clock should start again. We have a situation where we are entitled to full and legitimate debate on a proper amendment, properly accepted, properly before the House. We in the House of Commons who want to speak for a period of time on a matter which affects the very livelihood of the people we represent should not be thwarted by some unreasonable reading of this particular rule.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for your consideration of this particular point of order because I think it is more than legitimate and one which is of very serious consequence to this particular Bill.


Mr. Lewis:: I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) seeking to speak on the same point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for raising this sort of ancillary or similar point of order to the one, which was just dealt with and on which I will not comment. I just wish the rule read the way Your Honour has ruled.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising a point of order. He cannot go back on a decision of the Chair.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is right, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the Chair that I agree with the point raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, that the time period presently being counted also counts on a debate on the amendment. Once the amendment has been dealt with, however long it may take, we return to debate the main motion and a new time period commences with reference to the eight hours and 20-minute speeches.


Blaine Allen Thacker: I rise on the same point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) was rising on the same point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague from Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in making reference to this point of order. The amendments at second reading, as the Speaker will know, are very limited as to their application and what type of amendment can be made. The debate which has proceeded since the introduction of the amendment on the six-month hoist is basically as to whether or not the Bill is appropriate for the time and whether the six-month hoist should apply.
I would draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that the Bill has a great deal of importance in Western Canada. Unfortunately, the Government-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: All of Canada.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: -is in a very vulnerable position because it has no speakers of any import or knowledge from western Canada. It is very vital to the understanding of the Bill by the Parliament of Canada, by Hon. Members such as the Minister who is leaving the House, that we be able to hear the western Members and the viewpoint which they bring to the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) asked us to.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I think for that reason alone we should have a broad interpretation of when that eight hours is to take place. Is it to be on the consideration of the entire Bill at second reading or, as we would suggest to Your Honour, is it to be on the six-month hoist amendment? Surely if we are to allow every Hon. Member to be heard, if we are to bring to the floor of the House the experience our Party on this important Bill, if Hon. Members from all over the country are properly to represent their constituents, surely we should have ample time.
I would suggest that that reason alone would bring Your Honour to rule that the eight-hour debate and eight-hour time limit should only relate to the six-month hoist amendment, that once the debate has collapsed on that matter and we have had a vote, we can then return to the second reading debate. Every Hon. Member in this House, for the benefit of the Government which lacks any Hon. Members from western Canada, can then be heard.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say that I am disappointed that my friend, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), has suggested that any Hon. Members from the House of Commons are not important when he said that we did not have any important Members from the West. We have two Hon. Members from Manitoba.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is what I meant. I said that.


David P. Smith: All Hon. Members of the House are important.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is what I said.


Mr. Hargrave:: You are a little sensitive this morning.
May 16, 1983


David P. Smith: Second, I think it is important to-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: A point of order! A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker!


Mr. Cousineau:: You cannot rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), the Parliamentary Secretary is rising to speak to the same point of order. The Hon. Member, I think, may take exception to the remarks, but he will be recognized later.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, very much a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At the end of the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks I will hear the Hon Member on a question of privilege.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the phrase that the Hon. Member used, and he may not recall it, was that we on this side of the House did not have any Hon. Members from the West of any import.


Mr. McCain:: He was right, dead right.


David P. Smith: If he would like to withdraw that remark, I think it would be appropriate. He can check the blues and satisfy himself, but that is what I heard. We do not tailor the rules to satisfy the political achievements of whatever it is we are wanting to do. The rules are the rules.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: That is not what Perrault said.


David P. Smith: They apply equally under all circumstances.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Senator Perrault didn't say that.


David P. Smith: I am disappointed that this interpretation of this particular new rule has been argued by Hon. Members who spent a bit of time on the committee which recommended this change. I have served on the committee. I know the background of it. The background as to why this was brought in was to prevent filibustering from going on at second reading.
If one considers the time spent on Government legislation in recent years, one finds that over 60 per cent of the time in the House has been spent on second reading debates which are supposed to be debates of general principle. It is pretty clear that what has in fact happened has been that the Opposition Parties-and this could have been true when the sides were reversed-have frequently staged filibusters at second reading stage so as to present the House from dealing with a measure. As a result, this change was recommended.
There cannot be an end run through a six-month hoist amendment. The rules quite clearly state, "When second reading of a Government Bill is being considered", etc. Then it gives the time limits. It does not make any exceptions and it does not state that it does not apply when we are discussing an amendment such as a six-month hoist. Second reading is
Western Grain Transportation Act
second reading, and all things which fall within second reading are included in the calculation of times as set out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there other Hon. Members speaking to the point of order? The Chair recognizes, on a point of privilege, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I would like to raise a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I want to reassure the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) that I did say there were no Hon. Members of import from western Canada. In fact, neither of them, according to my records, has even spoken on the Bill to this point.


Mr. Pepin:: They will.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not really raising a question of privilege or point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that Your Honour should interpret the rules. If one considers Section 35(1), it states that the general rule is that on a debate, Members speak for 20 minutes unless otherwise provided in the Standing Orders. Then when one considers Section 35(2), there is an "otherwise", providing that during second reading one is restricted to eight hours, 20 minute speeches, each with a ten-minute question period. However, the point is that we are not second reading; we are debating a special amendment. It is true that the Chair should probably restrict that debate to the six-month hoist. Nothing is relevant except the six-month hoist.


David P. Smith: That's the most outrageous thing I have ever heard in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I say to the Hon. Member, when Orders of the Day were called, second reading was called. The Chair finds it difficult to accept the argument that the presentation of an amendment, which is part of the process of debate, would terminate second reading. This is still second reading of the Bill.


Mr. Taylor:: I just want to make one comment. On Friday there was a point of order which lasted for 22 minutes. We have now been on a point of order which has taken approximately 20 minutes. Surely this point of order should not come off the eight hours.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's point is well taken. If there are no further interventions concerning the point of order that has been raised, the Chair will reserve a decision on the matter. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and urge the Chair to make sure that the eight-hour period for debate, whether on second reading or on the amendment, does not

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
include interruptions, for good purposes, to deal with matters-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The matter has been settled. The Chair is not counting the 20-minute intervention against the eight hours. The Hon. Member is recognized for debate.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, basically I have two and possibly three matters that I wish to address in my comments this morning. The first question relates to a rather unusual telegram which was received in my office last week on the day that the Bill on the Crow rate was introduced in the House of Commons and we agreed to give it first reading in the House. The telegram urges me to support the Government's proposals. I believe that is worth underlining.
The telegram came to me from the President and Chief Executive Officer of a prominent lumber firm in British Columbia. It is not the telegram which concerns me but the manner in which it reached me. I do not know how many private sector companies in British Columbia or elsewhere have been extended the privilege of calling on the Prime Minister's office to act as their messenger. This particular firm seems to enjoy that privilege and I wonder how many other Canadians have that privilege. Would the Canadian Cattlemen's Association enjoy a privilege of having a telegram sent to the Prime Minister's office for distribution to all Members in the House of Commons? I doubt it, but this is what happened.
I am holding a telegram which bears the names of all the Members from British Columbia. It arrived on my desk via what is very clearly marked up in the corner "The Com Centre of the PCO-PMO", which is the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office. It was obviously sent there to be distributed to Members from British Columbia.
The text of the telegram makes it quite clear that those of us from British Columbia are being urged to follow the Government's plan to abolish the statutory Crow rate. I find it rather unusual that the Prime Minister's office should receive a telegram of this sort and distribute it not only on paper, which presumably is part of the stationery supply of the Prime Minister's office, but also in an envelope which states at the bottom "PCO", presumably the Privy Council office, "Room 616, Postal Station B", and delivered by a messenger from the Prime Minister's office.
I wonder if all private sector corporations in Canada enjoy this particular privilege. I would find it strange if they did. How can any private sector corporation expect the Prime Minister's office to receive, print and distribute their messages for them? Apparently they do not trust the private sector any more than they trust the post office or CN-CP Telecommunications. While I frequently receive telegrams from CN-CP Telecommunications, this is the first time to my knowledge that I have received a telegram of this sort through the courtesy of the Prime Minister's office.
I also wonder whether this particular private sector corporation enjoys the use of the facilities of the office of the Hon.
Senator from Vancouver in order to get their messages quickly and cheaply to Ottawa and distributed once here. How many British Columbia companies enjoy this special privilege? Do other private sector companies in other Provinces enjoy this privilege? Do Crown corporations enjoy it in order to cut down on overhead?
If this is a general service that is being offered by the Prime Minister's Office, I think I will suggest to my constituents in my next householder that all they have to do if they have an urgent message they wish to send me is to get in touch with the office of Senator Perrault from Vancouver, leave their message there and it will be communicated presumably by telex to the Prime Minister's office or the PCO and will reach me with very little cost to them. It seems to me to be somewhat of a lobby scam and I find it odd that any reputable organization should use this particular method to get its communications to a Member of Parliament.
My second comment relates specifically and exclusively to Section 62 of the Bill now before us. This particular sector authorizes "the Government of Canada" to do certain things with the lands it "selected" in British Columbia in 1897 with what are known as the Dominion coal lands.
I think it is worth drawing a number of aspects of this particular Bill to the attention of the House. I would like to read the text of that article into the record. It states:
62. Notwithstanding the Crow's Nest Pass Act and any agreement made pursuant thereto, the Government of Canada may hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with the lands it selected under paragraph l(i.) of that Act in any manner and on any conditions it thinks fit.
These are rich coal lands in southeastern British Columbia is the Crowsnest Pass area which got into the hands of the Crown in the right of the Dominion in a rather unusual way. These are the lands that are being spoken of which involve 50,000 acres, or about 80 square miles. It is an area of eight miles in one direction and 10 miles in another and contains easily accessible high-grade metallurgical grade coal said to amount to anywhere from one billion to 8.5 billion tonnes. The lands are a source of considerable wealth both to the firm granted the mining permit and the Government taxing the product. The lands border on properties already producing plentiful supplies of coal, Sparwood and Fernie, for shipment to Japan.
Those 80 square miles of British Columbia territory were retained by the Crown in right of Canada in 1930 when all other natural resources were returned, through the constitutional amendment covering natural resource transfers and other matters, to British Columbia and to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well. That 80 square miles of British Columbia land was specifically excluded from the 1930 amendment and was also retained by the Crown in right of the Dominion despite the terms of Section 92A of the BNA Act, now the Constitution Act of 1867, appearing as Part VI of the Constitution Act of 1981.
Section 92A deals specifically with non-renewable resources and in whose jurisdiction their governance and regulation lies.
May 16, 1983

It is perhaps worth recalling the terms of Section 92A which was an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1867. It reads:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the Province;
(b)	development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources-in the Province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom-
That is Subsection (1). Subsection (4) of Section 92A reads this way:
In each province the legislature may make law in relation to the raising of money by any more or system of taxation in respect of
(a) non-renewable natural resources-in the Province and the primary production therefrom-
It is quite clear that the intent of Section 92A(1) is that the non-renewable resources are within the jurisdiction of the Province. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we find those 50,000 acres, 80 square miles, is still retained by the Crown in right of the Dominion. This exclusive jurisdiction enjoyed by the Province over its natural resources and its power to levy taxes on the production of those resources does not restore to B.C. the 80 square miles of the so-called Dominion coal lands which the Crown in right of the Dominion now controls.
I cannot help but ask myself why that should be. British Columbia-and this is the conclusion one must draw-is the only Province that has had to pay in land losses to the Crown in right of the Dominion for having a railway pass over its territory.
How did this land get into the hands of the Crown in right of the Dominion in the first place? The story is long and devious, the details of which may not be yet fully revealed. In any event, the lands passed from the Province by grant to the B.C. Southern Railway as an inducement to the B.C. Southern Railway to build a line into southeastern British Columbia to open it up and to make the products of that area, coal and minerals, transportable through Canada rather than through the United States to its markets.
The lands in question are in the area through which the railway was to pass. It was eventually called the Crow's Nest Pass Railway. Once the B.C. Southern Railway had been acquired by the CPR and the CPR was prepared to build a Crowsnest Pass line from Lethbridge to Nelson, the Dominion Government stepped in to compel the CPR to cede 50,000 acres of coal-bearing land conveyed to it by British Columbia to the Crown in right of the Dominion. The Crown went further. It "selected" the land which was to be conveyed. That land and its riches are still in the hands of the Crown in right of the Dominion. They were not returned to British Columbia in 1930 when all non-renewable resources were returned to British Columbia as well as to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta so as to put the western Provinces on the same footing as the eastern Provinces, which entered Confederation with control over their natural resources.
Nor were those 50,000 acres returned to B.C. during the negotiations over the Constitution, although as we have seen,
Western Grain Transportation Act
Section 92A specifically grants jurisdiction to the Provinces over all non-renewable resources in a Province.
This brings us back to Clause 62 of the present Bill. What does the federal Government plan to do with the lands under the provisions of this Bill? It is not quite certain. I have already read the text of that particular clause into the record. I note the Government of Canada may "hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with" the lands it selected under paragraph 1 (i) of that Act.
From that I think there are a number of considerations that flow. First, I wonder whether we should examine the wording of this, what the Government of Canada may do this, that and the other. The French version of that particular article reads as follows:
Sa Majeste du chef du Canada peut posseder ou vendre les terres qu'elle a choisies conformement,...
1 do not see that "the Government of Canada" and "Sa Majeste du chef du Canada" are exactly the same thing. I suspect that the French version was the version of the original Clause 62 and the English version followed. I do not think it was a very good translation. I understand there are examples of this.
If we look at the explanatory notes opposite on page 33a of Bill C-155, we find in the English version three different versions of the authorities that may do this, that or the other. In one case it is the "Crown in the interest of Canada". Second, it is "the Government" which selected the lands. Finally, we find it is the "Governor in Council" which may do this, that or the other.
In the French version of the same Bill, which is, of course, the Crow's Nest Pass Act, we find it is "la Couronne, pour I'avantage du Canada". I do not know whether "la Couronne, pour Tavantage du Canada" is being considered as an entity is or simply "la Couronne". We also find that it is "Sa Majeste-en sera autrement dispose par Sa Majeste".
Then we find it is "le Gouverneur en conseil dans le but d'assurer un approvisionnement de houille suffisant et con-venable", I think there is some cleaning up necessary in this particular Bill so that we can determine exactly what it is that will be authorized under this Bill to do what the Bill provides it may do.
The Crow's Nest Pass Act of 1897 did two things. One was to require the CPR to carry certain products, including coal and grain, at fixed rates in return for which the CPR was granted running rights. Second, the Bill of 1897 conveyed 50,000 acres, 80 squares miles, to the Crown in right of Canada.
Today we have legislation before us that undoes one of those things. It withdraws the rate structure defined at the time to remain in effect in perpetuity, but it does not undo the other thing. It does not return to British Columbia the 50,000 acres of coal-rich lands which were ceded, if you like, by the railway-not by British Columbia, but by the railway-to the Crown. Why the one, I ask myself, and not the other?

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Finally, I would like to comment on another matter which came to my attention this week. Before doing so, however, I think we ought to recognize that the matters connected with the ceding of the 50,000 acres was first raised on March 15, if I remember correctly, by the Hon. Member for Kootenay-East Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) and also on May 10 during Private Members' Hour. These 50,000 acres are in his riding and he is duly concerned. I am as concerned as a British Columbian as he is concerned as a British Columbian that the Government is planning to do one thing and not planning to do right by British Columbia by upsetting all the provisions of the Bill.
Another matter on which I would like to speak concerns the representations I have received from the Council of Forest Industries, (COFI) in British Columbia. This time, however, it did not reach me through the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) but thanks to Canada Post. It may well be that the author of the letter, because he sits on the board of directors of Canada Post, decided that he would use that particular method of communicating his message to Members of Parliament. I assume that all other Members from British Columbia received the same.
This particular organization COFI is short of the lobby group for the Canadian forest industries. One of its recommendations, its fourth recommendation which it urges us to support, was that "Government funding should preferably be paid to the producers if a subsidy is required". I just put that on the record.
I see that the Speaker is somewhat worried that I might speak beyond my time, but I find it odd that we should be encouraged to support a recommendation that Government funding should preferably be paid to producers if a subsidy is required when it is quite contrary to the purposes of this particular Bill.
No one is quarreling with the need to upgrade the facilities of the railways, double-tracking, more hopper cars and other types of rolling stock. That work has to be done and done soon. I suggest that CN is wasting a great deal of its funds by advertising on television. I have puzzled for a long time why CN should advertise on television. CN is not appealing to individual Canadians for business. It is not selling anything to the individual Canadian any more. It used to when it ran a passenger service. I could understand VIA Rail advertising, but I feel that CN ought to expend its funds a little more judiciously, perhaps by upgrading some of its rolling stock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. However, as he may be aware, there is a ten-minute question and answer period and possibly he will be entitled to make further comments during that ten minutes.
The House, of course, is well aware that several points of order have been raised, in the main with respect to the matter of the definition of eight hours of debating time. I will try to deal with each of the points in order.
To begin with, I refer Hon. Members to the fact that it is commonly known that on Friday this issue was raised. I happened to be in the chair at the time and I indicated that the ruling would be made today. A few moments ago the Deputy Speaker did in fact rule on that matter, and I understand that the issue of eight hours and the ten-minute question and answer period has now been resolved.
That takes us to a second point which was raised by Hon. Members, again on the definition of what constitutes eight hours of debate, and in this connection particularly the argument of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) as to whether or not the eight hours as defined within the Standing Orders referred to debate on the main motion or on an amendment-in this case the six-month hoist-or whether they are to be taken together.
One can refer to Standing Order 35(2) and the words "Bill is being considered", to the word "considered", or in the French language, as I mentioned on Friday, to the word "debat". Also I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, page 111, Citation 120 as follows:
The interval between the proposing and the putting of the question, which is usually used for discussion, gives an opportunity for further proceedings such as the moving of an amendment; and this may give rise to a subsidiary debate, with its own question and decision, within the principal debate.
May I repeat those last words "within the principal debate". On the face of it, then, an amendment would be considered within the principal debate and consequently would be subject to the provision of a total of eight hours of time.
For further clarification, I refer Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 225, Citation 740 as follows:
There are three types of amendments that may be proposed at the second reading stage of a Bill. These are:
1. the six months' hoist;-
It is the conclusion of the Chair that an amendment which is in order-and the six-month hoist is one of those which is in order-falls within the scope of Standing Order 35(2) and consequently the application of eight hours of debate applies not only to the main motion but to any one of the three types of acceptable motions at that stage in the proceedings of the House.
With that matter out of the way, we have a third point of order which I understand relates to whether or not points of order themselves and the amount of time they take shall be included in the eight hours of debate. As I was arriving in the Chamber, I noticed the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) was commenting on that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That has been ruled on by the Deputy Speaker already.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to inform Hon. Members that I am aware of the wording of the Deputy Speaker who was in the chair at that time. It may be that Hon. Members will want to check Hansard very carefully in that regard. The quote that my memory tells me is accurate is that the Chair informed the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, I believe it was, that "the point is well taken". In any event,
May 16, 1983

my understanding is that no final ruling has been made and 1 will proceed on that basis.
In the tradition of the House, where the debate or speech of an Hon. Member has been interrupted by points of order, the Chair at its own discretion has allowed the Hon. Member additional time; sometimes the exact amount that was accorded the point of order, or at other times the Chair makes a judgment as to what seems to be fair in the circumstances. However, it is completely the tradition of the House that points of order, while they may not be taken from the debate time of an individual Member, are very definitely taken from the total allotted debate time on a motion. There is no question about that.
Mir. Hnatyshyn: Oh, come on!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I hear an Hon. Member saying "come on!"


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say "come on!" with justification.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: My ruling is always open to question. I encourage Hon. Members who may wish to do their homework in that regard to re-open the question if they see fit.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What is this place for?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I indicate again to Hon. Members that a check of today's "blues" or Hansard will give them some of the answers for which they may be looking and a further check of the procedures of the House will, I am quite certain, assure Hon. Members of the accuracy of the ruling I have just given.
According to those rulings taken together, the eight-hour debate period will end at 12.24 p.m. However, I want to point out that first there is a ten-minute question and answer period relevant to the speech of the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I suppose your time is not taken off.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Second, if the next Hon. Member seen by the Chair begins his debate before 12.24 p.m., I will then recognize that Hon. Member to continue his debate to a maximum time of 20 minutes and to enjoy the benefit of a ten-minute question and answer period as well.
Questions, answers, comments? Does the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) rise on questions and answers?


Mr. Lewycky:: On debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions and answers?


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: On debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments, answers? Debate, the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River.


Laverne Lewycky: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have only had two speakers since the last NDP speaker, and we are entitled to three, with all respect to the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am relying on my predecessor in the chair whose advice was that, having worked out a reasonable order of speakers in his view, the next Hon. Member who ought to be recognized is the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River. However, if the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) insists that I check that to my own satisfaction, I will do so, but I will need a couple of minutes to do so.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I can give you the exact figures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I appreciate the Hon. Member's offer. If the House will allow me a moment, I will do the homework necessary. I say again that this may raise problems related to the 20-minute period and 12.24 and so forth.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it is possible the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is not aware that on the last day of debate there was an agreement reached between the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and a couple of us to allow one of the Conservative Members to speak sooner in the debate than he would otherwise have been entitled to in order that he could catch an airplane. We agreed to that. That is why it appears as though the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) is getting up after only two Conservative speakers. That was a little arrangement we arrived at in order to convenience one another the other day.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I knew nothing about that arrangement. If that is the arrangement made with the Hon. Member for Vegreville, that is fine with me.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, before I start on my point of order, in view of what I consider to be a very, very important statement made by yourself, I want to make sure I am not interfering. If you have recognized the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River, he is entitled to 20 minutes. I do not want the point of order I am now about to raise to be in any way an abrogation of the opportunity of any Member of this House to be able to speak for the fullest possible length of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The point being raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is a great courtesy. Unless I have some serious point of order objecting to that, I will be prepared to see the time of 12.24 go past and yet continue to recognize the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River, and to continue in his case and his alone the 20-minute debate and 10-minute period for questions and answers. I hope that will be agreeable to the House.

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with this point of order. I say that the ruling which has been brought down is one which will seriously abrogate the rights and abilities of Members of Parliament to deal with-


Mr. Pinard:: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let me just finish. The House Leader is so anxious to ram through this matter-


Yvon Pinard: You cannot question the ruling.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am not questioning the ruling; I am questioning the cold premise upon which the ruling was made. I do not recall anybody standing in this House and asking for a ruling on the particular matter on which you apparently have made the ruling, that is to say whether points of order are to be taken off the time available for debate. This is a very important consideration, because if we were ready to debate that matter and raise it as a point of order, all the arguments should be made to the Speaker a ruling is made with respect to the proposition.
Let me put this to you, Mr. Speaker, regarding order and points of order, the kind of example and argument that should be placed before you before making a ruling of this significance. A point of order deals with a matter of order in the House. It may extend from disorder on the part of some Members interrupting the free flow of democratic debate in our House to a matter relating to procedural matters so that there can be a clarification. Indeed, a legitimate point of order is one in which the Speaker will hear out the representations, as was the case in this instance, as to what procedure should be followed. It does not have anything to do with the substance of the matter under consideration or the subject matter of the Bill. It is a matter of order in the House, and how without argument we can come to the conclusion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am going to hear the Hon. Member, although I would encourage him to come to his point of order fairly soon. I know he is aware that once a ruling is made on a point of order, the same point of order ought not to be brought up again for discussion.
I am going to hear the Hon. Member, but I wonder if he is aware that a point of order was raised by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) as to whether or not points of order are to be counted within the eight-hour time limit. Is he also aware, as I referred to in my ruling, that the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) referred to the same point of order? To the best of my understanding, no further representations were made on that point of order. Accordingly, I gave a ruling. I will hear the Hon. Member, but I would appreciate if he could come to his point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point I am raising now. When the Deputy Speaker left the chair-I do not care what interpretation of the English language one uses-there was no question in my mind that he had simply said there was no point of order, that the matter speaks for itself and the time would not be deducted from the time for debate. That is what he said. I am prepared to look at the
blues to back that up. I would have stood up, as would have other Members in this House, to argue about that point of order if there had been any equivocation or any doubt in our minds that the Deputy Speaker, when he left this place, had any other conclusion but that the time was not-the members of the Table may have blanched. I did not blanch because I believe the Deputy Speaker was telling us there was absolutely no time on points of order to be taken off the time allocated for debate. I want the right to look at the blues and come back on this issue because I do not believe in thwarting the ability of Members of Parliament in this House unduly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I indicated when 1 made the ruling that I thought the words used by the Deputy Speaker, which were, as I recall, "the point is well taken", could be interpreted in both fashions; that is, he had accepted the point and given in some sense a ruling; or, alternatively, he could have meant that the point was well taken and that he would in due course consider it.
I thought it was my duty on coming here to avoid the issue whether or not the 40-odd minutes referred to taken up on points of order would have to be considered as part of the debate or not. I wanted the House to understand in what time frame it was acting.
I have no objection at all to what the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West proposes, and I made that clear in my comments. I make it clear again that for the moment the ruling is and was that debate began after the eight-hour period at 12.24. If the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West and other wish to raise that matter, I provide them with two opportunities. One is to do it immediately. The other is, as was suggested, to allow time for Members to examine Hansard and raise the matter again. I have indicated that in the circumstances that is the fairest way to proceed.
For the moment, the ruling is made. I think I have invented a new procedure and that is that Hon. Members may wish to take the occasion to appeal this subject if they so see fit tomorrow.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with two points. The first is with respect to the comments of my colleague in the NDP and the suggestion that an arrangement may have been made on Friday. The Deputy Whip and myself obviously were not part of that discussion or we would have confirmed or denied it immediately. Therefore, we cannot comment on that.
The one thing I would like to draw to Your Honour's attention is this. According to my records, if you recognize the NDP at this time you will then have recognized nine Members of the Official Opposition, the Conservative Party, during the eight-hour debate and four Members of the NDP during the same eight-hour debate. That will give a time weight of 70 per cent to the Official Opposition and 30 per cent to the NDP.
With all due respect to the Chair's right to choose Members who rise to speak, I know Your Honour will want to give a proper mathematical division to the way the Members are
May 16, 1983

recognized in order that the number of seats held by each Party in the House will be properly respected when the eight-hour debate is over. I suggest that if you recognize the NDP at this time, you will be giving them 30 per cent of the debating time. Based on the number of seats held in the House, 132, broken down 31 and 101, to sort it out properly and fairly between the two Opposition Parties, 75-25 is a more accurate split of debating time.
I would therefore suggest that the Chair might reflect upon its desire to do justice to the number of seats in the House, and on that basis reconsider who the Chair recognizes at this point in the debate.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe that if you are to reflect on the number of seats as proposed by the House Leader for the Official Opposition, you should put the statistics into a framework that is more fair than what he suggests. I believe the House Orders read that there shall be one speaker from each of the three Parties on the first round. I think those first round speakers must be taken out of the figures that were presented to us here today in order to use proportional representation as is normally followed in the House for the speaking rounds after the first three speeches have taken place. That will change the proportion somewhat.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), I am sure he would want to be fair and point out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) get unlimited time in debate. There is no reference to that privilege being granted to the NDP Party as a minor Opposition Party. If we are to put all of those items on the plate, let us deal with everything pertaining to time allocation.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the point that must be underlined is that the eight-hour debate period does not embrace those three speakers with unlimited time. The eight hours begin after the three Party spokesmen have made their contributions, so the calculation must be based upon those eight hours of debate and not upon the time used in the preceding by three speakers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Let us see if we can
dispose of this matter. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) was quite courteous to the Chair and indicated that he would want the Chair to be fair. I caught the implication that in his view the Chair would also want to be reasonable with the Parties. He is, incidentally, quite correct. The Chair does work with a mathematical ratio. If it has been in error, I believe that between myself and the other occupants of the chair we will come to a conclusion whereby we could see that any necessary redress is made.
I hope that the Hon. Member is not now arguing that we should reverse the decision made by the Chair with respect to
Western Grain Transportation Act
recognizing the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky); but if he is, he can raise a motion in that regard, as he well knows. I simply indicate that I and the other members of the Chair will examine the situation very closely to see whether or not the proper ratios have been followed; if not, we will seek to make any redress appropriate.
The Hon. Member for Regina West on a fresh point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to add to the point raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) following the point the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) made about the length of time taken on points of order not being included in the eight hours. It was certainly my intention to rise on that point of order, but the Deputy Speaker said that the point was well taken, and I believe he made another remark a few minutes later when another Hon. Member rose to speak. It was my impression that the Speaker then said something to the effect that time taken on points of order would not be included in the eight hours of debate. If he had not said that, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West and myself and probably others would have been on our feet right then and there. However, it was our impression and assumption that the matter was then closed and that time taken up on points of order would not be included in the eight hours of debate time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I say to the House that I believe this is a repetition of the point already made. I wish to put a simple proposal to the House which I am now putting to the House for the third time. I recognize that the words used by my predecessor in the Chair, the Deputy Speaker, lent themselves to several interpretations or understandings. Time is available for Hon. Members to review Hansard, seek precedents and review procedures. I did not want to make any suggestions in that regard earlier but I would now suggest that Hon. Members might see the opening of the House tomorrow at 11 o'clock as an appropriate time to review this matter. I do not want to suggest to the House the manner in which it ought to proceed, but I do want to say that I have made a ruling and the ruling is that at 12.24 we began the next classification of debate; but the Chair is open to renewing that point of order and to reviewing it completely.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have only two points to raise. When the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) begin to raise the point again, your predecessor in the Chair, the Deputy Speaker, said that that point had been settled and the time taken would not be included in the debate. I believe that Hansard will bear that out.
The second point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it would be very unreasonable to include time spent on point of order in the time spent on debate. For instance, with respect, you yourself took seven minutes to give a ruling. If it is to take seven or ten minutes for the Speaker to give a ruling, it would not be fair to take that time away from the Members' allowed time in debate. I say that with respect.

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
In considering this question, it should be remembered that there is much talking going on and the Deputy Speaker himself takes considerable time in giving a ruling. This should certainly not be used as a denial of Members' opportunities to deal with and debate the Bill before the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my next point of order is, what will happen in the meantime? You have already ruled on the time of 12.24. There is to be one more 20-minute speech before going to ten-minute speeches. Let us say that later this day or some other day the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and I raise a point of order and it is decided and agreed that time taken up by points of order is not counted in the eight-hour debate time. What would you do then, Mr. Speaker? Would you revert to 20-minute speeches when some Members have already been limited to ten minutes? It seems to me that the situation will only get worse.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this ruling is to stand, then any Party could decide to raise all the points of order it wishes about what some Member happens to be wearing, or whether the clocks are correct, or a host of other subjects in order to prevent the full eight hours of debate.


David P. Smith: We would not do that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh no? Surely, Mr. Speaker, with all the prerogatives the Chair has, if very many deliberately minor, inconsequential and time-consuming points of order are raised, the Chair may always cut them off very quickly. But it seems to me that all points of order raised so far having to do with these rules and the context of this debate have been legitimate points and there have been contributions made from all sides. Surely those contributions are not part of a debate about western transportation and the statutory grain rates.
It seems to me that nobody can claim that the points of order raised to this time have been malicious or frivolous or anything like that. But if it is concluded or decided that this time will be counted in the eight hours, I predict that decision will cause great difficulties in the future because particularly the Government Party could completely hamstring much of the Opposition's time by dealing with points of order on any darned thing it pleased that would have nothing to do with the Bill before the House.


David P. Smith: We have never done that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But the opportunity is there for any Party to do that. The opportunity is there for individual Members to do that. Surely that cannot be allowed to stand, Mr. Speaker. The time cannot be included in the eight hours of debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must say I am surprised that the Hon. Member for Regina West even considers the possibility that I might have made an erroneous ruling! I hope that he and other Members regard all my rulings as little gems, but obviously I am not going to have that support today.
I have said, and this will be for the fourth time, that in view of the words used by my predecessor in the Chair, if Hon. Members would like to take the time to check those words, the opportunity for consideration can arise again tomorrow.
The Hon. Member raised a hypothetical problem about whether we might have to reverse my ruling. I can assure him, sitting where I do in the boar's nest, that I am confident of my ruling and that he will be satisfied by tomorrow. We will see whether it is appropriate to have that ruling again at 11 a.m. or 3 p.m., depending upon whether Hon. Members want to pursue the point. If Hon. Members do pursue the point, they will find that the Chair is correct.
Now may I recognize the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky).


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as a final point of order, I suggest that the next three speakers get 20 minutes so that there will be no difficulty later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I can give the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) the absolute assurance that only one Member will be recognized for 20 minutes and then there will be a ten-minute question and answer period. I made that ruling prior to 12.24 and I intend to honour it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is completely unfair.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate and on the specific amendment made by my colleague. I want to express my heartfelt gratitude also to the Conservative Party for honouring the agreement they made with us on Friday to allow one of their Members to catch a plane and to adjust the order somewhat today.
Much has been said about the history and the philosophy behind the Crow rate. I should like to address the subject from the perspective of some of the producers and the impact that this Pepin proposal will have upon primary producers in areas such as Dauphin-Swan River.
I know that the Crow issue might be a little bit difficult for some Hon. Members opposite to comprehend as they do not have a direct relationship to the people of the land or to some of the individuals who will be affected by the legislation.
If I could use an illustration from the farming area, I know that some of the seed thoughts that I will sow today will be lost because some will fall on rocky soil. As a result, the seed thoughts I am trying to plant regarding the negative implications of the Pepin proposal will be lost because there is no good soil opposite in which they can take root and grow.
On different occasions the Minister who introduced the Bill said that those who opposed his position-in other words, those who favour the retention of the Crow-are reactionaries. This is the word he has used maybe to ridicule some of his own backbenchers who may want to turn an attentive ear to the rational and realistic position that I want to put before the Minister.
May 16, 1983

Because the writ of habeas corpus dates back to 1679, that does not mean that anyone wanting to support the position should be considered reactionary. We have medicare in this country. Because we in the New Democratic Party support it, that does not mean that we should be viewed as being reactionary but, rather, as taking a positive and realistic approach.
I want to point out some of the negative implications that this proposal will have on farmers in the West, especially those in certain regions of the country where the impact might be disproportionate to others. In some ways it is curious that the Ministers who have spoken have seemed to propose a new vision for the West. This is in contrast to the vision of people at the beginning of the twentieth century for populating and developing the West. The Pepin proposal will work in reverse to the vision at the beginning of the twentieth century in that rather than having prosperity and population growth in the West we will have depopulation and decay.
I say that because I want to address this from the perspective of some of the farmers who will be affected by this Bill. I want to take the perspective of residents of my constituency. As I have mentioned several times in the House, farmers in the West are being dealt a double whammy. There are rail line abandonment policies proceeding at full tilt and there is the Pepin proposal which will take money out of the pockets of the farmers.
I want to give some concrete examples of this. There has been a series of rail line abandonment hearings in my area and certain decisions have been made by the CTC with regard to the closing of the Winnipegosis subdivision and consequently the closing of the elevator at Fork River.
What will this mean to the farmers in the area? With the loss of the elevator at Fork River many producers of the region will face the prospect of transporting their grain 160 kilometres to 200 kilometres. This means that if a farmer has to truck his grain that extra distance he may only be able to make one trip per day, and it is likely he will have to contend with line-ups at the elevator. He will be in competition with the farmer who has a local elevator and only has to transport his grain 15 kilometres or 20 kilometres.
Someone like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) might argue that such producers should work farms in other areas. I would point out to him that the rail line went through this particular region some 85 years ago and at that time everyone had every reason to assume that there would be, in perpetuity, some way for the farmer to transport his grain.
Let me turn now to the cost element. In my area some farmers tell me that it costs them $2.50 per bushel to produce barley. When they add 25 cents per bushel to the cost of hauling the grain beyond Fork River, for example, there will be no profit for them.
In addition, when they lose the local elevators they are losing regional experts. These people live in the area and can inform the farmer about the local weed control situation, about pesticides suitable for the local soil and so on. All this expertise will be lost. In addition, the local grain elevators serve as depots for fertilizers, sprays and seed grain. This is part one of
Western Grain Transportation Act
the double whammy that the Minister of Transport is allowing to occur on the Prairies.
Let us consider now the increased base cost of the Pepin proposal. If, for example, a farmer in the Waterhen or Rorke-ton area has to transport his grain beyond Fork River, that means that such things as a telephone call will be more costly because he will have to use a different exchange. There is also more wear and tear on the farmer's truck. We have the huge increase in fuel prices which farmers have to contend with. And there is the spiralling interest costs which have posed a great problem for the farmers in my area. In addition, they have had huge increases in the cost of fertilizer and other costs.
Let me give an example of what this will mean with respect to income. We have heard grandiose representations this morning by one of the Ministers about the fantastic growth potential, savings and all the added income which would be garnered on the Prairies as a result of this Pepin initiative. I point out that in many regions of Canada the average income, especially in constituencies such as mine, is considerably lower than other parts of Canada. Revenue Canada statistics for 1978-I am sorry but these are the latest I have-indicate that the average income for the Fork River region was $5,706 for the year. If we were to compare this with the rest of Canada, the national average of net income for that particular year was $10,313. Their income is about half what it is in the national arena.
Even if you project the proportionate increase for 1983, you would find that the $2,800 which the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) spoke of as being peanuts would have a fantastic impact on farmers in my area. And it is not just this area; I could give illustrations of other parts of Manitoba and draw comparisons there.
The reason I am pointing this out to the Hon. Minister, Mr. Speaker, is that the Minister, on many occasions in this House, has said he cannot understand why Hon. Members from different parts of the West are saying different things. I would just like to indicate to him why it is that some Hon. Members might be saying different things. I would like the Hon. Minister to have, perhaps, an iota more of discernment so he would be able to recognize the perspective which Members are bringing to this debate. Up to this point he has not indicated, to me at least, that he has had the ability to listen and learn in terms of the different perspectives of various Hon. Members.
I will give an illustration of the average income in Manitoba so the Minister will understand why, for example, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) might bring forward a different point of view in his perspective. In 1978 in the Brandon Manitoba area, the average income was $9,060. In Portage la Prairie Manitoba the average income for that year was $9,044. In Stonewall Manitoba, which is very near Winnipeg, the average income was $9,209.

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Let us take a look at some of these regions where the Minister of Transport is administering his double whammy and see what type of disproportionate impact this is having. In an area like Ethelbert, Manitoba in 1978, the average income was $4,603. In an area such as Grandview, Manitoba the income was $5,800. In the area of Winnipegosis, Manitoba the average income was $5,706, half of what it is in the rest of Manitoba and even less than what it is for all of Canada.
I wish the Hon. Minister would take these matters into consideration and try to examine them in the over-all context, because up to this point he obviously has not realized the disproportionate impact which his proposal would bring on people in the West. My constituency is not totally unique. There are many farming and rural constituencies such as mine which have identical problems. I think it is important that this matter be taken into consideration.
Much has been said about the benefit that this Pepin proposal will bring to the West. It seems as if there is a real carrot there which the Government is offering, that there will be some very precise benefits. However, I would like to ask what would happen with the Pepin proposal by, say, 1990 at 5.1 times Crow, if that was the amount which was being levied on the farmers? I will just take representative examples for the Hon. Minister to look at in terms of how much of a loss this would be to communities in my area. Inglis, Manitoba, for example, is paying 18 cents a hundred-weight for their Crow rate. Let us say the handle at Inglis is some 20.6 thousand metric tonnes. What would be the loss to a place like Inglis? The loss would be some $335,000.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What about the gains?


Laverne Lewycky: There will be no gains at Inglis. This is the loss which we will have in that particular community, which is in the southwest section of my constituency. Let us take a look at the southeast section of my constituency, at a place called Amaranth. The current Crow rate there is 16 cents a hundredweight. The reason I mention these different areas is because, obviously, Government backbenchers do not even realize there are differences in terms of the Crow rate for those various areas. However, in Amaranth the handle there is some 11.3 thousand metric tonnes, and the loss to a small community like this is going to be some $163,600.
So that urban Members might be able to understand this, I will draw an analogy. Let us say an urban area is one square mile. Try to transport this into a block or two of your constituency and realize what the economic implications are there. I am not even covering all the communities, all the elevators in my riding; I am just trying to give some representative examples from a huge riding, some 500 kilometres from the north to the south and 350 kilometres across, just to give an appreciation of what that size means. If we move to the northern part of my constituency, to a place such as Swan River, right now they are paying some 19 cents a hundred-weight for their base. They have a production of 69,000 metric tonnes. The loss to this community at 5.1 times Crow would amount to $1,187,000.
That is a substantial loss, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that this is a community of some 4,500 people. I would ask the
Hon. Minister to select 4,500 people from his area and try to suck $1 million out of that small group of people. It is the farming community which is assisting our balance of payments in Canada and which is putting bread on the table of urban Canadians and I feel that this is a very important consideration.
At the same time, what do we have? In constituencies such as mine there has recently been a large number of railway abandonment hearings. I have already raised in this House the fact that in Manitoba we have had some 18 hearings and not one of the decisions has been in favour of the citizens. They have all been in favour of the railways. Farmers find it difficult to understand these formulas which are being used by the railways which continue depreciation on into eternity, railways which can have a revenue from one part of the line but will not attribute that revenue to the entire line. But at the same time, when there are costs to the railway they can attribute a certain segment to the railway as having no return.
I see that it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, so I will sit down at this time and resume later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the Hon. Member. May I point out to him that at three o'clock, or as soon as Orders of the Day are called, the Hon. Member will have one minute remaining in his time for debate and will then have accessible to him the ten-minute question and answer period which we agreed on earlier today.
In the interim, the Chair indicated to the House, particularly to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, that a verification would be made to determine whether or not complete fairness has been ascribed by the Chair in recognizing certain speakers. There has been a fractional unfairness to the Official Opposition. That, I think, could be easily corrected.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), I understand, wishes to rise on a point of order and seek the consent of the House for a slight modification of time allocation with respect to one of the Hon. Members of his Party. I want to indicate that that discussion has taken place with the Chair, and providing it is acceptable to all Hon. Members of the House, by unanimous consent we would proceed that way this afternoon.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your remarks. We did feel that there may have been a slight imbalance in recognition of Hon. Members during the 20-minute time for debate. I appreciate that, considering the point of order and other interjections in the normal flow of debate, it may be difficult always to keep that ratio in order.
With that in mind, I would suggest to the Chair that you might want to suggest to the House that the next Hon. Member to speak from our side be recognized for a 20-minute period and that that should be the last Hon. Member recognized for the purpose of 20-minute speeches. I would request that perhaps Your Honour might make this suggestion to the
May 16, 1983

House in the interest of allowing everyone to be heard fully, in view of the importance of this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 think I should clarify the statement of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North. The proposal is made on the understanding that rulings have been made that the eight-hour period of debate is over, that the House will now seek only to adjust certain time frames which were allotted to each of the two Opposition Parties. The proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North is that the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) be accorded a full 20 minutes, but not be subject to the ten-minute question and answer period and not, in any way, continue the eight-hour debate. I wanted the House to know that from the point of view of an examination of the records, that does appear to be a fair proposal. However, it is a request that requires unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent to the proposal of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is unanimous consent. Accordingly, it is so ordered.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock.
At 1.04 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: I would like to draw the attention of the House to a rather unusual situation. A few days ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) confirmed that the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program had been terminated. Funds had run out and buyers of new homes could no longer receive the $3,000 grant.
The Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Parizeau, thought he was being very clever when he announced that the Government of Quebec would pay $2,000 as a substitute for the Canadian program. However, he neglected to point out that as of May 1 of this year, the Government of Quebec has allowed a tenpercent increase in wages in the construction industry. For instance, a carpenter will now be getting $16.22 per hour instead of $14.74. In fact, the effect of the $2,000 grant announced by Mr. Parizeau is offset by an equivalent rise in labour costs.
Construction workers I spoke to this weekend were all agains the wage increase, which was stage-managed by Rene Levesque and Louis Laberge and has now created a situation that actually harms the interests of construction workers, who are sick and tired of posting certificates in the living room stating that they earn $16.22 an hour, while they are not working at all. As a result of these high hourly rates, there is a good market for illegal construction workers. In my opinion, this is a state of affairs that must be remedied.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and, indeed, the entire Government must be aware of the lack of natural justice concerning the prosecutions against certain members of the RCMP Security Service.
They will recall that the Government gave both the Keable and McDonald Commissions documentation upon which the Crown is now apparently basing much of its prosecution against these men. In his recent decision Chief Justice Thur-low indicated that he was not prepared to allow the defence to have certain RCMP files and documents, and it is reported that he did not even feel disposed to review the documents to see whether or not they were objectionable on grounds of national security or international relations.
Defence counsel Richard Mongeau appealed on May 5, 1983, and I urge the Government to instruct its counsel to take a different approach so that members of the Security Service, who were encouraged by their superiors and undoubtedly by certain Ministers of the Crown and the PMO to use every possible means of obtaining information relating to political activities in Quebec, will not now be abandoned.
It is a travesty that Counsel, taking instructions from the Government, are using every legal means to deny RCMP members a comprehensive legal defence. It is a pity that some of the individuals who urged the original initiatives and who operate in a political framework are not facing the same situation as the police officers. We would then see quite a change in the availability of evidence for their defence.
25490

May 16, 1983
S.O.	21 RACISM



RE-EMERGENCE OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN ALBERTA

Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I am ashamed to say that anti-semitism has again raised its ugly head in my home Province. When I returned home from overseas as a Social Credit MLA, I found antisemitism in the Social Credit movement. Premier Manning was also concerned and asked me to take over the Social Credit paper to root out all anti-semitism. I accepted this chore and fired all of the staff who indicated any anti-semitism, and after editing the paper for several months it appeared that anti-semitism had been cleaned out of the movement.
Now it has raised its ugly head again and Premier Lougheed has declared that anti-semitism has no place in the PC Party. Our own Leader, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), in an address before the Canadian Jewish Congress in Montreal yesterday, stated, "I find it shameful and intolerable that individuals are ignorant of one of the world's ghastly catastro-phies", and in dealing with Nazi participants in the Holocaust, "We are dealing with mass murderers".
Thousands of Canadians of all racial origins, including Canadians of Jewish origin, fought and many died in the last war in order that never again would millions of people of any race be exterminated. The Holocaust is real; more than six million Jews died, and those who lived through it can never forget. Yet Abraham Heschel, a Jew from Poland, was able to say "The earth is the Lord's." From the burning embers of the Holocaust was born the new State of Israel where the hopes and aspirations of the Jewish people are being realized.
But there can be no statute of limitations on the war criminals responsible for the living horror perpetuated on the Jews in the Holocaust.



SUGGESTED TOPICS FOR TALKS WITH VISITING SOVIET OFFICIALS

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, it has been brought to our attention that there are a number of Soviet officials in Canada who will be visiting throughout the country, and meeting with the Government of Canada. The purpose of the meeting is to improve trade relations.
I hope that the Government bears in mind, when meeting with the Soviet officials, the wish of the majority of Canadians that there be a concerted effort toward the de-escalation of the arms race and that we want to see from the Soviets as well as the United States an effort made to eliminate the threat of nuclear war from Europe.
Equally important, I hope that the Government raises with those officials the plight of Soviet Jews, which has long been of concern to Canadians, and that it ask the officials representing Canada at the talks to make clear to the Soviet officials
visiting Canada that these issues must be part of the over-all discussion since they are of primary concern to Canadians.



PROPOSED TRANSFER OF NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE FRANCHISE TO SASKATOON

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, this week Mr. Bill Hunter and his colleagues, as well as Mayor Cliff Wright of Saskatoon, and Culture and Youth Minister Paul Schoenhals of Saskatchewan, will meet with the NHL Board of Governors. The object of this visit is, of course, to secure the transfer of the St. Louis Blues to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
This transfer is considered by Saskatchewan residents to be of the utmost importance. To possess within our borders a National Hockey League franchise is, for us, a coming of age. It provides the city and the Province with a certain prestige. More important, it confirms Saskatoon and Saskatchewan for what they are-major league in every way, including sports.
Residents of Saskatoon and Saskatchewan have always been avid sports participants and supporters. The exploits of football's Saskatchewan Roughriders, with one of the highest levels of fan support in Canada, are well known. Every little town has its own skating rink and its own curling rink. It is no small wonder that hockey greats like Gordie Howe, the Bentleys, Brian Trottier and Bob Bourne, to name only a few, have come from our towns and villages.
It is good for Canada and national unity to have a major international sports franchise within our Province. It brings attention to Canada and it sparks pride within our nation. It is the creation of an institution that truly means something to the average man, woman, and child.
Saskatchewan residents are prepared and able to support this endeavour. When the possibility of a team became known in Saskatchewan, Mr. Hunter received 18,000 requests for season tickets.
I call upon the Government to lend its support for this transfer to the City of Saskatoon. It is important that the federal Government state and communicate its support for a very worthy and popular project to the National Hockey League Board of Governors.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a situation which was brought to my attention through a memorandum sent to the managers of the Canadian Employment Centres located in Charlottetown and Summerside, Prince Edward Island, by the regional manager of public
May 16, 1983

affairs. It is with regard to the official opening of the Canadian Employment Centre for students in Charlottetown and Summerside. At that time the Minister's office contacted the Hon. Members from Cardigan and Egmont to address the opening ceremonies. If the designated Member was unable to attend, the most senior local official would perform the function on behalf of the Minister.
It is interesting to note that it was specifically stated in the memo that Members of the provincial Parliament were not to be invited, and that the Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament were also not to be invited even if the Canada Employment Centre was in their riding. I feel that this is another example of the pettiness and underhandedness which is so evident in the Liberal Government's practices.
[DOT] (UIO)
The Canada Employment Centre for Students serves many students of all political, cultural, and denominational beliefs. By discriminating against the people's representative who should have attended the opening ceremonies one cannot help but wonder just how fairly the Employment Centres are to be run. This is a blatant attempt by the Minister to have a higher profile for the Liberal Members and to downgrade the Conservative MPs and provincial MLAs. This is proof positive that the Minister does not have an ounce of common courtesy or decency in his whole being, and he bloody well should be ashamed of himself for being involved in such sleazy tactics.



SHIPBUILDING


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I have a letter before me that I have just received from the Vancouver Metal Trades Council which I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Government. The Council represents 5,000 workers normally employed in the shipbuilding and repair industry in British Columbia, my own Province. I am told the affiliates of the Council report that approximately 60 per cent of them are unemployed.
Yesterday a Dome Petroleum boat, I believe called Placentia Bay was launched. Two boats have been built in Canada and four are to be built in Korea. To me this seems ridiculous. We should be building all of this kind of shipping in Canada. In any case, I am told that there are to be bids very shortly on the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program. The Burrard Yarrows Corporation of Vancouver has put in applications for that program. I realize the Government, has to consider all different regions and all different shipbuilders across the country, but I hope that British Columbia will receive its proportionate share. It is very important for my constituents in Vancouver, many of whom are in the metal trades business, and they would like to work building Canadian ships for use by Canadian companies.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for housing. I am sure he has been unavoidably detained because I understood he was to be here. I will direct my question, then, to the Acting Prime Minister.
To identify my question for the Acting Prime Minister, it has to do with the $3,000 grant program concerning which thousands of people are awaiting resolution. Last week the Minister responsible for housing said outside the House that he was going to look into the situation to see what could be done, particularly for those who had applied for the program, and as well with respect to the necessity for extra funding.
We are into another week. Those thousands of people are still waiting to find out what is going to happen to their applications and to their hopes for owning a home of their own. What does the Government intend to do about this situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I was here last week and I heard the Prime Minister saying exactly what the question is today, that the Minister responsible for housing was going to look at the program and take into account the people who had already made their applications, and he was going to see if there were enough funds for them in the present existing budget. If not, the Minister of Public Works was going to see if he could find some more. The answer really is in the question. I presume the Minister will report on that quite soon.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I think the people have been waiting long enough. The Government has had a weekend to consider this matter. People are still waiting for those homes and that housing. There are not two ways about it, people were led to expect that there would be sufficient money for this program to last until May 31.


FUNDING AND NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, what is the situation with regard to this program? Surely the Prime Minister, or the Minister responsible for housing, who is just coming into the House, can tell us what the situation is; how much money has been committed under the program and how many people have been left out of the program. Can the Minister tell us what the current situation is with respect to this program, and can the Minister responsible for housing bring us beyond last week, which is as far as the Acting Prime Minister has been able to bring us?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I indicated that we would not be in a position before

May 16, 1983
Oral Questions
at least the middle of this week, or possibly toward the end of this week, to say how many people will qualify whose applications are valid, who have had footings poured and are ready to accept the $3,000 grant. Again, this is not because we are counting paper slowly; it is because an application and a final awarding of the grant are dependent upon the inspection of the site. That is what our people are doing. They are working overtime, and we have added inspectors to the list.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the Minister of Public Works that there are thousands of people in the country who believe the Government is, in fact, counting paper very slowly.


SOURCE OF FUNDING
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Government is obviously counting paper hoping to find more funds. The Minister should be in a position to tell the House where he is going to look for these funds. Is he going to look for these funds out of other programs under his jurisdiction, or from programs within the envelope from which his funds are drawn, or is he going to ask the Minister of Finance for more money? Has there been an approach made to the Minister of Finance for more money? Do we have his word that the decision will be made later this week and announced here in the House of Commons?


Mr. Nielsen:: He could take it out of the $200 million.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am afraid most of the Hon. Member's questions are theoretical, and will be theoretical until I know exactly what is the size of the problem with which we are dealing. 1 can certainly not go to the Minister of Finance in a convincing way unless 1 can give him at least an indication of the amount of money I am talking about.


Erik Nielsen: Two hundred million dollars did not bother him.


Roméo LeBlanc: If it were a modest amount, it is quite possible that we could rearrange within the total housing budget-


Walter David Baker: What is modest?


Roméo LeBlanc: The Hon. Member asks what is modest-


Erik Nielsen: Anything within $200 million.


Roméo LeBlanc: -I am afraid I will not risk answering that question.


TIME SPENT INSPECTING SITES
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works. I understand the Minister's undertaking vis-a-vis northern and isolated communities. There has been a very definite commitment there and I agree with that. But is the Minister now saying that he will not make representations to cabinet and to
the Minister of Finance with respect to all these people out there who are left dangling and waiting until his entire inspection process is done? In other words, is the Minister in a position where he will not assess what he calls the size of the problem until that very, very lengthy inspection process is completed? If so, does the Minister not appreciate what he is doing to those thousands of potential home owners because of that delay?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I really think the Hon. Member is over dramatizing the inspection aspect. As I have said, the inspection operation consists of verification of whether footings have been poured. This is a very quick and summary operation. My officials tell me that by the middle or toward the end of this week we will know the size of the problem with which we are dealing in the overrun, and if the applications are beyond the $30 million allocated, I think I would be unfair to those who are waiting for an answer if I led them to expect too much or if I led them to be pessimistic.


Walter David Baker: You led them by the nose.


Roméo LeBlanc: I said in the House lask week that I would be as reasonable and as flexible as possible. The idea of the program was to encourage home building. That has been achieved. Surely we do not want to discourage those last applicants if we can find a way to help them.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: They are still dangling.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER UNDERTAKE TO MAKE STATEMENT
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, one thing that would not lead to undue optimism or undue pessimism would be some degree of certainty. If, as the Minister has just said, the inspection process will be done by mid-week or the end of this week, will he not undertake to advise this House a week from today-and through us those people who are sitting with offers to purchase that cannot be accepted or acted upon-of what will become of those people?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, if I am in a position to do this before next Monday, obviously I will. I certainly want to answer as quickly as possible the concerns of those who are worried.


AIR CANADA
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning a $200 million proposal which would have Quebecair operate a mothballed Air Canada DC-8 jet aircraft to be leased by, I believe, a travel company named Solvac. Could the Minister
May 16, 1983

tell us why Air Canada is not agreeable to leasing this aircraft or to letting the proposal proceed which would create jobs?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, let me say first that discussions between Air Canada and Quebecair are going on now, so the door has not been closed on either side.
The first point to observe is that the board of Quebecair has not yet approved the project. The second point to observe is that Air Canada has expressed some views on the subject at the request of Quebecair, pointing out, for example, that it is all right to commit a plane for ten years but that it would have to be refitted after a while-someone has to pay for the refitting-and also pointing out that Air Canada, on behalf of the Canadian Government, is to be involved in the restructuring of Quebecair. This project will be either a success or a failure; the Government of Canada has an interest in ensuring that it is not a failure. For all these reasons the negotiations and conversations are continuing now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I do not follow the Minister's line of reasoning. Even if Air Canada were to become involved with Quebecair, especially a direct involvement, it would automatically include the leasing of aircraft.


REASONS FOR NOT LEASING AIRCRAFT
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, Air Canada currently leases L-1011 aircraft to Eastern Airlines of the United States and to Air Lanka of Sri Lanka, which have been approved by the Transport Ministry. Could the Minister tell us why Air Canada finds it so difficult to lease a jet to a Canadian operator if it can lease jets to foreign operators? By leasing this DC-8 to this travel agency, Air Canada will be reimbursed for maintenance, because it will be doing the maintenance and it will create about 60 jobs. What is the problem? No matter what the subsequent events may be, the leasing of aircraft sitting in the Arizona desert should be an objective of Air Canada since it told us in the Standing Committee on Transport a few days ago that it would be attempting to lease aircraft sitting out there in the desert doing nothing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously there is nothing wrong with the leasing of airplanes. Both Air Canada and Quebecair do it. Quebecair just leased three Boeing 737s to Pan American. There is nothing wrong in the device itself. The problem I have indicated is that should Air Canada on behalf of Canada, and Quebecair on behalf of the Quebec Government, be associated, obviously the two parties will have to share in both the profits and the losses. Consequently, since the losses of Quebecair have already been announced at $16 million this year, the Government of Canada and Air Canada have an interest in not contributing to an increase in these losses, hence the attention that is given to it now.
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS BEATITUDE JOHN PETER XVIII KASPARIAN, ARMENIAN CATHOLIC PATRIARCH OF CILICIA
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of His Beatitude John Peter XVIII Kasparian, Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR SAFETY
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Volume I of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Aviation Safety recommended the establishment of an independant Air Safety Board. Mr. Justice Dubin submitted the report to the Minister in March, 1981, and it was presented to the House in May, 1981. Two years later the Minister of Transport has still not tabled the legislation. Can he indicate to the House when the legislation, which I know is ready, will be tabled and at least given first reading?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it will be tabled as soon as there is a real possibility that the Committee will study the Bill. As my hon. friend just said, the Bill is ready to go. I regret that it is not already in Committee, but the Committee has been busy with other things. More than that, the rest of the Dubin report will also be ready in the Fall. Should we not be able to study it now because of the western initiatives Bill, we may be able to consider both the air safety Bill and the amendments to the Aeronautics Act in the Fall, together.


CONSEQUENCES OF DELAY IN INTRODUCING LEGISLATION
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the amendments to the Aeronautics Act. I gather from what the Minister said that, although both of these pieces of legislation are ready and that we could have dealt with them over the past six weeks to eight weeks, we will now have to wait until the Crow legislation is completed and will not get a look at them until the late Fall. Could the Minister tell the House whether he has some concern for air safety in the interim? By then he will be dragging this on for almost three years.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, just to be clear on one subject, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act will not be ready before the Fall. I did not say anything opposite to that.

May 16, 1983
Oral Questions
This matter could have been resolved if the house had been ready to form a special committee to take care of the western rail initiative. That has not taken place yet and I am still open to suggestion on that subject, but I have not been able to convince people that we should have a special committee. Should that be possible, indeed we could attend to the establishment of the Air Safety Board now instead of waiting for the Fall.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, without having a lengthy discussion with my House leader, I think it would be fair to say that we would be delighted to have a special committee. In fact, we have been asking for a special committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there are three Parties in the House and obviously all three must agree-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, that was not a question; it was simply a comment.


Walter David Baker: It was an implied question.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Surely the Minister must be aware of the story that appeared in The Gazette of Montreal on Saturday, reporting that Rene Amyot, Chairman of Air Canada, met Joseph Zappia in Rome in March, 1982. This is the same Mr. Zappia who is a fugitive from Canadian justice and wanted in Quebec to face charges of fraud, extortion and kickbacks in connection with the construction of the Olympic Village.
Could the Minister please tell the House in what capacity the Chairman of Air Canada met with Mr. Zappia and, if in his personal capacity for whatever reason, can he assure the House that no Air Canada tickets, property or stationary were used in connection with the meeting?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is really very persevering on that subject. I think he is wrong. We have said often enough that there is an inquiry on that subject. It is impossible for me to comment for the reasons I have indicated many times. I will not even be naughty on the subject. I read that Mr. Zappia was running at one time for the leadership of the Conservative Party, but I will not say that, just because the idea is not to impute motive or to have guilt by association or anything of this kind in Canada. I would suggest very respectfully to my
hon. friend that he lay off for a little while and await the results of the inquiry, when all his problems will be resolved.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I understand part of the Minister's dilemma, but the dilemma for a member of the Opposition is to find out what is under investigation.


REPORT OF MEETING ON FINANCING OF NEW HEADQUARTERS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I think the first question on this matter occurred on December 9, 1982. That was over six months ago. We do not know whether the investigation involves Air Canada or the personal activities, affairs, and business dealings of Rene Amyot and his friends. That is why I am forced to ask some questions. Since there has been no statement in the House from the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General or the Minister of Transport as to the parameters of the investigation, the time it began and when it is to conclude, I think these questions are properly in the public domain.
The other part of the story in The Gazette reported that Mr. Amyot-and this may touch on the ivnestigation; perhaps the Minister can tell us and I will shut up on this type of question-Montreal businessmen Isaac Gelber and Sheldon Mintzberg met with a French financier to discuss financing for Place Mont Royal, a possible site for Air Canada's new headquarters. Again, can the Minister tell the House whether Mr. Amyot attended this meeting on behalf of Air Canada? If not, why was Mr. Amyot holding discussions about the financing of a project that was a contender for the Air Canada headquarters?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 
INCOME TAX
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Finance. In his absence I will direct it to the Minister of National Revenue. On November 17, 1982, I asked the Minister to review the tax policy requiring senior citizens to pay income tax on a quarterly basis. His response was that he would seriously consider doing so in consultation with the Minister of National Revenue. I ask the Minister whether he has done so to date.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I think I indicated to the House on previous occasions that under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, we must, when conditions so require, ask taxpayers to make quarterly payments. Unfortunately, until the Act is amended,
May 16, 1983

it will be impossible to exempt taxpayers to whom such conditions apply. However, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that we have no intention of unduly burdening a specific group of taxpayers such as senior citizens and that we are giving serious thought to ways of helping this group avoid potential problems.


AMOUNT COLLECTED IN PENALTIES
William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. On March 17 of this year I asked him to review the provisions which require that senior citizens pay income tax quarterly. His answer was, "I will be giving special attention to this point". In response to my March 11 question on the Order Paper, the Minister stated that over $31 million in penalties was collected from senior citizens who did not properly make installment payments in 1981. I ask the Minister, is this not proof enough that most seniors do not understand the present filing procedures? What has he done and what will he do to speed up the process of informing our senior citizens that either they should pay quarterly or they are exempt from this procedure which is now in existence?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member will recall that quite recently, an insert was sent with the Old Age Security cheques to explain the procedure to be followed when a person has additional income and is therefore obliged under the Act to make quarterly payments. I believe that the number of senior citizens who are obliged to make such payments is very limited, and that it would probably be very confusing for the vast majority of senior citizens if we were to send them information which does not, in fact, apply to them. People who are obliged to make quarterly payments are so advised by the offices of the Department of National Revenue, and as I have indicated before, the number of senior citizens to whom this procedures applies is very limited.


CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications I will direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, on the issue of pornography. The Minister no doubt will be aware that her colleague has passed the buck on this back to the CRTC. She is presumably also aware recently the President of the CRTC and the past President of the CRTC, now President of the CBC, said that it was not up
Oral Questions
to the CRTC to act on pornography, but it was up to the courts and to the Parliament of Canada. Will the Minister comment on this and tell us what she sees as her responsibility, given that while child abuse in pornography is increasing, the large number of victims are women? Is she prepared only to try to buck up the Minister and get him to do his job in communications, or is she prepared to take any initiatives herself?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that I have under consideration amendments to the law on obscenity which, of course, will affect that law wherever it is applied, broadcasting or anywhere else. I hope that, when introduced, these amendments will have the support of the Hon. Member and her Party. I think that at the moment this is a better way to proceed than attempting to segment particular areas and to have a special law which relates to them.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, the Minister said that he would be bringing in some obscenity legislation. In April last, when appearing before the Justice Committee, the Minister said it would be within a month or so. Can he give us some kind of date on when we may expect this? Will the Minister undertake to communicate with women's groups as to the content of this legislation?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, there is always a lot of consultation that goes into the presentation of any such amendments. When my friend and I had the dialogue in committee, it was in April, several weeks ago. I hope to be in a position before very long, if I have the agreement of the House Leader, to bring in such legislation.


DEFINITION OF OBSCENITY
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like the Minister of Justice to comment on the relationship between obscenity in the Criminal Code and in the broadcasting regulations. It is forbidden to broadcast indecent, profane and obscene comments and pictorial representation. There are no penalties stated and there are no definitions. In effect this regulation is a dead letter. Will the Minister tell us what effect amending the Criminal Code might have and if there is some way to make the regulations more effective?


Erik Nielsen: That is a legal opinion.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as I pointed out, if we put something in the Criminal Code it would apply to the presentation of material, whether that occurs in broadcasting or anywhere else. The Code does so now. If we make it even more effective, that would make the law as it applies to broadcasting more effective as well.

May 16, 1983
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It involves a case called Her Majesty the Queen versus George Garnet Jackson, which arose out of expropriation proceedings some years ago at the Vancouver airport. That case proceeded to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered $4,000 in costs which has instructed law officials in Vancouver not to pay costs because the law officers in Vancouver now want to take a second action in another court. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether this is an appropriate way to proceed against a couple who have been in this lawsuit since 1974, who now have a judgment for costs from the Supreme Court of Canada in their favour, and who are no longer young? They are in their mid-seventies.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I have no personal knowledge about the case. Therefore, I will take my hon. friend's question as notice.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. As the Minister is no doubt aware, the security officers at the Edmonton maximum security institution have decided to work to rule because the many grievances that they have expressed to Commissioner Yeomens have not been dealt with. They have a deep concern as it relates not only to their own safety but to public safety. Can the Minister indicate what action he or his Department is going to take?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I have reviewed the shift change procedure and the other changes that have been introduced recently at the Edmonton maximum security institution. As I am satisfied that they are not against the public interest and that they do not reduce the security of the institution, I do not propose to make any changes. In addition, from the reports I have on the work to rule program, I can assure the House that there is no danger to the community surrounding that institution or, indeed, to the people in it resulting from the work to rule campaign to the present point.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO GUARDS' GRIEVANCES
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, as the Minister is also no doubt aware, the security officers throughout all of Canada have expressed a vote of no confidence in the Commissioner. Will the Solicitor General conduct an independent inquiry into the information that he is receiving from the Commissioner so that we will have an independent inquiry as to the grievances which the security guards have
been expressing for over a year relating to some of the security precautions? We can then be assured that the Commissioner is telling the Solicitor General the truth. If that inquiry indicates that the Commissioner is not, would the Solicitor General ask for the Commissioner's resignation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that I have confidence in the Commissioner and in his reports about the correctional service, but I think the Hon. Member should be aware also of how a Government department works.
I can assure the Member that I do not depend only up on the reports that I get from the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada. I also meet with the union, with their leadership and with local branches, so that I am aware of their concerns. I meet with inmate committees, I meet with citizens' advisory committees. I receive hundreds of letters, indeed thousands of letters, referring to way the Correctional Service of Canada is operating, so the Hon. Member should be under no illusion that information to the Solicitor General is all channelled through one person, however reliable that person is. There are many sources of information upon which I base my judgment and the conclusions that I have expressed about the situation at Edmonton Institution, including his own view, to which I gave very serious consideration.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development in the absence of two of his brother Ministers who have jurisdiction. The Minister knows that the situation at Hawker Siddeley in Trenton, Nova Scotia, continues to be very serious, but there have been reports of progress in achieving orders for exports to Nigeria and Indonesia. Will the Minister indicate whether, since the company has achieved a favourable bidding position in Nigeria, the Government will in fact step forward through the Export Development Corporation and finance the order? Will the Government also give its assurances that the success the company has achieved in getting orders for exports to Nigeria, and Indonesia if this happens, will not be a factor in having its allocation of domestic orders reduced since it has achieved this success through its own initiatives and hard work?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the company deserves congratulations for the activities the Hon. Member has described. I will bring the question to the attention of my
May 16, 1983

colleagues, but I cannot imagine why the company would not continue to benefit from the programs which are available to it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I appreciate the Minister's answer.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport.
I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether or not it is true that his Department has more or less turned a cold shoulder to the request of Dr. LeClair of CN for assistance in repairing railway rolling stock but is quite prepared to allocate taxpayers' money so that new coal cars can be manufactured at the Transcona works, new coal cars which could and should be manufactured more efficiently by private sector companies in areas where there is greater need for employment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, no money will be allocated to rolling stock repairs as a consequence of the budget. With respect to hopper cars and coal cars, however, I will be making an announcement in a few days' time.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who is in charge of the six and five program and the Government restraint program. I would ask the Minister if he has approved or if he has even seen the two press releases sent out by the Minister of Agriculture, one on Agriculture Canada press release letterhead announcing the Atlantic Veterinary College funding, and an identical communique on special recovery projects, which is word for word the same, both sent to all Members' offices and obviously to the Press Gallery, and both having a very beautiful six and five program logo emblazoned on the bottom. Can he explain how those add up to restraint in Government spending?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I personally have not seen these press releases as yet. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture has noted the Hon. Member's representation, but I would also like to thank the Hon. Member for drawing the attention of the House to this very important federal Government initiative which will mean a new veterinary college for the Atlantic Provinces. I thank the Hon. Member for recognizing that.
Oral Questions


SECRETARY OF STATE PRESS RELEASES
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the President of the Treasury Board answered my question in such a frivolous manner. May I point out that the Secretary of State has sent out 14 identical press releases, changing only the names on them, and they were all mailed to every Member and to every person in the Press Gallery, and across the country, a gross waste of taxpayers' money. The Secretary of State could have made the same announcement on two pages. Has the Minister sent a directive to the Cabinet telling it to tighten up on its Government expenditures, or is his restraint program just a great big farce?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, last August we began a series of measures designed to bring about restraint in areas like advertising and Government publications. I will be happy to review the press releases to see whether there are any inconsistencies between that program and those press releases but, once again, I believe that we do have an obligation to ensure that the public at large is made aware of positive Government initiatives.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Minister has said that he had not seen the press releases referred to by my hon. friend. Perhaps he might be familiar with something close to his own Department, namely, a Treasury Board circular No. 786993, dated March 31, 1983, which changes the Government's policy so as to permit Receiver General's cheques to be received by Members of Parliament for the purpose of formal presentation, no doubt in instances such as that referred to by my friend. Can the President of the Treasury Board confirm that the Government has indeed altered its policy to the extent that Receiver General's cheques are now being forwarded to Members of Parliament for formal presentation for projects of this nature?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, previously the administrative policy was that certain types of cheques could be returned to Departments for formal presentation by the Minister or Deputy Minister of the Department. We have agreed to allow this policy to be broadened so that, if a Minister agrees, cheques may be presented formally by MPs on behalf of the Minister. I believe that this is a very positive way to help ensure that the public is made aware of the role and presence of the federal Government.


APPLICATION OF POLICY
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this new policy is a radical departure from past policies of the Government, and in the Treasury Board's

May 16, 1983
Oral Questions
circular itself it says that cheques shall not be forwarded to Members of Parliament for presentation without the prior approval of the Minister responsible for the program but that the approval may be given on an individual payment for each presentation, the cheques going to the Member of Parliament. May I ask the Minister if he will pay particular attention to a question that I supplied the Table with today, for printing on tomorrow's Notice Paper, indicating a list of some 100 projects, some 60 per cent of which are in the Province of Quebec, and tell me whether this policy in the Treasury Board circular is applicable to each of those projects and, if so, will that policy be applied to all Members of Parliament, or will it only be applied for the convenience of Liberal Members of Parliament?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, in addition to the portion of the circular referred to by my hon. friend, I should point out that it covers classes of payments as well as individual presentations. The circular makes it clear that whether this provision is to be used is a matter for decision by the individual Ministers, so I am afraid that my hon. friend will have to address his questions with respect to any particular project to the Minister responsible.


QUESTION PLACED ON ORDER PAPER-ASSURANCE OF RESPONSE REQUESTED
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Minister has not answered my question. My question is essentially this. Will the policy be applicable to all Members of Parliament or is it confined to the presentation of such cheques by Liberal Members of Parliament only? Again I draw the Minister's attention to the question that I placed on today's Order Paper indicating almost 200 projects, and I would ask him now, since each of them is listed specifically, both by name and by amount, whether he will answer that question that I put on the Order Paper with respect to the cheques being allotted to Members of Parliament for the ridings in which those projects are located.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend has put a question on the Order Paper, then obviously the rules with regard to response will be respected. But to return to his specific question, I repeat that the matter of whether a cheque is to be formally presented on behalf of the Government by a Member, and if so, which one, is a matter for discretionary decision by the responsible Minister.


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Federal Business Development Bank, but in his absence I will address it to the Parliamentary Secretary.
After raising this issue last Friday I have had the opportunity to confirm once again that the Federal Business Development Bank in British Columbia discriminates against certain businesses wishing to locate in industrial parks on Indian reserves. For a non-Indian business person wishing to obtain a loan from the Federal Business Development Bank for a business in an industrial park on an Indian reservation, the policy of the bank is not to fund such a business. That policy does not exist in any other Province of Canada. Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain why there is this discrimination?


René Cousineau: Madam Speaker, I must repeat what I said before, since the Government has certainly not adopted a special policy where Indians are concerned, whether or not they live on the reserve. I pointed out to the Hon. Member last week that the problem concerns collateral guarantees.

It was a matter of collateral, of a guarantee. At that time the unfortunate part was that the Indian was not the owner of the land.
Second, the decision of the band council did not oblige successive band councils. That is the reason why the loans were sometimes refused.
If the Hon. Member has a specific case I would gladly pass it on to the Minister.


REQUEST THAT INSTRUCTIONS BE ISSUED TO BANK
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to confirm to the Parliamentary Secretary that I am referring specifically to non-Indian businesses located on Indian reservations. I would remind him that the Royal Bank of Canada, the Commerce, the TD, the Nova Scotia, and the Bank of British Columbia, as well as other financial institutions, are all prepared to lend money to enterprises locating on Indian reservations.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm today that he is prepared to go to the officials of the Federal Business Development Bank and ask them to stop this discriminatory practice? Applying this strictly to one Province of Canada and one kind of business opportunity is something that we, as parliamentarians, should not condone. I am sure the Government would not
May 16, 1983

want to condone it either. This is federal land and this is a federal bank.


René Cousineau: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that asking Government officials to stop this discrimination would be asking them to stop something that does not exist. However, if the Hon. Member would care to provide concrete examples, these will be looked into and the Minister will be duly informed.


FISHERIES
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister met with his Newfoundland counterpart last week and the subject of discussion, of course, was the question of restructuring. The Minister knows that there are at least six important deep-sea plants in Newfoundland that are still down, awaiting this critical decision. Has the Minister reached an agreement with the Government of Newfoundland on restructuring and, if so, will he tell the House or will we have to wait and learn from the press?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I have to tell the Hon. Member that I will have the pleasure of meeting with the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador in Ottawa tomorrow morning on precisely that topic.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that justice delayed is justice denied. Newfoundland has approximately one in four people unemployed. These deep-sea plants are critical in terms of the number of jobs involved. The trawler fleet that services these plants, and the inshore fishermen are awaiting this critical decision.


REQUEST THAT ANNOUNCEMENT BE MADE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, may I ask the Minister if he will announce tomorrow a decision has been made on restructuring, so that the plants may know their future? I know the Minister is a House of Commons man. Will he extend to us the courtesy of coming to the House and making that announcement?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, obviously either way, particularly if there is an agreement, I will be most pleased to advise the House. I can already assure the Hon. Member, however, that the federal
Oral Questions
Government is committed to establishing in Newfoundland not only a very healthy structure but also that the number of people, in total, who make their living from the fishery in Newfoundland will not suffer any substantial decrease.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to that posed by the Leader of the Opposition to the President of the Treasury Board with respect to this interesting circular on the presentation of Government cheques.
In the past, on occasion the Government has given cheques from a Ministry to a Member of Parliament to deliver. This circular seems to indicate that, once a Minister has approved it, the cheque will go direct to the Member of Parliament. Can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that these cheques will be delivered to all Members of Parliament, irrespective of political Party? Is this going to be conducted on a straightforward basis, or does the Government intend to pick and choose between its supporters and other Members of Parliament?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to thank my hon. friend for confirming that in the past there have been occasions when cheques have been presented to groups by MPs on behalf of Ministers in a formal sense. The situation described in the circular is not entirely a new departure.
Second, I would have to say to my hon. friend that whether any cheques are delivered by MPs and which MPs would be involved are strictly a matter for the responsible Minister. The Ministers may well decide to continue with the previous practice or to follow the new circular. It is up to the Ministers to decide which MP they wish to ask.


INQUIRY RESPECTING POSSIBLE USE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is it Treasury Board policy to allow these cheques to be used by Liberal partisans for partisan political purposes?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the circular makes no reference to partisans of any particular Party, or to any Party at all. It simply says that, if the responsible Minister agrees, individual cheques or cheques of a particular class can be sent by the chief financial officer of the Department to the MP or MPs the responsible Minister has designated as being able to present the cheques on his or her behalf.

May 16, 1983
25500_______________________________
Oral Questions


ROLE OF PRESIDENT OF LIBERAL PARTY IN PRESENTATION OF CHEQUES
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that the President of the Liberal Party of Canada has been giving cheques from the Government to interested parties, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I was not aware of that. Certainly the circular in question talked only about the presentation of cheques on behalf of the Government by MPs if they are designated by the responsible Minister.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, if I am able to provide proof of this action to the Minister, will he take corrective action so that the Liberal Party does not profit from the Government's activities?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Again without accepting the premises of my hon. friend's question, I would be very happy to get any details he has and look into his question so that appropriate action can be taken.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Department of Justice counsel in the Regina abortion case has taken the position on national television that the new Charter of Rights gives no rights whatsoever to the unborn child. Will the Minister tell the House if he agrees and if that was his instruction? Does he agree that an unborn child, until the time it comes out of the mother, has no more rights than, for example, a blade of grass?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the counsel in the case in Regina to which my hon. friend refers is taking the position that the law becomes relevant at the time of birth, and the evidence as to the state of life before that time is not relevant to the particular issue which is on trial in that case. This is based on a great deal of precedent and it is, of course, for the court to weigh that case. My hon. friend may wish to weight it, but right now it is being argued before a court. I would not want to pronounce on it and I do not believe my hon. friend should be pronouncing on it while it is under consideration.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 27 members of All Saints' Church in La Ronge in the Province of Saskatchewan who are concerned that the increasing danger of nuclear war and the building of ever more destructive weapons, if used, would threaten the very survival of human life on this earth. These people pray and call upon this Honourable House to urge the Government to renounce all present and future involvement in the nuclear arms race and turn every effort to the attainment of peace, giving positive leadership through Canada's Ambassador for disarmament in the United Nations.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the representatives of the Parties and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or 81 with regard to the allocation of time to the second reading stage og Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof; and that therefore at the next sitting of the House, I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82 to allocate one sitting day to the said stage of the said Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,775, 4,776 and 4,792.


Mr. Howie: 1.	For the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, how many militia personnel were employed under the callout program at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick?
2.	For each year, how many militia personnel were on callout for a term of six months or less at CFB Gagetown?
May 16, 1983


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 300, (b) 381, (c) 424.
2. (a) 205, (b) 300, (c) 394.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, what was the total value of contracts for repairs and maintenance awarded by the (i) Defence Construction (1951) Ltd. (ii) Construction Engineering Company at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: The value of contracts for repairs and maintenance at CFB Gagetown for the two Fiscal years in question were as follows:
	Defence Construction	Construction
	(1951) Ltd.	Engineering Company
(a)	4,571,129	1,463,858(b)	4,305,544	1,521,846(c)* (to date)	2,861,756	1,269,079
Final figures for 1982/83 will not be known till early summer.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has a tender call been prepared for the F 404 program and, if so (a) who will be invited to prepare submissions (b) on what date is it intended to call for bids (c) what will be the closing date for tenders?
2.	Are there any special conditions in the tender document referring to Canadian content and, if so, what are they?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. Yes, (a) Air Canada (Montreal), Orenda Division-Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc. (Toronto) and Rolls-Royce Ltd. (Montreal). (b) On or about May 4, 1983. (c) June 29, 1983.
2. The solicitation document requires Canadian contractors to identify the Canadian content in their proposal and this will be one of the factors considered in the evaluation of proposals submitted.


David P. Smith: I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Western Grain Transportation Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, just before the luncheon adjournment I was closing my comments on this particular Bill. In conclusion, I would just like to say that I support the motion of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) that we have this particular Bill hoisted for six months because, as I tried to point out, it will have a disproportionate impact on the communities in the West which the Hon. Minister has certainly failed to take into consideration. There will be a disproportionate impact on individuals. I tried to indicate for the elucidation and edification of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who obviously needs a lot of that in the days ahead, that the income in these areas in certainly disproportionately low, and to have this Bill come forward with this double whammy certainly would have a negative impact on the people there.
I tried also to point out, Mr. Speaker, by way of a specific case study, what would happen in a certain area where we have the removal of an elevator or a rail line which is going to be abandoned. I gave the illustration of the Winnipegosis subdivision.
In addition to that 1 pointed out what the negative impact would be on the farmer who has to truck his grain 150 kilometres to 200 kilometres; and on top of that, if you add the increase in the Crow rate, I referred to the negative impact this would have on the incomes of individual farmers who are putting bread and butter on our tables.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky). The Hon. Member has pointed out the costs involved and has stated that we are not opposed to that. Part II, Clause 34, of the Bill states that in the crop year 1983-84 the federal Government will be supplying $564.5 million in aid to the railways, and the railways state they intend to go to tender for the main tunnelling work at Rogers Pass towards the end of 1983, assuming the Crow legislation is in place and economic conditions improve.
Here we have the federal Government guaranteeing $564.5 million in aid to the railways and no guarantee that the railways are going to improve this portion, at least, of the tunnelling to help accommodate this grain. Does the Hon. Member think this is a fair and reasonable situation?

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not accept that kind of guarantee on the part of the CPR to enhance our western transportation. Certainly, depending on economic conditions to improve does not give me any kind of assurance that the railways will be doing anything. It sort of reminds me of the type of guarantees we receive from the Minister of Transport. I know on my own desk I have numerous letters and representations which I have made to the Minister of Transport, to which I certainly have not received any response. I have drawn this to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and others and I would say, outside of perhaps Revenue Canada, the Minister of Transport has to be one of the worst in terms of receiving any kind of response from him. We certainly would not be prepared, therefore, to accept any kind of loose guarantees about economic conditions improving. We cannot expect anything like that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky), to elucidate his reference to the increased costs for grain producers in higher freight rates. He also mentioned various communities affected. I would like to ask him if he has had representations from municipalities, towns and villages in his area or anywhere else about increased costs to them in terms of maintenance, upkeep and construction of roads in order to handle larger truckloads of grain over longer distances while branch lines are being abandoned.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed I have had representations. By way of illustration I could speak about resolutions and requests from municipalities such as Mossy River, that if there is any rail line abandonment the municipalities certainly will not be able to upkeep or upgrade the particular roadways. In some of the areas of Manitoba there is a high degree of swamp or bog land and the cost of rebuilding a road or maintaining a highway is incredibly high. It certainly would be much more practical and profitable if the railways were maintained and the appropriate subsidies were given to the entire railway. We know that the railways have to be improved and we believe there are ways of doing that, but this should not be done at the expense of the farmers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Hon. Member referred to the kind of grain transportation program that he thought was useful. He pointed out that upgrading railways is much cheaper to society than the constant maintenance of roads to haul long distance traffic such as grain. I wonder if he would be prepared to tell the House what sort of upgrading program he is proposing as an alternative or adjunct to the proposal which is before the House in the form of Bill C-155.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I think that the New Democratic Party has made a very substantial proposal in terms of what could be done to upgrade the railway.


David P. Smith: You don't know about it.


Laverne Lewycky: For the benefit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith), I will send him a complete copy of it so he can read it. In that way he can become educated and he will not open up his mouth every single time he sits down when he has nothing to say.


David P. Smith: Send it to Vic, too. He wants to know the answer.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I was just wondering, since an NDP Member spoke and three or four others asked questions, if the NDP caucus might consider having caucuses on Wednesday to handle those internal difficulties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), by agreement, will be allotted 20 minutes.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Speaker and Members of the House for this indulgence in allowing me to speak for a full 20 minutes, which I greatly appreciate. I would just like to take a moment to say that I think it is simply incredible that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) just stood up in the House and introduced closure on what I consider to be the most important piece of legislation on agriculture in the last ten years. It is an incredible insult to every farmer in western Canada that, after less than three days of debate, we should now have closure have thrust upon us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: However, I want to get on with my remarks. I would very simply say that I have been waiting ten and a half years for an opportunity to get into this debate, that is, ever since I was first elected in 1972. I will quickly add that this should have been the most important debate in that ten-year period, certainly for western Canada and even for all of Canada. I say that because other major debates, such as the debate on the Constitution, could have been set aside for a few years. Our nation would have survived some way or another without, shall we say, the Charter of Rights for maybe another five years or ten years. However, western Canada's total agricultural industry and all the other resource-related developments cannot survive without the adequate resolution of this Crow freight rate issue.
The dramatic turnaround by the Government two weeks ago to pay all of the benefit to the railways and none to the grain producers has changed everything, including my own position on this vital issue. Let me briefly review a few of the important background developments on this Crow issue.
The statutory Crow freight rate on grain from the Prairies does indeed still exist in perpetuity at one half a cent per ton mile. Early last year it became apparent that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has encouraged the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to get on with the resolution of this Crow issue. I was glad to see that.
The first very important evidence which emerged was the Gilson Committee or, as I call it, the Gilson group. Gilson's
May 16, 1983

group tackled what many would have described as the impossible. Those in the Gilson group are to be commended for their efforts. After all, and this is a personal opinion, they were the best brains in western Canada to put to work on this issue. They were able to reach a consensus that something must be done, even though they did not immediately identify what had to be done.
Eventually, the Gilson group was able to reach a compromise within the group which led to the Gilson recommendation of last June. Essentially it proposed that western grain producers give up their legal rights in perpetuity for the Crow rate in return for an annual federal subsidy or benefit of $651.6 million, also in perpetuity. The Gilson group recommended that this benefit should be phased in over a seven-year or eight-year period, with 100 per cent going to the railways in the first year, and ending after the phase-in with 81 per cent going to the western grain producers and 19 per cent remaining with the railways. There were many other details in the Gilson recommendation, but that was the essence of its deliberations.
Western Canadian farm opinion on this matter settled into two main groups. First, there was the Western Agricultural Conference, essentially the three prairie Wheat Pools which favoured paying the benefit to the railways. Then there was the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition consisting of the broad grouping of the value added sector, which included livestock feeding, agricultural processors and domestic feed grain producers, in all about 20 different commodity groups. This commodity coalition strongly supported paying the benefit to the farmer, that is, the grain producer, and the user in the western Prairies.
Last February 1 the Minister of Transport changed the Gilson main recommendations significantly by stopping the phase-in at the mid-point and paying half to each of the farmers and the railways. This was done by a ministerial statement; there was not yet legislation.
This is my personal position at which I arrived after the February 1 statement: I strongly supported the Gilson recommendation and the manner in which it was reached. With somewhat less enthusiasm, I also supported the February 1 fifty-fifty compromise of the Minister. I would now say to the Minister-and I appreciate the fact that he is now sitting in his seat-that he is aware of how I felt in both of those situations. However, the political intervention of Quebec's UPA and its own internal coalition group and, more specifically, the political intervention of the federal Quebec Liberal caucus, has changed my position dramatically.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Say something about the West.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I cannot and will not support this legislation as it is now before us. 1 would say to the Minister especially that the entire western Canadian beef cattle industry, in fact the total livestock industry and all of the value added industries, the feeding sector especially, are now very annoyed, very upset, and are presently organizing some protest meetings, even in the midst of Spring work. That is how they feel about
Western Grain Transportation Act
that switch by the Minister. The legislation must be changed significantly or indefinitely held up, one of the two, for the sake of the long-term resource development which is so necessary in western Canada.
I would like to say a word about what I am calling the "Mazankowski option". It was included in our former Minister's opening speech. That option should be very seriously considered, especially at the committee stage. I will make a very serious and genuine suggestion to the Minister. I say to him that the Minister of Transport should ask the Gilson group, that is, that inner group of about 12 or 13 committee members, less the railway representatives, to reconvene privately, to study and assess Bill C-155, including the Mazankowski option, and then have Dr. Gilson appear on his own before our committee as a witness. I ask that most sincerely of the Minister of Transport.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: The Mazankowski option, of course, is to allow the grain producer to designate who should receive his individual share of the Crow benefit, himself or the railways. The Quebec UPA and the Quebec Liberal caucus in this House are obviously concerned that the Gilson recommendations will somehow destroy what they have been referring to as the balance in Canada's livestock industry.
Let us look at the facts and see if there is a balance. Over the last ten years the Quebec hog industry has grown by 140 per cent while the western hog industry has declined by about 23 per cent.
Quebec's beef cattle feeding industry has also expanded significantly. In both hogs and cattle, Quebec expansion has been largely due to what I would call a very rich provincial subsidy program. Our hog industry decline in the West has been continuing for some time and was due to a combination of three factors. First, there was the aftermath of the surplus grain era when barley prices changed from three bushels for $1 to one bushel for $3. Second, a more efficient total hog industry in the United States corn belt is where we lost our hog industry, not to Quebec. The third and most important factor was the detrimental impact of cheaper transportation costs on grain shipments to Quebec in its raw form due to the Crow rate.
In the crop year 1981-82, 45 million bushels of western feed grains went to Quebec. By 1990-91 it is expected to decline to 12 million bushels. In percentages, the Prairies now supply about 30 per cent of Quebec's feed grain, nearly all barley. By 1990-91 it will drop to 9 per cent. As well, Quebec is now about 45 per cent self-sufficient in feed grains and will be 80 per cent self sufficient by 1990-91. Of course, this is as it should be. As transportation costs increase due to higher new rates and higher inflationary costs, this is inevitable. However, if railways improve their export quantities through improved export facilities for grain, the relevant feed grain prices

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
between the Prairie and other parts of Canada will remain the same.
Both Alberta and Quebec are very fortunate since each Province is relatively close to a huge market potential for both pork and beef in the United States. Alberta is directly north of the huge state of California and Quebec is immediately adjacent to the huge population centre of the northeastern United States. These respective markets will have to be won in open competition but it can be done. We are presently enjoying some access to these two markets. It will be a very slow process to win that market.
Quebec Members should remember that it is 2,230 miles from Calgary to Montreal and our value added beef products now cost the equivalent of $51 per animal carcass to ship from Calgary to the Montreal market. That amounts to $8.50 per hundred weight. That cost comes right off the top of our cattle and beef market prices.
Presently, about 60 per cent of Alberta's fed cattle production, that is finished steers and heifers, are shipped to the Montreal market. All of it is shipped on orders from Montreal brokers or wholesalers and is not shipped by Alberta producers on speculation. Our Canadian packing industry is currently experiencing very difficult times. This is partly because our plants are not competitive with the American packing industry due to significantly higher labour costs in Canada. We have seen six plants close down in Alberta since 1977 and there is still some surplus plant capacity.
If we are serious about making significant changes to our 86-year old Crow freight rate, I say to the Minister that we should do it properly so that it will stand the test of time. The next federal election should not dictate the terms of a new policy. I say that knowing full well the political situation in two Provinces especially, Quebec and Saskatchewan.
It is not the next ten years of adjustment that will be necessary for this new market development. That readjustment for our new markets may take another 20 years. However, we should be considering the next 100 years and determining the necessary and proper development of our western resources of which grain is only one. We should not be so obsessed with the need for guarantees from the railways respecting grain movement. Surely the best guarantee will be the opportunity for both railways to make a profit for the first time in about 25 years on their grain operations. The more grain they move, the more money they will make, instead of the reserve where the more they moved the more money they lost.
If there is still any opportunity left in Canada for the concept of private enterprise, especially in the West, then the Crow benefit must surely be paid to the farmer as a grain producer. I suggest that the Minister let the farmer decide what grain he can grow best on his own farm. Let the farmer decide if he can haul his own grain more efficiently by trucking it himself to a delivery point that may be very close or further away. Above all, let the farmer decide if he wants to go the value added way by feeding grain.
This can only be done by paying the benefit to the farmer. The railways will be receiving their compensatory costs. That has been agreed to. They do not need to have a direct payment at the expense of denying western Canada the opportunity to develop their natural resources, with their natural advantages.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I assume that we are presently in the period of ten-minute speeches. I find it somewhat frustrating to have waited so long for the legislation and be allowed only ten minutes to comment on it. I find it even more frustrating to have to comment on the legislation under the threat of closure.
What is most concerning is that this vitally important issue to the Prairies, and in fact all of Canada, has literally been debated for months and years in the Prairies and other parts of Canada, most recently with Quebec, but it closure is imposed upon us tomorrow night, Parliament will have had four days of debate on this legislation. Even if one was in favour of the legislation from an Opposition point of view, closure would force anyone defending western Canadian rights and interests, regardless of the position, to vote against this particular measure. It is neither right nor excusable to give four days to debate a measure as important as this.
When I was first elected in the early winter of 1970, grain transportaiton was probably the most important issue in Canada at that particular time since there was a tremendous oversupply created by large world markets and a literal inability to get our grain to market. Demurrage was high, farmers had to pay that demurrage, the system was not working, people were frustrated and most were angry at the railways, the elevator companies and the Governments.
Since then, a major preoccupation of mine has been with the entire issue of grain transportation. I felt I would have to give the Minister full marks in terms of his method and of the courage that he has displayed. This is a very difficult task. As the Hon. Member who just spoke indicated, the Gilson Committee carried out one of the better inquiries into grain transportation that we have had on the Prairies for a long, long time. The thrust and the direction that Professor Gilson and the people working with him took were generally acceptable, as was the Minister's own version based on political reality at the time. There had to be some modifications. This was the fifty-fifty split, in which 50 per cent of the so-called payment crucial to the operation of the whole transportation plan would go to the railways and 50 per cent to the producers. Professor Gilson, on the other hand, recommended that more money go to the producers. From the point of view of Manitoba, that was generally acceptable, and I believe it was also acceptable to the Province of Alberta.
In going through this process, the bottom line is to make sure the system we design as politicians has built-in efficiency. Unfortunately, we have only four days in which to discuss this matter at the present time. The system we design must encourage excellence or striving toward excellence by the elevator
May 16, 1983

companies, by the producers and we hope, by the railways, with incentives and penalties being included in the legislation.
Although the whole process was not perfect, we were moving toward that particular goal. But all that has fallen apart now, it has happened because of political reasons.
The winner, and this is what we are talking about in the second reading debate, will be the Quebec livestock industry. To a lesser extent, I suppose, although not much of a lesser extent, another winner is the Quebec farmers. They have spoken with a united voice against the West's divided voice. The Government's politicians have listened to that united voice instead of the divided voice. We cannot be critical of that, I suppose. The Government acquiesced to that united voice from the Province of Quebec.
The losers in this whole process will be western Canadian agriculture and western Canada as a whole. More specifically, the western livestock industry will lose. The Minister has admitted, and indeed many others have admitted, that the livestock industry will be losers to the tune of $3.5 billion to $4 billion between now and the early 1990s. Another loser is the western processing industry because it will not see the diversified type of processing we had hoped to see. Another loser is the rail system in western Canada. What we are dealing with now is a system in which incentives will be hard to build in because basically we are maintaining the status quo. The losers will be the western farmers and the railway system. I believe that in the long run the elevator companies also will be losers if you take away their vested interests. No one can criticize them when they have literally hundreds of millions of dollars invested in a particular segment of the economy.
The big losers, though, will be the young farmers, especially those on the Prairies, and also the young people wanting jobs in the secondary agricultural industry in western Canada. Those jobs will not be there. The livestock industry is doomed to being continually shifted to eastern Canada, primarily to the Province of Quebec. As I said before, the reason that western Canada is that loses it has once again spoken with a divided voice for a whole series of reasons. 1 cannot go into them because of time restriction. The beneficiary is the Province of Quebec because it spoke with a united voice and was able to capture the attention of the present Government. Because of that, Bill C-155, without substantial amendments, is unacceptable.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), not only for his position but for him personally. He is a good friend. He has tried hard and has probably tried harder than most people in the House realize to bring the sides together. I shall come to a conclusion now because I hope we will get into this subject in greater detail in committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do you want to bet on that? The Government will bring in closure in committee too.


Jack Burnett Murta: I think we were close to achieving a relatively satisfactory Bill. With a Bill as complicated as this one you cannot please everybody. On the other hand, however, at the present time this Bill falls short in many areas. To impose
Western Grain Transportation Act
closure now after what will be only four day's debate adds insult to injury. It is like rubbing salt in a wound. For Members who have waited literally for ten years to speak on legislation such as this, as the previous Member indicated, only to find they are unable to express themselves fully is disheartening, to say the least.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, when my grandparents on both my mother's side and my father's side came to this country from the Ukraine in the early years of this century, they came with the dream that they could establish, together with their families, farming enterprises to last for decades. They did establish farms at Wroxton and at Canora in Saskatchewan. The Wroxtons and the Canoras of Saskatchewan have served this country very well.
Indeed, our rural towns and villages have retained a quality of life and a sense of community that our cities can only hope to match. In many ways, our traditional values are best protected by our support of the rural way of life. Many people say now that the issue of the Crowsnest freight rates should be examined in cold economic terms. The Minister himself has criticized opponents of his plans to destroy the Crow as reactionaries. It has been suggested that in the arguments of those who oppose these plans passion has displaced reason.
That this is a passionate cause there can be no doubt. That it is controversial, there can be no question. But it is, Mr. Speaker, passion based on reason. It is a cry from rural Canada, from our farming communities, to wake up to the reality of what we do when we tamper with the Crow.
There is no question that improvements must be made to the grain transportation system. Bottlenecks occur at the terminals and they occur on the rail lines themselves. To some degree the system is antiquated and needs an injection of new money. But where should those funds come from? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the wrong time to ask the farmers of western Canada to make a major contribution to the transportation of grain.
Net income of western farmers in 1983 is expected to decline by 15 per cent to $1,661 billion from $1,955 billion in 1982. Operating costs, while virtually staying the same this year as last, have just come through a period of incredible inflation. The costs of sprays, fertilizer, seed, equipment, land, interest expense and buildings have risen by 73 per cent in the last five years. The price of wheat is less than 9 per cent over what it was five years ago.
The farmers of western Canada have not been immune from the world-wide recession. Yet the Minister insists upon imposing a measure which will remove by 1990 nearly $1 billion annually from the pockets of western farmers. As I pointed out earlier, farmers can expect a net income for 1983 of only $1.66 billion. If the price of wheat increases at the rate it has over the last five years, by 1990 the new freight rate will gobble up over 50 per cent of what would have been net income for western farmers. Simply put, 50 per cent of the funds that

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
would normally go to families and local communities will not be there. Sure, we will have rationalization. Only the large operators will survive, but at what cost? At the cost of depopulating the West. I say that that is absolutely unacceptable. As one farmer said to me the other day, "If they force us off the farm, where will they put us all?" Where indeed.
The Minister says he will now give us a safety net of 10 per cent-or did he say 12 per cent-of the export price. The new freight rate will be tied to the price of grain. I say to the Minister that that still means five times Crow by 1990. Simply put, the Minister's economists and lawyers may have had a field day putting this proposal together, but they took little note of the social and economic toll it would take in western Canada.
Another aspect of the plan which causes me concern is the imposition of variable rates into the freight rate equation. Economically it probably makes sense. The costs on the main lines are lower, the quantities of grain to be moved are potentially greater, therefore a discount should be offered to reflect the economies of scale.
What it means to people living on the branch-lines, however, is that in order to obtain this discount they will have to haul a considerable distance to the main line. Not every farmer will be able to do so, simply because of the costs involved. The larger operator will be the one who can afford the whole process. But now that he and three or four other large operators in a given area are no longer hauling to the local elevator, that elevator becomes less and less viable. If that elevator closes, many of the smaller farms will go as well, simply because the increased costs of hauling to the next point are unbearable.
Who buys out the smaller farmers? The large operators. What happens to the local community? It loses family after family. It loses its local store, its high school and its hospital. With fewer people in rural areas, the cities and the service centres will undoubtedly suffer. This is why we see the cities of Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert and Moose Jaw voicing such strong concerns. This plan has an impact on the entire Province of Saskatchewan, not only the rural areas.
It is not as though the farmers of western Canada are receiving something in the Crow rate that other countries are withholding from their farmers. It has already been pointed out in this debate that Argentina, Australia, the EEC and the United States all give substantial subsidies both in transportation and in other ways in a competitive international market. This will work to the detriment of Canadian farmers and the Canadian economy generally. Our economy receives massive benefits from grain production, yet the country wants to hand over to the farmer completely the obligation to haul grain. Ironically, the nation with the greatest natural obstacles to the delivery of grain appears to be the least willing to assist its farmers in that delivery.
Many other criticisms could be levelled at this legislation. It is far from obvious why the legislation contains the 31.3 million metric ton limit. Why are we building in this disincentive for our farmers to produce? This blended rate seems like a
rather strange provision for a Government so bent on rationalizing the system.
The same can be said for the basic contribution of the federal Government. The $651 million contributed will not be increased unless the annual inflation rate runs in excess of 6 per cent. While the farmer knows he will be subject to an ever increasing rate, a completely open-ended rate, the federal Government has designed for itself a fairly secure cost increase protection.
This legislation is unnecessarily complex. When the proposal was brought down, I said at the first opportunity on the floor of the House of Commons that it was a bureaucratic nightmare. This has been confirmed in the legislation now before us. For the average farmer or the farmer's lawyer to sit down and calculate a specific rate or even understand the formula used in this proposal is virtually impossible. Some have wondered why it has taken 90 years to change the Crow. It took 90 years just to devise this formula. The Minister's accountants and lawyers may think they are rationalizing the grain transportation system, but they would have to go a long way to improve upon the term of one-half cent per tonne mile in its sheer ability to be understood by those who work within the system.
I have concerns about the legitimacy of removing the protection of a statutory rate for our farmers, considering the degree of subsidization that occurs in major grain producing nations of the western world. If this rate were to be just a very minor cost increase for most farmers and were fixed at a statutory rate, many groups might consider it. But it is completely open-ended and will mean the difference between having and not having a margin of profit.
The Minister makes a lot of the fact that the Crow rate makes it less expensive to send a bushel of grain than to mail a letter. I say to the Minister that not many of us mail between 10,000 and 40,000 letters a year, particularly not many farmers. If a farmer has 1,000 acres in crop and obtains an average of 30 bushels to the acre, and if the farmer ships that grain from central Saskatchewan, his yearly freight bill will amount to $4,800. However, if that farmer sends the same amount in the 1990-91 crop year, his freight bill will be in the region of $24,800. One could buy a lot of stamps for $24,800. When we take one expense and inflate it by over 500 per cent in less than ten years, we play havoc with the margin of profit, particularly when we have no control over the price of the product we are selling.
The legislation in its present form does not include all western grains, oil seeds and their processed products. We will all be anxious to see what type of amendments the Minister has in mind once we get to committee. The legislation does not deal with the concerns of livestock producers that they be included in the effort to provide a more equitable system of transportation of agricultural products. These concerns should be addressed, although I do not subscribe to the view that we should take from Peter to pay Paul.
Members on this side of the House have serious concerns about service guarantees, the methods of cost disclosure and
May 16, 1983

the monitoring mechanism. Considering how difficult it has been to get an accurate idea of how the railways are losing on the transportation of grain, largely because of their reluctance to open their books, it would seem that the Government has been more than generous in setting the Crow benefit at $651 million. I have no doubt, when it comes to establishing whether the railways have met their objectives, that the bureaucracy created to administer these monetary incentives will be every bit as generous.
Finally, I will now conclude my brief comments by assuring the Minister of my heartfelt and absolute opposition to this lunatic Bill. He is doing to Saskatchewan what was done to Alberta under the National Energy Program.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. The title of this Bill appears misleading and dishonest to western Canada. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has done an injustice to western Canada, and he knows it full well. He proposed a Bill prior to this one with much fanfare across the country and with newspaper releases that cost the federal Government a lot of money. Then he changed the Bill at the will of the Quebec Members, because of their opposition. Now he is trying to force Bill C-155 through the House in a matter of four days and into committee. Goodness knows how long it will be considered in committee before closure takes place there and it returns to the House.
The Bill provides for the expenditure by Canadian taxpayers over the next four years of well over $2 billion for the railway systems in Canada. While we are not opposed to improving the railway system, certainly we are opposed to the method by which the Minister of Transport is proposing to do this.
One of our most important export industries, namely our grain industry, earns $6 billion a year in foreign exchange. It is the only industry that has been able to survive the slump during these tough economic times. Now the Minister of Transport steps in with regressive legislation that will force the grain growers into one of the most serious economic problems anyone should ever have to face. The grain industry accounts for only 15 per cent of the transportation capacity, yet it is being called upon to pay the largest percentage of the cost. There is no guarantee that the railway system will be improved.
In the past, CP Rail has separated its land from the railway operation and put it into a subsidiary, Marathon Realty. The profits of that company should be going into the transportation system. However, under the present system, railways are able to diversify and use those profits in other areas. That is wrong and should not be condoned.
I want to speak about CP Rail for a moment. Because of a $1 billion investment by the federal and provincial Governments in northeast coal, CP Rail also has tremendous investment in southeast coal. We have not heard one word of objection to this $1 billion injection into the northeast infrastructure
Western Grain Transportation Act
to help develop it. In the South, where CP Rail has literally hundreds and hundreds thousands of dollars of infrastructure in place, it has not voiced one objection to the injection of moneys in northeast coal.
I wonder why CP Rail has been so silent when literally billions of dollars worth of contracts are at stake. I can only come to one conclusion. CP Rail is prepared to let southeast coal suffer the lack of the kind of infrastructure that can take place in those communities and areas in order to get the Crowsnest agreement to change. It is wrong to allow that to happen.
CP Rail announced it was only prepared to go ahead if good economic conditions prevail. We hear of a $40 million car repair shop for the Golden yard. Naturally we want to see that take place in our transportation industry. However, that $40 million project is for a yard expansion project at Golden to handle anticipated growth in coal traffic in the West. If that is what it is for, then why is CP Rail not fighting to protect that coal transportation in the West, especially from southeastern British Columbia?
How are we going to maintain the kind of infrastructure to accomodate that when we see a billion dollars in federal and provincial money going into the northeast coal which serves the same markets as southeastern British Columbia? We are asking the grain growers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to bear the brunt of that.
The British Columbia Government has appointed the members of what it calls the northeast coal development organization structure. The head of the Cabinet committee is the Hon. Don Phillips. There is also a Deputy Minister and a Director, a former Cabinet Minister, Ron Basford. He is paid $600 a day and is supplied with full-time office staff in Vancouver to promote northeast coal against the best interests of southeast coal. These are some of the concerns we have with regard to the transportation policy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is all provincial.


Sidney James Parker: If this Government is sincere with regard to the transportation policy and if it is going to give over $2 billion in the next two years and thereafter $651 million a year to the railway systems-


Jean-Luc Pepin: More than that.


Sidney James Parker: More?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Sure.


Sidney James Parker: There is no guarantee that the transportation system will reinvest the tremendous profit there will be if those projects are to be carried out. If the Rogers Pass tunnel is to proceed, and I hope it will, with a proper method of financing, there will be savings to the railways. We will no longer require ten diesel units valued at $10 million sitting at Rogers Pass to push the grain, coal and other commodities up the hill. This

May 16, 1983
Adjournment Motion
will result in tremendous savings. It will do away with some employment. They will be able to go over the roads that much faster. While we agree with that, the communities involved, the same as the communities and rural areas where the grain comes from, will lose their identity. We are also concerned about the communities served by the railways once the traffic is speeded up. This Bill should identify that problem. There should be protection for these communities.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) on his detailed speech with regard to the Dominion Coal blocs situated in my riding. This is a very big concern for my constituents. It is a consequential and related provision in this Bill under No. 62, Part VI. I believe it should be more consequential. It is of the utmost importance to Kootenay-East Revelstoke. It is of the utmost importance to the Province of British Columbia that energy such as coal be developed in the manner in which we in our own Province and ridings propose it be developed. For this Bill to leave that 50,000 acres of coal blocs, some of the richest in the country, under the federal domain is a slap in the face to the Province of British Columbia as well as the rest of western Canada. The coal bloc belongs to the Province of British Columbia. It should be returned to that Province if the Crowsnest agreement is changed.
For the federal Government not to identify any plans or proposals for this coal or the land is wrong. Therefore, it has no alternative but to turn this rich coal land back to the Province of British Columbia so that when the time comes for the planning and processing and developing energy in our Province, we will be able to do that in an orderly manner.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Railways- Crowsnest Pass rate-Opposition to announced changes, (b) Development of grain transportation system; the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Canadian National Railways-Manufacture of rolling stock, (b) Nova Scotia steel plants; the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave)- Agriculture-Compulsory grading of beef carcasses for export, (b) Request that Minister review situation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-155, to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Benjamin (p. 25389).
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to debate this most important issue to western Canada with some degree of trepidation. Every time we are faced with an issue that is important to the West, this Government brings in closure. The National Energy Program was devastating to our area. What did we get? Closure. This Government attempted to push through the Constitution before the West was heard. We had closure. We now have Canagrex, and the same big stick is hanging over our heads. We cannot debate the issue to the fullest extent, as it ought to be debated. Now, after a few hours of debate on an issue of the utmost importance to producers in western Canada, the Minister rises to close off debate. The Crow rate has been a very valuable tool which has allowed western Canadians to get their grain to the world export markets. Of course, anomalies have arisen. The livestock sector has constantly mentioned that, but we are talking about something called freedom. Why would the Minister change his approach after we in the West have spent years wondering whether we ought to trust the railroads, and this has been said many, many times? He changed due to pressure. It was becoming accepted that the payments should go to the producers, but because of political pressure, he has now said that they will all be paid to the railroads.
I could not believe it when yesterday in Jasper, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told the people who met with him on this most important issue, "We are paying this payment to the railroads because you cattle producers and other commodity producers do not have enough political clout out here, but those in Quebec and parts of Ontario deliver the Liberal votes, and that is why we are moving to pay the subsidy to the railroads."
If the subsidy is paid directly to the railroad and if the price of moving grain to western farmers is allowed to increase in a way that is anticipated at this time in the Bill, the ability of the farmers in the northern parts of those Provinces to produce barley, oats and maybe wheat will be virtually wiped out. The reason for that is that at present costs of production, it is no longer viable to produce those grains. If the cost of transportation is increased as anticipated in the Bill, even at this rate it will be impossible to produce that kind of grain. That will hurt the livestock industry in the province as well.
May 16, 1983

Let me put a few figures onto the record that will indicate some of the problems livestock producers are having with the Bill. If this Bill passes, the cost of a hog producer's feed grain next year will be $6.78. That is a cost of about $2.31 per hog produced. That will mean a loss in Alberta alone of $3.5 million. If the subsidy is paid to the railroad and not to the farmer, the cost to a hog farmer in my constituency to produce that hog will increase by $6.37. That will mean a loss to Alberta hog farmers of $9.5 million. Carrying those projections through to 1991 when farmers will be paying most of that inflationary Crow benefit, the increased cost of feed will be $19.58, which is about $6.50 a hog, or a $9.9 million loss. Because of the difference between paying that subsidy to the railroads and paying it to the farmer, the increased cost will be $11 per hog, or a loss of $16.5 million. If the changes in cost are added up only on the difference between paying the railroads versus the farmers, it will be a loss to Alberta hog farmers of $142 million over ten years, something that no hog farmer in the Province can handle.
We must at this time come to grips with the inevitability of a decrease in the livestock industry in western Canada. The slaughter plants in western Canada are old and outdated. New slaughter plants are being built here in eastern Canada. There is at this time a self-sufficiency and a movement to export feed grain in Ontario. A competitive farmer in Ontario who grows corn is capable of producing 100 to 110 bushels per acre. In the barley producing area of Alberta, the average yield per acre is between 35 and 55 bushels of grain. It is already half as expensive for the farmer in eastern Canada to feed an animal on corn, because the protein equivalent is almost the same, as it is for the farmer in my Province where we are unable to grow corn to feed an animal on barley. If on top of that is added the extra cost of moving the grain, a cost which will not get back to the livestock producer, and if this will produce the losses that I have put on the record-and I can put the same losses on the record for the cattle industry-the amount of hog livestock produced in western Canada will be decreased by half a million hogs by 1990 instead of being increased due to an increase in population.
Eastern Canadian hog farmers are already capable of moving into a natural market in Japan and in the Far East because it is cheaper for them to put those hogs on ships in the Great Lakes and send them through the Panama Canal than it is for western farmers to put those same hogs on a train and ship them to Vancouver where they will be put on a ship that will go to that Japanese market. Some of the feedlot operators in my constituency are now buying feedlots in Ontario to prepare themselves for this inevitable difference in cost, because if this problem is not dealt with-and of course, the one way to deal with it would have been in Crow legislation- many of the aspirations of livestock farmers in western Canada will come to naught.
I believe that this Party has put forward an excellent suggestion, Mr. Speaker. It is a suggestion that I call freedom of choice. Let us have some freedom. If the Government is so sure that it is better to pay the railroads, the Government should allow those farmers in western Canada who want to pay
Western Grain Transportation Act
the railroad to do so. Let those farmers who want to take that payment to their own farm have the choice to do so. I think that the Government would find that most of the farmers would choose to have that payment made directly to them so that they could keep an eye on the railroads, and if the railroads did not provide adequate cars and an efficient way to move grain to the coast, then, perhaps the trucking industry or the livestock industry could provide that service. That is the kind of freedom that I think should be provided.
The kinds of comments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) about the political clout of eastern Canada versus western Canada cannot continued to be made. That would create diversity and disharmony, and a number of years ago when the separatist element in western Canada rose so quickly, we saw what diversity and disharmony can do. The Crow rate is as important or even more important than the issues that brought western Canadians to their feet at that time.
I believe that the Minister ought to allow the committee of this House the opportunity to put forward these proposals to the farmers of the nation so that the farmers can have their say. Leaders of farm groups have come to some consensus, and often when they give information to the Minister, he will hear only one story. But Members of Parliament who are in their constituencies and who talk to farmers day by day get to know the real facts of how it is hurting their operations. If Members of Parliament are not allowed the freedom of speech, we will not hear the whole story. That is why closure of this Bill is so devastating. My ten minutes have passed very quickly, Mr. Speaker.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise probably in more anger than I have ever risen in the House before. In fact, I would like to take this Parliament apart board by board and use them on every Liberal. To use what is like the Magna Carta to western Canada for the crass political advantage of another region is to defy the nature of this country, the history upon which it is built and the very reason for the existence of the crow rate in western Canada.
There was no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Crow rate needed to be changed. Through the 1950s, but particularly the 1960s, the western transportation system began to deteriorate at a rate that, moving through the decade of the 1970s and into the 1980s now, meant that something had to be done to improve railway transportation. That is a given fact. That is not debatable.
It is also a given fact that the inflationary rate on the Crow advantage was such that the advantage today is greater than it was when the Crow was initiated. That is not debatable. But what is debatable is to take, for Liberal political reasons, an advantage from the West and give it to another part of the country.
Let me talk for a moment about why there was a need for the Crow rate on the Prairies to begin with. First, transportation in the country is based on the competitive theory. That is

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
good theory and it works well. We who believe in conservatism believe in competition, but competition in transportation does not exist on the Prairies. It works well where there are ocean ports, Great Lakes water systems or the St. Lawrence Seaway, but in land-locked regions of the continent there is no competition. That is why iron and steel products can be moved from Toronto to Vancouver and back to Calgary cheaper than they can be moved from Toronto to Calgary. That is why we need to have some mechanisms like the Crow rate in place for the movement of our products.
What is the crass Liberal response to such a system? It is for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to say in Jasper that because western people did not vote Liberal, the advantage of the Crow rate, which has been a historic fact for 85 years, will go to the backbench Liberal caucus. And today we have had notice of closure.
All this defies our history, Mr. Speaker. It rips apart our past in a way that hurts me deeply, coming from this Minister who was co-author of the Pepin-Robarts report. That report deals with national unity and contains such comments as the following:
The effective and harmonious operation of any federal system depends very much upon the degree to which the central institutions are considered in their operation to be fully representative of the major groups within the federation.
I could quote paragraph after paragraph of that Pepin-Robatrs report to illustrate the importance of national unity and the importance of understanding the variation in the fabric of this country. Yet the Minister who co-authored the report is engaged in disunifying our nation and has raised the anger of western Canada against central Canadian institutions. What an unfortunate fact that is, Mr. Speaker. We need change but that change must be fair, predictable and compatible with our history.
For political reasons the Minister has now decided to pay 100 per cent to the railway. During the Easter break I called seven meetings in my constituency to advocate the acceptance by people of some change and to point out that some change could be for the better, not necessarily for the worst. Now I take the position that no change is better than any change at all if this is the position the Minister intends to take.
If all the moneys are to go to the railways and if there is a target of performance for the railways to move grain to portside, then the instinct of railway companies will be to move that grain which is closest and on through rail lines where unit trains can be developed. This could be the death knell for every branch line in western Canada. Hundreds of communites could go down the pipe. Paying the money to the railways will means there is no incentive for the railway companies to chase a profit. They will take the easiest grain, move it to portside and the farmer be damned. Yet the Minister believes that program will be to the advantage of western Canada.
What we have is not an economic response, but rather a crass political reflex. The Liberal instinct is for survival and not for national development. This is a disappointment.
Because of the Minister's role with the Pepin-Robarts Commission I would have thought he would have understood the impact on the country.
It was a mistake to believe that the Prairies are homogeneous. That is another symbol of central Canadian thinking. They talk about the Prairies as they talk about a lump. Why is it that people in Manitoba who are growing lentils are compared with the wheat grower of Saskatchewan or the barley grower of Alberta? What we need to understand is the diversity and the mix of our economy and that we can develop measures to enrich the economy of all parts of the country.
I came to Parliament wanting very much for the country to get to the point where we would never again talk about English and French or about East and West. Every time those notions are put forward it hurts. This is Canada and we should be able to believe in Canada; we should be able to have policies that are good for all parts of Canada, without this divisiveness which is forced upon us by Liberals.
I think the Minister should take the following policies under consideration, Mr. Speaker. He should put forward three options. First, an option of 100 per cent payment to the railways; second, an option of paying 50 per cent to the railways and 50 per cent to farmers; and a third option based on the Gilson proposition of 19 per cent to the railways and 81 per cent to farmers. Then he should let the producers make the selection. It might be that Saskatchewan would chose to pay 100 per cent to the railways or Manitoba might choose the fifty-fifty proposition and Alberta the Gilson proposal. Would that not reflect the differences in our country? Would it not show that Alberta has almost as much economic impact from secondary processing as it does from grain, whereas the Saskatchewan impact comes almost totally from grain?
Surely the Minister could build enough flexibility into his program to put it forward perhaps on a five-year basis, with the choice of the producers to be frozen later. It is wrong to take a historic Magna Carta to western Canada and twist it to the advantage of central Canada.
The Gilson Report was a compromise. The Minister's announcement in Winnipeg on February 1 was a compromise to a compromise. His final legislation is a sell-out of western Canada that has angered many, has deeply hurt people and has ruined the economies of the Provinces, particularly Alberta. For the Government to believe that in the interests of survival of the Liberal Party it is justified in this measure, defies the reasons for the federation of this country in the first place. The final legislation is absolutely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
This summer when central Canadians visit the Calgary Stampede they will probably be in a building called "Big Four". It gets its name because at one time four ranches extended from the Waterton Lakes at the British Columbia border to the Saskatchewan border. Those four huge ranches ran thousands of head of cattle. When the Minister recognizes the history of that Province and recognizes that he has damaged the cattle industry in the far West in a significant way, he will see that he has not just destroyed that economy
May 16, 1983

but has destroyed a breed of people. Ele has destroyed the whole western Canadian ranching industry.
The Crow rate was a birthright of the western Provinces coming into Canada. It had been changed but not for the advantage of western Canada, and it is now being twisted to become an advantage for central Canada. That simply cannot be tolerated by any group of people in the country.
Limiting the Crow advantage to specific new crops is dangerous for the future. We may not be growing wheat in 1990. The genetics of crop production and the engineering of new kinds of crop varieties and species has great potential. There will be crops such as fava beans with 42 per cent protein. There is a potential for the development of new sources of human foodstuffs. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) should never designate what crop we should accept. We should be talking about crop production, period. All new crops come under some benefit of transport because it would be for the enrichment not just of the West but of Canada, and it is important that the Minister have that kind of flexibility.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. The Hon. Member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. There does not appear to be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue? There is not.


Arnold John Malone: No one said, no.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All right. If there is unanimous consent, the Hon. Member may continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, because of the generosity of the House, I will make only one more point. I do want to make one extra point while the Minister is here. In the present legislation the restriction of Crow advantage going to any new lands is a regressive proposal because the great potential for the development of new lands is in northern Canada, northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and northern British Columbia. Those areas are the places where we have the greatest capacity for the development of new farm lands in this country. Forty thousand children a day in the world under the age of five die of starvation. The greatest of all needs in the world is for food production. For the Minister to take the position that the Crow advantage will exist only on the present cultivated acres and not expand itself to more newly developed acres is simply wrong in terms of world conditions. The fact is that those northern areas which have the potential for opening up are the very areas, for reasons of high cost in the development of those lands, which need the Crow benefit in order to be viable. To deny that sets us back for decades, requiring an enormous increase in the price of cereal production in order for those food-producing lands to be opened.
I want to thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to put that extra point on the record. I would like to say also that this legislation really requires a one-hour speech from
Western Grain Transportation Act
every Hon. Member from prairie Canada. We should not be limited to only ten minutes and, most important, we should not be under closure. Our debate should certainly not be shut off without the benefit of an analysis which comes from representatives duly elected. There should not be this chasing around for a four-year period by the Minister of Transport trying to get across policies in some vague, unknown forum when the House of Commons is being denied the opportunity to come to grips with the legislation itself, because he is always at press conferences and out in Winnipeg making his announcements. If this legislation is in trouble, it is not in trouble because of the House of Commons. It is in trouble because of the process which the Department of Transport followed, which would put any major piece of legislation in trouble. If one chases all over the country for four years, making one's announcements everywhere but where one could see the facts, I guarantee there would be trouble on this, the Constitution, health changes or anything else. Naturally there is trouble. Trouble follows the very troublesome way of bringing it forth. That is what Parliament is here for, and no wonder the Minister is in the situation where he now thinks he has to do what he has to do simply because he did it wrong in the first place. In the final analysis, this legislation should be voted against by every Hon. Member from all parts of Canada, because the damage is not done just to the West but everywhere.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), my colleague, when he says that it is absolutely unnecessary and shameful that closure was introduced on the second reading of Bill C-155 this afternoon. If I recall correctly, Sir, the debate on this matter only started on Thursday last, and it went on during the short day on Friday. It is pretty obvious that the Government already had its plans laid down when it introduced closure on second reading this afternoon when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) rose in his seat and said that despite the fact that we only have some ten minutes in which to state our point of view, even that privilege is to be denied to the many Members from western Canada to whom this matter is of the gravest importance.
Had closure been brought in just three years ago, Mr. Speaker, there would have been public outrage at its use after only two days of debate on second reading on as important a matter as the Crow rate. What has happened is that the Liberal Government has used closure and time allocation so many times that the public has become inured to it. It has become a matter of routine procedure, and that is something which I certainly do not like to see. I believe that an issue of this importance deserves much more than two days' debate in this House.
You might ask, Mr. Speaker, why the Hon. Member for Western Arctic would want to speak on the Crow rate. 1 would like to believe that I may be able to offer something. I can look at this from above, so to speak, from a superior point of view, geographically if not intellectually. There would seem to me,

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
after listening to this rather limited debate so far, to be two points of view. The first one is that we should not do anything with the Crow rate, but leave it the same way it has been since 1897. There are, obviously, good reasons for this. It is to the advantage of the prairie grain growers, or appears to be to their advantage, and it is of advantage to livestock feeders in the East. Some of the people to whom it is not of particular advantage are the shippers of other goods on the railways.
The other side of the argument is that the market should seek its own level, that we should go to a system of market rates. This is held to be in the long-term interest of everyone involved, including the grain farmers, in that if that were to happen, there would be incentives on the part of the railways to upgrade the system-this is said to be the case-and that the whole transportation system might be upgraded and brought into line with modern requirements. I do not really want to get into that debate because it is not for me to say. I would have liked to have heard the other evidence which was to have been presented by my colleagues from the prairie areas, but which they have been prevented from putting forward by the announcement made today by the Minister of Agriculture. However, what I do want to say is that when I look at these 39 pages of gobbledygook, Bill C-155, it does not seem to me to come down on the side of either of those arguments, and it does not even seem to be a compromise. It just does not seem to do anything, Mr. Speaker. We end up with the worst of both worlds in this Bill. It is neither fish nor fowl.


Arnold John Malone: It's foul.


Dave Nickerson: My friend, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) says it is fowl. Perhaps he is right in that. I suspect he might be if he spelled that word in a different way. We still end up with the statutory rate, expect that the only difference is that no knows what the rate is now. Even I understood what half a cent a tonne mile meant. But there is no way I can figure out the statutory rate in this Bill. The section which deals with it has been read into the record on more than one occasion and I defy anyone to tell me what that rate is in cents per tonne miles. It is impossible to tell. It is all left up to arbitrary discretion of some Government appointee at some future point in time.
When you know the Liberal Government, as we know it on this side of the House, it is not difficult to understand why it came up with something like Bill C-155. What I would like to do in the few minutes I have is to isolate those principles, those obscure Liberal principles, which make this Bill as bad as it is, a "lunatic Bill" as was stated by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). The first principle that I see in this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is, "When in doubt, set up a committee". We see this with the so-called Senior Grain Transportation Committee which is to be established under this Bill if it ever becomes law. If the committee is set up, it will have two functions. First, it would allow the Government of the day, in this case a Liberal Government, to appoint its political friends to high office, to remunerative office, to positions of emolument. Second, by establishing yet another
committee, and I do not know how many we have under all the Acts of Parliament, the Minister and the Government could be isolated from any criticism. If criticism is made at some point in time, it can be said, "Oh, take that problem to the committee and argue it out there. It is no concern of ours". We have seen this principle at work with the establishment of Crown corporations such as the Post Office. If one asks the Minister responsible for Canada Post any kind of a question, he says, "Oh, I will refer that to the Crown corporation". The Government is trying to avoid responsibility in Bill C-155.
The second principle embodied in the Bill, as far as I can determine, is the principle of making something so complicated that no one can understand it. I rather suspect that the Bill was drafted by the same people who drafted the Income Tax Act. I have read it through three times as fully as I possibly could and I do not know what it says. When something is made as difficult to understand as this, it is another way of avoiding criticm. When one says, "I do not agree with such and such a point in the Bill", the Minister can turn around and ask someone in his Department to say, "That is not really the point at all. I will just try to elucidate it a little for you". If one reviews a different section or subsection, one finds that that is not quite right. This is the type of response the Government has to valid cricitisms of its proposals with respect to the Crow rate. It comes up with something which is so complicated that I am sure not one farmer in western Canada can really understand.
The third principle involved in the Bill is to create yet another slush fund. The Liberals just love this idea of shovelling taxpayers' money from one group to another, having the discretion as to how the taxpayers' money should be used. In this Bill we see it with a kitty of $600 million of taxpayers' money in the Crow benefit.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are against it?


Dave Nickerson: The Government can give this to whom it likes. In the first instance, it would prefer to give it to the railway company. However, they like having control of the taxpayers' money. This is the way it likes to operate. It likes to have lots of money around which it can hand out at its political pleasure for its political reasons.
The next principle embodied is the arbitrary and discretionary power which is to be given to Ministers, in this case the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), and to appointees of Ministers. Instead of having a law which is simple and straightforward and which everyone could understand, in which the terms and conditions are laid out, if a subvention is to be given, for instance, what the Government likes to do is to leave it to someone's discretion, the Minister's discretion. He can decide who will receive this benefit or not. He can decide what appointments are to be made, what regulations are to come through, what rules are to be made, or he can delegate that to one of his political friends, one of his appointees.
May 16, 1983

The third principle is to involve many bureaucrats in the administration. The last principle I want to address is probably the worst of all, that is, the sell-out. In the final analysis, after one thinks a compromise has been reached, a fifty-fifty agreement, at the last minute it is thrown out the window and it is the Quebec Liberal caucus which really controls the shots. That is what we see here today.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that as a prairie Member who was raised on a small central Saskatchewan grain farm, I know that the Bill before the House today will be one of the most serious blows to the small grain farmer in my Province that he has seen since the 1930s and the Great Depression. I also know from letters that I am receiving as the Member of Parliament for Yorkton-Melville, that my constituents, from the National Farmers Union on one side, which is a more progressive organization, to the Chamber of Commerce on the other side, which is a very conservative organization, are all standing united in opposition to the Bill before the House today. It is on their behalf that I want to say a few words and plead with fellow Hon. Members to listen to my words with respect to the dire consequences to the Prairies and, indeed, to all of Canada if the Bill is passed.


Blaine Allen Thacker: They won't listen. They won't even speak.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They will not even listen, as one of the Hon. Members from Alberta said. I think that is the important part of this whole debate. The Liberal Party has two Hon. Members from western Canada, the city of Winnipeg. There are approximately 74 Members of the Opposition from western Canada, yet the Government is not listening to the representatives of the people. It is imposing on the people of western Canada something which the people out West do not want and which is surely a denial of fundamental democracy, a denial of what this parliamentary system is all about.
I want to challenge the Minister across the way to do one thing, if nothing else, that is, to organize a national referendum amongst permanent bookholders to see whether they agree that they should keep the Crow rate or whether they should get rid of the Crow, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is suggesting in this legislation. Surely to goodness, that is democracy. If they were to agree with the Minister, that would be fine and well and we would have the changes which he introduced. However, I am sure that they would not, just because the Bill is one which would impose an increase on the price of moving grain for the farmer of some 500 per cent between now and the year 1991. With the rise in the price of grain by some 500 per cent between now and 1991, many small and marginal farmers will be forced off the land. They will not be able to produce grain and feed the people of Canada and the world.
Another thing to note, which it seems to me a number of Hon. Members who are not from the Prairies do not realize, is that the price of grain has fallen. At a time when world grain prices have fallen, the Minister is bringing in a Bill which increases the cost to every farmer in prairie Canada. I think it shows, once again, why the Liberal Party is extinct in western
Western Grain Transportation Act
Canada. It does not have any fundamental understanding of the important issues affecting western Canadians.
It is also important to realize that the issue is not important just to the prairie farmers but also to Canada as a whole. My seatmate comes from Brantford. I am sure that he could tell the House that when the farmers' income drops in western Canada, then people stop buying tractors, combines and other kinds of machinery produced in a city like Brantford. The end result is that 25 per cent or 30 per cent of the people in that kind of city are unemployed. For such a reason, this Bill is very important. It is very important that we somehow persuade the Minister and the Government across the way to change their minds and to keep the Crow rate which is such an important part, for us on the Prairies, of the bargain of Canada, the bargain of Confederation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Good Lord! Eighteen ninety-seven, Confederation!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: All of the countries with which we are competitive, the United States, Argentina, Australia and countries in Europe, provide massive subsidies for their grain farmers. If the Government takes away the Crow and makes shipment of our grains some 500 per cent more expensive in the next eight or nine years, then our farmers here will be at a tremendous disadvantage in a competitive sense with fellow farmers around the world. That will be goodbye to many grain markets for Canadians and to a lot of foreign currency that would benefit the nation as a whole, not just the Prairies and the prairie farmer.
The Americans have set up massive subsidy programs for their wheat. They recently introduced a blended credit program of $1.5 billion over the next three years to subsidize the interest rates of grain when it is shipped to the Third World. The Europeans give perhaps even more massive subsidies while the Argentinians and the Australians give subsidies as well.
Another consideration is the fact that Canadian farmers are an average of 600 to 800 miles farther away from port than other competitors in countries around the world, including the United States. American farmers have the advantage of the Mississippi and the Missouri River systems. This puts them much closer to a port for the transportation of their grain. Since we do not have that advantage in western Canada, there is an additional cost for our grain which makes it necessary to keep the Crow rate.
For those reasons I think the Government opposite must be made to reconsider the importance of the Bill before us. There are a number of other issues concerning the Crow rate which one can mention. For example, there is the issue of variable rates. This present legislation will allow for variable rates and will provide the possibility, and perhaps the likelihood, of the railway companies being able to charge what they wish for shipping grain along various lines across the Prairies.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Have you read the Bill?

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If they so choose, they will be able to charge higher rates along some of the branch lines, on some lines which do not ship as much grain or in those smaller towns which have smaller farms. This will mean that the railway will dictate social policy and could decide which towns or elevators will be closed. They could decide which farmers will be forced off the land as a result of charging a higher rate per bushel or tonne on line A or line B.
This could ultimately promote the greater centralization of agriculture on the Prairies. As Hon. Members are aware, there is presently a very decentralized economic system on the Prairies in which there is an elevator in every town and village along with Wheat Pools and other co-operative organizations. That could all end with the passage of legislation such as this.
I know that some Members across the way like to visualize huge inland terminals and the trucking of grain within a much more centralized economy in the Prairies. That is very alien and goes against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of people in prairie Canada.
The other point I wish to make is that this Bill will continue over time to give billions of dollars to the railways in this country. Historically, the CPR has been the greatest recipient of public welfare of any institution in Canada. It is the biggest welfare bum this country has ever seen.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Do not tell me there is still a Conservative from the West who defends the CPR.
When one looks at the statistics, one finds that when the figures are adjusted in terms of 1982 dollars, the value of public aid to the CPR totals some $13.5 billion. In return for that tremendous give-away to the CPR Canadian taxpayers have not received a single stock in equity or percentage. They have simply been given this tremendous gift. They were handed money to buy their hopper cars, to buy rail lines or improve their services. In the late 1880s much rail equipment was given to the CPR along with mineral rights and vast amounts of land. This was given to them free of charge in return for providing a service to the farmers. The farmers will now be asked to pay the full service for the shipment of their grain, but nowhere in the Bill-


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not true.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister can reply after my speech, if he wishes. There was a bargain struck many years ago and the CPR received its land, mineral rights and equipment in return for hauling the grain for the farmers. This Bill will end the Crow rate for the farmers but it will not recover for the people of Canada all the equipment, land and mineral rights that were given to the CPR. In 1917, at the time of the royal commission, that was worth some $279 million. When it is adjusted to 1982 dollars, it is worth $8.3 billion. Under this Bill, the people of Canada will not recoup that $8.3 billion from the CPR.
I see that you are rising, Mr. Speaker. I wish I had much more time because ten minutes is insufficient to put forward the case for the people of the Prairies. I think it is an utter disgrace because this debate is on the most important issue facing the Prairies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but he has had 11 minutes.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-155, the Western Grain Transportation Act. It is an Act which, if passed, will detrimentally change the whole face of grain transportation in Canada. Although this Bill will perhaps not have a marked effect in my riding of Grey-Simcoe in Ontario, it does represent an inequity that cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet and out of sight and mind. Further, to bring closure on this Bill is another monstrous inequity that will not go unnoticed by Canadians.
Since the announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) regarding this Bill, the country has moved further away from a consensus on changing the Crow rate. Whatever general feelings or consensus may have existed before in the West has now virtually disappeared.
When the Minister of Transport first announced the one-man Gilson task force, which was empowered to consult with farm groups and the railways regarding the Crow rate, his primary incentive to encourage farmers to participate in this venture was the promise that there would be rail performance guarantees to producers in exchange for increasing the freight rate to move grain. However, Bill C-155 proves to be a sham. There is no railway performance guarantees for the first three years. Furthermore, any sanctions on the railways will only be tallied, not levied. In other words, as far as I can see, the agreement will not have the necessary force to make such action mandatory.
In addition, there is no provision in the Act that Parliament will approve the regulations related to railway performance guarantees. In other words, the railways will get a free ride for three years. The bias of the Government is obviously in favour of the railways. Again, as a result of this bias, whatever general feelings or consensus existed in the West has disappeared.
The modification to the Bill to make all payments to the railways instead of providing for a fifty-fifty split in payments to the railways and producers has left nothing for the western processing industry. In fact, the disparity that exists between raw and finished products has greatly increased. This has left the livestock producers all across the West bitter, upset and very angry. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), has already outlined with great clarity the devastating negative effects which this Bill will have on western hog and cattle producers. The truth is that the disparity that exists between raw and finished products will increase instead of decrease.
May 16, 1983

As a result of ignoring the western Canadian processing industry, the Minister has reduced the annual western livestock industry almost to the point of no return. Is it any wonder that the fortunes of this Government are at an all time low in western Canada? Antagonizing western Canadians, antagonizing and working at cross purposes with their economy and hindering instead of assisting them are sure ways to alienation, a process in which the Government has proved to be master over the years.
The payment that the Government proposes to the railway companies under this Bill will not benefit those people who were initially supposed to be the beneficiaries. Clause 55(2) of the Bill states that the Transport Minister can withhold any amount of money to the railways if, in the opinion of the Minister, the railways are not adequately investing in rail plant and equipment for moving grain and if the railways are not adequately maintaining the grain dependent branch lines. However, Mr. Speaker, if the railways claim that the money they receive from the Government and producers is still inadequate to justify such expenditures, they can simply let the rail system deteriorate and wait for the Government to come back again with ad hoc measures. This is in no way an adequate guarantee to producers that they are getting their money's worth for paying the increased freight rates. In other words, the railways can revert to their old ways at the expense of producers. It is, therefore, mandatory that a stronger commitment and guarantee by the Government and the railways is absolutely essential and necessary. Monitoring the performance of the railways is not enough.
If the past is any criterion, that is, the Government's plan to monitor railway performance on behalf of grain producers, the success of such a plan is in deep trouble.
In the Auditor General's annual Report of 1982, he criticized the Department of Transport in its financial and engineering rehabilitation program for the railways. The rehabilitation program, begun in 1977, called for the rehabilitation of 5,675 miles of rail by 1992 at a cost of $1.6 billion. As well, Mr. Speaker, between 1971 and 1981 the Government entered into four agreements worth $318 million to the railways, and the Auditor General found deficiencies including: deficiencies in construction costs charged by the railways; deficiencies in the assessment and disclosure of financial costs; and deficiencies in the development of construction standards and specifications.
There is no guarantee in this Bill that such gross neglect and such deficiencies will not occur again. Further, there is no guarantee against more hidden costs for the farmers in later years. There are many, many inequities in this Bill. Further, under this Bill grain farmers will be paying the full freight rate whenever grain volume exceeds $31.1 million tonnes. This will present a disincentive for farmers to grow more grain and increase production.
Every major farm group and organization has protested and voiced strong objection to this, but as usual with this Government, these objections and protests have fallen on deaf ears.
Western Grain Transportation Act
On February 1, 1982, the Transport Minister said:
The progressive reduction of distortions in the western agricultural economy should yield significant benefits in terms of increasing processing, livestock production and crop diversification.
As far as this Bill is concerned, nothing could be further from the truth, and I wish the Minister would re-examine the statement and correct it. Of course, these words could have been written by somebody else for the Minister to use, the Minister being a layman in this matter with little or no agriculture experience. This, I might add, must apply to many of his staff who may be only theoretically versed in agriculture but do not have this knowledge backed up with practice and experience, a condition that applies to many other Government Departments as well, which is tragic, to say the least. This means that there is not enough common sense-it used to be called horse sense-in Governments today. Instead, we are overwhelmed with theorists, to the detriment and mismanagement of our country by all Governments across it. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, is a classic example of this problem and an examle of a Bill in which an infusion of common sense is urgently needed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that I caught you off guard. I did speak on the original motion, and I now rise to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. Benjamin). I can only amplify that support because of the fact that a Minister of the Crown stood in his place today and moved what is tantamount to closure, closure on an issue that is fundamental and very important. I think in some instances the case has perhaps been overstated in terms of its importance as far as western Canada is concerned, but this is a very important and major issue to all of Canada from an economic and an agricultural point of view.
What is troubling in the parliamentary sense and in looking at the only democratic institution that we have left is that this is probably the twenty-fifth time-somewhere between 20 and 25 times-that closure has been moved in this session of Parliament. One has to ask the question, where are we going? Are we not meant in this place to debate important and fundamental issues such as the statutory freight rate? If we cannot debate an issue as fundamental and as important as the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rate in this House for more than two or three days, then this institution is really being diluted and watered down into non-existence. One can only express one's dismay at the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). He is a Minister who generated many accolades and generated some goodwill for his frankness and forthright approach in western Canada. But whatever goodwill the Minister generated over the past year or so with his actions here today has been flushed down the drain. There is no question about that. As a result, one can only voice one's anger and outrage by what is taking place here today.

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
I thought we had a good debate. We debated this issue on Thursday and Friday. There were excellent speeches made. It was not a debate that was tarnished with innuendo and bitterness. It was a frank, forthright and intelligent debate. I thought the debate was going very well. I thought we were expanding and exploring some alternatives to the piece of legislation that was brought forth. However, that has all gone down the drain, and with it some of the goodwill the Minister of Transport may have generated throughout the country in his attempt to deal with the Crow rate issue.
As I said in my speech on Thursday, we are dealing here with a piece of legislation that is a linguistic labyrinth. It is very complicated. I think other Members have referred to the rhetoric which will now define what the future statutory freight rate will be. Nobody really understands it. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), asked the President of CN Rail in committee the other day whether he could describe what the current statutory freight rate would be under Clause 36 or Clause 37 of this Bill. The President said he could not. He does not understand it. If someone such as the President of the CNR does not understand it, how is a farmer to understand it?
This Bill is divisive. There is no question about that. There is division within the West and there is division within the country. The Bill is incomplete. The Minister said he was going to bring forth a safety net and tie the new statutory freight rate to the farmer's ability to pay. We have had no elaboration on that whatever. The Minister has failed to elaborate on that in second reading. Because he has failed, the Minister has said simply, "We will take it to committee." We know the Minister's bottom line is to get the Bill through before the end of June. We cannot debate a pig in a poke, Mr. Speaker. He says he will add other specialty crops. Where are they and what are they? There are other things which the Minister is supposed to incorporate in this Bill. The fact is we do not really know what the Minister's bottom line is, and that adds further to the anxiety, the apprehension, the suspicion and to the mistrust.
There has been, as Members have indicated, some recognition on the part of farmers that perhaps they should pay more toward the movement of their grain. This kind of action will further fan the flames of mistrust and suspicion. We have a Government that has no Members elected to the House of Commons west of Winnipeg, that is tearing down a historical and statutory right and ramming it through the House of Commons. The Government will ram it through committee and through report stage. We know that because that appears to be its bottom line. It will ram through a measure which will hurt individual producers, agriculture and the Canadian economy. Most of all, it is an affront to this institution, to Members of Parliament and to parliamentary democracy. It should not be tolerated on any issue, but most of all it should not be tolerated on an issue as fundamentally important as this one.
I am not sure whether the Minister realizes that with his move to invoke closure he is fanning the flames of division and
bitterness in the country. I am sorry to say that because he is a man who has spent, as I said last Thursday, a good deal of his time working for the federation of Canada. He has been a Member of Parliament, he served on the Task Force on National Unity and is generally perceived to be a person who wants to see the country work and function together in harmony. I say in all sincerity that his action today is generating bitterness, division and disunity. Furthermore, the actions of his colleague today in moving the time allocation motion constitute blatant contempt for the parliamentary process.
One has to look at it in this context. This issue has been around for quite some time, but it has not been debated in the House for any length of time. It all started back on February 8, 1982, when the Minister of Transport made a statement in Winnipeg about his approach to dealing with the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. That was when he set up the Gilson process, and on June 28, 1982, the Gilson Report was released. Once again the Minister made a statement. Where? On both occasions he made them in the City of Winnipeg, not in the House of Commons. Not one of his colleagues in the House of Commons made a statement here so that Hon. Members could have responded, asked questions or sought clarification. No, the statements were made outside the House. He circumvented the parliamentary process. Then again on August 4 he made another statement outside the House of Commons, another very important statement in the entire process. On February 1, 1983, the Minister made an announcement of his legislative intentions. Where was this announcement made? It was not in Ottawa, not in the House of Commons, but again in Winnipeg, again circumventing the parliamentary process. Finally, on May 5, 1982, he announced his so-called revisions to his originally intended piece of legislation. He made that announcement at the national parliamentary press theatre. He had the audacity to walk across the street and to refuse to make that statement in the House of Commons.
Today, after two full days of debate, closure is introduced. The Bill was introduced for debate last Thursday. It was debated on Friday and again today. These are ten-minute speeches. Hon. Members of Parliament from western Canada just get warmed up in ten minutes. As one Member pointed out, there is a good hour's speech in every western Member because it is a very fundamental, emotional and political issue. There is no question about that. We are fearful that the mould is cast. It is quite clear what the Government wants to do. It will ram it through the House of Commons and through committee because it wants it passed by June 30 before Parliament recesses. This Bill will be in for a rough time, I can guarantee that.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, this is but another example of the expression of Government policy which has not considered Canada as a nation. The Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), more recently the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and other prairie Members have explained very clearly their perception
May 16, 1983

of the impact of this legislation upon both western grain producers and the livestock feeding industry, but nowhere in any policy statement related to this legislation or in any other announcement of intended policy has there been any measurement of the possible impact upon any part of Canada east of the Great Lakes.
As a Canadian, I demand a measurement of the impact. As a maritimer, I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to respond to the questions contained in my remarks of May 5 as reported in Hansard at page 25210. They read:
-I want to know if there is any intention on the part of this Government to recognize that increment in cost which will be passed on by the change in the Crow rate as it relates to eastern Canadian poultry, hog and beef operations. We are entitled to that answer in a definitive cost study basis-
Has the Minister responded in any way to my request for a cost study analysis? As a Canadian, I demand a measurement of that. The Government, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) through all Ministers of the Cabinet, has totally failed to recognize that a policy of Government was enunciated during World War II which was intended to make meat production competitive throughout Canada. The policy recognized that the Atlantic Provinces were not and probably never would be self-sustaining in the field of meat and poultry. The very nature of the climate and the farming enterprise in that area did not lend itself to that level of production.
The policy was to create competitive opportunity in the meat industry of Canada for all farmers then engaged in the business. A beef producer in New Brunswick could anticipate both comparable cost and return with a farmer in the same business but living in the prairie region. In order for this to become fact, it was necessary that a feed grain subsidy program be put in place.
The Government in its lack of wisdom has chosen to reduce the effective rate of this subsidy over the years. As a consequence, it has been documented that there is now a very distinct competitive advantage extended to prairie meat producers when shipping to the Atlantic market.
The Minister may consider that the maritime area is insignificant relative to other areas of Canada. No matter how small their number, they deserve to be considered as part of any national policy, and this has not happened. It has been estimated that the maritime pork producer may be at a $4.40 per hundredweight disadvantage in pork when marketed in Atlantic Canada, versus that produced in the prairies and marketed in Atlantic Canada. The disadvantage is even larger in respect to beef produced in western Canada but marketed in the Maritimes.
The original statement of policy of the Minister of Transport was analysed by the Maritime Farmers Council. In their opinion they would find themselves in an even greater position of disadvantage than at present. It was for that reason that I asked for a cost analysis of the impact upon Atlantic livestock producers, as I mentioned earlier.
The Maritime Farmers Council made an in-depth study of the progressive loss of competitive opportunity from 1967 until 1982. The figures are startling. I hope the Government and the Minister of Transport will listen carefully. In 1967, in order to maintain a competitive position on a national basis for the
Western Grain Transportation Act
production of meat and poultry, the maritime farmer paid 11 per cent of the total cost of grain transportation when shipped to Nova Scotia. This may seem like an inordinate amount of subsidy to be extended to any industry, but that is Government policy and that industry was in place because of historic Government policy. In 1982, the maritime farmer was paying 75 per cent of the total cost of transportation, but we must bear in mind that this is a much higher cost than that of 1967. The disadvantage was further aggravated by the fact that the western farmer was paying 59 per cent of his cost of transportation in 1976 and only 18.7 per cent in 1981.
These figures were not just pulled out of a hat. They were based upon information obtained from the Gilson Report, Economic Council of Canada figures, the Snavely Report and gross national expenditures implicit price index. It must be recognized by the Government of Canada that this is a nation of five regions, that any policy which may be adopted for any reason may impact favourably or unfavourably upon another region of Canada. We must know whither we go when we bring in policies such as the one that is presently before us.
The continuing changes in Government policy have already virtually brought the feeding industry in the maritime Provinces to its knees. This is not the only example of failure to recognize all of Canada as policy evolves at the federal level.
I complained, and I will continue to complain, that while Chrysler, Massey-Ferguson, Bombardier and Maislin, all in Ontario and Quebec, are worthy of assistance in times of financial distress, there is still no analysis of the impact upon the eastern farm of this change in policy.
It has also been clearly pointed out by the behaviour of Treasury Board, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Government at large, that agriculture is no longer an important subject matter as far as the apple grower or the potato producer of eastern Canada is concerned. The price stabilization policy has never been adjusted by effective indexing of production costs, and the payment is not announced until after the time for planting.
These are very retrograde and very thoughtless moves in Government policy. Perhaps one could be somewhat less parochial if one were to mention the shipbuilding industry. There has never been a policy which would activate the real capability of the shipyards of Canada under this Government. The lack of this policy has produced unemployment from coast to coast in Canada to the point that the shipyards are no longer paying income tax on profit. The employment has dropped as much as 90 per cent in some shipyards so the workers there are no longer paying income tax, they are drawing Unemployment Insurance or welfare at the expense of the Province.
It is a total lack of comprehension of Canada as a whole that is in evidence as one policy succeeds another, regardless of the economic sphere affected by the policy.

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
This lack of comprehension of Canada as a nation has also been emulated by the failure of the Government to bring forward an effective plant breeders rights Act or, in place of that, to stimulate a grain research policy which would relieve the federal Government of the requirement for subsidy to produce a profitable cash crop for eastern farmers.
Recently some Members of the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom visited Canada. It was my pleasure to be a guest of the Minister of Agriculture as he entertained Canada's guests. It was my pleasure to sit beside a Member of the U.K. House of Commons who advised me that in their research program they have been developing varieties of wheat which now produce four or five tons per acre. Also, the research structure has been asked to produce a variety which will yield six tons per acre. The research people have responded that this may be available for farmers sometime within the next five years.
Again, we have no national policy on agricultural research when the total needs of agriculture are examined. There are reports of very high yields in other varieties of grains which are presently being produced in Europe. The climate in many areas of Europe is somewhat comparable to that of Atlantic Canada. Perhaps the Minister and the Government as a whole would be relieved of hearing such remarks as I have made today if our farmers had access to higher yields of grain in the Maritimes, but these we do not nor cannot have under existing conditions.
It is therefore imperative on behalf of maritime speakers that I demand of this Minister that he should be a strong proponent of agricultural policy in respect of grain production and that while waiting for such a change to take place, it is imperative that the feed-freight assistance program be given more money to restore eastern Canada to a competitive position with other producers of this nation. I sincerely believe that I am making only a reasonable request.
Lastly, I wish to say once more, let us have a cost analysis of the impact of the Crow rate legislation upon the eastern Canadian feeder. Let us accompany this legislation with an appropriate Government policy, first, to reduce the discrepancy which presently exists in the competitive structure of meat production in Canada, and second, to make very sure that this legislation will not further aggravate a very unfavourable situation.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate, although the topic under discussion, doing away with the Crow rate, is anathema to most principled-thinking Canadians, even in central Canada Let alone western Canada. Quite frankly, I do not know why we are wasting the time of the House on such an iniquitous Bill. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) for his amendment to hoist the Bill for six months. It is too bad we cannot hoist Bills like this for six years or 60 years.
Most Members who spoke this afternoon represent western constituencies. I represent a constituency in southern Ontario. I am as vitally concerned about the long-term adverse effects of doing away with the statutory Crow rate as any Member
from western Canada. It will impact adversely on a constituency such as mine.
Before I get into the specifics as to how it will impact adversely on a constituency like Brant, I would like to ask a rhetorical question. Where have all the Liberals gone? If this is such a great Bill, why can the Minister responsible for bringing in the Bill not muster moral support around him? Where are all the Liberal speakers to stand up and support the Government? They have disappeared. I see one putting up his hand and leaving the Chamber. So much for his dedication. I would have thought that Liberal after Liberal would have been getting up on a Bill like this to defend the Government. I have to agree with many of them that it is probably indefensible but, at least in a political sense they could put forward some arguments that would help to create the impression that the Liberals are not entirely bent on self-destruction west of Ontario.
This Bill will not aid or assist the Liberal Party west of Ontario. Once again the Liberal Government is not paying any attention to the ordinary people in western Canada, particularly the grain growers and farmers. I am not talking about the agri-corporations, but the ordinary family farms. While the Liberals are bent on self-destruction in the West in a political sense, they are determined, through this legislation, to wipe out the family farm. That is what will eventually happen. The family farmer on the Canadian Prairies will not be able to compete in years to come with the added freight costs which he will have to bear.
Our chief competitors, the United States, most European nations, Australia, Brazil, Argentina and so on, are heavily subsidized by their Governments. They subsidize the grain producers directly. If this Bill goes through, and the Liberals are determined to force it through with closure, I can see a very bad situation developing on the Prairies in the future. The family farm will disappear. Indeed, for all practical purposes, we may eventually go out of grain producing in the West as far as individual farms are concerned. Large agricorporations may continue to develop and broaden and become more powerful in the West. Once again the ordinary family farmer is being kicked in the pants by an autocratic and arrogant Government that is determined to have its way over even basic common sense.
Second, what about the CPR, the great bastion of free enterprise that opened up the West and united this country from sea to sea? There is a lot of mythology about the CPR. I have great respect for the old Van Hornes and the gang that helped to build the CPR. I also have much respect for the Irish navies and the Chinese workers to whom no monuments are built anywhere in the country but who actually did the hard, sweaty labour that built the railroad across the country. Hundreds of these labourers died on the job because of exhaustion, because of lack of proper food and because of accidents. But we seem to praise the CPR as a great example of how free enterprise can build a united country. Well, I believe that very few Canadians fully appreciate the fact that 60 per cent of all
May 16, 1983

funding that went into building that great example and symbol of free enterprise came from the public, from tax dollars, from the taxpayers of Canada in one form or another with subsidies, land grants, tax concessions, you name it.


An Hon. Member:: Mineral rights.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We could add mineral rights to the list. As a matter of fact, talking in terms of today's dollar, owing to the inflation rate the original $300 million that the CPR got out of the public purse would amount to about $8.3 billion in federal Government handouts.
Several years ago, our Party listed certain corporate welfare bums in the country, and believe me, the CPR has been sucking at the public trough ever since it was established in the 1870s and 1880s. Now the Government is again knuckling under to a more sophisticated kind of blackmail; unless the taxpayers of Canada and particularly western Canadian farmers are prepared to pay money out of their pockets and into the coffers of the CPR, there will be no upgrading of railways in western Canada, there will not be the efficient and quick movement of grain that would enable farmers to compete and sell on world markets.
Once again, the Government has knuckled under to corporate pressure from the railway companies. First of all it has knuckled under to the company which it controls and owns outright, the CN, and then it has knuckled under to that great bastion of free enterprise, the CPR. That these great corporate giants can preach free enterprise on the one hand and on the other hand go obsequiously to Government and say, "Look, we need more taxpayers' money, bail us out, we do not want to use our own money, we do not want to float a bond issue, we do not want to float more common stock or common shares to trade on the open market," never ceases to amaze me. It is much easier to go begging, hat in hand, to the boys behind the scenes at the federal level and get the money directly from the taxpayers.
I alluded to the third point I wished to make at the beginning of my brief address. I make no apologies for the brevity of my speech. We are hammered and punched into making only ten minute speeches today thanks to one more closure from the other side. The point I referred to deals with my own constituency. In my constituency, Massey-Ferguson and White Farm Equipment are barely holding on by the skin of their teeth. White Farm Equipment is in terrible financial shape, and Massey-Ferguson is also in terrible financial shape but is managing to hold on. About 30 per cent of all combines and large tractors produced in Brantford at Massey-Ferguson and White Farm Equipment are exported to western Canada-


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


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau), on a point of order.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned that he had only ten minutes to make his speech, because closure was being applied. I would like to point out that it is because of our Standing Orders and not because of closure on second reading.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for correcting me. It was my fault and he is correct. But no doubt we will be coming to closure very shortly anyway.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that in my constituency, which has Massey-Ferguson and White Farm Equipment, we see how closely related the farm implement industry and farming community are. Farm incomes are down. They have been down drastically for the past three or four years. Net farm income is projected to be down again in 1983 by yet another 14 per cent. About 30 per cent of all large combines and big tractors manufactured by both of those companies in Brantford are shipped to the Canadian West. The other 70 per cent are shipped to the American West.
Now how much more of a burden must these companies and the workers they have laid off suffer directly as a result of federal Government policy? As an example, statistics from western producers say that the cost to the western grain grower will be five times the cost that it presently is under the Crow rate by 1990. By 1995, it will be eight and one half times the cost it is now, and by the year 2000, the cost to the Canadian grain producer in western Canada will increase by 12.5 times.
In Brantford there are 1,200 workers on long-term lay-off at White Farm Equipment, which, as I said earlier, is undergoing extreme financial difficulty at this time. There were another 1,500 employees laid off at Massey-Ferguson. All of the other companies in central Canada, western Canada, Winnipeg and so on that produce farm equipment are in very bad shape. Now the federal Government, by doing away with the Crow rate, will only add to the cost of producing grain to the western farmer. The farmer will have even more difficulty buying equipment in Canada and putting men back to work.
This legislation will not only drastically and adversely affect western grain producers, it will also have a very, very adverse financial and economic effect on the manufacturing sector in the farm implement industry.
I see that my time is now up, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for allowing me a few extra seconds.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House as a Member from the West but also as a Member from one of the cities in the West, the City of Calgary. Perhaps no city in Canada has been as abruptly and as badly hurt as a direct consequence of Government policy as has Calgary in the last year and a half. I come from a city that, a year and a half ago, had a vacancy rate of two-tenths of 1 per cent.

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Today the vacancy rate is the highest in the country, well over 12 per cent, directly as a consequence of federal Government activity, activity in that case related to the National Energy Program.
I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, and deal with the subject of the Crow rate with a sort of sinking feeling in my stomach a feeling that the Liberal Government opposite, because of its lack of understanding of the industries in the West, is about to intensify the economic hardship which it has already created in western Canada through the National Energy Program.
Moving from energy to agriculture, when a Government seeks to change things too abruptly and too quickly without sufficient thought, the Government runs the risk of unintended side-effects which can be devastating to people in western Canada and, at the second level, devastating to people in eastern Canada.
The previous speaker brought to the attention of the House the potential for job loss in the Province of Ontario, the Province of Quebec and other Provinces in Canada, which will result if the Government is making a mistake. That job loss can be seen clearly and explicitly in the farm implement business, the manufacturing of tractors, motors and things of that nature.
It is particularly difficult, Mr. Speaker, to stand in the House and speak to this Bill knowing that it has been proposed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), a Minister who at one time in his life was one of the chief commissioners of the Royal Commission on National Unity. Since the 1980 election, this particular Minister, who had taken one or two years out of his life to travel the country and work on a commission on national unity, has stood in the Chamber and supported a constitutional Bill which created a tremendous discord in the country, a Bill which gave birth to the separatist movement in western Canada, a Bill which intensified the feeling of separatism in the Province of Quebec. The two years that the Minister spent on that commission should have taught him a better lesson. We saw the same Minister stand in the House and support the National Energy Program. That was a tremendously divisive Bill which in my part of the world has created and sustained the birth and development of a separatist Party in western Canada. It is probably strongest in my region of Alberta. That movement is a direct consequence of two historic pieces of legislation brought to the House and supported by the Minister in the last three years, the Constitution and the National Energy Program.
I stand in the House today with the certain knowledge, as someone born, raised and educated in that part of the country, that the Government is proceeding to ram through another piece of legislation that will further intensify those feelings of alienation. There is much that is wrong with the Bill in a substantive sense, but the feelings evoked by it in my part of the country will be intensified by the substance of it.
Members on this side of the House were given 25 copies of the Bill on a Wednesday night, and at 11 o'clock the next morning the debate began. That is reminiscent of the way the
Constitution was handled. The Leader of this Party had 45 minutes to read the Government's proposal on the Constitution of Canada before responding to it. And this Party only had overnight to consider this extremely complex piece of legislation before debating it in the House the next day. The government has now signalled its intention to move closure on this Bill after only two days of debate.
The statutory Crow rate has been important to the development of western Canada for decades. The West views it as something gained upon entry into Confederation. It is a principle which has existed for decades. The Government does not have any elected Members to speak of in western Canada, yet it brings forward a piece of legislation that will irrevocably take that principle away from the people, and it does not even have the courtesy to allow a week for study before the debate. It lays it on the Table of this Chamber on a Wednesday, provides a few copies, forces us to debate it on Thursday, and after only two days of House time, invokes closure.
It is an insult to every Member of this Chamber and to every Canadian that anything so fundamental to our history and development should be treated in such a fashion by the Government. When people are insulted, they react negatively. The are angry at those who insult them and their memories last a long, long time. The solution to the problem of unity in this country is to change the Government as rapidly as possible, get a Prime Minister who understands and is sensitive to all regions of the country and a Cabinet that is likewise sensitive, as well as a Party running things with some sensitivity to the entire nation.
If I had words of wisdom for the Government they would be these: You are starting on the same path you started on with the Constitution of Canada and you are getting off that path. When you moved closure so quickly you insulted western Canadians. If you now move the Bill into committee and in any way, shape or form impose closure on the activities of the committee through an artificial deadline or using your majority to prevent witnesses from appearing then you are proceeding on a path which will be more and more insulting to the people of western Canada and you will be resisted with increasing strength.
This is a piece of legislation fundamental to the economic health of that region and indeed to the economic health of the whole nation. It is not a piece of legislation on which the Government should impose closure or use its majority in Committee to stifle freedom of debate and testimony. The only way we are going to arrive at an acceptable solution is to value freedom of speech and freedom of testimony. We must move slowly and carefully and in a manner which will help rather than hurt this nation.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with the same aggrieved feeling that other Members have expressed since, a little after three o'clock, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) moved closure on a Bill on which the debate began last Thursday. I have gone through the Hansard and I can see that the Bill has been debated for 10 hours and 50 minutes. Regardless of
May 16, 1983

where a Member comes from in Canada or what his or her position is on the Crow, that is completely unacceptable and must be thoroughly rejected.
I may have a different view from that of some of my colleagues on the Crow because I come from eastern Canada where there is also concern about the changes. As the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said, the changes do not only affect the West.
Eastern Canada benefits from grains and feed grains grown in the West. The country is tied to together. It is not wise to move against the economic plank of a country arbitrarily and unilaterally the way the Government has done.
My views may be different from those of some Members but I agree with the Minister's thoughtful remarks on Thursday morning when he started this debate. He admitted then that there were differences of opinion, as I do. I also admit that a consensus has been forming since press releases were issued on the subject. There has been change, and it is recognized that there has to be some change to the fundamental rate.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want an inadvertent misleading of the House. Closure has not been moved; time allocation was introduced on second reading of the Bill. It will go to committee and then we will have third reading.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I respect the Hon. Member but, with respect, his point of order was spurious. I have been around this House a little longer than he has. When there is an allocation of time for one more day on a Bill as fundamental as this one, he may not call it closure but the people do. The Government has a problem with its perception of what is happening in this House. The cold, sad fact is that the Government is so concentrated on the centre of Canada, basically on Quebec and Ontario, that it cannot understand the perceptions of the rest of the country. In the West and in the East and in every other part of the country that considers the Bill objectively, people are going to say that this is the club of closure and that it will cut off any more consensus and any more change.
I would like to ask the Minister what he would have felt like if, on one of his proposals, his Liberal caucus had invoked closure, long before Members of the Quebec caucus kicked up their heels and got him into what I consider to be rather a dubious, unholy alliance with some of the wheat Pools in Canada, to force the Minister, I believe against his better judgment, to change. It was not the Pools of the West, it was the Quebec Liberal caucus.
I ask you a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. Let us assume the Crow was in Quebec, with the Liberal majority coming from Quebec, do you think the Crow would be shot down in Quebec if things were reversed? This is the type of understanding I am trying to get from the Hon. Members opposite in the brief ten minutes, and now five minutes which I have left, because I have been informed, Mr. Speaker-and I bet Hon.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Members opposite do not appreciate it, because I did not appreciate the full extent-that there are 125,000 permit holders, producers of grain, in the West. On the basis of the 10 hours and 50 minutes, which adds up to 650 minutes, with a little calculation, you get the grand total of one-third of a second which they have had in representations before the House before closure or allocation of time was moved.
As Shakespeare said many years ago, "A rose by any other name is a rose", and if there is a thorn on it, it is going to prick your skin and hurt you just as much as any other rose, regardless of the bloom. And this is going to hurt people in all parts of the country, Mr. Speaker. You know that. There is a fantastic arithmetical factor here. Other than the two Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, there are 21 Liberal Members from the other eight Provinces. Yet we have in the Province of Alberta 21 Members, regardless of political complexion, balanced against the 21 from the Government benches other than those from the two central Provinces. Is it any wonder that the Members are concerned about the imbalance of a unilateral move here on something that, if it were reversed, the Government would not dream of doing?
What would this Government feel like, Mr. Speaker, if after the election there were to be mammoth support for the Conservative Party-as there will be? And if the Liberal Party wants to write its epitath in perpetuity, it is doing it today in invoking closure on the Crow and not letting the debate continue. What it has done today, Mr. Speaker, is to cement division and opposition to this unilateral act which is going to come back to haunt it.
As my friend, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) said, we had the same division on the Constitution. That came back to haunt the Government. And we are going to have it here. What would this Government think, Mr. Speaker, after an election, of having a strong representation from the West, having the balance about the way it is, but with a Conservative majority, and some Minister, because of pressure from some provincial caucus, deciding to put a special surcharge on the St. Lawrence Seaway so that the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Churchill could benefited? Would that be in the national interest?
This is an economic manifesto for the West which has been there since 1897. It is now being done away with at a chop with closure by the ham-handed hand of the Minister of Agriculture. Let us look at one of our cultural manifestos which the majority of Members voted in this House, the Official Languages Act. Let us say that after an election, there is an imbalance of representation and Hon. Members, responding to a provincial or regional caucus, say, "Let's get rid of the Official Languages Act because it costs too much money". The Late Right Hon. Mr. Pearson said, and I believe it, that it is proper to pay for things to keep this country together. If you have that standard for the cultural manifestos in the land, why is there not some sensitivy to the economic manifestos of the land? That is what Government is running in the face of, Mr. Speaker.
25522

May 16, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
With the 76 Members who come from western Canada, between Manitoba and British Columbia, and with the 650 minutes which have been allocated so far, it is a total of 8.5 minutes in which they have the opportunity to speak. For the 48 Members who come from Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, they have the grand total, if they try to exercise it collectively, of 13.5 minutes. And if you had 281 Members, with the Speaker in the chair, and the 650 minutes which we have so far been allocated, with one more day in the offing, we would have the grand total of 2.3 minutes per Member.
I echo what has been expressed on this side of the House that this is a black day. It should have been done on Friday the thirteenth because the Government would have been more exposed to odium. It is going to come back to haunt it. I do not honestly believe the Minister of Transport, (Mr. Pepin), as the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), said in his opening speech and repeated today, has had the capacity to heal wounds and redress the problems and to recognize that there are legitimate regional grievances. There are legitimate grievances and legitimate differences of opinion in this country. One does not redress that imbalance and one does not show equity or fairness, Mr. Speaker, by acting unilaterally.
My closing words are specifically directed to the Chair, who I know is an honoured Member from Atlantic Canada. If there is any warning I can give to anyone about the Crow and the future with Bill C-155, and my friend, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) expressed the fears and concerns of eastern agriculture in Atlantic Canada-I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to others across this country, that we in the East have had the sad example of the maritime freight rates, which was our Magna Carta back in the 1920s, to guarantee access to markets and to help our industry within the region. You know, Mr. Speaker, as well as I do, what has happened to that. Therefore, beware, Mr. Speaker, and I tell the Minister to beware. Let us have some sense on the Government side and let the balance be restored. Put the shoe on the other foot and see how you would like such a unilateral and negative act to take place against you such as has taken place here today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Questions, comments? Debate.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, it is a little rough to have to follow my friend, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), but I will try to make a contribution here. It is unfortunate that the cameras are not also on the Minister this afternoon so the Canadian people can see how he is sinking in his chair with his head down, carrying the load, being made a scapegoat for the Liberal Party, and being taken in once again by the Quebec Liberal caucus.
I have had experience before, being from Winnipeg, of how the Quebec Liberal caucus operates. There was a recommendation made that an aerospace training centre be built in Winnipeg, but Members of the Quebec Liberal caucus got involved in that. They stated that it would be built in Montreal
or it would not be built at all. We see them in action again today. The Crow rate change will be done their way or it will not be done at all.
I have very little respect for most Members of the Cabinet. I had some respect for this Minister, but I certainly have lost it with his action here today in going along with what the Minister of Agriculture has proposed. It is unbelievable, from the figures which the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants gave today, that we have only had 650 minutes of debate. I do not understand it in terms of the quality of debate of the Hon. Members from Saskatchewan and Alberta, who made excellent suggestions, alternatives and recommendations. And all of this has gone down the drain. There was not a lot of negative criticism of the Crow. It was constructive criticism, and I do not understand why the Minister would not take the time to listen to it. He could learn something. The Conservative Party has unveiled a ten-point agricultural program which my hon. friend from Vegreville put out early in April. It called upon the Liberal Government to implement immediately a ten-point agricultural program to aid in economic recovery for Canadian producers. The program developed by the PC agricultural caucus would provide up to $100 million to assist producers in negotiating their existing high interest loans to levels more in line with current rates. On and on we went with our ten points.
I have a small rural area in my riding. It is called Heading-ley, Mr. Speaker. I received a letter from a number of farmers in that area. I would just like to read into the record their concerns about the intention of the Liberals to change the grain freight rate. The letter states:
Farmers cannot afford a change because grain prices are going down, not up as they should be. The only prices that are increasing are that of gas, diesel fuel and oil.
These are all Liberal taxes which have been placed on the farmer and other Canadians through the disastrous National Energy Program. As if that were not bad enough, the Crow is being rammed through under closure. The letter continues:
Also, taxes are increasing and the cost of insurance, machinery and hired help is up.
Of course, that is partly due to the NDP Government in Manitoba. Additional taxes, employees' taxes and others, are being imposed upon the business community in Manitoba by the NDP Government. The farmer from Headingly goes on to write:
Why do farmers in France and Germany get $ 11 per bushel of wheat and pay no freight, only the cost to haul to the elevator?
Why can we not have the same arrangement here? The letter continues:
Canadians should not have to pay freight charges because farmers own half the hopper cars. Railway companies get the land free, diesels are rented and tracks are completely depreciated. What does the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport think they are pulling off? Our freight rates should go down, not up. If they cannot operate with the money they now receive, then give the tracks to the farmers. I am sure they can do a much better job.
May 16, 1983

I am sure they could. The letter points out:
The Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin is always talking about 17 per cent of farm income going toward freight. Does he remember that we received $.07 for oats, $.08 to $.09 for barley, and $.14 for wheat back in the Thirties? Now tractors cost an average $120,000 and combines $125,000 .. . Grain prices have not increased enough to cover the current expenses without having an additional freight rate added on.
Neither the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) nor the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has explained how a farmer is to cope with this situation, nor have any Hon. Members on the Government side. There have been no examples of how they are to get around all these different increases. This is something which the Minister ought to have explained to the House and the farmers first before bringing in closure.
The farmer goes on to write:
We already have a lot of unnecessary expenses. Take for example gas prices. Our American neighbours are paying $.86 for a gallon. We are paying $2 for four litres. We are spending billions of dollars on metric conversion and bilingualism.
Of course, one of the promises the Liberals made to the Canadian people in the last federal election was that there would be cheap gas. There is no cheap gas. There is now very expensive gas under the National Energy Program.
I also received a letter from another farmer in the Headingly area. He points out:
As a grain producer in western Canada, I feel compelled to write you regarding the proposed changes your Government seems intent on forcing upon us regarding grain transportation.
Some of these proposals, if instituted, would lead to disastrous results for grain producers for generations to come, not to mention the negative impact on the consumers and economy in general.
Might I sum up just a few of the reasons for my concern.
(1)	Farmers cannot afford the increases in freight rates your proposals would result in. Why should the farmers be offered 'subsidies' when in fact, any shortfalls in payment to the railways could be paid directly to the railways?
(2)	Secondly, if we have to have subsidy payments, why on earth would they be calculated on the basis of acreage instead of volume shipped? This would not at all be a fair method of payment.
(3)	As a producer of special crops as well as statutory crops, I resent the proposed unfair methods which would lead to discrimination against the different producers.
(4)	Finally, I agree that improvements to our transportation system are long overdue and just maybe, if your 'honourable' transportation minister had practiced a little more 'consultation' and a little less 'confrontation', we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
In closing I implore you to abandon your present course and heed the advice of organizations such as Manitoba Pool who I am certain have a much better understanding of the problems than do your bureaucrats.
The letter was addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Minister of Transport.
I mentioned some of the alternatives that we in the Conservative Agricultural caucus made. We pointed out:
To assist young farmers, and those facing financial difficulties, as well as providing for a necessary communication link between farmers, governments and the financial community, farm finance review boards should be established to act as a financial referee and negotiator for deferrals and time extensions in meeting their repayment demands.
Another proposal was as follows:
Western Grain Transportation Act
The current excise tax rebate on farm fuels is bureaucratic and inadequate. Fuel costs are a major component in the production of food, including greenhouse operations and the manufacturing of fertilizer. The price of gasoline and diesel fuel used for agricultural purposes should be reduced by about 20 cents per gallon.
That would certainly help immensely. We went on to state:
This could be done by the complete removal of the 9 per cent federal sales tax. As well, the price of natural gas used in greenhouse operations and in the manufacture of fertilizer should be reduced.
I would like to remind the House that the Conservative Government in Saskatchewan reduced many of the taxes in that Province, which greatly assisted the farming and business communities. That is something which the Government should be considering after its promise in the last federal election that it would give Canadians cheap fuel.
Another of our proposals was as follows:
The 1983-84 Initial Grain Prices should remain at the 1982-83 crop-year level.
Another suggestion was as follows:
Legislation should be immediately introduced to double the maximum cash advance level for individual farmers from $15,000 to $30,000.


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining I want to make a few comments with regard to the Bill which is to change the Crow rate. Ever since my grandfather immigrated to Canada and settled in the Scotsguard area of Saskatchewan at the turn of the century, one of the things which made it possible for his family to succeed as a farm unit was the fact that the Crow rate enabled them to compete with farmers throughout the world. Now we are seeing a change. My relatives from southern Saskatchewan tell me that their costs over the last five years have increased in excess of 100 per cent, yet since 1980 the price per bushel of wheat has fallen from $6 to S4.65 a bushel. Therein lies the critical component of this particular Bill. What it means is that it will be one more step toward the removal of the family farming unit in western Canada.
I have been receiving letters from people in the Peace River country of British Columbia who are concerned about the loss of their farms as the result of the increased transportation costs which they will have to bear in the year ahead as well as the demise of some of the smaller communities which have become a way of life in rural Canada. They are concerned over the lack of opportunities for young farmers to enter the farming business and also for all of those young people who look forward to employment in the processing industry and in those industries providing the necessary equipment and supplies to the farming community. Those are jobs which will be lost as the result of the legislation before us today.
I also want to mention, coming from central British Columbia where individuals are interested in processing beef via the feeder lot operation, that in a sense this will now be removed as a viable option for those people. To feed British

May 16, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Columbia beef on prairie grains or grains from the Peace River country will now be an impossibility as a result of the increased costs associated with the transportation of grain. A number of the lumber producers from central British Columbia have indicated an interest in seeing this legislation introduced because they are assuming that it will perhaps result in decreased freight rates for themselves, or at least a slowing of the increase of transportation rates for forest products.
There is nothing in this legislation that provides those guarantees that the moneys provided by the taxpayers of Canada to the railways of Canada will result in reduced freight rates for other commodities such as forest products. Again, a number of issues are of concern to residents of British Columbia as well as of the prairie Provinces.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have before us one of the most important pieces of agricultural legislation dealt with by this House during this century. The future of Western Canada and the directions we will choose for our farmers are contained in this legislation.
Throughout the 18 months process of consultation leading up to the introduction of this legislation, the Opposition has been systematically excluded. We now find that on a piece of legislation of this importance the Government has seen fit to introduce closure after two days of second reading debate. I truly wonder about the state of our democracy and question whether the Government will be able to continue to call itself democratic in any way, shape or form. This is particularly odious, considering the lack of any support for this Government in the region of Canada most affected by this legislation. Since my right to speak as a Member of Parliament on behalf of my constituents has been so severely curtailed, I am taking this opportunity to continue the thrust of my remarks I had entered into earlier today during the debate.
I think it is important to discuss the impact that this new bureaucracy may have on the functioning of the Canadian Wheat Board. It appears that the grain transportation agency administrator and the Senior Grain Transportation Committee will assume a considerable amount of the Wheat Board's power to allocate cars. In the world of the international grain
market, the ability of the selling agent to spot cars and move grain, to respond to any situation promptly and effectively, is crucial. If we undermine the Wheat Board we undermine the system, and I really question the need or desirability of such action.
I suppose the Minister will consider what I have had to say, and perhaps my words will be tossed into his garbage can like the words of the so-called reactionaries. But I say to the Minister and to other Members that we are dealing with an industry that is often operating on a marginal base. If the Government pushes this proposal through and it is implemented, is the Minister sure of the impact it will have on Western Canada and throughout Canada?
The Minister has made much of certain selected statements from various farm leaders and western politicians. He did an excellent job of taking general statements out of context and implying that the speaker supported the specific plan being proposed. Let me refer the Minister to comments made in the Saskatchewan legislature by the Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan on May 13 who described the present package as completely and absolutely unacceptable. I want to tell the Minister that I, too, have had some correspondence with westerners, including farmers and producers. Not one letter has supported a change. Let me give the House an idea of what is being said in the correspondence I have received.
A farmer writes from Saskatoon:
I am a small farmer farming near Saskatoon, and we lost money on our operation in 1982. I am saying this so you will realize why I want the Crow rate left alone. Farmers just can't afford a change that will cost more money.
From Langham:
The Crow is our right. Let's hang on to it. We cannot afford more expenses. What good is all the labour and toil if we have no crop, or as it seems now, can't keep up our payments?
From Saskatoon:
I would like to urge you, as a Member of Parliament, to oppose very strongly Mr. Pepin's plan to change the Crow rate.
It is a very complicated system. A way of coming in the backdoor and putting far too great a burden on the farmers.
From Laird:
As a farmer and Permit Book Holder in Western Canada, I am against the removal of the Crow's nest Freight Agreement.
From Perdue, Saskatchewan:
I attended the farm rally in Saskatoon to greet Pepin last week. If he fails to acknowledge that farmers in this area are opposed to increased rates, then he is attempting to ignore the true situation. The gathering organized by the NFU attracted non-union farmers also, and quite a few farmers, like myself, nearing retirement age and some retired. It is a critical issue.
From Delisle:
The railways still need incentive to move our grain efficiently. So it looks like they have to be paid.
Taking all of that money out of the producers' pockets is just not fair though. If we pay the total cost of transporting grain our profits will be cut in half ... and that's too much to pay, for anyone.
I have letters from Kinley, Hepburn, Harris, Hague and dozens of other communities. One letter states:
May 16, 1983

Western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade.
I believe this is the farmer's fair contribution to the Canadian economy.
Many of these letters have come from young farmers who have been fighting tooth and nail to establish themselves in the agricultural industry. They have faced a dramatic increase in the price of land in the last ten years, coupled with overwhelming increases in the cost of machinery. The extra increase in freight charges could make it impossible for new people, even as part of a family transfer, to enter the business.
What this Bill is about is consolidation of the means of production, about fewer elevator points, fewer branchlines, high costs for farmers, and yes, maybe efficiency. But what is there in it for most Saskatchewan farmers? There is absolutely nothing. Any increase in efficiency, if that occurs, will be at their expense. And that is what is so unsatisfactory. This proposal ignores the contribution of rural society to our social fabric.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall has been a fierce advocate of the western farmer. The Hall Commission on grain handling and transportation came to the conclusion that the principle of statutory rates should stay. It reads, in part:
Regardless of what rate may be set for the transport of grain to export position, that rate must be statutory, not variable. Anything else would be a violation of promises made to the producers of western Canada.
The promises to western Canadians are about to be broken.
I speak very much against the use of closure on such an important issue at this time by this Government and it will rue the day it tries to use a heavy-handed, oppressive and nondemocratic approach with respect to an issue so important to all of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have just a few words, Mr. Speaker. For somebody whose freedom has been muzzled, the Hon. Member has had a good day. Three times today he has taken part in the debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I have only just begun.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I wish him greater freedom elsewhere if he thinks he can find it.
On the urgency of the debate I put on record a number of quotations the other day and I will not repeat them. My hon. friend says I took them out of context. I wish he had demonstrated that instead of just saying it. And this afternoon again from a great number of Members on the opposite side of the House, from Medicine Hat, from Lisgar and what not the thought was repeatedly expressed that something had to be done. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) invented a new approach. There is a hurry if the Government is going to do what he wants the Government to do, and there is no hurry if the Government is not going to do what he wants it to do.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: That is if you do the right thing.
Adjournment Debate


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is an interesting concept and thought. From that point of view no Government could act in the country at all because usually there is a nice distribution of opinion on all sides.
When speaking in the west during the last two years I have repeatedly said that I would hate to see the face of the Minister of Transport four or five years from now-whoever he or she may be, hopefully it will be a she-when confronted with the problems that will be before us then if we do not move now. We will have lost sales. We will not have increased our production, our exports, our fabrication, our transformation and what not, and losses in the billions of dollars-$2.5 billion, $3 billion-in the early years of the next decade will occur. It is really with that thought in my mind for the last three years that I have worked. Unfortunately, I have not been able to accommodate everyone. Even the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and the Hon. Member for Crowfoot will agree that their side is divided very, very greatly on this matter.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: You just brought us all together.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I hope at the end of this exercise people will agree to compromise. Nobody will get 100 per cent of what he thinks should be done. Maybe everybody will get 60 per cent.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MANUFACTURE OF ROLLING STOCK. (B) NOVA SCOTIA STEEL PLANTS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on March 10 in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) I raised a question with the then Minister of State for Economic Development concerning the situation at the Hawker Siddeley plant in Trenton, Nova Scotia. I raised the question with that Minister because he has an important jurisdiction over the creation of jobs.
This particular industry, while it is reliant to a great extent on railway rolling stock, also produces other components of benefit to heavy industry, including transport and shipping. However, what concerned me at the time was that at a point in the economic cycle of our country where jobs are badly needed, we appear to have a precedent being created by Canadian National Railways getting into the manufacture of new rolling stock. I think this is a very undesirable situation, particularly when there are very capable industries in the private sector that can do this more cheaply and efficiently. It sets a continuing precedent as well for other Crown corporations, for example, Air Canada being more active in refurbishing jet engines, or CN Marine getting further involved in ship design. Inevitably this will lead to higher cost and less efficiency.
I am not one of those who believe in selling key Crown corporations on an indiscriminate basis just to get rid of them, but I believe they should be pruned and their activities restricted to their original purpose. They should not be allowed to

May 16, 1983
Adjournment Debate
become conglomerates to compete with the private sector, a sector which has to compete under many different rules and under a much more realistic set of circumstances.
It is pretty clear that the Minister of Transport has made up his mind at this point not to honour any requests by Dr. LeClair, the chief executive officer for CN, for funds to repair railway rolling stock. But he has no compunction in approving the construction of new coal cars at the Transcona works, regardless of their cost. The Minister may choose to elaborate on this. I hope he does, but he certainly did nothing to disprove those conditions when he replied to my question today.
I suggest to the Minister with due deference that this is absolutely irresponsible of the Government. It is irresponsible because it makes a lot of sense, on whatever basis one considers it, to repair existing railway rolling stock. There is a perfectly good facility for doing that, and it would create employment in the process at Transcona and also in Moncton. However, it does not make sense, for the reasons I have just indicated, for the railway to become involved in the construction of new railway rolling stock, because it will be done at an excessive cost by a Crown corporation, when there are other industries, and not just in my constituency, that badly need the work.
Returning to the Hawker Siddeley works, which is a key industry in the entire Province, many people are asking me why we are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on make-work projects of little value-some of them at least-when with some imagination the moneys paid out in UIC benefits to the workforce at Trenton, if applied to the cost of production, would contribute substantially to providing the company with a competitive edge in the manufacture of railway rolling stock for export at which they are very assiduous. There was some evidence of that in the House today.
For the Minister's information, we have approximately 2,000 people who require nearly $200 per week in social benefits of one kind or another to keep themselves and their families. This results from the lack of work in this key industry. A quick calculation shows that that is about $400,000 per week. For that kind of money, these people and the company would have a substantial head start in producing railway axles, rolling stock, modern marine fittings or something useful, rather than having the plant sitting idle with the work force sitting at home demoralized. Everybody would benefit, including the Government.
I do not understand why more concern and more aid is not being shown or given. I know the Government is faced with hard, unpleasant economic decisions, but at the same time there has to be a certain amount of equity between regions and between constituencies. A $ 120 million yearly loss is apparently acceptable in the manufacture of heavy water in the eastern part of our Province, but there does not seem to be any plans to manufacture railway rolling stock in anticipation of what the Government assures us will be an increased need for such equipment.
I can relate this to the issue before the House today. We have been told at various times that there would be benefits for Sysco and Hawker Siddeley because of the changed Crow rate,
at this would create an increased need for rails and railway cars in the West. So far we have seen no tangible results. That is typical. I have not heard any optimistic forecast about the need for much heavy water lately, but the work force is being maintained in that regard. I have no complaint about that, as long as there is an equal concern shown for my constituency.
The Central Nova area has not been the beneficiary of the investment activity which has characterized the Halifax-Dartmouth metro area. Nor has it received the magnitude of economic assistance that has been allocated to Cape Breton. It is important to our country, as well as to individual Provinces, that all regions be allowed to develop and receive fairness in the allotment of Government resources and the establishment of priorities for development. Now is a good and proper time for the Government to demonstrate that sort of concern, and to expedite, in co-operation with management, appropriate orders for this vital industry. This industry needs to have more diversification, and needs some encouragement to prepare for any role it can play vis-a-vis offshore development.
What do we hear? Not long ago the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) suggested a possible steel fabrication plant in his adjacent constituency to provide 1,000 jobs. That is absolutely and patently ridiculous when there is a plant here sitting practically deserted that is quite capable of doing any kind of steel fabrication of heavy industry components. What we need, and I suggest this to Minister very emphatically, is less political fabrication in the was of some of these grandiose programs-make-work projects as their announced goal with very little lasting benefit-a little bit less manoeuvring and a little more concern for investing Government funds in existing industries that can produce useful equipment.
If the Minister has the kind of imagination and concern I think he has, he will look into this. He will make sure that any of the work that Hawker Siddeley gets because of its very expert and hard-working marketing development team in other parts of the world will not in any way be used against it keeping it from getting its fair share of domestic orders.
At the same time, I urge the Minister to make very sure that the Export Development Corporation steps forward to finance a possible order the company is in a very good position to receive from Nigeria. I remind him that this Government did exactly that to finance a grandiose statue for the socialist revolution in Algeria. In this case, this is a much more realistic priority.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I confirmed this afternoon there would be no special money from the budget for repair of rolling stock. One of the reasons is a philosophy which says you should not repair too much in anticipation, not knowing what you are going to use later on. That is something that happens very often. Another reason might be that already there is a need for the purchase of hopper cars and coal cars. The Hon. Member knows as well as
May 16, 1983

I what the situation is. On the one hand we have the conventional manufacturers, Hawker Siddeley at Trenton, Marine Industries at Sorel, and National Steel Car at Hamilton. The philosophy is that normally rail cars are built by these conventional manufacturers.
I wish to give the Hon. Member a bit of information. For a number of reasons, it is believed that CN Transcona in Winnipeg should have a number of cars to build. The Hon. Member knows CN has been bidding for 970 cars, partly for the B.C. arm system.
Contrary to the impression given, the Transcona plant is not new in this field. It has already built all types of cars; gondola, flatcars, woodchip cars and so on. Contrary to what is often said, it does not require new facilities. Just as important, they will have 400 workers this summer whom they would like to see busy. CN has a moral obligation to try and provide work for its own people and to save the country $1.25 million in unemployment insurance at the same time. Therefore, that is some justification.
As I said at noon, within a few days I will be announcing the decision of Cabinet. As usual, nobody will be pleased because all Parties-Liberal, Conservative, NDP-have Members either in Hamilton, Winnipeg or Trenton. It will have to be Solomon's judgment as usual, or the announcer will be shot.
On the subject of Nigeria, I was not informed of the details. I will get information and advise the Hon. Member.


AGRICULTURE-COMPULSORY GRADING OF BEEF CARCASSES FOR EXPORT. (B) REQUEST THAT MINISTER REVIEW SITUATION
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, my participation in the Adjournment Debate relates to a question I raised on March 7, as reported at page 23505 of Hansard, about beef carcass grading and the evident compulsory requirement to use Agriculture Canada's red ribbon brand.
Lakeside Packers, a packing plant in Brooks in southern Alberta, had been advised that they would be required to use Agriculture Canada's red ribbon brand on the best quality grade of carcass they were exporting to the United States. The problem was that the customer was objecting because of the fact that the American colour brand for their best grade of carcass is blue. The Americans objected and Lakeside Packers approached me because it was their understanding that while this difference in colour could have been a problem, it had not traditionally been compulsory to brand their carcasses in red, and they were worried that it would be made compulsory. They objected to that and contacted me. I raised the matter in a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I am glad to see the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary ready to respond today.
It is my understanding, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm this, that Agriculture Canada has now backed off on the requirement for red ribbon branding on carcasses that will be exported, provided the ultimate customer in the United States requests that no ribbon branding be used. It is also my understanding that the Government has backed off on the requirement for carcasses crossing interprovincial
Adjournment Debate
boundaries in Canada to be ribbon branded. If that is so, I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm it. If that is the case, and I assume it is, I very much appreciate the fact that this situation has been corrected. I am sure the people from Lakeside Packers in Brooks, Alberta, who raised the issue also appreciate it.
I would like to comment briefly on another matter relating to beef carcass grading, the ribbing of carcasses in packing plants. Traditionally, carcasses were always ribbed at one location between two specific ribs. Recently there has been a move afoot to change the location of the ribbing by one rib. The industry as a whole was in reasonable agreement that this should be done. It is my understanding that this change has been agreed to by the industry, that it has been Gazetted and the time necessary to allow for complaints has now passed. Yet the change has still not been ordered by Agriculture Canada. I wonder what the hold-up is there. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is still receiving queries from some of the people involved, especially in the Canadian Cattlemen's Association grading committee which deals with the subject. I believe the change would be worth-while and would make the carcass ribbing site correspond to the carcass ribbing site in the United States and in most other countries that we export to. It is a matter of convenience. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary can comment on that.
Two other items on grading deal with what I would call an unofficial beef grade, one known as A-IX. There is no such official grade, but A-IX traditionally means a very lean carcass from a Holstein steer or heifer. It is not an official grade and there is no move afoot in the form of a recommendation that such a grade be made official. I raise it only for the information of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not advocating the introduction of an A-IX grade.
More recently there has been another unofficial grade, one that has been called an A-0 grade. This would be given to a very lean carcass from the beef breeds, not from the Holstein breeds. Again I would say that there has been no official representation from the beef grading committee of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association that would call for it to be made official. There is a slight difference with respect to the A-1X unofficial grade in that that committee did agree to study it. If the committee is studying it, it has not finished. I mention both these grades only to give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to respond.


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, under the Canada Agriculture Products Standards Act interprovincial and export shipments of ungraded commodities are prohibited unless the regulations under the Act state otherwise. The beef grading regulations under this Act have been designed to give some flexibility to the marketing of carcasses to ensure that markets, both domestic and export, can be readily served. The proposal to amend these regulations has been published in the Canada

May 16, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Gazette Part I with March 9 as the deadline for comments. The point raised by the Hon. Member is one in respect of which comments have been received and consultation has taken place with interested segments of the beef industry.

The Hon. Member mentioned one major exporter of beef carcasses, but there are many others. Exports must be both facilitated and controlled, to ensure that our trading partners always receive the quality product they expect. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has always been concerned about developing exports, and he will do everything in his power to ensure that this particular export sector is protected and monitored by means of the relevant regulations.
Mr. Speaker, the question concerns the amount of control and regulatory action to be applied. The colour of the ink used to identify quality carcasses is another factor.
In accordance with the proposed regulation, the five main sections of carcasses for export will be marked with a brown, one-inch square stamp. Furthermore, the entire side of Grade A carcasses will be marked with a roller, in red. These are the usual procedures applying to all Grade A carcasses. The proposed regulation provides for exceptions to this type of grading in very specific cases, namely, for the export market.
I believe the regulation be flexible enough to allow both for effective quality control of the product and for some leeway when shipping carcasses to domestic and foreign markets. As for the situation with the United States to which the Hon. Member was referring, what we have here is a difference in colour coding: they identify their superior quality products with blue ink, while we do with red. Of course, U.S. dealers who pay high prices for imported products do not want to see a red stamp, since to them, it is an indication of a lesser quality product. Consequently, the exemptions provided under the regulation would apply to red roller marking, while there would still be the five stamps to indicate quality control.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that once it is adopted, this regulation will provide the beef sector with one of the best grading systems in the world and allow us to continue the kind of trade relations in the North American beef sector that we have had for many years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 17, 1983