1983-05-19

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 16, 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).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Mr. Deans:: 1 rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rises on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is the Speaker's prerogative to recognize any Member, but the understanding that I had was that it was this Party's turn to speak. I had understood that in fact the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) was to be on his feet, but as he is unable to be here at the moment, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) had risen to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair accepts the Hon. Member's intervention. Naturally the Chair wants to be fair to the various Parties present in the House. Unfortunately, I do not yet have at my disposal the list of former speakers; the Chair apologizes for that. Nevertheless, on the basis of Members who have already spoken for each Party, if the Chair has not followed the usual allotment of Members from each Party, perhaps the Hon. Member for Provencher would cede the floor to the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to co-operate. If there were previous arrangements, I am willing to step down and be recognized as the first speaker from our side of the House when our turn in the rotation does take place.


Mr. Taylor:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 16, at 5.56, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) did take the floor and spoke for the four
minutes that were left. I do not know of any particular arrangement that had been made, but he did take the proper place for the NDP at that time. I think that in fairness the NDP should now have a chance to speak because the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap did not have a chance to speak for very long; he simply filled in the remaining four minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) for having refreshed the memory of the Chair. In any case, there seems to be agreement now to allow the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East to contribute to the debate.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and particularly the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) for allowing me the opportunity to speak this morning. Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment that is now before the House because the amendment basically tells the people of Canada that our Party is not supporting the Bill to change the Crow rate.
Last weekend while I was in Saskatoon, I attended a very interesting and pleasant event. I was able to take part in the one hundredth birthday party of a Saskatoon citizen. Mr. Percy McKague was born on May 15, 1883 and last Sunday he celebrated 100 years of life. Mr. McKague is still a very clear-minded and lively person. He has a little difficulty with his hearing and he has a little difficulty with his sight, but his mind is as fresh as it ever was. He was happy to celebrate with members of his family and with friends who had recently celebrated their seventieth wedding anniversary, and I was happy to be with them.
As soon as Mr. McKague was able to recognize who I was when I sat close enough to him and spoke loudly enough so that he could see and hear me, he said: "You are from Ottawa, are you?" I said; "Yes, I am from Ottawa." Then he said: "Well, make sure they keep the Crow. The Crow belongs to the West." He said that in a clear, bell-like tone. We must remember that Mr. McKague, whose family started one of the local funeral parlours at the turn of the century, was speaking from the historic perspective of a person from Saskatchewan. People from Saskatchewan know that the Crow rate gave them some control over their own lives. As Mr. McKague said, the Crow belongs to the West. The East has plenty of things that look after it but the Crow belongs to the West.

May 19, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
There are many Members of the House and many people from the West, particularly Saskatchewan, who know that the Crow legislation made it possible for communities in western Canada to become established, to remain as communities with the possibility of a viable life and to build up what we call today the fibre of our Province. 1 know I am biased because I come from Saskatchewan. I have travelled the Province and I believe it has developed into a rather unique place on the planet. All across the Province there are viable communities established by people who have come from all over the world.
In pioneer days when the railroads were being built-and Mr. McKague was born two years before the first steel was laid in Saskatchewan-immigrants came to the communities being built all across the prairies. These people turned that land into fertile, food-producing farms.
In Saskatchewan today you can go to one town in which the predominant population is Ukrainian. You can go down the road about seven miles to another town and the people will be French-Canadian. Another 15 miles along there will be a German community, and so it goes, down the tracks. Each of these places was established by prairie settlers who came from different parts of the world and built towns, communities and viable centres where people could live and have a good life along the railroad lines. The railroads were the warp and woof of the fibre of our whole being.
Today it is extremely important to guard the human values established by our pioneer forefathers. These people put their lives, hearts, souls and futures into the West and made it a good place to live, a place in which the value of people, the value of the community and the ability to live together formed a Province built on unity and a common belief in itself.
The legislation proposed by the Minister is seen by some as a kind of saving dollars and cents legislation which will go to the very fibre of life on the Prairies. But this Party opposes the changes that make it necessary for people in those communities, those farming areas, those places in which the food of the world is produced, to shoulder an unfair burden.
I should like to repeat what Mr. McKague said in his clear, one hundred year old voice. He said that the Crow belongs to the West and an attack on the Crow in the West is an attack on life in the West.
Farmers, retired people, not just people on the land but storekeepers and business people, all know and understand that the reason these towns and centres continue to progress is that the Crow rate stabilizes the economy and the possibility for income on the Prairies. Everyone in western Canada knows that if the farmers are prosperous everyone ultimately benefits. It keeps the local stores open, it provides schools, it makes it possible for communities to have their own rinks, their own ball team and their own band. It makes it possible to live as viable human beings and to continue to do so. But they must keep the rail lines. The rail line is like an artery in a human body. If you cut an artery, the next thing that happens is that a
part of your body dies. Abandon the rail lines and that is just what will happen to those communities.
I speak with deep feeling for those people who want to keep their way of life. Their way of life is uniquely associated with their ability to have railroads, to have rail service which links them with the rest of the country and with the rest of the world. They must ship their produce to the markets of the world. This Bill to change the Crow rate is basically an attack against the fibre of life in Saskatchewan. As my old friend in Saskatoon, Mr. Percy McKague, who is 100 years old, says, "The Crow is part of the West. It belongs to the West." I hope that is where it stays.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of points I would like to make and only ten minutes to make them, but perhaps I will be able to outline the areas I wish to highlight and, hopefully, there will be other occasions when I will be able to expand on these points. I look at the debate on the Crow rate proposals in a way similar to the way I looked at two other issues raised in this Parliament. First of all, it is not only a debate which relates to western Canada. Although the greatest impact will be in western Canada, it is a debate which has national implications and should concern every Member of the House.
The first major piece of legislation which affected us, I believe, as Canadians, and specifically as western Canadians, was the Constitution. Hon. Members might question why I raise the Constitution in this debate and I do so to make this point: it was a painful process for Canadians and for Hon. Members of this House. But to argue that the process did not result in a greater consensus would be violating the historical fact. What was argued in that exercise was that all Canadians are equal, that all regions are equal and that every Canadian and region should have the right and the ability to make their largest contribution to the national good; that they should have the right to develop their natural advantages. Canada as a whole benefits from the development of those natural advantages, not just simply the areas where that development takes place.
The second major piece of legislation which I believe affected Canadians in the perspective of how they see themselves was the National Energy Program. All of us, I would think, can agree that a national goal which has validity is that Canada become energy self-sufficient, and that is a national goal. The natural resources which give us that potential are based on the constitutional arrangement that those resources belong to the citizens of a given Province. But it does not stop there. Those Provinces and citizens have the right and the responsibility to develop those resources and to make the advantages which flow from that development available, again, to all Canadians.
[DOT] (M20)
That is essential, I believe, to understanding what Canada is. If we do not accept that principle, then those areas of the country, be it Atlantic Canada or western Canada, which do
May 19, 1983

not have that advantage cannot develop their own economic base and become contributors to the larger national goal.
When I speak to provincial leaders and citizens who live in Provinces which receive a substantial part of their income through equalization payments, I do not hear that they want greater equalization payments. What I hear from them is that they want the right to develop their natural advantages in order to develop an economic base and become contributors to the national economic scene, rather than relying on ever-increasing equalization payments.
That, Mr. Speaker, takes me directly to this Bill. I appreciate that the Minister is in the House and he might find this a little odd, but I hope my remarks are not seen to be highly partisan because I approach this question on the basis of what is best for Canada as I see it, and what is best for us in western Canada.
Obviously this Bill, if it were passed, would radically change the infrastructure of western Canada. Any time change takes place there is the natural tendency to be fearful; that is human. Having said that, I think there is a consensus generally that there must be some change to the transportation system in western Canada. Why? Because there is the very distinct desire to diversify. Now, there has been diversification in agriculture and related industries in the West, but I think the Minister would agree with me that that has not resulted primarily because of Government leadership. Generally it has been economic reality where farmers and agri-business people have diversified for economic reasons. The question then is: Does this Bill enhance this diversification or will it hinder it? My view of the Bill before us today is that it will hinder it and I want to give the reasons why.
We agree there must be some change, there must be some diversification beyond that which is taking place, so we need a national transportation policy. This might seem a little odd to some Members, including some from the West, but I believe it sincerely. I do not think that our transportation system can be based solely on the concept of an export economy.


Mr. Pepin:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I know for us in western Canada there is the argument of the net benefit of $6 billion in exports and therefore that is the transportation system. But surely if we want more diversification, it must also be based very strongly on what is best in the way of internal diversification for Canada as a whole. While 1 believe there will always be a bias toward transportation in western Canada to the export market, I do not think we are well served by virtually looking at our total transportation policy from that perspective alone.
What concerns me with the present Bill, Mr. Speaker, is what happens to the ability to diversify in the livestock sector. I see nothing in the Bill which says to me that there will be greater opportunity for our livestock producers to develop that industry.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I would like to mention hog production. In speaking to producers of hogs in Manitoba, they tell me they now see a loss between $3.75 and $4 a hundred weight on hog production. There is concern that we are in fact increasing the distortion between grain production and non-grain production on the Prairies. The ability, for instance, of Provinces to top load programs plays into that distortion. Therefore I think it is very clear where the solution must lie.
If I can speak provincially for a moment, I do not see anything in the Bill which would enhance the ability of Churchill to become a major port. I know of no country that has ever given up voluntarily, by attrition, any salt water port.
I have never seen any country that has been willing to allow its ports to deteriorate to the point at which one questions their viability. 1 have always seen the opposite, that those ports are developed, and I want to see Churchill developed. I want to see the railway developed. I want to see a diversification in Churchill, not only in grain but also in Saskatchewan potash. I want to see products being handled through Churchill for a longer period of time.
The former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), and I had as an objective: Why must we buy arctic technology? Why, as an arctic country, do we not develop the best arctic technology for ourselves, as Canadians? That matter is not addressed in the Bill.
In addition, what concerns me about the Bill is husbandry of the soil. I say that farmers must diversify for reasons of the soil, for reasons of economics, but the summer fallow wheat cycle simply does not address the problem any more. We are mining the soil. We must surely have legislation which will allow the farmer to farm the very best way the soil of which, for the moment, he is the steward. That must also be in the legislation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the legislation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am saying in the legislation in terms of the philosophy which will allow farmers to make those decisions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But you can't put everything in the Bill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The last point I want to make, and I said I would be short of time today, is this. The Minister is opposed to the hoist. He asks, "Why should there be further delay?" That brings me back to the first point I made. I believe that in the federal state called Canada it takes time to develop consensus. The Minister will say; "We have had Hall, we have had Snavely, etc.; have we not had enough time?" 1 am convinced that a consensus is developing which would allow producers to consider these various options, including the one advanced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski). Therefore I suggest to the Minister, let us now use the new awakening in the farm community, in the western community, in fact in Canada, to develop that consensus and have

May 19, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
the best legislation to meet the objectives on which I think most of us agree, rather than push through legislation which, for a political reason today, might seem acceptable but tomorrow could seriously harm both the West and Canada itself.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to enter this debate on Bill C-155 because it is certainly a very important piece of legislation to the Peace River country. I guess the reason for that is very simple. Farming is one of the most essential elements of the Peace River economy. The communities and businesses existing in that area have largely been built because of the agricultural sector and the economy which has contributed to the well-being of the area. Therefore, the prosperity and wellbeing of the region are dependent, to a very large extent, upon farming.
Another thing that makes our country and our area unique is the fact that we are in the far northern part of Alberta where we have a unique climate and unique soil conditions. We have a unique growing season due to the fact that our days are long and we have an abundance of sunshine. Despite the fact that we are so far north, we can produce very good, high quality crops.
Another factor which makes us unique in that part of the country is that we have a large amount of undeveloped land which is still to come onstream. It is one of the last large agricultural frontiers in Canada which is essentially still populated by pioneers today. They are pioneers who originally came here in the early 1900s and are still taming and developing new agricultural lands in our area.
The people of that region have faced hardships, which has been particularly evident lately. That is one reason why I am so concerned about Bill C-155. As a result of the fact that we have experienced drought conditions in the last four crop years, our farmers are facing difficulties.
Another problem our area faces is the long distance which must be travelled to major centres. Consequently, our local farmers have had difficulty being productive and ensuring that their land is productive. They have had to pay the price to do those difficult tasks.
The Crow rate was originally established to aid the pioneers of an earlier age. I do not believe that the goal of that original philosophy has been reached in my area. In terms of Bill C-155, I do not foresee a great deal of improvement for the people of the Peace River country.
Let me elaborate on the problems there. I believe the most serious effect of this Bill is that it will take away a consistent freight rate which is the one thing that farmers could plan on to predict their economic situation. All other agricultural factors, such as fuel costs, fertilizer costs and machinery costs, have fluctuated. The freight rate has been the only consistent cost that farmers could relate to.
This legislation does not in any way enshrine that freight rate. The Western Grain Transportation Act will create a new
bureaucracy, which always causes me concern. Another concern is the fact that there will be open-ended price increases. I suggest that the settlement for the railway companies is too generous and not essential.
I am also concerned that there will once again be too much ministerial power. We have seen that demonstrated in many Bills that have been brought before the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not true at all.


Albert Glen Cooper: The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) should read Bill C-48 for a good example of ministerial powers being placed one upon the other. We are seeing the same thing in this Bill.
I want to re-emphasize the problem of distance from markets in the Peace River country; I believe that will have a real impact on this Bill. I have discussed this issue with the Minister of Transport in the past. In the Peace River area there are places like La Crete, Fort Vermillion and Worsley which do not have rail service. Today there are farmers in our area who must load their grain in trucks and travel from 50 miles to 120 miles, in some cases, to the nearest railway. That is money they have already been paying but the average Canadian farmer has not since they only travel an average of 20 miles to the nearest elevator. That is an additional expense that the people in our area have faced. As a result of this legislation this problem becomes intensified and more serious. There is no possibility of a resolution of the problem for those people.
Another problem is the 31.1 million tonne limit. Again, that is a disincentive to people in my area. It is a disincentive to increase production and a serious disincentive to land development and improvement. That development is very essential to the Peace country since there is so much new land that we would like to see brought onstream in order to benefit the economy of the Peace country.
I believe the people of the Peace country will suffer doubly as a result of the proposed changes in Bill C-155. They will be at the mercy of the bureaucratic structure. They will have to pay high initial handing rates and high rail rates. All of that will be a disincentive to increased production in the Peace country. Of course, they are still adding the high cost of initial freight rates in taking grain from the farms that 50, 100 or 120 miles to the nearest elevator.
I believe it is important to note that this legislation reflects a change in attitude away from the support of grain production. It is a deviation from that policy which has been so important in the past. This legislation ignores the Hall Commission Report while it accepts the Snavely Report and the Gilson Report. But then, it is even changing the Gilson Report to the advantage of the railways. The Gilson Report initially recommended that producers would pay 4.5 per cent of the cost as opposed to the 6 per cent inflation which is now proposed. The increase in the open-ended freight rate makes it difficult for producers in our outlying areas to carry on grain production. That is a major concern in an area that is developing new land.
I cannot emphasize enough the fact that the farmer will be
May 19, 1983

paying more because of his initial costs in taking that grain to the railhead.
My concern for all of those cost factors becomes very dramatic when I consider a new era with new land and the high costs already facing farmers. They now have an added expense which is brought forward in Bill C-155. I believe it will make all the hard work and investment by the people in the Peace country less worth while and make that pioneering spirit that we have needed in many of our new areas less attractive and less worth pursuing. The consequences will not only be an effect on the agricultural economy of the Peace country but in fact a very dramatic and serious effect on our whole economy, since everything is so closely related.
The Government has told us that diversification is a primary goal of changes to the Crow rate. That is important. While that is very important to the people in the Peace country, all of the diversification in the world will not induce our farmers to produce goods that they cannot afford to ship. There is no flexibility provided for in the present situation. The Crow benefit should be applied in such a way as to encourage our farmers to make on new products, use their land in different ways and provide a better farming base for them. I do not see that in this particular legislation because there is no flexibility.
I believe that Canada as a whole benefits from the production and shipment of grain. I suggest that we are all aware of the fact when we look at the country. We all realize that since Canada benefits from the agricultural community, which is certainly true of the Peace country, we have supported that industry in order to allow it to compete, become strong and develop new lands. That is now suddenly coming to an end. We do not have a river system such as the Mississippi to ship our grain. We have to cross mountains and prairies in order to reach both export and domestic markets.
The Government has indicated time and again that it wants to support Canadian industry. I believe very strongly that if we are to support Canadian industry we have to support the farm community.
In closing, I want to say that I do not support this particular Bill because I do not think it helps the farmers of the Peace country, and I do not see it benefiting them in the difficulties they face today, or in the future.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, as an Ontario Member and not as a westerner, I rise to speak against this Bill, unfortunately only for a short ten minutes. This Bill, which would change the traditional Crow rate after being in place some 86 years, will fundamentally change the whole transportation system of Canada. If the change remotely parallels the Post Office, CNR, the CBC, the National Energy Program or Canadair, I would ask Members to consider the devastating results for all Canadians. No one trusts this Government with its sticky fingers on anything, let alone the national transportation system of this great nation.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Every Province and every industry in Canada, not just the West by any means-and I reiterate I am an Ontario Member-will be damaged by this change, particularly the total agricultural community; and unfortunately, the extent of this damage and its total effect is an unknown quantity.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Jim Snow will be angry at you.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Why? Because this Bill is so obtuse, so convoluted, so ill-conceived, so disastrous a bureaucratic nightmare, Mr. Minister, that even the President of CNR whom you represent and two top lawyers admit they do not understand it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am destroyed by the power of the argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I invite the Hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The Minister was heckling, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has suddenly become-and he is leaving the Chamber-after such a lacklustre performance with rail curtailment and the VIA debacle, an expert in the field of transportation. This, of course, came after his advice from whom else but his Quebec caucus. Yes, that Minister is an instant expert, Mr. Speaker. We all know the definition of an "expert" in this House: "X" is an unknown quantity and "spurt" is a big drip under pressure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. X was under enough pressure from his Quebec caucus and colleagues not to come before this House to express his proposed changes to the National Transportation Act. Of course not. Major changes to the fundamental infrastructure of this country, particularly anything to do with western Canada, English-speaking Tory Canada, are done outside the House by this Government using Order in Council and/or closure. At every opportunity this Government bypasses the rights and freedoms of this institution which have been nurtured over tens of years and make us, the elected representatives or voice of the people, absolutely redundant. This is the procedure of this Government. We have seen it for months and years. Do not call witnesses to the committees; do not let Members speak; just bypass, bypass.
The Minister first made his intention to make this change known in Winnipeg on June 28, 1982. This was the birth of the Gilson Report, accepted I might add, which was announced in Winnipeg. Twice more the Minister made statements outside the House and the fifth announcement was made in, of all places, the theatre of the National Press Club. So much for Parliament! This was all done outside these hallowed halls, and I say that advisedly. Five times it was done, twice more than even St. Peter. This was all done out of reach of debate on something of such coast to coast interest and tantamount importance as the complete transportation system, which is the glue upon which this nation was built. This Government has a

May 19, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
total disregard for the parliamentary process. In short, what it has done is cowardly and absolutely reprehensible and I hope Canadians will remember.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is more. When the Bill was introduced after a battery of lawyers and bureaucratic whiz-kids got finished hatching it-and here we have shades of Eddie Clark and the disastrous National Energy Program-only 25 copies were made available to this side of the House and those were not received until late afternoon. Is this parliamentary process? Is this democracy? We thus had but one day to examine the legislation, and upon examination the legislation is a garbled diatribe of the impossible. It reminds me of something an old fellow used to say in the streets of Barrie. It is something "oversicoscious, upstantiatious, plarell, pli-chadale, platinum plated before sundown".


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: If that sounds unintelligible, Mr. Speaker, think on this. The Crow statutory freight rate was seen as necessary for our economic well-being and was simply defined at a rate of one-half a cent per tonne mile. It has now been changed into the following gobbledegook-I will read a little bit of it. This was pointed out by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who has forgotten more about transportation than the present Minister will ever know.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Just listen to a short excerpt, Mr. Speaker. In the new piece of legislation, a simple thing like half a cent a tonne mile is now eight paragraphs. I will not take up the time of the House with the whole diatribe because my hon. friend from Vegreville has already read it into the record, but the clauses are eight and they take up better than half a page of Hansard. These Clauses read like this:
The annual rate scale in respect of a crop year shall be determined by multiplying the amount per tonne for the movement of grain over each range of distance set out in the base rate scale by the quotient obtained by dividing the estimated eligible costs of the railway companies in respect of that crop year less the CN adjustment in respect of that crop year by the base year revenues within the meaning of subsection (2), as those revenues are adjusted in accordance with the grain tonnage forecast for that crop year-
That is one paragraph.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Then we have Subclause (4) of Clause 37, which reads:
For the purposes of subsection (2), the "estimated government commitment" means an amount equal to the aggregate of
(a) the Crown Benefit for that crop year divided by 31.1 million tonnes of
grain and multiplied by the number of tonnes of grain that, in the estimation
of the Administrator-


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


Mr. Breau:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Hon. Member has a right to speak as fast as he wants to, but perhaps I may remind him that there is an interpretation service for Members who do not understand English, and if the Hon. Member speaks this fast, the interpreters will not be able to do their work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am not sure what the Chair is expected to do in such circumstances. I did notice the Hansard reporter was having considerable difficulty following the Hon. Member. I invite him to resume his speech.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Hansard reporter, but I am reading from Hansard at page 25383 for May 12, 1983. I was quoting from the speech of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. I apologize to Brenda, if I may be so bold as to use her name.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I do not know exactly how to qualify it, but I do not think the Hon. Member should refer to employees or staff of the House of Commons in the way he did.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but it is about time some of the good employees of the House of Commons were recognized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, that is how ludicrous this piece of legislation is, and I hope I have proved a point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: To add insult to injury, after only two days of debate, once again we have closure. This makes 18 times in this session that, with closure invoked, free speech and the ability as Members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which I say with pride, to represent our constituents by speaking on their behalf-which is why we are here-have been thwarted or completely garroted. And so the bells rang again. Pourquoi? Why am I speaking now? Because the new rules limit debate to 10 minutes after 8 hours and the Government capitulated to us on closure only because of the time element; otherwise I would be speaking on a closure debate. I hope this does not happen this afternoon, Mr. Government House Leader.
Closure was not necessary, only in a dire circumstance, before this Government came along. That is the only time it is necessary. But we have experienced closure 18 times this
May 19, 1983

session. It has become the rule, not the exception. The government treats this Bill as if it were a routine piece of legislation. It brings this Bill forth knowing full well that it needs revision.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), while in the West, admitted its imperfections but said that because there were no representatives from the West in his Government it would have to do. Well, it will not do. It is not routine legislation. It is almost as important as the Constitution, a Constitution without property rights or language protection for the majority, I might add.
Now we have a national transportation policy change, a change that can only be passed by this House, thank heaven. This is a Bill so incomplete that it does not address the impact on western grain producers, meat packers and the livestock feeding industry, let alone the impact on my Province and the Maritimes.
Where is the cost analysis of this impact that will be felt coast to coast? Because that is what Canada is all about. It is a small market of less than 25 million souls spread some 4,000 miles and held together by a band of steel known as the railroad. It was built by a population at the time of less than 3.5 million dedicated people, people deeply in debt, and against all odds. Now we want to destroy that system as it refers to all Canadians.
Today, as then, they must have fair freight rates in the West, subsidized freight rates. What is wrong with that? We subsidize our roads, our canals, our highways, our sidewalks and our airports. Let us take a good hard look at Mirabel which loses $1 million a week, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to turn that money around and give it to the railroads? Why not our hard working and tax-paying farmers? Fairness can only come about with total hearings in committee by committee witnesses, such as was done with the Gilson hearings. We need real experts, not a bevy of ministerial bureaucrats. We need real debate in this House.
To show just how ludicrous is the handling of this Bill by the Minister, before he even tabled it announced unseen modifications. They were an agreement regarding linkage of grain-moving costs to international costs and the inclusion of specialty crops under the Crow rate. Lo and behold, these specific details were not made to Parliament but to the Press Club across the road. They are nowhere to be found in the legislation.
Nowhere in the Throne Speech or in the last election was change to the Crow rate even mentioned. One must wonder if this legislation in its present emasculated form, or anything vaguely resembling it, would be before us if the Government had even one Member west of Winnipeg.
This Bill, by estimation, will cost grain producers 10 per cent of their gross at a time when many are fighting for survival. It will cost livestock producers $20 a tonne to offset grain producers. The out-of-whack rates in oilseeds and grain
Western Grain Transportation Act
as opposed to processed products should be removed. All farmers must be sure they have an efficient, inexpensive grain transportation system.
This Government and the railways are a fact of life, and in view of the actions of the United States, Argentina and other countries which subsidize grain exports, we must provide a low, competitive freight rate. Of course, the railways should receive proper compensation to be able to provide proper equipment and maintenance to move all Canadian commodities to market. This Bill is too generous to the railways which, by 1990, will receive a 1,000 per cent increase; and it does not address properly the other problems just stated.
Mr. Minister, Canadians need more input before their national transportation system is vandalized as the national energy system of this country was vandalized. Mr. Minister, why don't you go back to the drawing board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member is an experienced Parliamentarian. I have admonished him previously to address his remarks to the Chair.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, and I conclude-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in this debate as the Member of Parliament for my riding of Vancouver South, as a western Member of Parliament and Member of Parliament from the Province of British Columbia. What I want to say today through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister comes not just as a consequence of my own views on this Bill, which will become clear as I continue, but I want to speak on behalf of fair-minded British Columbians who are concerned with all of our country.
1 want to say on behalf of British Columbians who have a great stake in an improved rail system that when they start to realize the deficiencies and defects of this Bill, they will be as opposed to the provisions that have been presented to this Parliament as are the people in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I go even further and say that as British Columbians begin to realize what is wrong with this Bill and as citizens in other parts of the country than the prairie Provinces begin to realize what is wrong with it, they are going to say to the Minister on the floor of this House, through their elected representatives, "back up a bit and take some time to think it through".
We have been told that there can be no improvement to the rail system unless this Bill is passed by the end of June. That is the position of the Government and the Government propagandists. That position is being repeated in various places in this country to try to gain support for this Government to justify the closure that it nearly brought in and may still bring in, despite the fact that this Bill goes to the heart of what this country is all about. This is one of the most important provisions to come before this House of Commons since I came here in 1972. It affects dramatically and effectively three Provinces

May 19, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
of this country. However, it affects indirectly, and in some ways just as dramatically, the entire country.
If we are going to have a Canada, no piece of legislation that is going to cut right to the heart of what makes this country go can be pushed and bullied through this Parliament just because one Party has a majority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: It is absolutely incredible that this Government can come here, whine, twist, wring its hands and say that the people of British Columbia will be put to the blocks in terms of transportation if this Bill does not go through immediately. That is not true, and the Minister knows it.
On February 1 the Minister issued a press release. He was talking about his then proposal which has now been changed. He said:
In the interim, to ensure that this transportation initiative brings jobs and investment as soon as possible, the federal Government will make payments of $313 million to the railways so that additional railway construction and investment can be undertaken this Spring.
The suggestion that is being made and will be made when the Government propaganda machine gets going is that if this Bill does not go through in its present form right away, the Government is justified in bringing in closure because the West will not have a better transportation system. In view of all the talk about western Canadian development and other things, that is just a lot of hogwash. It is a cruel deception that will be put upon people who will be asked a simplistic question: "Do you want better railways? Then let this Bill go through and back us in closure."
That, with great respect, is slippery tactics. It is dishonest tactics. What is more, it cuts right to the heart of what Members on the Government side of the House have always, at least platitudionously, put out, that we have to concern ourselves with every part of this country.
I cannot state the outrage that it gives me to know the tactics that are being used. I am from British Columbia. I have been intimately associated with the forest industry for many years. As Minister, I was responsible for forestry matters in this House. As Hon. Members know, nobody fought harder to do something about the needs of western forestry. In fact, during the short period that I was Minister, we managed to turn a program around.
Every British Columbian knows that we need better rail traffic, better rail facilities, more cars and more capacity. What is necessary in this House is to have sufficient time to debate the deficiencies of this Bill so that some sympathy can be gained in places like British Columbia in order that they may realize that this Bill will not do anything for western agriculture. It will not do much for British Columbia. It does absolutely nothing for the grain producers of British Columbia, or for the livestock or agricultural producers of British Columbia.
In what other ways does it affect British Columbia? Will the 50,000 acres of the so-called Dominion coal lands in the Province of British Columbia go back to the Province of
British Columbia as a result of this Bill? No. They go back to the federal Government and British Columbians should know that. British Columbians are also aware that we need better rail facilities for the transportation of our coal and minerals. British Columbians need time to realize that there is no reason in the world why upgrading of the railways cannot go ahead now, despite the fact that it may take a little longer to get this Bill through the House than the Minister would like.
I deeply resent being told that if I do not pass this Bill, with all its warts and defects, the fact that three Provinces are opposed to it and hundreds of thousands of people's lives and future are dependent upon this Bill, there will not be proper rail transportation in my Province. That is a cheap argument, and I know it. I do no intend to be silent about it. This Government has no right to come into this House and deal with matters in this way.
In terms of the importance of this Bill to the country, the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) stated on Friday, May 13, 1983, about his own Bill:
In fact, this is the third major piece of legislation that has come before this Parliament, after the patriation of the Canadian Constitution and our national energy policy which was announced over the last few years and months.
Has anyone in the country forgotten that there was a protracted and extended debate on the Constitution issue and that it was brought about with some decency and accord? Has anyone in the country forgotten that the national energy policy, which has now proved to be a disaster, was debated for weeks and weeks in the House despite efforts by the Government to close debate off? By the Government's own admission, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the third most important piece of legislation brought in since its election in 1980, yet it wants to put it through in a couple of days.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, that is just not good enough. This legislation goes right to the heart of what our country is all about.
There is no need for the Government to say that this must be done in so many hours or so many days. There are major defects in the Bill which can be corrected if the Government will use a little commonsense, back up and give Parliamentarians a chance to look at it. I say that to my hon. friends on the Government side because I am sure they can come up with better suggestions than those contained in these provisions.
The Government has done what it always does in these matters. For days, weeks and months it failed to get consensus, but because some of its so-called experts who were referred to by my hon. friend a moment ago decided that this is what is best for the country, that this is what we must do and we have the numbers to do it, the Government comes to the House of Commons saying that there now is a deal. No matter how many pieces of the garment are falling rent, the Government says: "We now have a deal and it is now up to you Members of
May 19, 1983

Parliament to darn well pass the Bill as fast as we expect to". That is the trouble with what is going on in the Elouse of Commons and with what has gone on for many years, and that is the trouble with this Bill.
I say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that British Columbians will not be taken in. They want better rail transportation. They know that the money can be spent now and that the rail transportation system could be improved. But they also know that there is no excuse in the world to stop improving the railways just because this Bill will take a little bit more time than was expected by the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Government.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I listened with a great interest to the speech made by my political neighbour, the Hon. Member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp). I found it interesting that in his speech, which albeit was only ten minutes, he never once mentioned the word "Crow" or the words "statutory rate". He made no defence of the Crowsnest Pass rate, and I think that that is rather typical of the Tory duplicity on this particular Bill. Rather than trying to defend the Crow rate and trying to defend prairie farmers, many of the Tories, although not all of them, are limiting their attack to the process, which process I must say is somewhat less than good.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know about both the Crow and the statutory rate. I support both.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: At least I have made a conversion here, Mr. Speaker. I was also interested in his defence of the Port of Churchill and 1 am glad that he has been converted on that issue as well. I would remind him that it was only about three and a half years ago during the time of the Conservative Government that another Manitoba Member, the Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), for whom I have a great deal of respect on many issues, headed up a task force whose recommendations would have led to the demise of the Port of Churchill. I am glad to see that the Conservatives are now supporting the Port of Churchill, and that is very admirable.
I now speak to Bill C-155, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: That is a good idea.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Is that a good idea? Thank you. Mr. Speaker, a belief which I tend to agree with which has reached almost mythological status in western Canada is that the present Government and the Liberal Party in general are ignorant of what is going on in western Canada. During the last few weeks ever since the Pepin-Gilson proposals were introduced in the House, during Question Period Members from both Opposition Parties have questioned the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or whoever about the wisdom and the specifics of the Pepin-Gilson proposal, and I have been surprised and astonished by the smugness of some of the backbench Liberals, people who would not know No. 1 Northern from stinkweed. I have been surprised at how smug
Western Grain Transportation Act
they are and how much they seem to believe that they know what is best for western Canada.


Herb Breau: The Hon. Member does not hesitate to speak about other parts of the country.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It is a good thing that somebody speaks for eastern Canada because the Hon. Member surely does not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I would put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is really not very concerned about the welfare of prairie farmers. The Liberal Government has only two seats west of the Ontario border, it has few votes and it is going down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. There appears to be two debates going on at the same time. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake has the floor.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is going in exactly the wrong direction if it hopes to win friends in western Canada with this Bill. If it is really interested in the national unity of the country, it will treat prairie farmers or indeed all farmers with the same kind of respect that it treats Bay Street bankers and railway executives. I must admit that I am glad that the Government has found a little bit of sense and withdrawn, at least for the time being, its closure motion.
To date, the whole procedure followed by the Government has shown a colossal disregard and disrespect for the parliamentary process. This Bill will have a greater impact on prairie farmers than has almost any other Bill that has been passed in the history of the House. The impact on the rest of the country will be profound. To attempt to ram the Bill through Parliament in a few weeks is an insult to the House and to Canadians in general. To have brought in closure on the third day of debate, Mr. Speaker, is inexcusable. Thank God the Government was able to dig deep enough to find at least a little bit of deceny and a little bit of respect for Canadian farmers and has temporarily withdrawn its closure motion.
The whole process has stunk for a number of years. The railway companies have been crying poor for years. These largest of corporate welfare bums have been trying to get their stricky fingers into the Government's cookie jar once again. Yesterday we heard my friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), tell the House that now, at a time when the railways claim they do not have enough money to develop the rail system in western Canada, they can find $370 million to buy up American railways. That is scandalous, Mr. Speaker.
In recent years we have seen a former Minister of Transport, the former Member for Saskatoon East, sell out his western birthright by advocating the removal of the Crow. What happened to him when he next went to the polls after he had shown his true colours on the Crow rate? One would have thought that the Government might have learned a lesson from

May 19, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
that, but no, I do not believe the Government is capable of learning anything.
For many years, long before 1 ever came to the House, I have been puzzled and have wondered why the Government was forever setting up royal commissions, non-royal commissions, task forces, etc, to study things. These commissions would travel the country and spend zillions of dollars and they would sometimes present very good reports. The Government would ignore those reports, or if the Government did not like the recommendations, it would set up another study. I understand that in European circles this is known as the Canadian solution. If you do not want to face something, study it. I do not think we should tar all Canadians with that dirty brush; we should call it the Liberal Canadian solution.
That has been the Government's approach to the whole question of grain handling and the Crow issue. Not the first but easily the most comprehensive and the most balanced study was the one done by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. He was a prominent Conservative hired by a Liberal Government who reached New Democratic conclusions. One would have thought that this would be enough to accord his study the overwhelming support of all political Parties.
But, no! He started from the premise of maintaining the Crowsnest Pass rate for farmers and working from there to solve the other problems. The Liberals and Tories had already decided to start by scrapping those rates for farmers. So the one study that solicited farmers' opinions, listened to farmers' opinions and reflected them in its report and its recommendations was thrown in the waste pile by past Liberal Governments and by the Conservative Government during its short sojourn in power in 1979.
After Hall there was the Snavely study which looked at things from a strictly economic or Harvard business school point of view, virtually ignoring any social, cultural or historic criteria. That was an approach totally unacceptable to western farmers.
Last summer, fed up with studies that provided recommendations that it did not like, the Department of Transport puts its own package together. It hired a commissioner in Professor Gilson who, it felt, would bring in a report that reflected the Department's package. Surprise, surprise-Gilson did that. The Gilson study was a sham. The Department had already decided what it wanted. I wonder if Professor Gilson realized that he was being used, that he had been conned by the Department of Transport.
Even the Prime Minister was conned. In the House he said that no changes would be made to the Crow unless there was widespread consensus in western Canada on whether and how to do so. Later when he stood in the House and defended the Pepin-Gilson proposals I think he actually believed that there was consensus. Even he had been conned. It must have been quite a surprise to him when he found that the prairie opposition to the Pepin-Gilson proposals was matched by the opposition of farmers in his own Province, the strongest of Liberal bastions. He had better keep looking over his shoulder; there
may well be a number of Quebec Members of Parliament who may go the way of the late, great Otto Lang.
Perhaps we have come to the real reason for the closure motion being withdrawn-opposition from the Liberal caucus. If anyone wants to know how much consensus there is on these proposals, how popular the Pepin-Gilson proposals are on the Prairies, I suggest they ask the Minister of Transport about the warm welcome given him by Saskatchewan farmers when he visited the Legislature of that Province a month or two ago.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity, however short, to participate in the debate. I should like to comment that Members of the NDP are up to their old tricks again, trying to get back into the debate on the Crow by attacking the Conservatives. They spend half their time worrying about the Conservatives. They are the great defenders of everything and indeed nothing.
1 should like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and his colleagues to remember what things were like a year ago when interest rates on mortgages that people held on their homes accelerated to such a degree that there was a march on the House of Commons by people demanding action by Members. That was because interest rates had increased mortgage payments on their homes by 100 per cent. Do Members of the Government realize that by 1990 transportation costs to western producers of grain will be increased by 400 per cent? What are we doing to this country of ours that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity for all?
The agricultural industry produces wealth from the ground which is converted into money. It contributes $6 billion per year to our balance of payments position. This is basically what we ship across the country.
The farmers' input costs have increased dramatically. The Government fails to recognize that all the various charges under the National Energy Program that feed $1 billion per year to companies like PetroCan find their way into input costs. As well, recognizing that commodity prices are going down, that all across the country farmers are going bankrupt and nothing is being done about it, the Government brings in a Bill to change the statutory freight rate to the point where the farmer will not be able to survive. This is clearly the most important thing that has hit the country for years.
I should like to invite the Minister of Transport to northern Alberta, an area where farmers do not even have a small country elevator. From the beginning farmers have trucked their grain from 60 to 100 miles to the nearest branch line terminal. He should read some of the letters that farmers write to me.
I would point out to the Minister that I do not ask a farmer whether he can deliver a Conservative vote if I am to stand here and defend his rights; I do not ask him if he can deliver a Liberal vote if I am to stand up and protect his rights. In Alberta, however, the Prime Minister faced the producers by saying; "I know this Bill on the statutory Crow rate is not a proper Bill, I know it is not economically sound, but you people
May 19, 1983

cannot deliver Liberal votes like they do in Quebec and other parts of Canada that this Bill is drafted to protect". That is the sickness of this Government.
The Minister of Transport makes fun of this very fundamental concept. Certainly there is competition to gain a seat in this House. We all go out and campaign. But when we get here, we represent every man, woman and child in the riding. The highest honour that can be bestowed on a man in this country is when he is made Prime Minister. Certainly he is there because he campaigned and because he got the support of a certain party; but he represents every Canadian from coast to coast. He should not have the unmitigated gall to say to people: "You can't deliver the votes; therefore we are putting through a Bill that we recognize is not economically sound, that we recognize is not right, but you cannot deliver Liberal votes in western Canada".
A sickness pervades this Government, Mr. Speaker. We have here a Bill that we cannot even comprehend.


Mr. Chenier:: Go to school. Learn to read.


Jack Wendele Shields: The Hon. Member opposite says "Learn to read". I would like to suggest to him that he just read through the Bill once.
Basically, Mr. Speaker, I believe the tenet is true that all Members of Parliament come here with the idea that they are going to do the best they possibly can for their constituency and for their country. I believe there is a real sense of purpose in a person who runs for office and comes to the House of Commons. I give that to the Hon. Members for the Liberal Party which forms the Government, and I give that to the Hon. Members for the New Democratic Party. I may not always agree with them, but there should be a system prevailing which allows us to sit down and discuss a Bill.
When Bills are introduced in this House and put on the Order Paper, they are printed and every Hon. Member gets a copy of the Bill. They are left there for two months so that pressure groups, lobby groups and interested groups from across the country can have input. But what has happened here? I cannot understand the Minister of Transport doing this because he is an honourable man. I have always admired his honesty and the straighforward way he speaks about issues. Did the House Leader say to the Minister of Transport, "We will ram it through with closure"? I cannot understand this because it is not in character with the Minister of Transport. It is truly not, Mr. Speaker.
I suggest to the Minister that he give the necessary time to allow interest groups from across the country to study the Bill. Surely he has read the Bill. Surely he cannot honestly stand up in this House and say that he understands all the provisions, that he can work out what it is going to cost a producer in northern Alberta to ship his grain, how much a bushel? The legal experts cannot get through the legal jargon; how can he pretend that he can? How can he pretend that we can? It is badly worded legislation. It is bad legislation at a time when
Western Grain Transportation Act
costs of producers are going up increasingly every day. How can we expect a producer to survive if we increase his freight rate, the cost to him, by 400 per cent?
We recognized that situation in this House when it hit the home owner. We recognized immediately that the home owner, who was locked into a mortgage and then had to renew his mortgage when interest rates were so high, would have his payments doubled in some cases. We recognized that in this House, every one of us, and we were prepared to sit down and try to do something about it. I suggest to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared to do something; we are prepared to sit down, we are prepared to say to the farmer "We will give you a choice". We are prepared to work on it, but we cannot do it in two or three days. This Bill is totally and absolutely wrong. The way this Bill is drafted is an outlandish attack on the producers of western Canada.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say, through you, Sir, to my colleague the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), and to my colleague the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), that the voices which you are hearing today are the voices of Hon. Members from across Canada. They are expressing the views of the people across Canada on this Crow rate Bill wich is before this House.
As a Member of Parliament for a riding in northeastern Ontario, I must say that my constituents will be directly affected by this legislation. Many of them are concerned about this legislation and its implications. There is a large agricultural community within my riding of Timiskaming and the farmers of northern Ontario share many of the concerns of their colleagues in western Canada. I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier), being from northern Ontario, should have concern for transportation in northern Ontario.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Like western Canada, northeastern Ontario was developed as a result of the construction of a railway. The railway was the lifeline of many small communities. The character and nature of those communities developed in stride with the railway. The rail line was the transportation link to distant markets and a key factor in the economic well being of the farming community.
The effect that freight rates can have on individual farmers and the agricultural industry is a well-known fact in northern Ontario. This Bill could have a devastating effect on the economy and lifestyle of western Canada. The Crowsnest Pass statutory freight rate has been the basis for the system of production, distribution, marketing and transportation of grain for decades. Every farmer knew what his transportation costs would be each year. It was simple and it was stable. It was one of the few constant factors in an industry that is subject to the whims of nature. Because of the impact this legislation will have, one would think that the Government would proceed with caution and attempt to reach a consensus with all who are

May 19, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
involved as to what steps should be taken before attemping to change the Crow. That, however, would be far too logical a method to expect from this Government. Instead, it has decided to proceed with this legislation no matter what consequences to the West.
There are numerous concerns created by this Bill which force me to oppose it. To start with, it is a complex and bureaucratic nightmare. It is doubtful that a Philadelphia lawyer could decipher it, let alone the average farmer or layman. As I said earlier, the farmer knew what the Crow rate was and could plan accordingly. It was simple, half a cent per tonne mile. What we have presented in this legislation is a formula for setting freight rates which would make anyyone's head swim. It is nothing but bureaucratic gobbledygook.
I do not believe that this Bill retains the principles of a statutory freight rate which is essential to the grain producers of western Canada. The freight rate structure set out in the Bill will allow for open-ended escalation without taking into account what the wheat farmers' profit position is or the value of the grain. By 1985-86, producers will be paying double the existing Crow rate. An additonal $160 million will be taken out of the prairie economy. We on this side of the House are aware of the delicate financial position many of our farmers are now in. Production costs have skyrocketed and farmers' net incomes have nose-dived. Wheat prices today are only a shade higher than they were nine years ago. In that period of time the rate of inflation increased by 135 per cent. If that rate applied to the price of wheat our farmers would be getting $11 a bushel instead of $4.63.
There is no protection for the farmers from escalation of the freight rate. By 1991-92, farmers will be paying five and one halft times the Crow rate, which means that more than an additional $1 billion will be drawn from western Canada. The Minister has stated his intention to bring in a safety net. The record of this Government indicates we need more than good intentions to depend on.
There are many more concerns that we have with this piece of legislation. The Bill excludes new crops and specialty crops. The Minister has suggeted there will be changes, but I do not see them yet.
There is no provision in this Bill to reduce rates if costs should happen to fall. The Government should not have to be reminded what happened in the field of energy. Everything was based on a projected oil price of $70 a barrel and no thought was given to the possibility that prices would drop.
The Bill is a costly bureaucratic mechanism, introduced at a time when agricultural prices are declining and production costs are on the increase. It will force further costs on farmers who are having a tough time shouldering the burden today. The Bill will hamper diversification and further processing of agricultural production in western Canada. It is far too generous to the railroads. It concentrates too much power in the hands of the Minister. It may erode the power of the Canadian Wheat Board. The concerns raised by this Bill go on and on.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, believe the Crowsnest Pass freight rate should remain in statute for the producers of Canada, but adequate compensation proportionate to the cost of moving grain should be provided to the railways. This Bill certainly does not reflect our position. We believe the distortion of the low freight rates in grain and oil seeds vis-a-vis processed products-


Mr. Blais:: Author!


An Hon. Member:: We all are the authors.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I can see we have another Member from northern Ontario who is objecting to the freight rates. I will continue, Mr. Speaker.
We believe grain producers must have a statutory freight rate which preserves the benefits of the Crow and must be protected from open-ended escalation. There is no statutory protection for the farmer in this Bill. Producers should be guaranteed an efficient, cost-effective and reliable grain transportation system. There will be no railway performance guarantees for the first three years under this legislation. The railways will be given a free ride for three years.
There are many ways of improving efficiency and cost effectiveness without changing the Crow rate. As one of my colleagues pointed out, does our grain really have to be weighed six times and graded three times before it is finally exported? Many bottlenecks occur at the grain terminals rather than with the transportation system. Reduction of turnaround time at the terminals would greatly improve the system. Other steps could be taken to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness without tampering with the Crow rate.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party believe the Government of Canada and the railways have a continuing obligation to provide a speical low rate to assist our grain producers in competing with subsidized grain exporting nations. As a trading nation we must be competitive. Our farmers must be protected from the artificial and natural advantages of other grain exporting countries. Australia, Argentina and the United States all subsidize their grain producers. Grain export is a key component of our economy. If we are to remain in a competitive position a special low rate for the transportation of grain must be provided.
We recognize that the railways should receive fair and adequate compensation for the movement of grain in order to allow it to be done efficiently. This Bill, however, goes way beyond being fair and adequate in its compensation to the railways; it is overly generous. Under this Bill the railways will receive 100 per cent of their long-run variable costs, 20 per cent contribution to overhead and 20.5 per cent contribution to capital. On top of that, they will have a freight rate by 1990-91 that will be ten times what the Crow rate is today.
The concerns raised by this piece of legislation are many, Mr. Speaker. One of the greatest concerns to farmers is the timing involved in the introduction of this inadequate piece of
May 19, 1983

legislation. I spoke earlier about the economic difficulties farmers are now facing in western Canada and other parts of the country. I speak with farmers in my riding almost every day who are experiencing difficulties they never thought possible only a few short years ago.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in participating in this debate it is interesting to note how often our friends opposite have introduced closure into this House of Commons. In this session alone closure has been brought in a total of 18 times. This Bill is the nineteenth victim of closure and I am delighted to see that Members opposite have reconsidered their position as it relates to this legislation.
It is also interesting to note the participation by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on a Bill which is going very seriously to affect the agricultural industry in this country. Do you know what his participation in this debate has been, Mr. Speaker? It has been to bring in closure. He did not say one word about how this legislation was going to affect an industry he is responsible for. Not one word. Neither would he have said one word had the Government gone ahead with its closure motion.
We have had insufficient time to analyse all the implications of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and we require that time. It is also interesting to note that the majority of participation by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has been outside this chamber. He has gone to the Press Club to make major announcements relating to this legislation rather than doing it here in this Chamber. Another Minister who has direct responsibility for western Canada is the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). Perhaps the Minister of Transport could indicate to us whether that Minister is going to express his views on the implications of this legislation for the region of the country he comes from.
I repeat what my colleague the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) indicated in this House earlier as it relates to the importance of this legislation to all of Canada, and specifically western Canada. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) indicated in the House on Friday, May 13, the importance of this legislation when he stated that this was the third major piece of legislation which has come before this Parliament after the patriation of the Canadian Constitution and our national energy policy.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, requires time so that those within the agricultural community can have input. There are many provisions of this legislation which I will never understand because I am not as closely associated with western transportation concerns as my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski). But let me just highlight a few of the items we are dissatisfied with.
The distortion of the low freight rates in grain and oil seeds vis-a-vis processed products should be removed and the natural advantage retained. Payment directly to the railways, which is in this Bill, will further distort the existing freight rate anomaly and mitigate against further diversification. The Act will now cost livestock producers $20 a tonne in extra costs to
Western Grain Transportation Act
offset the subsidy to grain producers. It is fundamental that western Canada's agricultural base must be broadened and diversified to permit more processing in western Canada. According to the Minister's own figures, the distortion will result in the loss of an additional $1 billion in livestock production, and an additional $350 million worth of economic activity with respect to processing, packing plants and the feed mill industry in western Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: All false.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, grain producers must have a statutory freight rate which preserves the benefits of the Crow and must be protected from open-ended escalation. What this Bill does is to ensure that producers will be paying double the existing Crow rate by 1985-86, which means that an additional $160 million will be taken out of the prairie economy. They will pay five and a half times by 1991-92, which means that more than an additional $1 billion will disappear from western Canada. In 1982, Mr. Speaker, farmers' net income plummeted by 35 per cent while energy costs throughout Canada have risen by 81 per cent since 1979.
There is no statutory protection for the farmer in this legislation. It has been transferred to the federal Government which will pay a frozen amount, $651 million annually, in perpetuity. The 31.1 million tonne cap will provide a further disincentive to increased grain transportation. Producers should be guaranteed an efficient, cost-effective and reliable grain transportation system, and under this legislation there will be no railway performance guarantees for the first three years. The Bill totally ignores other methods of providing efficiency and cost effectiveness to the rail and transport system.
The Government of Canada and the railways have a continuing obligation to provide a special low rate to assist producers competing with subsidized grain export nations. Let us review what other countries do for their grain producers. In Australia, under the Victoria State railway system, farmers pay less than 50 per cent of the average cost of moving grain. In 1982 in Australia, the diesel fuel tax and gasoline tax for all agricultural products was reduced by some 6 cents a litre. In Argentina, effective October 7, 1981 the National Grain Board provided free rail freight for grain from the nearest station available to the shipping port. In the European Economic Community wheat farmers receive a direct subsidy of some $2.53 a bushel. The United States pays an average subsidy of $ 13.81 U.S. a tonne for wheat and $6.84 a tonne for barley.
The fifth principle that we in this Chamber are advocating is that the railways should receive adequate and fair compensation for the movement of grain to provide the necessary capital for maintenance of plant and equipment. I indicated earlier that the 31.1 million tonne cap will provide a disincentive to increased grain production in Canada. The blended freight

May 19, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
rate and the prospect of variable rates will create a further disincentive.
A blended freight rate, a rate combining the new freight rate below the 31.1 million tonne limit with another freight rate above the 31.1 million tonne limit, is another example of the complexity of the rate itself which has been developed by the bureaucrats in the Government. As there is no clear consensus in western Canada concerning to whom or how the method of payment should be made, we in the Progressive Conservative Party are indicating that we will introduce an amendment to the legislation making the Crow benefit payable on an optional basis, either to the producer or to the railway. This would once again allow the greater opportunity of flexibility and freedom of choice.
Our spokesman on the legislation, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), was allotted more than the ten minutes which we are allotted to participate in the debate. He elaborated on a number of the topics which I have touched upon. However, the Bill is essentially far too overgenerous to the railways of Canada because, by 1990, the railways will receive a 1,000 per cent increase in the freight rate as compared to today. There is no provision in the legislation that they are to reduce their rates in the event that their input costs should fall.
Let me close by saying that it is only fair to all individuals in Canada that the legislation have a fair hearing, not only from us as Parliamentarians, but also from the entire agricultural sector across Canada.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased in some ways to have a chance to say a few words in the Crow debate. In other ways, I am not so happy because the potential impact of the Crow does not bode well for the unity of this country. It also does not bode well for a great number of Canadians, not only farmers but also many others.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You must mean the opposite, Jim.


James Ross Fulton: Before discussing the actual impact of the Crow, I would like to discuss the politics of it. I know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) quite well, and I think I can honestly say today that of all the Cabinet Ministers sitting on the front benches, I respect him the most. That is not difficult to say, with only three Liberals present in the Chamber for one of the most important debates that we have had in some 80 or more years in relation to the transportation of grain.
Let me deal first with the politics of it because the Minister of Transport knows full well how this has come to be over the last ten years. His predecessor, Mr. Lang, was defeated quite soundly by a colleague of mine for his philosophy of user-pay and so on. However, I know that the Minister of Transport has been under increasing pressure from certain commodity producers and movers, particularly in the raw resource sector, whether coal, pretroleum products or forestry products. Through a variety of ways and means of contacts which the Liberal Party has in western Canada, it has contacted a lot of flacks and hacks with various large corporations to try to drum up some support in British Columbia and in western Canada
for the proposals which the Minister of Transport now has before the House.
We should be totally honest about it: the change which is being proposed here is because CN and CP have been saying to those raw resource and commodity movers, whether petroleum or coal, "Look, we cannot lower the rates to you. We cannot be more competitive because we have this Crow rate around our necks. We must be moving all this grain, be involved with all these hopper cars and all these other things." However, they have never bothered to be completely honest, saying that the real out of pocket expenses are about $380 million a year. They have always used an excuse, getting the producers off their backs and putting them on the back of the Minister of Transport. So he sits in his office and I am glad to see him here today.
However, I think the Minister, as my colleague from Regina has pointed out, has forgotten about the impact on the farmers who comprise a very important sector of Canada. In terms of the balance of trade, it has always been a very important group within Canadian society. The average age of farmers is now 59 years of age. Anyone who has taken the time to read the Global 2000 report knows that North America and the world in general will run into a major crunch in terms of the cost of moving grain and getting it to the starving hundreds of millions around the world in the coming years.
This is a crazy time to be bringing in a policy which would end the many branch lines across Canada, forcing many grain producers to rubber haul, passing many costs on to the regional districts, towns, villages and Provinces which would have to upgrade their road systems because of the massive increase in many areas in rubber hauling. I do not think the Minister of Transport or his Government is dealing fairly with farmers or with the House generally in not having done what Emmett Hall did a few years ago and what is obviously the kind of scientific approach which should be taken on an issue such as this one.
What will be the impact on branch lines? What will be the impact on small towns? What will be the future impact in terms of the cost? As we know, by 1991 $1 billion more will be taken out of the farmers' pockets. That means that they will not be buying tractors every three or four years but, rather, every five, six or seven years. They will not be buying as much fertilizer. The sum of $1 billion will be taken out of the western economy and put to other purposes.
The other matter which neither the Minister of Transport nor any Liberal Member wants to rise to speak about is that this is a great big handout, another big bailout of CP. Any why? Yesterday I was speaking with a few Liberals hacks who were saying, "Oh, CP's stock is widely held by Canadians; it has a pension plan and all these other things". It is as though helping CP somehow has something tangible to do with the Liberal Party or something. Good grief, we have already given it over $13 billion in recent years in direct subsidies and handouts, never receiving any equity.
May 19, 1983

I listened with interest to my friends to the right. The Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), the President of the Conservative Party, told Canadians where they stand. Many observers are now saying that there is some kind of a struggle here for the hearts and minds of western Canadians between the NDP and the Tories on the Crow issue.


Mr. Lewis:: You can't. It's all over.


James Ross Fulton: The Tories are conceding it. They know the NDP position is well known in western Canada. There is not a farmer around who does not know that we have a very philosophical approach to the Crow rate, as to why we stand for preservation of the Crow rate, why we said publicly that the out of pocket expenses which accrue to CN or to CP should be forthcoming in some way from the federal Government, but that they should not be making profits on sudsidies as the Bill guarantees. It guarantees profits to CP. The Minister of Transport is shaking his head.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No.


James Ross Fulton: Perhaps he has not read some of the tantalizing details which CP wrote into his legislation while it was in his office.
The other thing which we must carefully consider is the approach which the Liberals have been taking that the NDP is trying to prevent people from getting jobs. We know that the railroads are showing their publicity films and trying to convince the workers and others that certain things will not happen if the Crow legislation does not go through.
Let me deal with my area for a moment, from Redpass through to Prince Rupert. There is $100 million being spent there this year on a ballast lift, new ties, heavier steels, 57 bridges and so on. That is certainly in direct relation to northeast coal and the movement of other commodities than grain.
I believe the Minister should talk to some of the Pools. Right now there is a 24-hour a day cement pour occurring in Prince Rupert on the grain elevator there. The 31.1 million tonne cap provided for in the Bill will have an impact there. It is difficult to analyse what that impact will be at this time but the reason for that cap, as my hon. friend the Hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) pointed out yesterday, is that CN and CP are buying major railway lines in the United States where they will be moving grain, particularly from Saskatchewan, down into the U.S. for offshore movement. The Minister of Transport shrugs his shoulders. 1 would like to see him table any studies that he has about where the future movement of grain is likely to occur in terms of changes that will occur in the world. It has not been done.
This represents an injection of funds into CP without having looked at what the possible additional costs or impact will be to farmers or what the impact will be on Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Churchill, the Lakehead and other areas.
Western Grain Transportation Act
When Bills such as this are brought before the House I think it is important that there not be the kind of posturing such as we have seen from the Liberals. They do not put up any speakers. The minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) introduced a notice of motion of closure after we had only a couple of minutes of debate. British Columbians and all Canadians should know exactly what the Minister of Transport and the Liberals are proposing and why the legislation is so bad for Manitobans and people from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
In 1983-84 there will be $564.5 million going to CP. In 1984-85 it will receive $593 million, in 1985-86 it will receive $622 million and from 1986 on it will receive $651 million. The Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and their hacks, whether they work for the private sector or directly for the Liberals, as they tour western Canada trying to drum up support, do not talk about the fact that a billion dollars is being taken away from the farmers. They do not mention that the rates the farmers will be paying by the year 2000 will be 12 times what they are paying right now.
It is also very important for Canadians to know what the distinct difference is between what the Liberals and the Tories are saying. The Liberals are saying: follow the line of the Quebec caucus, give the money to CP and make sure that the livestock producers in the East are happy; send the Prime Minister West, as my colleague for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) pointed out, to tell western livestock producers to stick it because they do not vote Liberal.
At the same time we see this kind of foxy process attack from the Tories in the House. They are not willing to say that they stand for the Crow or for giving a certain amount of out of pocket expenses to the rail lines but no profit above that, or at least equity for Canadians. They blur the issue. I have listened to their speeches and have talked to reporters who have covered their speeches. They are well aware of the fact that the Tories are split down the middle. They also know that the Liberals really do not know what the impact will be for Canada, our farmers or our ports in western Canada.
Of all the Ministers on that side of the House, I think the Minister of Transport has the responsibility to make some major changes in this legislation and not to take the attitude that since his Government has a majority it will jam it through. He should not take the attitude that the NDP and the Tories are causing his Party a lot of editorial grief out West which causes the mail to come in again. I think the Minister is one of the few on that side who can take the initiative to make those changes.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in the seven minutes that I have to speak on this Bill, I will base my remarks primarily on the standpoint of urban western Canada. Simply stated, my argument is that this Bill is the wrong solution at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. Why do I say that? Because it may well do for western diversification what the national energy policy did for our oil and gas industry.

May 19, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
According to the respected and honest Chris Mills of the Alberta cattle industry, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is opposed to this measure. The Prime Minister indicated to the farmers in Jasper the other night that it was a bad measure, but since votes could not be guaranteed to the Liberal Party, it was going ahead. Indeed, to my knowledge no organization or person anywhere in Canada supports this Bill except for the Prime Minister and therefore, of course, his caucus.
It is the wrong time for this legislation because prairie farmers are now facing increased costs and dropping incomes. As others have pointed out, this Liberal measure is taking approximately $160 million out of prairie prairie pockets by 1985-86 and a billion dollars by 1991-92. Our towns and cities in western Canada will suffer. Not only will our people suffer but those in central Canada who make cars, furniture and other commodities will suffer because of this measure.
In the time remaining I would like to give some reasons why I think this measure is profoundly bad for Canada and particularly for the West. The Bill will accelerate the decline of the meat packing industry in western Canada. I am told that not too many years ago the meat packing industry was the largest employer of people in the City of Edmonton. The Gainers plant in my riding was closed a few years ago. The Burns plant in Edmonton closed in 1979, taking 700 jobs with it.
Elsewhere in western Canada closings included the Burns plant in Prince Albert in 1976 with 500 jobs lost; Canadian Dressed Meats in Medicine Hat in 1978 with 120 jobs lost; Swifts in Winnipeg in 1979 with 550 jobs lost; Burns in Regina in 1974 with 200 jobs lost. As well, Gainers in Lethbridge is now closed for an undetermined time with any number of jobs lost.
Furthermore, the Bill reduces the opportunities in western Canada for further diversification. Incidentally, unemployment in Edmonton is now above 12 per cent. Yet the forecast yesterday by the Conference Board of Canada said that lower gas prices and rising consumer confidence had boosted the general economic prospects of all Provinces except Alberta. The report also indicated that Alberta's prospects have dimmed considerably in response to energy market developments. The same report noted that Ontario and Quebec would benefit most from increased consumer demands. As a Canadian I wish the people of Ontario and Quebec nothing but prosperity. However, it will not go unnoticed that the big loser in this Bill is once again economic development in western Canada.
I will skip what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) said about this Bill being one of the three most important measures introduced since this Government came to office. The National Energy Program, which he included among those three measures, has had approximately the same effect on western Canada as the bubonic plague. For a Minister to say that the National Energy Program was good for Canada as a whole or for western Canada is self-evident nonsense.
Bill C-155 freezes in concrete the existing distortion in low freight rates for grains and oil seeds against those for processed products. The Bill will cost livestock producers $20 a tonne in extra costs to effect the subsidy of grain producers. According to the Minister's own words, the distortion will result in a loss of an additional $1 billion in livestock production and an additional $350 million worth of economic activity with respect to processing, packing plants and the feed mill industry in western Canada.
Our producers should be guaranteed an efficient, cost effective and reliable grain transportation system. Anyone who studies economics in western Canada knows that the railways were given basically downtown western Canada. I do not think it is necessary to turn around and give them another very rich gift from the taxpayers of Canada.
I see you are getting ready to stand, Mr. Speaker, so on behalf of urban western Canada I would strongly object to this measure.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I would like to comment on an agreement in principle of historical importance that has been reached by leaders of the Societe franco-manitobaine and the Government of Manitoba with the Federal Government, with a view to making that province officially bilingual. The agreement includes a proposal for a constitutional amendment which would modify Section 23 of the Manitoba Act (1870) regarding the use of French and/or English in the proceedings and documents of the legislature and before the courts.
The House will remember that in 1979, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that a law passed in 1890, by which English was proclaimed the Official Language of this Province, was unconstitutional. The 1979 judgment therefore restored the officially bilingual status of Manitoba. Since this landmark judgment, negotiations have been taking place between the Franco-Manitoban community and the Provincial
May 19, 1983

Government with a view to finding an arrangement agreeable to both language communities.
Today, Canadians are both proud of and pleased with an agreement whose effect will be to make the Province of Manitoba officially bilingual. Basically, the agreement recognizes both English and French as official languages in Manitoba and states that it is binding on the Manitoba Legislature to print and publish its statutes, regulations and other official documents in both official languages.
As a Franco-Ontarian, I wish to conclude by congratulating Franco-Manitobans, and I also wish to reiterate my invitation to the Province of Ontario to follow Manitoba's example by generously offering the same constitutional guarantees to its official language minority.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, in December, 1982, when it came to a purely humanitarian vote at the United Nations Third Committee on Eluman Rights dealing with Cypriot missing persons, Canada abstained on the excuse that it participates in the peace-keeping forces in Cyprus despite the fact that the greater majority of other peace-keeping participants in Cyprus, such as Austria, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Ireland, voted in favour.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) has reaffirmed, in a letter dated March 8, 1983, that Canada does indeed recognize only the administration headed by President Spyros Kyprianou as the sole legitimate authority for Cyprus, and does not recognize the self proclaimed Turkish federated state of Kibris which occupies almost 40 per cent of Cyprus seized by Turkey in 1974.
I believe, Madam Speaker, the time has come for Canada to stand on its own two feet, get off the fence and reassess its stand on the issue of Cyprus.
Canada's actions and voting pattern should clearly differentiate between the victim, Cyprus, and the aggressor, Turkey, in this dispute. Moreover, Canada should stop pussyfooting and exert strong pressures within NATO to convince Turkey to withdraw its occupation forces from Cyprus so that Greek and Turkish Cypriots can negotiate freely concerning their future rather than under the threat of a gun.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, next Thursday the long awaited removal of asbestos materials from throughout the main Ottawa post office terminal will begin. Work was to commence today, but in the face of union pressure and threats of employee job action, Canada Post retreated under fire and postponed action for one more week. The hazardous work of removal, with its consequent loosening and dispersal of cancer inducing asbestos fibres within the work environment, will continue for approximately one year and, despite the protests of postal workers and their unions, this work must take place while 1,100 to 1,200 employees stay on the job within the building.
Despite assurances from management, this insensitive action by Canada Post, operating within the inflexible restraints of Government policy, cannot help but pose additional and unnecessary risks to the health and life of hundreds of public employees.
About a year ago these employees were promised a new building, free of asbestos. This pledge was broken. This promise was then replaced by a commitment to relocate the bulk of the postal terminal activities to other buildings during the period of asbestos removal. Now this promise, too, has been scrapped. The employees and their union have simply been told that "business as usual is the bottom line", and that jerry built partitions, air pressure, and monitoring of hazard levels will be the only protective measures taken, a totally unacceptable response to such a dangerous risk to workers' lives and health.
I urge the Government to intervene and relocate the Post Office's operations during removal.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I want to put forth for a second time a matter that I believe is urgent. Under the new Canadian Constitution new Provinces can only be formed and provincial boundaries can only be extended with the approval of seven Provinces having 50 per cent of the Canadian population. Any Province can accept or veto any changes to its boundaries under Section 43 so that the land base and resources of any particular Province can be protected. However, there exist no criteria for creating new Provinces or for changing the boundaries of any Province. Parliament should therefore appoint a Royal Commission or a joint federal-provincial committee at the earliest opportunity to recommend basic criteria for such changes.

May 19, 1983
Indeed, criteria should be established for the granting of provincial status to the Yukon; for the eventual granting of provincial or semi-provincial status to the Mackenzie region and the eastern Arctic region; for the possible establishment of new Provinces within the central region of Canada, such as northern Ontario and for the possible extension of provincial boundaries north of the sixtieth parallel into the northern territories. Perhaps even Vancouver Island may one day desire provincial status.
The creation of additional Provinces would enhance national unity and provide greater equity to the entrenched constitutional amending formula.


Madam Speaker:: Order.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Madam Speaker, as a result of our 6 and 5 policy and the recent budget, we are no longer talking about recession but about economic recovery. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a quite extraordinary example which, I hope, will be followed and repeated. I am referring to the announcement made by the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) to the people of Asbestos on May 16 of this year, according to which more than 300 jobs will be created.
This particular case is a perfect example of co-operation among economic partners. We have here a S35 million project, in which our Government is to invest $3.5 million, that is, $1.4 million under Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and $2.2 million under the NEED Program. The Johns-Manville Company will be investing $30 million over a period of two years. The contribution of the Syndicat National de l'Amiante d'Asbestos will be approximately $2 million, in the form of a wage freeze, at the rate paid on May 15, 1983, until January 31, 1985. Furthermore, employees have agreed to give up the cost of living bonus provided by their collective agreement.
Unionized workers in the community of Asbestos made labour history in Canada in 1949. They have just made history again by taking an active part in our economic recovery. I wish to pay tribute to all those men and women who belong to the unions in question which are affiliated to the CSD.


Madam Speaker:: Order!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, a deeply rooted tradition in Canada agriculture is the family farm, proven so efficient and profitable both from social and economic points of view. Generation by generation, family farms have improved the quality of life in rural and urban Canada as they kept up the demand for small tractors, trucks, and manufactured goods. Yet the nationwide trend becomes evident from the data available. Farms tend to become fewer and bigger.
The size of the average Canadian farm rose from 279 acres in 1951 to 463 acres in 1971, and recently to more than 511 acres. The number of family farms dropped from over 336,000 in 1971 to 275,000 in 1981. This negative trend, if not averted, will result in a concentration of land in fewer hands, which invariably leads to government control over agriculture.
If the Liberal Government fails to honour our traditional heritage-family farms producing the bulk of our food supply-then we will one day repeat the tragic example of socialist countries with their centralized farming, importing of food and food lines.
This Parliament must bring forth a strategy to rectify this serious trend and keep our Canadian farmers on the land.

O)



BILINGUALISM


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, Canadians should be proud at what appears to be evolving in Manitoba with that Province's apparent agreement to become officially bilingual. If we English-speaking Canadians want to keep this country together, we must accept the basic duality of Canada by giving equal treatment to our two founding languages throughout Canada. However, according to today's Ottawa Citizen, such is not the attitude of the Hon. Conservative Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist). The Hon. Member is alleged to have said that "the British victory at the Plains of Abraham means that Canada should have one main language and Francophones outside Quebec should be treated virtually like any other minority".
The Hon. Member is also alleged to oppose recognizing French as one of the two official languages of work in the civil service. Undoubtedly the Hon. Member is entitled to his views, but that is not the official policy of the Progressive Conservative Party and this raises the question of how serious that Party is about its support of bilingualism.
May 19, 1983

The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will be the official Leader of the Opposition of the Progressive Conservatives for a few more weeks, and these statements provide him with an opportunity to demonstrate the stuff of which he is made. Will he, like a distinguished predecessor, the Hon. Robert Stanfield, repudiate the Hon. Member, or will he remain silent? Canadians will be waiting to hear from him on this issue. I for one hope that all three official parties in this House will present a united front on this crucial issue. I invite him to speak up.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) proposes to tour and inspect the great number of source pollutants along the Niagara River on or about June 6 of this year. This comes three years after the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to take some remedial action and after three years of badgering by Opposition Members, as well as by the Hon. Member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain).
The extent of the pollution of the Niagara River is a matter of national concern. It affects the quality of drinking water for four million Canadians. Last February I urged the Minister to lift this environmental hazard from party politics and lead an all-party delegation on this tour. I want to be one of those able to greet and welcome the Minister to my home region. I want to be able to see with him the contaminating sources, and to hear the exchanges that take place thereat on why we continue to have this national disgrace.
If the Minister is truly concerned with getting the facts, with understanding the problem and taking positive action, he will put the health and well-being of those four million Canadians ahead of the fortunes of the Liberal Party, and make this an all-party matter of concern. To do otherwise will be irresponsible, and the actions of the Minister will continue to be suspect. Let him now show his good faith by acting in a forthright, non-partisan manner.



DENIAL OF NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE FRANCHISE TO SASKATOON

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the NHL owners rejected the transfer of the St. Louis Blues to Saskatoon. Saskatchewan is now the only Province west of the Maritimes with no professional hockey team, despite the fact that hockey greats like Gordie Howe and present-day stars like Bob Bourne, Brian Trottier and Clark Gillies come from Saskatchewan. A major reason is that
Oral Questions
Harold Ballard, the owner of the Toronto "make-believes", said no to Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Boo!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If the NHL wanted to transfer his so-called team to Saskatchewan, the people of Saskatchewan would say no.
Another reason is that the Conservative Premier of Saskatchewan made the St. Louis Blues his only megaproject in his "open-for-business" Government. It is very surprising that he failed. After all, the Conservative Government brought Saskatchewan the unemployment blues, the agricultural blues, the potash blues, the economic blues, and the bankruptcy blues. The only thing it could not bring us was the St. Louis Blues. I suggest, in conclusion, an exchange of two losing teams, the Blues to Saskatoon, and Devine and his Cabinet to St. Louis.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, of which I have given him notice. What moneys, other than the $500,000 loan extended to the Canada Development Investment Corporation under the Financial Administration Act, have been given to that company?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, the Canada Development Investment Corporation has received certain sums of money as a result of transfers of shares to certain corporations, and especially to Eldorado Nuclear Limited.


AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUIRING FUNDS FROM ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, what we have here is a situation where the Government cannot appropriate funds directly for CIDC because CIDC status has never been recognized by Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that in view of the desperation of CIDC to get its hands on funds which it cannot get directly from Parliament, it is trying to bleed various subsidiaries, it is charging management fees to Canadair and de Havilland, and has forced Eldorado Nuclear to buy back $10 million of its own shares, with the proceeds to go to the CIDC instead of the Consolidated Revenue Fund where they should have gone?

May 19, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the reasons the Hon. Member is attributing to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, acting on behalf of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, for receiving revenue are not the right ones at all. First of all, as far as the legislation is concerned, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that we shall be tabling the Bill later today, and we hope to have an opportunity to consider this legislation in Parliament as quickly as possible.
As far as the sums of money charged by the Corporation as management fees are concerned, I think it is common business practice and entirely appropriate in this case. As for the amounts paid by Eldorado Nuclear Limited to the Corporation it was not because of any desperate need of money on the part of the Corporation but because by the middle of this decade, Eldorado Nuclear Limited would have to pay very substantial dividends to the Canada Development Investment Corporation, and to prevent any undue financial burden on Eldorado, the Corporation agreed to a financial arrangement under which certain shares held by the Canada Development Investment Corporation in Eldorado Nuclear would be bought back.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It must be new math, Madam Speaker? I have sure lost him.


APPLICATION OF FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Can the
Minister confirm that in fact Eldorado paid that money directly to CIDC and CIDC intends to hang on to that money as opposed to giving it to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, where it should go? Will the Minister tell the House whether, before this was done, he or any other official asked for an opinion from the Department of Justice with regard to Section 11(1) of the Financial Administration Act, which would direct that that money not go the CIDC but directly to the Receiver General of Canada and into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I wish to confirm that the amount paid by Eldorado Nuclear Limited to the Canada Development Investment Corporation was for investment development. I have already indicated why payment took place, namely, to prevent any undue financial burden on Eldorado a few years from now, as a result of its commitments to the CDIC.
I also wish to remind the Hon. Member that this afternoon, he will realize when the Bill is read, that it contains provisions that Parliament will be asked to approve regarding the use of
funds received by the Canada Development Investment Corporation from its affiliated corporations.


APPROPRIATIONS FOR CANADAIR AND DE HAVILLAND CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I had intended to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, when tabling the estimates, the President of the Treasury Board filed appropriations for Canadair for $240 million and $60 million for de Havilland Aircraft Corporation. Did the President of the Treasury Board or the Prime Minister have in his possession financial statements of these corporations indicating that the appropriation of $240 million in one case and $60 million in the other was sufficient to put these corporations back on an even keel, or is this just another infusion of cash for these corporations, like the cash infusion we gave these corporations last November, to keep them alive for another six months?


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, 1 will investigate whether the financial statements were available to the President of the Treasury Board, and report back to the Hon. Member. The funds that were designated for Canadair and de Havilland were to strengthen their equity bases.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has had an opportunity to look at these figures; otherwise I see no reason why he should be answering questions.


CORPORATIONS' FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I again direct my question to the Prime Minister as he should be on top of these things. I would ask the Prime Minister if there are financial statements available for these corporations and, if not, how does the Government propose to ask Parliament to approve a total of $300 million without any real indication of where we are going with respect to these losers and how much more money we will have to pour into them? Where are we going?


Peter Joseph Lang: Madam Speaker, quite clearly the Government had the financial information that was necessary to make the decision to strengthen the equity base of Canadair and of de Havilland. It is important to recognize that this is an industry that Canada wants to keep, and an industry which has a high technology base.
May 19, 1983


SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The McDonald Commission did a lot of work over an extended period of time and pointed out that one of the problems with Canada's existing Security Service was that it had no clear mandate. Following up that analysis, the Commission took care to recommend rather precisely defined activities that could be put under surveillance. For instance, the McDonald Commission talked about "foreign interference" as an activity which, under certain circumstances, would warrant surveillance. Why has the Government disregarded this precision in wording, and why has it produced new and much broader wording that raises very serious questions about civil liberties? Very specifically in this context, what groups or individuals did the Government believe should come under surveillance that the McDonald Commission thought should be left in freedom?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a question of how precise a definition we as parliamentarians can come up with to guide the Security Service into the areas of improper foreign interference, domestic subversion and so on, and keep it out of the areas of legitimate dissent, protest, and advocacy. This has been a very difficult distinction to draw. I agree in many ways with the McDonald Commission's analysis about where the line should be drawn, and 1 believe that the definition that we have come up with is a definition that will stand up under scrutiny of the committee to indicate that, indeed, anyone in the country who wants to engage in dissent, advocacy and protest will not for that reason become a target of the Security Service.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister has provided no reassurances at all.


INVESTIGATION OF FOREIGN INFLUENCED ACTIVITIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the phrase used by the McDonald Commission was "foreign interference". The phrase substituted by the Government for that was "foreign influence", a fundamental distinction that could surely be made by anyone who believed in the free distribution of ideas between countries. I would ask the Minister very precisely why the Government substituted the phrase "foreign influence" for the more precise phrase "foreign interference" that the McDonald Commission used, a phrase that obviously demonstrated much more sensitivity to the maintenance of traditional civil liberties and freedom of the flow of information between countries?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I think that the expression "foreign influenced activities" is more specific than the expression "foreign interference", an expression which could have a number of interpretations that in my view "foreign influenced activities" clarifies.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the Minister read the McDonald Commission report again because it went on to spell out in some detail why that particular phrase was used and the kind of meaning that was attached to it.


EXERCISE OF PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to go to another area entirely. There were many who were concerned that the activities of these security forces be subject to proper scrutiny, and particularly, in a parliamentary democracy, subject to parliamentary control and not simply subject to the control of the Government of the day. In this context the McDonald Commission recommended the establishment of a committee of experts, including representatives of all Parties in the House, surely an essential requirement in a democracy, I would argue. Why has the Government abandoned this very sensible recommendation, one that would ensure that Parliament would exercise control over this body rather than leaving control in the hands of the Government, a Government which in the past has gotten us into so much trouble when it comes to civil liberties?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that it is at all accurate to say that this responsibility of oversight has been left to Government. Indeed, this responsibility of oversight has been assigned to an external review body. The difficulty I had with the McDonald Commission's recommendations were that so many machineries of oversight were recommended, each of which would be supported by its own bureaucracy, that there would indeed be a very heavy bureaucratic weight on the effective operation of the agency. I believe that there can be effective external review by the machinery which is proposed, and I think I can demonstrate that to the House when the time comes to look in depth at these proposals.
Finally, so far as parliamentary review is concerned, I think parliamentary review is created by this Bill to an extent far greater than we know it now, because the external review committee will submit an annual report to a committee of Parliament. There will be the opportunity to examine the report, call witnesses, look at other documents-


John Edward Broadbent: Very different from what McDonald recommended.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Indeed, if I heard the Hon. Member correctly, it is different from the recommendations of the McDonald Commission. It is less bureaucratic. I think it is equally effective and I think that it will give Parliament, together with every other opportunity there is to question the Minister and examine the Estimates of the Security Service which will be part of the Estimates of the RCMP, more than an adequate opportunity for parliamentary review and a far greater opportunity for parliamentary review than there is under the present arrangements.

May 19, 1983
Oral Questions AIR CANADA


APPEARANCE OF OFFICIALS AT COMMITTEE MEETING
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of today's notice of a Transport Committee meeting this afternoon, "regarding the appearance of Air Canada on Tuesday, May 24 . .. ", has the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers given instructions that Government Members on the Committee should stonewall the appearance of Air Canada officials and its Chairman?


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


REQUEST THAT CHAIRMAN TAKE LEAVE OF ABSENCE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Since we now understand that the police investigating the Chairman of Air Canada and his friends must obtain evidence in the Caribbean and in Europe, with no finality of conclusion, and since the Prime Minister had enough interest in the appointment of his friend to take a helicopter to his farm to invite him to be Chairman, does the Prime Minister not now think that, for the sake of Air Canada and its reputation, he should at least pick up the phone and ask the Chairman to stand down and take a leave of absence pending completion of the criminal investigation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the gentlemen opposite could hold their applause. The facts are completely wrong and they come from an ignorant and prejudiced mind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday, Donald Oag flew from Edmonton to Toronto effectively as a free man as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision on gating. Does the Minister have any comments to make beyond saying that Oag, Wayne Sparling, Patrick Truscott, Patrick Noonan, William Smith, Scott Hyggen and other highly dangerous convicts will be watched once outside? More important, will he tell us why a viable but fair gating procedure was not brought before the House a good long time ago?
[DOT] (M30)


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the individuals the Hon. Member named are indeed
released from penitentiary but they are under mandatory supervision. This means that they have an obligation to report regularly to their parole supervisor. I am not satisfied with that; I would prefer to have the authority to see them continue to serve their time behind bars until the end of their sentences, but the decision of the court is as the Hon. Member said.
I have brought legislation forward and it is being presented to the Senate. It will re-establish the gating authority of the National Parole Board. I would ask the co-operation and assistance of all Hon. Members to get this sensible and needed legislation implemented into law.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, as we say in the West, from the standpoint of public safety the Minister does not know whether he is on foot or on horseback.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, the Minister knows perfectly well that next week the Legal Committee of the Senate will, in all likelihood, rule that his gating amendments to Bill S-32 are improper. Why has he not brought a fair but adequate gating procedure before this democratically elected body?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in reviewing the proposals when I submitted them to Cabinet the Government made the decision that they would move more expeditiously if they were introduced in the Senate because of the relative work loads of the two Houses. I cannot say whether that decision was right or wrong in the event, because it is impossible to guess whether that legislation would have been treated in this House the way the Opposition has treated all the other legislation presented by the Government. I am glad to know that the Hon. Member supports gating legislation. I hope when that legislation comes to us, all of us will take steps to see it implemented as quickly as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Montreal-Mercier):: My
question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Following the agreement concluded by Lebanon and Israel, which reads as follows, and 1 quote:

"The parties agree and undertake-to respect the sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of each
May 19, 1983

other, and the parties confirm that the state of war between Lebanon and Israel has terminated and no longer exists-"

Does the Prime Minister intend to emphasize the need for making a lasting peace in that part of the world by inviting Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon and to sign the agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I agree that it would be much better if Syria were to adopt the position recommended by the Hon. Member. I do not know whether the Department of External Affairs intends to transmit this suggestion to the Syrians. The negotiations that took place were very complex, and I do not know to what extent or at what point Syria was involved. It is therefore difficult for me to suggest that things might have been different if the negotiations had been conducted in a different manner. I really have no idea. The negotiations, as far as I know, were conducted without Canada being informed, and I believe that the solution proposed by the Hon. Member would of course be an excellent one. However, I do not know how Canada could persuade Syria to adopt this position.

[English)


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last fall the Prime Minister appointed a new Minister in charge of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. In the first seven months of his mandate the new Minister has made sure that FIRA approved more than 95 per cent of the applications that came before it. Keeping in mind that FIRA screens less than 10 per cent of foreign expansion in the first place, can the Prime Minister explain why the Government has lost all interest in ensuring that foreign investment in this country offers some significant benefit to Canadians? This is the highest approval rate in the history of FIRA.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it may be a higher rate, but my recollection is that the approval rate over the last ten years has varied between 85 per cent and 95 per cent, or perhaps 90 per cent and 95 per cent. I do not see any change. Perhaps it is because foreign investors now know that Canadians are demanding with much more stringency that they bring benefit to Canada when they propose a foreign investment scheme. The lawyers who represent them have probably learned from our experience of the last ten years that there is no point applying for foreign investment approval if you are not going to be able to demonstrate that it will bring a definite benefit to Canadians.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think the real reason is that the Government has changed the threshold rate, has
Oral Questions
changed the definition of small business, and has streamlined the Agency.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to implement a campaign promise made in 1980 that he would strengthen FIRA to make sure it had the ability to screen all expansion of foreign investment instead of only take-overs and new investment. He made that promise again in the Throne Speech in 1980. The Prime Minister made that promise. Is it his intention to keep that promise to the Canadian people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we did move from a situation where we were only screening take-overs to now, new investment by existing companies. I think that is definite progress.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, who has been in the House during Question Period for only one-third of the sitting days since he introduced his budget, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
One of his Department managers has been forced to advise his staff to stop reading books, magazines, and newspapers during work hours and to work a full day for a full day's pay. Further, the manager suggests that when employees do not have work to do, they go to their supervisor and request work.
In view of the obvious under-employment in his own Department, how can the Minister justify the addition of 1,500 person years to his Department in both the Main and Supplementary Estimates, or is this his idea of work sharing?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, first of all I should like to point out that the Hon. Minister of Finance has been representing this country abroad at a number of very important international finance meetings. I think it is a little unfortunate that the Hon. Member opposite would take that kind of cheap shot when we are trying to ensure that the best interests of the country are being protected and represented in international forums throughout the world. I think his activities are certainly far more productive than the activities of the front bench opposite who are saying nothing about anything.
As far as the question is concerned, I think it is a derogatory question. I happen to know that the public servants in my Department, faced with a substantially increased load on the unemployment insurance system and the job-creation system, have been performing a remarkable service and providing a

May 19, 1983
Oral Questions
service to the public. It does no one any good for a member of the Opposition to try to run them down.
Mliss Carney: Madam Speaker, the Minister's answer indicates that he is the expert on saying nothing about nothing.


STATISTICS CANADA-EMPLOYEES' OBSERVANCE OF WORK HOURS
Pat Carney: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. The management of Statistics Canada is also concerned about the observance of the hours of work, specifically whether employees are employed for a seven and a half hour day and a 37.5 hour week. A StatsCan survey of the Department's employees shows that 15 per cent to 20 per cent of them are goofing off before the day's work is done.
Since there are 2 million Canadians unemployed, many of them highly qualified, has the Minister considered firing the employees who are goofing off and replacing them from the ranks of the unemployed?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, contrary to what the Hon. Member is saying, as a result of the budget that was introduced by the Minister of Finance, my Department, with no or very few additional person years, through the procurement process will be able to increase our level of procurement and thereby create jobs.
If the hon. lady needs some experience of the level of activity in my Department, I invite her to come over and see how hard the people in the Department of Supply and Services work. The most effective and most professional workers in the Public Service of Canada are to be found within DSS.


CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Government is the author of the so-called Charter of Rights. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he believes in equal rights for all Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, we even put it in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


BILINGUALISM
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question to direct to the Prime Minister. The Government is advertising that Petro-Canada is ours and it belongs to all Canadians. That being the case, Mr. Prime Minister, will you instruct your officials in Petro-Canada to stop installing unilingual signs on its gas outlet stations in the Province of Quebec and install bilingual signs because, if Petro-Canada is ours, it is paid for by all Canadian taxpayers, 75 per cent of whom are English-speaking and who should have some rights?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I discussed the problem of bilingual signs two months ago with the President of Petro-Canada, and I said then that I wanted services in Quebec to be offered in both official languages, the same as everywhere else in Canada.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday the Board of Governors of the National Hockey League rejected an application for the transfer of the St. Louis Blues professional hockey team from St. Louis to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, which is an outrageous decision. The people of Saskatchewan and across Canada supported this transfer, except for the New Democratic Party which has been against it, as has been confirmed by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. Has the Minister's Department looked into the possibility of an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to see whether or not the possibility of prosecution exists under the freedom of trade provisions of that Act, particularly Section 32 of the Act?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say that this matter is under review by officials in my Department at the present time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate that very much, and the people of Saskatchewan will appreciate the interest of the Minister in this matter. Indeed, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport has supported the application for transfer.
May 19, 1983


UNITED STATES ANTI TRUST LEGISLATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he will not also consider contacting the officials of the United States Government to determine whether or not this action on the part of the Board of Governors of the National Hockey League is a breach of the U.S. anti-trust legislation.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the Director of Combines Investigations will do everything in his power and will pursue the matter to the limits of the law.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and concerns the agreement in principle between the Federal Government and the Government of Manitoba regarding a constitutional amendment that would modify the Manitoba Act (1870) with respect to the use of French or English in the proceedings and documents of the legislature and before the courts. Could the Minister confirm, and give further details about, the agreement concluded by the Franco-Manitoban community, the Government of Manitoba and the Federal Government, for the purpose of finding an arrangement that would be agreeable to both official language communities living in Manitoba? Could the Minister also inform the House whether the Province of Ontario, which has one half million Franco-Ontarians, has indicated that after Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba, it too would be prepared to extend generously the same constitutional guarantees to its official language minority?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I am both pleased and proud to confirm that an agreement has been reached between the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba, with the collaboration of the Societe franco-manitobaine. The two Governments have already ratified the agreement, and we are now waiting for the approval of the Societe franco-manitobaine.
Madam Speaker, I am sorry I cannot reveal all the details of the agreement today, but I can assure the House that the agreement will clarify the full equality of both official languages in Manitoba. As for the position of the Government of Ontario, I certainly do hope, with my hon. friend, that Ontario will now be willing to follow Manitoba's example.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the additional numbers of dangerous people on the street, 1 requested the Minister earlier to give some consideration to the organization called "Victims of Violence". Would he reconsider that request to provide some assistance to that organization which is helping families who have been hurt by criminals?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, there are few subjects which preoccupy me more than the question of victims of violence, as my recent statements have indicated. In fact the second National Conference on the Law to be held here next week will concentrate in part on that very subject. My hon. friend, however, is asking me about a grant for a particular organization. It is certainly one of the organizations whose work is welcomed in this field. However, with respect to some form of endorsement of the work of that organization in particular, we obviously must be dependent on the total resources which are available. This is a subject which is taking a large part of the attention of the federal Government and, indeed, of some of the provincial Governments, in this field. I can assure my hon. friend that it is not being neglected.


DESIGNATION AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question directed to the Minister of National Revenue. This organization, "Victims of Violence", has been trying for a year and a half to get a charitable donation number. Would the Minister follow this up and do something about it so that these people could raise funds in order to send out newsletters and provide an important service?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, we have already had several opportunities in this House to discuss the matter of charitable contribution numbers. First of all, this is a very complex matter since it concerns the indirect use of public funds. Moreover, a large number of requests have been made for such numbers. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that we shall make every effort to pay particular attention to this request.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister knows, many Canadians from Third World countries such as

May 19, 1983
Oral Questions
China, have claimed income tax exemptions, according to the law before 1982, for money sent to their aged parents back home. They are now being reassessed for 1981 with the demand that they prove that their parents have no means of support, or pay the exempted amount for 1981.
The Minister also knows that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get documentation from places like China which would be satisfactory to Revenue Canada, and that even many who have obtained documents from China, duly certified and translated, have been turned down by Revenue Canada. In view of the fact that some of his officials have undertaken to review some of these cases, will the Minister direct his officials to hold off from any enforcement action for the collection of these moneys? Will he also give consideration to accepting a statutory declaration in cases where it is impossible to get documentation from overseas?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, before making such a commitment to the Hon. Member and the House, I would have to examine the provisions of the Act voted by Parliament to determine whether the Minister has this discretion. However, I can assure him that since he and other Members have already expressed their concerns on this matter, I shall pay particular attention to his representations.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Minister of State for External Relations. In light of the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on Canada's relations with Latin America, will the Government of Canada protest, in the strongest possible terms, the recent seizure by the Chilean police of 1,000 people in pre-dawn raids, and the subsequent incarceration of many of them? Will the Government also bring pressure on the Pinochet Government, with which the Canadian Government has close trade and investment links, to give out a complete list of those detained, in order to make sure they will come before competent courts, or be released? Will the Government also urge that they not be tortured while in prison?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, the Government is especially
concerned about the recent developments in Chile and the apparent resurgence of human rights violations in that country.
As recently as yesterday, our embassy in Santiago was instructed to make representations to the Chilean Government expressing our great concern about the situation.
As the Hon. Member knows, the report of Amnesty International was published yesterday. We received a copy that same day, but I am in no position to comment on it at the moment.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. His Department's Boeing 707s are due for overhaul early in 1984. Has the Minister made any decision on where those planes will be overhauled? Is he keeping in mind that the largest lay-off of Air Canada machinists is going to take place in Winnipeg, and will he give top priority to Winnipeg for the 707 overhaul?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is true that the Boeing 707 fleet of the Department of National Defence is due for an overhaul, but I do not have any information today as to when. I do not think it should be before two years time in any case. The planes are still in good shape, but the overhaul is on the priority list and we will see when and where they will be done. I do not know at this stage if it will be under public tender or through negotiations with the contractor.


STARTING DATE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister that the expertise is in Winnipeg because they have overhauled these 707s before. In light of the fact these machinists are going to be laid off this September, will the Minister check and provide me with an answer on whether the overhaul could start ahead of time, say sometime this Fall, to avoid these lay-offs in Winnipeg?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the efficiency and competence of the machinists in Winnipeg are well known. It is a good shop, and I will supply the Hon. Member with some detail of when, how, and what procedure we will follow when the overhaul comes.
May 19, 1983


INCOME TAX
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue who will know that a number of income tax refund cheques are now in the mail. Does he know that in fact recipients are having a great deal of difficulty cashing those refund cheques if they do not have an account in the bank where they present the cheques to be cashed? Does he realize this is the policy of most banks across the country because of the number of cheques stolen in the mail? Does the Minister know how many cheques are stolen in the mail, in other words, not received by the proper recipients, and why is the Minister not directing his Department to send the refund cheques by registered mail?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the problem the Hon. Member has raised is not peculiar to Government cheques alone, for anything which is sent through the mail may be stolen, just as any parcel which is delivered by other courrier services.
As to the number of income tax refund cheques which may be stolen in the mail, I must confess that 1 have no idea. Perhaps the question ought to be adressed to the Department of Supply and Services whose responsibility it is to print the cheques and mail them.
I believe that the practice of financial institutions is to ask for a deposit. Would it be possible to make it more flexible? I think that the Minister of Finance would be glad to convey the Hon. Member's concerns to the Inspector General of Banks.


REQUEST THAT CHEQUES BE SENT BY REGISTERED MAIL
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, the point I am trying to make to the Minister is that financial institutions across the country, indeed businessmen generally, are very leery of cashing income tax refund cheques because they know there is an epidemic of theft of these cheques from the mail. Why does the Minister not make it a policy of his Department that refund cheques go out by registered mail, recognizing that there is an added cost but also recognizing that the Government has had that money in its possession for upwards of three months and has drawn interest on those funds?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: On
many occasions, Madam Speaker, we have heard in the House the Hon. Member who has just asked a question express concern over Government expenditures. On one hand, I am convinced that he is aware of the fact that the benefit derived from sending income tax refund cheques by registered mail would be definitely offset by the additional expenses incurred by the Government. On the other hand, I am not sure that
Oral Questions
financial institutions would be prepared to show more flexibility when cashing those cheques. Still, I will gladly look into the pros and cons of the Hon. Member's suggestion.


SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Bcnno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General who is finally getting some good advice because he is sitting there talking to my colleague from Durham-Northumb-erland. Earlier in question Period the Solicitor General said that his definition of the Security Service would stand scrutiny by the committee. Will it withstand that scrutiny in the same way his policy of gating withstood the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Better!


RAILWAYS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and has to do with yesterday's awarding of the hopper car and coal car contracts, wherely the industry in Hamilton came out on the distinctly short end of the stick. National Steel Car traditionally gets 40 per cent of the new grain car manufacturing business and it is now down to 35 per cent. It was bypassed altogether on the coal car contract.
Why did the Minister allocate these contracts under the special recovery program, when this was being discussed last Fall, and it was known that the CN yards in Transcona, Montreal and Moncton had, as it were, the inside track? Was National Steel Car considered at all in so far as getting a piece of that coal car contract was concerned?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, National Coal Car got quite a piece of it. As a matter of fact, it got an order for 483 hopper cars, 35 per cent of the order. We followed the usual practice in this matter, a practice which has been used four or five times in the past ten years. The criterion is simply that the one with the best price gets 40 per cent; the one with the second best price gets 35 per cent; the one with the third best price gets 25 per cent. In the past the Hamilton company came up generally with the best price and it would get the 40 per cent. This time Marine Industries in Sorel was lower. As a matter of fact, Sorel bid at a lower level than it had bid the last time around and that is why it won first prize.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, with the involvement of Canadian National some of us in Hamilton
25586

May 19, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
have to wonder if perhaps the Minister responsible for Hamilton does not have the political clout that the Minister from Manitoba has, or that the Members from Montreal or Moncton have.


REPAIR WORK
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, since there are several hundreds if not thousands of cars sitting on the tracks, which need refurbishing right now, did the Minister not consider letting the CN yards handle that kind of work and not get into competition with the private sector such as National Steel Car which has the capacity to produce the new coal cars? I am now referring specifically to the coal car contract. Could that not have been considered, and could it still not be under consideration by the Minister?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it was indeed studied as a possibility but we thought the way I indicated was a better way. As a matter of fact my hon. friend is probably not totally informed about the Tran-scona facility. Transcona has been in the business of building all kinds of cars in the past. It has all the facilities and it has 400 employees to keep at work. That is why a Solomon's judgment was made on the way we divided the coal cars and hopper car orders, and the way the hopper car order was divided between the three traditional suppliers.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on Wednesday, May 18, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madame Speaker,
I raise a question of privilege arising out of a statement made in the House today by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). If Your Honour check the blues, I am sure you will agree with me that he either intentionally misled the House or he was suffering from momentary amnesia, because he said that our Party was against the St. Louis Blues, as confirmed by my statement in the House-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I do not know by what stretch of the imagination the Hon. Member could construe this as being a question of privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, this being Thursday, I wonder if I might ask the Government House Leader what his intentions are for business for the rest of this week and for as much of next as possible.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, tomorrow is an allotted day. The House will not sit on Monday. Next Tuesday, Bill C-155 on grain transportation. Wednesday is set aside for private Members' business. On Thursday, depending on the way the debate goes, I hope we will complete the second reading debate on Bill C-155. If we do, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-151 to provide the Government with supplementary borrowing authority. To sum up, the House will not sit on Monday, Bill C-155 on Tuesday, private Members' business on Wednesday, and Bill C-155 or Bill C-151 on Thursday, priority being given to Bill C-155.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a legitimate point of order, unlike that of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


David P. Smith: It will be the first.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This point of order relates to instances which arose last Monday during the course of debate in which I was invited by the Assistant Deputy Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: A point of order which arose last Monday should have been raised last Monday.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: If the Hon. Member does not have any other point of order, I cannot hear him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the point was that the Acting Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), asked me to come back after checking Hansard. This is the first opportunity I have had to come forward with respect to rulings of the Chair which were diametrically opposed. I think I am entitled to raise this matter, as it is important.


Mr. Nielsen:: Go ahead.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, on Monday morning when the-



May 19, 1983


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but would the Hon. Member wait for just a second? Since I was not in the House, I want to be informed as to what is exactly happening.
I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much. This is a very serious matter which deals with the interpretation of the new temporary rules which we are now experiencing during the course of this year.
On Monday morning, when the Deputy Speaker was in the chair, a number of points of order were raised concerning the eight-hour rule on second reading stage. In particular, 1 raised the issue as to whether the clock began to run again once a second reading amendment was placed on the Table. In this case the amendment was that of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), with respect to the six-month hoist motion on Bill C-155. The Deputy Speaker reserved his decision on that particular issue.
At that point the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) raised the issue as to whether points of order should be taken out of the eight-hour period. May I quote from the Hansard blues because I think the matter is important. The Hon. Member for Bow River said:
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 of the eight hours.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), then said:
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).
The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) rose and said:
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 include interruptions, for good purposes, to deal with matters-
He was interrupted by the Deputy Speaker, who said:
Order. The matter has been settled. The Chair is not counting the 20-minute intervention against the eight hours.
Then he went on to say:
The Hon. Member is recognized for debate.
The point I am making is that it was clear that at that point the Deputy Speaker had made a final ruling with respect to whether or not legitimate points of order which were received by the Chair would be included in the calculation of the eight hours which the new rules specify are the time within which speeches can be made for a 20-minute limit.
The debate then continued, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich spoke. At the conclusion of his remarks, the Deputy Chairman of Committees then came back into the Chair. The Deputy Chairman, at the conclusion of the Hon. Member's remarks, made a number of rulings. His final rulings appear to be in clear conflict with the one made by the Deputy Speaker on the point raised by the Hon. Member for
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Bow River. More particularly, the Deputy Chairman said at that point:
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.
I assure Your Honour that I have read this into the record so that there will be no question as to what was said. The Deputy Chairman continued:
The quote that my memory tells me is accurate is that the Chair informs the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, I believe it was, that "the point is well taken". In any event, my understanding is that no Final ruling has been made and I 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 conmpletely the tradition of the House that points or 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.
I suggest to Your Honour, and I do not think there is any question, that the records show that the ruling on the issue had already and categorically been made by the Deputy Speaker. It is, of course, a fundamental point, for if the second ruling became the precedent, it would be conceivable for the House to lose the entire eight-hour debating time because points of order had been raised on the other side of the House.
I suggest that the Acting Speaker was under a misrepresentation as to what the Deputy Speaker had previously ruled. In Beauchesne, Citation 119, reference is made to the situation where previous rulings have been made and a Speaker makes a ruling given under misrepresentation. It states:
Speakers' rulings, once given, belong to the House which, under S.O. 12, must accept them without appeal or debate. They become precedents and form part of the rules of procedure. The Speaker is not vested with the power to alter them of his own accord. If they have been given under misrepresentation, the House itself, and not the Speaker, should take the initial steps to avoid the consequences or implications. Such actions would not be considered as an appeal against a decision of the Speaker. Journals, March 28, 1916, p. 201.
(2) The Speaker's rulings, whether given in public or in private, constitute precedents by which subsequent Speakers, Members, and officers are guided. Such precedents are collected and in course of time may be formulated as principles or rules of practice. It is largely by this method that the modern practice of the House of Commons has been developed.
Madam Speaker, the point is simply this. It is inconceivable to me that the Deputy Speaker's ruling was anything but correct. I thought it was appropriate. I cannot understand how legitimate points of order or matters of disorder in the House could possibly be considered in any way as being part of the debate or the consideration of any stage under the old Standing Orders, or, indeed, under the provisional rules under which we are now operating. My point is that while we are dealing, in the case of Bill C-155, with a highly emotional and extremely important piece of legislation, in this particular case it becomes rather important that the fullest opportunity be given to Hon. Members to participate in the debate. Any suggestion of curtailment of the right of Members to debate is a serious infringement upon the privileges and rights of Members of Parliament.

May 19, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
I am suggesting that his order does not constitute the subject matter of any debate. It is, in fact, quite separate. It is a matter of the procedure and operation of the House of Commons.
I suggest and humbly submit to Your Honour that the ruling of the subordinate officer of the Chair, the Deputy Chairman, who is subordinate to the Deputy Speaker, was out of place and inappropriate and should not be taken to bind us with respect to a ruling under which we in the House should be obligated to consider the business of our country.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I have three specific points I would like to raise in addition to the remarks made by my colleague. My colleague covered the circumstances and I would ask the Chair to consider three further items in its ruling.
The first is that a point of order does not speak to the substance of the matter under debate. A point of order is merely a procedural instrument so that the debate can run along smoothly. Citation 238 of Beauchesne notes that points of order should not be viewed as usual phases of procedure and should not be raised on matters which could be disposed of by moving amendments.
The second point I would make to the Chair is that the question of how to count the time at second reading was not covered by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. However, it did in fact specify that it felt there should be eight hours of debate. In other words, there should be eight hours during which the House considers the matter under debate. I submit to the Chair that for that reason one should not take into account points of order which flow out of the debate and which, I submit, do not pertain to the actual question under consideration by the House.
The last item I would point out to the Chair is this. Citation 235 of Beauchesne states:
Even the provisions in Standing Orders that action must be taken 'forthwith' or 'forthwith without debate' with respect to certain proceedings do not bar a Member from raising a point of order when a serious irregularity occurs.
Finally, I suggest to the Chair that the House has set very carefully under the Standing Orders what happens between two o'clock and three o'clock Monday through Thursday and between 11 o'clock and 12 o'clock on Friday. During that set time covered by the Standing Orders, a point of order or question of privilege is not allowed to interfere with the time that the House has decided under the Standing Orders should be set aside for statements under Standing Order 21 and Question Period. If you take the remarks of my colleague and the points I have raised under consideration, I submit that one should find that the eight hours of debate should be eight hours.
I would also point out that, to the best of my knowledge, this is the first time since we have been operating under the new Standing Orders that we have had a substantial point of order since the beginning of the eight hours. For that reasons we have delayed arguing this point. We wanted to delay until
Madam Speaker was in the Chair. I would ask that you find that points of order and questions of privilege that occurred during that eight hours should not be included as part of the eight hours of debate.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I enter this exchange only because I am concerned that a ruling which stated that points of order were to be considered as part of the allotted time for debate might in fact cause a great hardship. I can appreciate that points of order are used illegitimately and that there are times when a matter is raised under the guise of a point of order when it is in fact not a point of order. It is simply an opportunity to raise a particular point which a Member may or may not recognize is not quite in keeping with the strict terms of a point of order.
However, I submit that the Speaker has the discretion to determine whether a matter is a legitimate point of order. If it is a legitimate point of order, then that time should not be taken from the hours allocated for consideration under the Standing Orders. For example, if a Member were to raise a point of order in order to draw to the Speaker's attention that there was not a quorum present in the House of Commons, it took 20 minutes for that to be ascertained and at that time a quorum was then to be determined, the time taken would be legitimate because there was a violation of the Standing Orders. It would be unfair to lose that time from the debate, yet it is the responsibility of every Member to make sure that the Standing Orders are obeyed. Therefore there is a dilemma. The Hon. Member is doing the job that is required of him under the Standing Orders when he draws the attention of the Chair to the fact that there is no quorum, but at the same time he is jeopardizing the opportunity of his colleagues to take part in the debate because of the loss of time.
I submit that a ruling which allowed the Chair to have discretion and determine whether time can be reimbursed on a legitimate point of order or that it simply be seen as lost time on an illegitimate point of order would be satisfactory to a majority of Members.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I was in the House when the incident which has just been referred to occurred. I do not believe that the suggestion that somehow the Deputy Speaker and the Acting Speaker are on different wavelengths is at all logical. If you would look at what the Deputy Speaker said on page 25479 of Hansard, after the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) raised the point of order, the Deputy Speaker said:
The Chair will reserve a decision on the matter.
On the following page 25480, the Deputy Speaker said:
The matter has been settled. The Chair is not counting the 20-minute intervention against the eight hours.
If you refer to the comments made by the Acting Speaker on page 25483 of Hansard, you will see that he said:
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
May 19, 1983

accorded the point of order, or at other times the Chair makes a judgment as to what seems to be fair in the circumstances.
I am suggesting that the Deputy Speaker exercised that discretion and said that he was not, under all the circumstances, going to deduct that 20 minutes from the allocation of what constituted the eight hours. However, the fact that he exercised his discretion in that way in that particular instance does not mean that what the Acting Speaker went on to say is incorrect. I would submit that he was correct. He went on to say:
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.
I submit that what the Acting Speaker said was correct. I would also submit that what the Deputy Speaker did was not at variance with that. He chose to exercise his discretion in a particular way, but the fact that he exercised his discretion in that way does not mean that the tradition of the House is changed.
Were we to have an approach where we could avoid having time allocated in calculating the amount of time spent on a debate by raising countless points of order, that would leave us open to gross abuses of the time of the House. I think it would inevitably lead to lengthy filibusters.
1 suggest that there is no difference between what the Acting Speaker and the Deputy Speaker said and 1 support the position of the Acting Speaker. Nothing that was said by the Deputy Speaker really contravenes that.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, as the person who was seeking the floor when this particular ruling was given, it was declared to me:
The Chair is not counting the 20-minute intervention against the eight hours.
That was not against my time but against the eight hours. That was stated at page 25480 of Hansard. My concern is that this is the first occasion we have had to consider the meaning of that eight hours. This is really the first opportunity.
It is conceivable that legitimate points of order might be raised for eight successive hours that ought to be devoted to debating an issue. If the ruling which seems to be hovering over our heads at the moment, namely that points of order should be included in the eight hours, comes to fruition then we would find there is no debate whatever on the motion before us.
I would remind you, Madam Speaker, that there is a slight variance in the amount of time consumed during that eight hours on Bill C-155. The Table has indicated to me that 63 minutes were used for points of order. Another timing done independently indicates that 66 minutes were used. In other words, for the consideration of this particular Bill, a very important Bill-which is also true of any Bill we consider, and I think this is a good time to resolve the matter-one full hour at least has been removed from debating time. That means six
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
speakers have had their debating time cut in two. Six speakers have lost one half of the time they might have otherwise had to elaborate matters-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You are wasting time.


Donald W. Munro: I do not consider that an intervention of that sort is legitimate. I am not wasting time. We are considering a very important matter, namely the determination of what constitutes eight hours of debate.
My hon. colleague from Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has made a number of points, as has the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). All of these matters are germane to the issue before us. If we are going to have to live with this eight-hour business and 20-minute speeches followed by the ten-minute period for questions or comments, I think we should resolve this issue now because we have another six months to live with it. I think we should know now exactly what goes into those eight hours.
I will just remind you also, Madam Speaker, that when the Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker) came to make a ruling on the matter he differentiated very, very neatly between three issues that were before us. One was the determination of whether the eight hours was on the main motion only or on the main motion plus the amendment. The second was whether the ten-minute intervention for questions and comments would be included in the eight hours. Third was the inclusion or the noninclusion of points of order in those eight hours of debate.
Finally, there is something that has me confused. I do not know how to interpret it and I bring it to your attention. It was mentioned briefly but indirectly by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.
The Acting Speaker said, as shown in the left-hand column on page 25483 of Hansard:
My ruling is always open to question.
It was my understanding, and we have been told so in very certain terms, that the Speaker's ruling is not open to question. The Acting Speaker has suggested

perhaps because he is the Acting Speaker-that his ruling is always open to question. I did not understand that at all. I think that matter ought to be taken into account. Possibly what he intended was that he was not really quite sure about this matter of points or order being included in the eight hours. Therefore, he felt that he should not make a definitive ruling on this occasion.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, on this same point of order and the approximately one hour that has been referred to taken up with points of order during second reading debate, may I suggest, with all respect, that the points of order raised had to do with the application of Standing Order 35. They were not aimed at either the content or the debate on the Bill before the House. They have to do only with the interpretation and application of Standing Order 35, particularly Standing Order 35(2)(b) having to do with how the eight-hour period is arrived at by the Chair.

May 19, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
The Chair ruled on earlier points of order, which I accept. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) raised the point about not counting proper and legitimate points of order in the eight hours, and I support that position on the ground that when the points of order were raised having to do with the interpretation of the rule that applies to second reading, that time should not be counted against the eight hours taken out on second reading.
On the matter of frivolous points of order mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, it is there that the discretion of the Chair should enter, I submit, because Hon. Members could get up on points of order and object to the clothes that some Hon. Member is wearing, or that the clocks were inaccurate, or a host of other things. It would be patently obvious that Members were trying to take up the time of the House. That is where the discretion of the Chair enters. Obviously, the Speaker should then say to the Clerk at the table that the time taken up by those kinds of frivolous points of order should be counted in the eight hours for debate. That eliminates Hon. Members who might be tempted to get on to frivolous points of order.
When a point of order is raised having to do with the interpretation of the rule that applies to the length of the debate at second reading, surely that is a legitimate concern of the Chair and the House regarding the rules and should not be counted against the time taken up for debate.
Similarly with the point made by my hon. friend from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) in the matter of a quorum, surely 20 minutes or 25 minutes of discussion which has to do with the decorum, the order, the attendance in this House and nothing to do with an item under debate should not count in the eight hours allotted for 20-minute speeches.
I hope, Madam Speaker, you will rule that the discretion of the Chair will apply rigorously to frivolous points of order and that they should count in the eight hours for debate, but that proper points of order raised having to do with conduct, order and attendance in this House, all having to do with the rules of this House, should not be counted in the eight hours for debate on 20-minute speeches.


Madam Speaker:: I just want to tell Hon. Members that we have a situation here where a ruling has already been made, but as far as I can see the ruling has been made on particular circumstances. What Members are asking me now and arguing is that the Chair should consider the broader matter of the application of those eight hours for debate. I am prepared to consider that and to rule on it later.
1 think all of the arguments have been given because the last Members rising have given me the same arguments as those who spoke in the first instance. If Members agree, we will find a way out of the problem that the ruling has been made and still there is some doubt as to the application of those eight hours. We will find some way of discussing this among ourselves, and I am sure that we will find a satisfactory solution.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect, as one of those who was involved in this sort of thing many years ago-


Ian Deans: Two weeks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -that ruling may I say, as I indicated to the Table Officers at the time, was made with indecent haste, and I say that advisedly. In that case, I would agree with the submissions made by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) that it is always incumbent upon the Chair to determine that which is frivolous and not applicable. Points of order raised by the Opposition should not necessarily be considered frivolous. I have known, and I think you have too, Madam Speaker, and I say this with the greatest of respect, that there are points raised by Government supporters, particularly Parliamentary Secretaries who are in there as hatchet men, that are often frivolous and that there are-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please speak to the point so that the Chair can use some of the arguments in order to reflect upon this problem. There is no point in explaining to the House that there are frivolous points of order. That is obvious to anyone who has sat in on one day of debate in the House. If the Hon. Member has new arguments to offer, the Chair will welcome them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon Members also to reinforce certain opinions from time to time. It is not necessarily so that once an argument has been stated, to repeat it is frivolous. May I submit that in this particular instance the Chair is the final arbiter and in that particular case, unaccustomed as you may be, I am supporting you in this particular case, and may I say with the greatest of respect that I claim the right to say so.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Skelly:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the movement of the affairs of the afternoon, the House Leader for the Conservative Party raised a point concerning House business. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) then rose on a point of order. I stood at the same time to ask a question about House business. I wonder if I might carry on with that.
I direct this question to the House Leader. The other day we discussed an important point concerning legislation coming before this House which affects absentee voting for individuals who are not in their own polls. As there are tens of thousands of Canadians who are disenfranchised, is it the intention of the Government to bring forward reasonably soon something to provide an absentee balloting opportunity under the Canada Elections Act in order to comply with the requirements to have that before the second sitting of this House?
May 19, 1983

Petitions


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I presume the Hon. Member [English] means the second session and not the second sitting.


PETITIONS
Raymond John Skelly: Yes.


Yvon Pinard: The Hon. Member knows that under the existing statute, the Chief Electoral Officer has to make a report to the House at the beginning of the second session of each Parliament. I suppose when that time comes his report will deal with the important matter raised by the Hon. Member. Then we will see what we will do.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the House Leader knows how very important that is in order to comply with the requirement of the Constitution which ensures that every Canadian has the right to vote. The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated he has not been getting that much information when many Members of Parliament have expressed a concern. Is the House Leader prepared to call this matter to his attention and to ask him to report on it?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, even though this is not properly House business, 1 will be glad to bring to the attention of the Chief Electoral Officer the questions asked today by the Hon. Member.



POINT OF ORDER


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday I raised a point with you, Madam Speaker, about the inability to get additional copies of Bill C-155. I was wondering whether you have been able to look into that matter since I am still limited to ten copies and I have over 50 requests for copies.


Madam Speaker:: We now have additional copies, so the Hon. Member should be able to get them in the usual place.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 38 members of All Saints Anglican Church in Melfort in the Province of Saskatchewan who are concerned that the increasing danger of a 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 a 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.


RETENTION OF CROWSNEST PASS RATE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition to the House from 40 residents of Canada, Portage la Prairie, Lowe Farm, Balmoral, Winnipeg, Morris and Woodside, Manitoba, in which they exercise their right to present a grievance that western farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in 1982. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to our balance of trade. The undersigned believe it is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow. The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from 39 or 40 residents of the Morse Saskatchewan district. Most of them are farmers, a number are business people, housewives and labourers in that area who are petitioning the Parliament of Canada to maintain the Crow rate because of the disruption that may occur to their communities because of the proposal that is before the House at this time.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to this House a petition signed by 46 residents of Lloydminster, the Alberta and Saskatchewan area in places such as Vermilion, Vegreville and Calgary. These petitioners bring before Parliament their grievance and humbly call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow grain rate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and my honour to present a petition on behalf of some 35 to 40 residents of my Province in towns like Cadillac, Admiral, Shaunavon, Valmarie and places like that. These are local farmers who are petitioning to keep the statutory Crow rate as is. Theyd do not want to see any change in the Crow rate whatsoever. They are concerned that if there is a change, it will drive a lot of these small and ordinary-size farmers off

May 19, 1983
Petitions
the land. Because of that, it is a great pleasure for me to present this petition on their behalf.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition of some 36 names of people from my Province of Saskatchewan representing such towns as North Battleford, Rosthern, Adams, Biggar, Medstead, Cut Knife, etc. It is my pleasure, indeed my duty, Madam Speaker, to present this petition to you.
The petitioners are concerned by the change in the Crow rate. They are concerned, Madam Speaker, that the proposals before us would indeed have a tremendously harmful effect upon the Saskatchewan agricultural community, and I wish to present their petition to you.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and privilege to present to you a petition from the people of Saskatoon, Biggar and Vanscoy who are concerned about the Bill now before the House of Commons that will take away the Crow rate. They ask that the House and the Government of Canada see fit that this Bill is not brought into effect but rather that the statutory Crow rate continue, so 1 place this petition before you, Madam Speaker, and hope that it will be respected.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from some 35 or 40 Canadians from towns such as Gull Lake, Webb and Tompkins in the Province of Saskatchewan who have pointed out to the House, through their ancient right of petition, that western Canadian farmers have paid some $131 million to export grain during the fiscal year 1981-82, that this grain in turn contributed some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, and that this is a fair contribution by western farmers to the Canadian economy. They therefore petition the House that there be no change in the Crow rate so that justice can be done.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from some 20 Canadian citizens, mostly residing in Herbert.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: These citizens feel that the Crow rate is a fair rate and that they have paid their fair share of transportation costs and their fair contribution to overseas trade. They therefore ask Parliament to see to it that the Crow rate is not increased, and as in duty bound, they humbly pray.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I hear a lot of noise coming from the Liberals and the Tories. I suppose that is because in terms of the Crow rate, their constituents do not know where they stand. But I have the honour to present a petition, Madam Speaker, from a number of Canadians. They say that the western Canadian farmers have paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 198182 crop year and this grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned Canadians believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy
and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, which means no change. They therefore humbly pray that you take whatever steps you can, Madam Speaker, to ensure that the Crow rate does not change.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from the riding of Dauphin-Swan River, and the undersigned petitioners indicate that the Crow rate is an important benefit to western Canada and one of the earliest incentives granted to the settlers. They want the Crow rate retained. I would like to point out, especially to the Hon. Members opposite, that the Crow rate is considered in my riding to be just as sacred as is the ability to speak French in Canada to the constituents of my hon. friends from Quebec. So I have the duty and the honour to present this petition to the House of Commons, and we trust that when it is examined, it will be found that it is signed by people from Gilbert Plains and Grandview.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the House this afternoon a petition signed by some 33 individuals from the southwest corner of Saskatchewan, the communities of Cadillac, Admiral and Scotsguard, who, at the same time as they appreciate the need to upgrade the rail transportation system in Canada, do not want the full weight and cost of upgrading that system to be borne on the backs of the grain producers in their area. They therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, otherwise known as the Crow rate, and although they do appreciate the other concerns that exist over grain transportation, they do want the Crow rate to be maintained. I do present their petition this afternoon, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I present a petition signed by residents of The Pas, Manitoba, people who live in a community which is on the line going to the Port of Churchill. They also express their concern with regard to the proposed changes to the Crow rate. They indicate in their petition that they would like to see the present Crow rate maintained, they would like to see the Government invest money in the railways of Canada, and they would also like to see the Government take a public equity in CP and ensure that there is no variable rate which will hurt and probably kill the Port of Churchill.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a large number of residents of Pelly, Saskatchewan, and Arran, Saskatchewan, and they state that the western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. That grain in turn contributed over $6 billion to the balance of trade, and the undersigned believe that the farmers have made a fair contribution to the Canadian economy. They humbly pray, Madam Speaker, that this petition will be heard and there will be no change in the Crow rate.
May 19, 1983


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have another petition. This petition is from some 33 ordinary Canadians such as Helen Beech, Leonard Lovestone -


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is not allowed to cite the names on the petition. Let him just tell the House briefly what the petition is all about. That is all that is allowed.


Cyril Keeper: 1 will keep the petition anonymous, Madam Speaker. It is from some 33 ordinary Canadians from western communities who have exercised their ancient right of petition in the House in order to present a grievance, and their grievance is that the Government is moving in an arbitrary fashion to remove an ancient and historic right, a right which they feel is central to the Confederation bargain that brought this country together, and they wish that the House would impress upon the Government the need for fair treatment and that they be allowed to earn their livelihood in a just and fair manner-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I could see that the Hon. Member was ad libbing. Hon. Members are allowed to read only the title of the petition, and it seemed as if the Hon. Member was going far beyond the title. I would just like to remind Hon. Members that in presenting a petition, they are allowed to read only the title.


Cyril Keeper: The Canadians to whom I made reference petition the House with regard to a grievance that deals with the statutory Crow rate, and they wish that the Government would treat their economic affairs justly.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I present a petition that is signed by 36 people. The subject matter of this petition is based on the fact that the western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the year 1981-82 and that this grain in turn has contributed some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that the western farmers will pay only one times Crow, in other words no change.
These petitioners humbly pray and humbly call upon the Parliament of Canada to maintain as it is the present statutory rate, which is, of course, the Crow rate. I am very pleased to present this petition on behalf of these people from small towns throughout the Province of Saskatchewan, including many from my own riding.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I am not rising on a supplementary, I am rising to pretend- present-


Some Hon. Members:: Pretend is the right word.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I am rising to present a separate and independent petition on behalf of 30 or 40 residents of Saskatchewan from the communities of Consul, Fox Valley, Maple Creek and Sceptre. These Canadians want to exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly point out that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the
Petitions
Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. They believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, or no change.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners ever pray, Madam Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, while I fully intend to follow your admonition and simply read this petition, I cannot forgo the opportunity of saying that I wish the Leaders of the other Parties, even those without them right now, would join with us on these petitions.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise the right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that 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 say to my Conservative friends to my right. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, which means no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. I am pleased to see that the Leader of the NDP has finally realized that the West is alive, in contradistinction to that Party's position on the Constitution, the right to property and the National Energy Program.


Madam Speaker:: That, of course, is not a point of order.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from the people of the town of Harris, Saskatchewan, the town that has had a railroad service since 1908. This petition is addressed to the Hon. House of Commons in Parliament assembled and says that the residents of Harris do now exercise their right to present a grievance, and they humbly sheweth that western grain farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 198182 crop year and that this grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that it is the farmers' fair contribution to the economy, and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, which means no change. It goes on:
Wherefore we, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I am happy to present this petition to the House of Commons.

Petitions


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, as a mountain boy from the woods products industry of B.C. I am particularly proud to present a petition on behalf of a number of signers from both Saskatchewan and Ontario who humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate and object to the Government's attempts to whipsaw and divide and rule as between farmers and industrial workers in Canada.


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, it gives me great delight to be able to present this petition. Upon examination you will notice it is mostly from the Hutterite colony. Those of us who live out West appreciate the fantastic contribution to agriculture that they have made. They address the petition to the Hon. House of Commons in Parliament assembled. They exercise their right to petition, a right which, of course, dates back to the times even before the Crow rate. They show that the western Canadian farmers have contributed some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. It is their wish that the western farmer retain the Crow rate as it presently is.
I am delighted to be able to present this particular petition.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have another petition that I received from 63 residents in Kamsack, Verigin, Churchbridge and Togo requesting to exercise their right to present a grievance and asking that the Parliament of Canada agree that they shall continue to pay one times the Crow and that Parliament maintain the present statutory grain rates, and as in duty bound these petitioners will ever pray.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of this great country who petition the House with regard to the Crow rate. They point out that farmers paid $131 million to move export grain during the crop year 1981-82. This grain contributed some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. These farmers therefore feel that they have made a fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that the Crow rate should not be changed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition from a number of Canadian citizens mainly from Ernfold and Chaplin in Saskatchewan. This petition asks that Parliament give consideration to the fact that Canadian farmers have paid their fair share of the transportation costs not only last year but ever since the Crow rate was established. They are contributing heavily, mainly over $6 billion, to the balance of trade in the past year. They believe that is a fair contribution and that they should pay no more than one times Crow rate.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, your petitioners, acting in the tradition which I believe goes back to the Magna Carta, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will every pray.
May 19, 1983


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition signed by residents of communities along the rail line to Churchill. In their petition they humbly pray that the Government retain the statutory Crowsnest rate and ensure upgrading and improvement of services in all regions of Canada, including areas ignored by the Pepin-Gilson report.
They also ask that the Government of Canada, through Parliament, make public equity investment in the railways as proposed by the New Democratic Party caucus.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from some 41 residents of the area around Weyburn in southern Saskatchewan who petition the House of Commons to take note of the great contribution that agriculture and farmers have made to the balance of trade in this country. They say that the farmers' fair contribution is being well recognized in the Crow rate. They petition the House and the Parliament of Canada to maintain the present statutory grain rate.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I have just recently received a petition that I have been requested to present to you from some 33 or 36 petitioners from such places in Saskatchewan as Cut Knife, Maymont, Biggar, North Battleford and Battleford itself, Glenbush and Rabbit Lake.
The petitioners point out to you and to the Parliament of Canada the inequities in the proposals that would change the Crow rate. They point out that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year; that this grain in turn contributed some $6.3 billion in the balance of trade; that they believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy; that western farmers will pay one times Crow, meaning no change. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to place before the House today a petition primarily from residents of Gravelbourg, but not just farmers; this includes doctors, businessmen, contractors and a variety of other people who signed the petition. It is addressed to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled and says that the petitioners are residents of Canada and have the right to present a grievance. 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers should pay one times Crow, Madam Speaker, which means no change. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
May 19, 1983


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from the Town of Biggar, Saskatchewan, with the Village of Duperow, a Town which has been built-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: New York is big, but this is bigger.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Right on. It is a town which has been built over the years on both grain transportation-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. Will the Hon. Member simply read the petition.


Robert Joseph Ogle: The people of Biggar, Saskatchewan, Madam Speaker, to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the citizens of Canada now exercise their right to present a grievance and humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. And this grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay no more. Wherefore, the undersigned, our petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. I am happy to present this to the House of Commons.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present on behalf of a number of citizens of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, a petition to the House of Commons in which the petitioners exercise an ancient right to present a grievance, that being that western Canadian farmers have paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year, and that this grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade in Canada. The farmers of these communities feel that this is a fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western Canadian farmers should pay no more than the existing Crow rate. They have submitted this petition in accordance with their ancient right to do so.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, again I have received a petition from residents of Canada, some 38 of whom are from Southey, Raymore, Keliher, Leross and Lestock, Saskatchewan


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Simply read the petition, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -and wish to exercise their right to present a grievance. They are willing to pay one times the Crow rate, and they believe this to be the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, it is my duty and honour this afternoon to present a petition from residents of Kamsack, Verigin and Preeceville, Saskatchewan, in regard to the high rate of farm bankruptcies, 130 per cent up this year over the same period
Petitions
last year, and their wish to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. 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 some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair share of contribution to the Canadian economy, and the western farmers will pay one times Crow, which is no change. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present on behalf of 43 members of the community of New Norway in Alberta a petition in which they exercise their right to present a grievance. Western Canadian farmers have contributed massively to the economy of the country. They feel that that is a fair contribution. They are willing to pay one times Crow. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, I have a petition from another Hutterite colony. I underline again the fantastic contribution that this group of people have made to agriculture in western Canada. This colony addresses itself to the Honourable, the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to exercise a grievance, humbly show that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the crop year 1981-82. They feel that this contribution of $6.3 billion to the balance of trade is their fair contribution to the economy of Canada. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I have a petition with several names on it from Pelly Saskatchewan and Kamsack, Saskatchewan. It is my honour to present to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, stating that 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, that is, no change. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of 33 residents of the Towns of Schuler and Craik in southeast Saskatchewan. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth

May 19, 1983
Petitions
that 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. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow, that is, no change. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Madam Speaker:: I hope Hon. Members will excuse me. I am quite ill and I would like to leave the chair. The Deputy Speaker will take the chair.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It's enough to make anybody sick.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: How can you even talk about democracy?


An Hon. Member:: This is democracy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the people from the various communities in Saskatchewan who signed this petition will be impressed by the fact that the Government Members would not let them present the petition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask Hon. Members to conform to the rules of the House. The Hon. Member may present the petition.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by various residents in different communities in Saskatchewan. As you know, many people in Saskatchewan ship their grain on the rail line to Churchill at the Crow rate. In their petition they beseech the House of Commons to maintain the present statutory grain rate. They believe that they contribute a lot to the Canadian economy. They pay their fair share for the cost of shipping grain in this country and they help the economy of this nation. They ask that the House of Commons not change the Crow rate.
[ Translation}


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have the honour to present a very important petition which concerns the Crowsnest Pass rate. It was signed by 37 or 38 people from my home province, Saskatchewan.

It is a petition, Mr. Speaker, which concerns itself with variable rates and the importance of not abandoning the rail lines so important to serving the people of Saskatchewan and their shipments of grain. It concerns things like the Port of
Churchill which is so important to farmers in my part of Saskatchewan. The petition comes from many different towns, and what is noteworthy here is that all but three of these farmers are members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They are very active grass roots members-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please state the petition and not describe the characteristics of the petitioners.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The petition says that the undersigned farmers of Canada are very, very concerned about variable rates. They are very concerned about the abandonment of rail lines, and that the Crow rate not change. They petition the Parliament of Canada to keep the Crow rate, that there be no change. They say that the farmers have already paid over $100 million to move export grain to market and this grain in turn has contributed some $6.3 billion to Canada's balance of trade. Because of that, they have asked me to present the petition, and I am honoured to do so.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present to the House. It has some 36 signatures. The petitioners wish to point out to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled that they are all residents of Canada. In fact, most of them are from North Battleford, some indeed from Saskatoon, and from Battleford itself.


Mr. Peterson:: Anguish is the Member from there.


Douglas Keith Anguish: We traded petitions.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: You should not trade petitions.


Douglas Keith Anguish: They were sent to him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) has the floor.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If we could have some order in the House.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will hear the point of order at the end of the Hon Member's presentation.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The petitioners say that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the 1981-82 crop year, and that this grain in turn contributed some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The petitioners believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, meaning no change. Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, meaning the Crow, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I humbly submit to you that it is an abuse of the process of this House when not only one
May 19, 1983

Member but many Members stand up and present at least three petitions each, all on the same subject. Second, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the content that the Member presenting the petition is not even the Member of Parliament serving those people.


Ian Deans: Oh, sit down!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. Members of Parliament, according to our Standing Orders and procedures, have the right to present petitions.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition properly and duly signed by 37 residents of Canada, submitted to me to present to the Parliament of Canada, in which they exercise their ancient right, going back to 1066, to present a grievance. Their grievance is that they wish the Parliament of Canada to recognize that grain producers have paid a fair contribution to the Canadian economy, that western farmers should continue to pay one times the statutory Crow rate. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners, Mr. Speaker, will ever pray.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present to the House of Commons a petition concerning the Crow rate from citizens of Saskatoon. They address themselves to Parliament assembled and point out that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in 1981-82. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. They believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, which is no change. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I am happy to present this to you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition signed by a number of Canadian citizens-


David P. Smith: How many from the Beaches?


Neil Young: -to present a grievance humbly showing that 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. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate, which is no change. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I too am proud to stand in the House and-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Petitions


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Members are laughing, but I say I am proud to exercise a right of ordinary people which goes back to the time of Sir Thomas More, the great Chancellor of England.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not invited to make a speech on the history of petitions, simply to state his petition.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 will not say any more about that. But I will say that I have a petition signed by 19 people from places like Young, Saskatchewan, Manitoba Beach, Saskatchewan, and other places, and Ottawa as well. The petitioners humbly say that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the Canadian balance of trade. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate, that is, no change. Wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain or Crow rate. I present this petition.
[ Translation]


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to present a petition signed by Canadians who are concerned about the Crowsnest Pass rate. These people live in a Hutterite colony-

In their petition they state that 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 some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, and they feel this is a fair contribution to the Canadian economy from themselves as farmers. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. In duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I also stand today in the House of Commons to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, people of the Province of Saskatchewan, in the communities of Wadena, Kelvington and Rose Valley area, and members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They petition the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, that is no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

Petitions


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from citizens of Canada representing small towns in Saskatchewan, Rockgl-en, Killdeer and Gravelbourg. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmer's fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow, that is, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, as Member for Spadina, but having regard for the needs of the whole of Canada, I have a petition from a number of residents of Canada who are now exercising their right to present this grievance. The petition humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned also believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate with no change.
Therefore, the undersigned, that is, your petitioners, Mr. Speaker, humbly pray and call upon this Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain, that is the Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of 45 farmers from the Lloydminster area of Alberta and Saskatchewan, a group of farmers who feel that they contributed nothing to inflation in Canada. These petitioners, the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise the right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow, that is, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, again it is my pleasure and a privilege to present a petition on behalf of 34 Canadian farmers who state the following in their petition. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export
May 19, 1983
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. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray, since those farmers do not believe that they are responsible for inflation in this country.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to introduce a petition at this time, as is my privilege and, indeed, my duty. It is a petition from some 36 Canadians, mainly from around North Battleford, though including people from Cut Knife, the Battlefords, Saskatoon, Lashburn, et cetera. The petitioners wish to humbly petition the House of Commons, which is assembled here, to exercise their right to present a grievance. The grievance is that our western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the crop year of 1981-82. This grain, in turn, contributed some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. Indeed, the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy. Mr. Speaker, I might say that I also believe this-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Good for you.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Western farmers are willing to pay one times the Crow, meaning, again, that there will be no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, meaning the Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed, I also wish to point out that most of them are farmers and members of the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not to describe his petitioners. He may simply present his petitions.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Your Honour and most Hon. Members of the House are aware that farmers and Canadian taxpayers are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into upgrading of the rail lines and development of a major grain facility in Prince Rupert, in my riding. Farmers from across Canada and constituents in my riding are petitioning the House. In this case, most of the names on the petition I will be tabling are those of members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. They present the following petition for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and for the consideration of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
To the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop
May 19, 1983

year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that the western farmers will pay one times Crow, which means no change. They are certainly not, as some Hon. Members would suggest, members of the flat earth society. These are all members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and farmers.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, which I am sure the Minister of Transport will soon come to realize.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 have another petition with which I have been presented, and which 1 feel honoured and duty bound to present, from 37 farmers, members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool from Fosston, Canora, Buchanan and Springside, Saskatchewan, in which they, as undersigned residents of Canada, exercise their right to present a grievance because they believe that they, as farmers, have made a fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that they are willing to pay one times the Crow rate.
Wherefore these undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the citizens of Rockglen, Saskatchewan. Most of these people are farmers but they also represent a cross section of the community.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, and that the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy, and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, that is, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition which I am pleased to present from retired farmers and homemakers from the area of Watrous, Saskatchewan; Viscount, Saskatchewan; Raymore, Saskatchewan and other areas.
These farmers deeply resent the fact that a Government with no representation in their area should try to change a historic bargain of Confederation. They also humbly show in their petition that they paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the 1981-82 crop year. The grain contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of payment of Canada which is important for the whole country.
Petitions
They also believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that they should not be further penalized. They also believe that the western farmer should pay one times Crow, that is, no change. Wherefore all the 24 undersigned humbly pray and call upon this Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate.
1 would like to table this petition.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty this afternoon to present a petition which has come about as a result of the proposed Pepin plan which became Bill C-155 in the House of Commons. The petitioners who sent this petition to me present to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 198182 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, and the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow which is, in effect, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, more commonly referred to as the Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to present a petition signed by Canadians which concerns the Crowsnest Pass rate. These people are members of a colony in Spring Creek-

To the Hon. House of Commons in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy, and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, in other words, no change.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I also have the unique pleasure of presenting to the House of Commons a petition signed by numerous individuals from the thriving metropolis of Gravelbourg and Limerick, Saskatchewan. These individuals wish to petition the House to show that western Canadian farmers have paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed in the order of $6.3 billion to the Canadian economy to enhance and improve our

May 19, 1983
Petitions
balance of trade which created employment for all Canadians and strengthen the economy generally.
The undersigned believe that these farmers have made a fair contribution, contrary to the Government's proposal, to the Canadian economy. Those western farmers will pay in a voluntary and forthright manner one times Crow, which is essentially no change.
Wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray. The petition is dated Tuesday, March 17, 1983.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Will the Hon. Members in the fourth and fifth rows he seated. We are dealing with the third row. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant).


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and duty bound to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by residents of the Province of Saskatchewan and the communities of Fosston, Lintlaw and Clair, among others, all Members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and all farmers.
Your petitioners share the sentiments expressed in an editorial in yesterday's Toronto Star which called on Ottawa to back off. The petitioners feel that the federal Government has no right to impose such fundamental social and economic changes on a region of Canada without the approval of the provincial Governments most directly affected.
The petitioners, or the undersigned, are residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance. The petition humbly sheweth that 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 of Canada. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy. These farmers state that they will pay one times Crow, that is, no change to the present rate.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon this Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on the Crow rate which has been sent to me by the Members of the Lutheran Church in Langham, Saskatchewan, which happens to be the first Lutheran Church in Saskatchewan.
To the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy, and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, which means no change.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. The petition is duly signed by members of the Lutheran Church in Langham, Saskatchewan.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I rise to present a petition, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Come on over, Jim.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: This petition reads that the undersigned citizens of Canada humbly pray the NDP hijack of Parliament will cease in order that we can get on with the business of renovating Canada's western rail system. Western producers need and deserve a new rail system which will enable them to get their products to market, the construction of which will create thousands of jobs for Canada's unemployed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Speak more slowly, Jim.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my petition is signed by farmers who understand and who have had to live and work with the Crow rate for many, many years. During the long winter they have had a chance to sign petitions to present to the House of Commons. In their petition these farmers who are concerned about the Crow rate talk about the $131 million which they paid to export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-1982 crop year. This grain in turn has contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. It is understood and felt by these farmers that that is their fair contribution to the Canadian economy. These farmers also believe they should be paying the Crow rate in the future and that there should be no change. These farmers, not Members of Parliament, not Liberal Members of Parliament humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain and present the present statutory grain or the Crow rate, and as duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask Hon. Members to refrain from editorial comments. I ask that they simply state their petitions.
The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 11 Canadian farmers who are petitioning Parliament assembled, and the petition prays that the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise the right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that 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,
May 19, 1983

contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow, which means no change and, wherefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, which is the Crow rate, and as duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is recognizing Members in the second row to my left. I would ask other Members to be seated.


An Hon. Member:: When do we get our turn?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of Canadian citizens in Cut Knife, Battleford and Landis and a number of other Saskatchewan towns. These residents of Canada now exercise their right to present a grievance which humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 19811982 crop year. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. These petitioners believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that the western farmers will pay one times the Crow, which is to say, Mr. Speaker, no change. Wherefore these petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate, and as duty bound these petitioners will ever pray. This petition was signed on Tuesday, May 17, 1983.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to join with my other colleagues in presenting a petition to you this afternoon that has been presented to me by Canadians from in and around the city and town of North Battleford, Saskatchewan. These petitioners are petitioning the House of Commons assembled here to present their grievances to the House. These petitioners humbly sheweth or is it showeth?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: If the shoeth fitteth, weareth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member can do his best. I am sure Hansard will do its job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simon Leendert de Jong: The petition humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-1982 crop year. It is estimated that in the following decade the amount will come close to $1 billion, meaning that close to $600 for every man, woman and child will be paid to the railroads. This will mean less money spent in Saskatchewan, a decrease in jobs and sales in many of the communities from which many of these petitioners come. That is why these petitioners are so concerned. They are not only farmers but salesmen, shopkeepers and housewives, etc.
Petitions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member needs to state only the petition.


Simon Leendert de Jong: This export grain in turn contributed some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade and to the benefit of all Canada. These petitioners believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy. Indeed, as I mentioned before, Mr. Speaker, so do I. Western farmers at present pay one times Crow, and that is what they are willing to pay, which means no change. Wherefore, these petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, meaning the Crow rate, and as duty bound these petitioners will ever pray. This petition was dated Tuesday, May 17, 1983.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling on Hon. Members in the first row on my left the Chair would like to announce questions to be raised tonight during the adjournment debate.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)-Agriculture-New Brunswick potato industry, (b) Request for ministerial action; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-National Defence-Aircraft-Allocation of work-Starting date; and the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier)-Canada Council-Alleged scandal at Sherbrooke, P.Q.
The Chair felt that, with consent, that was the appropriate moment at which to introduce a slightly different note.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents, some from Saskatchewan and some from the Province of Ontario, including Timothy Woods, to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. These petitioners, residents of Canada, now exercise their right to present a grievance. It humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in

May 19, 1983
Petitions
the 1981-1982 crop year. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The petitioners believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers are prepared to pay one times the Crow rate which, in essence, is no change?
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, that being the Crow freight rate. And as duty bound these petitioners will ever pray. They hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will, for a change, listen to them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by 37 citizens, 30 of whom are members of the Wheat Pool from Saltcoats, Canora, Buchanan, Invermay, Melville and Kelvington. These petitioners exercise their right to present a grievance pointing out the amount of freight they paid to move export grain under the Crow rate. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade to the benefit of all of Canada. They, the undersigned, believe this is their fair contribution to the Canadian economy. Therefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to maintain the present statutory grain rate for grain producers and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights to present a grievance, with the assurance that your Honourable House will provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
Whereas western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year.
That this contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade of Canada.
Whereas the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy.
And whereas western farmers will pay one time Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by 37 Canadian citizens.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. The other rows can be seated for the moment.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, as a Member from British Columbia and as one who was born on a grain farm in Saskatchewan, I have great pleasure in presenting the following petition. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, that is, there will be no change in these statutory rates. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker. I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Canada in towns such as Hallonquist, Neidpath, Hodgeville and Swift Current to the west of Spadina, and Ottawa, to the east of Spadina. This petition of the undersigned residents who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that 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 for Canada. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy. Furthermore, they will pay no more than one times the Crow rate, that is, no change from the present rate. Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain, that is the Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. This petition was signed on Tuesday, May 17, 1983.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Lang-ham and other places in Saskatchewan. I will exercise my right to present it in Canada's other official language, because I think I can speak more quickly in that language.

To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled:
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada- [English]


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Normally I would hear it at the end of the petition and not the beginning.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: After the Hon. Member's petition, I will recognize the Minister.
May 19, 1983


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I hope the Minister is not going to interrupt while I present a petition in the other official language of Canada.
To the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights to present a grievance, with the assurance that your honourable House will provide a remedy,
Humbly sheweth that:
Whereas western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year.
That this contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade of Canada.
Whereas the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy.
And whereas western farmers will pay one time Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. [English]


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I am making is that it is evident from the behaviour of the Members of the New Democratic Party that they are systematically utilizing one of the rules or orders in the Standing Orders in order to prevent our reaching Orders of the Day. The point is that the abuse of the rules constitutes a disorder.


An Hon. Member:: You are perceptive.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. gentleman across the way says I am very perceptive in identifying the ploy that they are using.
One of the functions of the Chair, as you will recognize, Mr. Speaker, is to maintain order in this place in order to permit the House to function in an orderly fashion. Any abuse of the rules or Standing Orders of this House constitutes disorder and ought to be recognized as such by the Speaker and ought to be dealt with as such by Mr. Speaker asking the hon. gentlemen who are engaging in that disorder to cease and desist.
My point is that the Standing Orders of this House are supposed to foster the debate among Members and ought not to be abused. It can be seen from the presence here of all members of the New Democratic Party, which has not happened before so late in the day, that that is their intention.
In addition, they have made public statements to the effect that they will use any measure they have at their disposal in order to stop this House from debating a Bill. Bills are made to be debated in this House and then put to a vote. Obviously the gentlemen of the NDP do not want that to happen. In effect, they are acting against the basic principles of parliamentary democracy. They are doing that with the full knowledge of
Petitions
what their intentions are. Mr. Speaker, for you to permit that to be carried out in effect permits disorderly conduct in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I shall speak to the House in the other official language. It is unfortunate that the reactionary Members of the New Democratic Party-I mean reactionary in the broadest sense of the word-and as conservative a lot as we have ever met up with, should be using dilatory tactics in order to obstruct the proceedings of this House. They call themselves the New Democratic Party, but they are using anti-democratic tactics to prevent this House from starting proceedings that are essential to the national interest. The correct approach is to analyze the measures that are presented and provide the Canadian people with arguments that could persuade it to oblige us to vote against this Bill or at least to refrain from tabling the Bill in the House. They are doing something else entirely. They are trying to use a measure that is provided for in the Standing Orders in order to obstruct debate on the matter before the House.
Mr. Speaker, our conclusion must be that this bunch of rowdies I see before me, and I hope the term is parliamentary, that these rowdies have failed to recognize the essence of parliamentary democracy, which is to provide a forum for open, frank and comprehensive debate among intelligent Members of Parliament. It is obvious that intelligence is not with us this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Standing Order of the House is clear. Standing Order 71 subsection (1) reads:
71.(1) A petition to the House may be presented by a Member at any time during the sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
It goes on in subsection (2):
(2)	Any Member desiring to present a petition in his or her place in the House must do so during Routine Proceedings and before Introduction of Bills.
Subsection (3) reads:
(3)	On the presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be allowed.
The Chair has tried within the limits of the Standing Order to enforce the Standing Order. Some Hon. Members have attempted to debate and they have introduced extraneous matter, which is contrary to the Standing Order. The Chair has a much more serious concern, however. The Chair has received what is alleged to be a petition containing a written statement but containing no names or signatures. The Chair's recollection of the subject matter of the petitions that have been read is reasonably accurate, although sometimes confused, but the fact is that this was a petition that obviously came from the side of the House which is on my left and not from the side of the House which is on my right. It becomes

May 19, 1983
Petitions
difficult for the Chair if Elon. Members do not present legitimate petitions when the Chair recognizes them. Hon. Members of the House are responsible for their own actions. The Chair is a servant of the House.
On the point raised by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), the only observation the Chair can make is that there is a committee of the House charged with reviewing the procedures and practices of Standing Orders. That Committee will have to address itself to the question of whether or not there are abuses of the Standing Orders, but under the circumstances, the Chair can do nothing else but enforce the orders such as they are in the best possible way that the Chair can. It is not easy.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate very much the comments you have made and I also appreciate that you have done extremely well in making sure that Members stayed within the confines of what is allowable in the presentation of petitions. I wonder if I might ask, Sir, on a point of order, whether you might be able to inform us if you are able to ascertain where the petition you mentioned that is in blank form came from and whether it is signed on the back. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I personally looked at every petition that has been presented this afternoon and every petition was signed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, a petition that was not signed came from the Party which he represents. It was presented to the Table.


Some Hon. Members:: Who, who?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition on behalf of 117 citizens of the community of Riverhurst, Saskatchewan, a community which recognizes the difference between changing the Crow rate and building up the railways, addressed to the Hon. House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who do now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-1982 crop year. This grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, that is, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. I present this petition, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Riverhurst.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of 42 residents of the area southeast of Regina, the Sedley-Francis-Kronau area. In a petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly show that 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. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, that is, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow grain rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Having had the opportunity to review the question you raised with regard to the blank petition, I believe that we are all in agreement that the piece of paper that you had before you was a French translation of the petition which is being presented and was not intended to go to the Table at all but rather was intended to go to Hansard by way of a page. The actual petition itself was filed appropriately and properly with the Table.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, there was a petition sent to me by some people from southwestern Saskatchewan, Admiral, Cadillac and the surrounding communities, people who are concerned about what they see as their Confederation bargain with regard to the Crow rate. They have asked me to present to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their right to present a grievance which humbly sheweth that 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 some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that they do not want any change in the statutory Crow rate as has been proposed by the Pepin plan. Western farmers will pay one times Crow, which would mean no change to the present statutory rate.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory rate, otherwise known as the Crow rate and, in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a fresh point of order relating to the petition which has just been presented. Again I point out to you, Mr. speaker, that the tactic that is being employed by the NDP, if it were to be followed, could completely immobilize any of the workings of the House. You know as well as I do that on any individual issue on a Bill that we may be dealing with at any given time, we can mount any number of petitions from any region of the country that supports an opposing point of view. Indeed, that is why we have Members of the Opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) has made the point for the second time.
May 19, 1983

The Chair is interpreting the Standing Orders of the House and is attempting to deal with this as evenhandedly as possible in the circumstances. Whether or not the Standing Orders have to be reviewed in the appropriate manner at the appropriate time and place is a matter which the Chair cannot decide at this stage. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled:
It is my duty, on behalf of the undersigned residents of Canada, to present this petition to this House of Commons.
Whereas these Canadians in Western Canada paid $131 million to move grain under the Crow freight rate in the 198182 crop year, this grain in return has contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade.
And whereas the undersigned believe that this is a fair contribution to the Canadian economy, and whereas western farmers are prepared to pay the present rate for moving their grain, that is why the undersigned, your petitioners, call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. [English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin) on a point of order.


Mr. Daudlin:: Mr. Speaker, it appears from the presentations that are being made by my hon. friends, on the other side that all the petitions are headed by the exact, same, identical preamble. If you were to examine the petitions and so find, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you might also find that we have before us today not a number of petitions but one petition, as anticipated by the rules of the House, being presented by a number of Members. I wonder whether, in order to allow the House to deal with this issue promptly and efficiently, the Chair might not invite Hon. Members on the other side to present their petition as what it really is, that is, one petition, and then allow us to get on with the issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his suggestion. The Standing Order is quite clear. It says that Hon. Members have the right to present petitions. They are examined by the Clerk as to form and a report is made to the House on whether or not the petitions are in form.
In the recollection of the Chair, on many occasions in this House petitions with identical wording have been presented by Hon. Members at different times, on different occasions. In this case the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky).
Petitions


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour of presenting a petition to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights to present a grievance, with the assurance that your honourable House will provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
Whereas western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year.
That this contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade of Canada.
Whereas the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy.
And whereas western farmers will pay one time Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. [English]


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, this is a fresh point of order upon the last petition which has just been presented. This is additional evidence that there is a systematic tactic being employed by the NDP to prevent us from reaching the Orders of the Day and dealing with the Bill which ought to be debated by this House. It is some sort of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister has been recognized three times. In the judgment of the Chair he appears to be making the same point of order. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that there is a tradition in this House that we do not challenge the Speakers' rulings. A Minister of the Crown, who has been in this House a long, long time, should know better.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller).


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present on behalf of 27 residents of Coronach, Saskatchewan, many of whom are farmers and are concerned about their livelihood, a petition addressed to the Hon. House of Commons. It humbly sheweth that 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, and the undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate.

May 19, 1983
Petitions
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, and as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. It is based upon the additional petition which has just been read. I suggest that members fo the NDP are indicating by their behaviour their adoption of a systematic tactic whereby they are preventing us from reaching the Orders of the Day and dealing with the Bill which ought to be debated on this day, as announced by the Government House Leader.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Minister has now been recognized four times on the the same point. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the Hon. Member opposite would be happy if I switched petitions-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member deal with his petition, please.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I just want to oblige the House. I have a petition signed by the residents of three different Provinces expressing their opinions on the Crow rate. In their petition to the Hon. House of Commons in Parliament assembled the undersigned residents of Canada exercise their traditional and long-standing right in suggesting that the western Canadian farmers have paid SI31 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain, in turn, has contributed over $6.3 billion to the balance of trade in this country. The undersigned in the three different Provinces believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers should pay one times the Crow, no change. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. The petition is dated this month, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a fresh point of order based upon the additional petition which has just been presented. The point is that every time there is a new petition it strengthens the argument I have been making. It is a predetermined tactic.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from citizens of Langham, Asquith, Vandura and the City of Saskatoon, from Saskatoon east, and particularly from Saskatoon west. The undersigned residents of Canada exercise their right to present a grievance. It humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution
to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow, which means they wish no change in the Crow rate.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Jean-Jacques Blais: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant).


Jean-Jacques Blais: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have recognized the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) five times on the same point of order. It is not the intention of the Chair to recognize him again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Out! Out!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Supply and Services.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, Sir, the question is that I have risen after the petitions have been brought to your attention. The petitions are being brought to your attention on a repetitive basis. They are coming forward basically as the same petition signed by-allegedly signed by-different people.
All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that I want you to recognize me so that 1 can put to you the point of order relating to the abuse of the process which is being employed by the New Democratic Party in order to frustrate the workings of this House. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that with each one of those petitions, there is additional evidence of the predetermined intent of the NDP to interfere with the due process of this House and the deliberations of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the Chair is appealing to the House at this point. The alleged points of order are not really points of order-


David P. Smith: They are more legitimate than those petitions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair at this stage is doing its best to enforce the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. If Hon. Members have legitimate points of order, that is one
May 19, 1983

thing, but points of order which are simply repetitive and making a point which was made before, I believe with all due respect-


An Hon. Member:: How about the petitions?


David P. Smith: They are simply the same petition word for word and presented on the same day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in a difficult position. The Chair asks Hon. Members to reflect on the dignity of the House and to maintain the decorum which is appropriate in the circumstances, difficult though it may be. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.


David Orlikow: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North and seriously requests the Hon. Member, if he does not have a legitimate point of order, not to attempt to take the time of the House. However, I will recognize him.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my point will be very brief. The Minister, in raising his alleged point of order, said-and I am sure that Hansard will show this-that the signatures which are being presented in these petitions were "alleged" signatures.


David P. Smith: One was not even signed.


David Orlikow: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister that he is impugning the honesty of Members of Parliament, and I take-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. The Hon. Minister of Supply and Services has indicated that he is going to rise after every petition. The Chair is not in a position to rewrite the rules under such circumstances. I cannot help but feel that there may well be some merit to the contention of the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services, but the facts are that the Chair is a servant of the House and the Chair must observe the Standing Orders of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: And so should the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the circumstances, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of 43 citizens of Saskatchewan.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights to present a grievance, with the assurance that your honourable House will provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
Petitions
Whereas western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year.
That this contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade of Canada.
Whereas the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy.
And whereas western farmers will pay one time Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. [English]


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to quote from Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, Fifteenth Edition, under "Presentation of Petitions to the Commons". It reads:
-a Member may present a petition, at any time during the sitting of the House, by placing it in the petition bag kept at the back of the Speaker's chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, since all Members of Parliament want to put the House of Commons to work and accomplish their duties, I have acquired a bag used for Royal Mail which I suggest you hang behind your chair and invite-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Out! out! out!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member's intervention has the aspect of novelty, which is a little welcome. Nevertheless, a display is not permitted in the House. We are following the procedure spelled out in the Standing Orders. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett).


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I aslo would like to present a petition on behalf of 38 working farmers and retired farmers who live in Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan, which is south of Swift Current. This is a petition duly signed by the 38 working and retired farmers to whom I just referred who say to this Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. They want particularly to emphasize that this grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. These farmers, the 38 who have signed the petition, believe that this is a fair contribution from the farmers of western Canada to the Canadian economy and that farmers should continue to pay one times the Crow, which is to say, no change, and humbly pray and call upon this Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate.

May 19, 1983
Petitions


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I present to the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance which humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $130 million to 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. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow. The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory rate, which of course is the Crow rate. As in duty bound your petitioners ever pray.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I wish to present a petition to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now exercise their ancient and unchallenged rights to present a grievance, with the assurance that your honourable House will provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
Whereas western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year.
That this contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade of Canada.
Whereas the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy.
And whereas western farmers will pay only one time Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned humbly call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to draw your attention to Citation 120 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition on page 39. It says:
Foremost among his many responsibilities, the Speaker has the duty to maintain an orderly conduct of debate by repressing disorder when it arises-
As a result of the last petition presented, Mr. Speaker, 1 again indicate that in effect the sum total of all the petitions presented today constitute a disorder. I call to your attention Citation 123(5) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which says that the Speaker:
-calls to order any Member who is being irrelevant or repetitious in debate.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that there is indeed in this instance a large amount of systematic repetition in order to create
disorder. It is true that you are the servant of this House and you have to maintain decorum, but decorum is not identical to order. There could indeed be very great decorum while there is disorder. In this instance the disorder stems from the fact that the NDP Members, as the Tories did during the constitutional debate with their questions of privilege and the ringing of the bells episode, are interfering with the proper deliberations in this House, the debating process for which this House was constituted, by the systematic abuse of a Standing Order of this House. They are bringing this House into disrepute, as did the ringing of the bells and the questions of privilege put by the Tories during the constitutional debate. There is a limit to what this House can suffer in the way of abuse of its process and Standing Orders.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I find this attack on you to be unconscionable. I have noted with interest the care you have taken to make sure that each of the petitions was in fact in proper form and that the Member presenting the petition kept within the rules. When any Member strayed outside those rules, you, Sir, very quickly rose and brought him back to order.
I want to say that I resent the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) attacking you in this way. I can see no justification for his calling into question the actions of the Speaker in this regard. The Speaker has made it quite clear that what is being done is within the rules of Parliament, and just because the Minister does not like it does not make it wrong!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is looking at the clock and it has listened attentively to the argument and will take the matter under consideration. At this stage the Chair will call upon the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to present this petition to you. I have examined it and I believe it to be in proper order and properly signed. This petition addresses itself to the concerns that Canadian citizens have regarding the Crow rate and the cost to western Canadian farmers for the movement of grain. These people are concerned with the effect the proposed resolution will have on their livelihood. They are concerned that this institution will pass legislation which will destroy many farmers. In their petition they state that 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 some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade and therefore to the benefit of the whole country.
The undersigned petitioners believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers are in fact willing to pay one times the Crow, or in essence no change. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory rate, meaning the Crow rate, and as in duty
May 19, 1983

bound your petitioners would ever pray. This petition has been signed on Tuesday, May 17, 1983.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a petition to table from 33 Canadians, most of whom are farmers, and about half of whom are members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The impact of Bill C-155 may reduce the incomes of farmers in British Columbia by 30 per cent or more and take billions away from farmers on the Prairies. The 31.1 million tonne cap and Crow rate change are widely opposed and may damage the future of the Ridley Island grain development in Prince Rupert.
To the Honourable House of Commons and all its Members in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, particularly of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy. Western farmers will pay one times the Crow, which means no change.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain or Crow rate and, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. Those petitioners are from Maymont, Gravelbourg, and Guybourg, Saskatchewan.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition to the House on behalf of quite a number, about 70 I think, citizens of Canada, living in Saskatchewan and Ontario. Many of them are farmers, some are not, who present this petition. To the House of Commons and Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada-and I emphasize that for the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais)-who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that 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. That is a lot. That is really a lot. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will confine his remarks to the petition, please.


Ian Deans: I am sorry. I was just commenting to my colleague, who is sitting beside me. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy, and that western farmers will pay their share.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament and, in particular, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who rarely listens, to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.
Petitions


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 37 residents from Yorkton; Melville and Canora, Saskatchewan. Some of them are farmers, some are teachers, carpenters and so on.
To the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow, which means no change.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I again have a-
[ Translation]


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) on a point of order.


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like the Chair to be given the opportunity of ascertaining whether those who signed the petition, were at that time duly informed of the use to which it would be put in this House, namely to paralyse the workings of the House, or whether they were simply told that their views would be put before the House of Commons. Because if indeed the people who signed those petitions intended to paralyse the workings of the House, Mr. Speaker, I am prevented as a member of this House from performing the duties, for which I have been elected. This is my point of order. I would therefore like the Chair to ascertain from the people who signed the petitions whether they were informed that by signing those petitions, they would hinder my work as a Member of Parliament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under our Standing Orders, obviously, the Clerk of the House will be dealing with the signatures on the petitions, because it is his duty under such Standing Orders to report later to the House. As Deputy Speaker, I am not in a position to now verify the signatures. The Clerk will look after that later on.


Mr.   Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. Am I to understand that you are assuring me that the Clerk of the House will check with some of the people who signed the petitions whether they had been informed beforehand that their signatures would be used to deprive me of my right to speak in this House? I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if you

May 19, 1983
Petitions
are giving me the assurance that this will be verified with those people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Under our rules, I am under no obligation to verify the signatures myself. Neither is the Clerk. But again, under our Standing Orders, any Member has the right to check the signatures himself if he so desires.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Point of order!


David P. Smith: Point of order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills on a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean should not be upset with the NDP strategy, because he is the Hon. Member who said that the Liberal Party would adapt to anything and would be communistic if necessary.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Mr. Gimaiel:: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the petitions be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for verification, because those petitions are interfering with my right to speak. I ask that they be-


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening with interest to the wording of the petitions that we have heard from Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party. It seems to me that there has been identical wording in perhaps the last couple of dozen. What I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, if you will hear me out-


Donald W. Munro: You've listened very carefully.


Pauline Jewett: It's the same problem.


David P. Smith: -that, as such, they are repetitions. I would refer Your Honour to Bourinot, page-


Some Hon. Members:: Bourinot?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This point was made earlier this afternoon. The Chair can recall a number of occasions when petitions on capital punishment were presented in the House with exactly the same wording. There are many instances, in the experience of the Chair, in which wording of petitions has followed exactly the same form, for instance, on right to life, on capital punishment, on a series of issues. There are even precedents of Hon. Members presenting in an afternoon more than one petition at one time. The point has been made by
others in the course of this afternoon's debate. The Chair cannot find that a point of order is involved.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if a pertinent reference from Bourinot had been heard at that point, the petitions would not have been heard. I would urge Your Honour to at least hear out the citation from Bourinot which I believe is on the point.


Ian Deans: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There has been a point of order raised upon which the Chair has reserved judgment. The Chair has not ruled on a point of order which has been raised. At this stage the Chair intends, between now and six o'clock, to hear the rest of the Hon. Members who are seeking to be recognized on petitions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Parliamentary Secretary has something new to contribute, the Chair would like to hear it. However, if he has nothing new to contribute, I would ask him not to make a false point of order.


Pauline Jewett: Sit down. Have some respect for the Chair.


David P. Smith: It is very difficult to contribute something new when Your Honour has not even allowed me to make my contribution.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Ian Deans: When you've got a weak case, attack the Speaker!


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to page 235 of Bourinot. It states:
Petitions containing lengthy extracts from other documents or publications or having such extracts printed in separate forms and annexed to petitions are irregular.
I would submit that these are really copies of the original petition, which really constitute lengthy extracts from another document.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


David P. Smith: Accordingly, they are irregular, and irregular petitions cannot be received. I think that is a valid point of order.


An Hon. Member:: That's a serious accusation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary knows the provisions of the Standing Order. The Clerk of Petitions will make a report to the House as to form, as to whether the petitions are in form or not in form. That is a Standing Order of the House, and presumably the normal provisions will operate in the Standing Order.
I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I-
May 19, 1983

[ Translation]


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, one last time for a few minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean twice. I can understand his frustration, but I assure him that his frustration is only equalled by that of the Chair.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) for the last time.


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Mr. Speaker, I am taking one more minute to make you understand clearly what I want. I want the petitions deferred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for a verification of their authenticity. I would ask for a ruling, Mr. Speaker, because-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Standing Order 71 states very clearly what is to be done with the petitions tabled in the House. As Deputy Speaker of the House, I have no authority, I cannot change the Standing Orders of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a single paged petition with the bona fide signatures of 37 residents of Canada from the communities of Gilbert Plains, Manitoba; Canora, Saskatchewan, and Endeavour, Saskatchewan, and Basswood, Manitoba, 34 of whom are members of the Saskatchewan and Manitoba Wheat Pools. It is a separate, single paged petition with the same preamble. Addressed to the Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned petitioners believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament and Government and certain Members thereof to maintain the present statutory grain rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Orders, I should like to present a petition on behalf of the undersigned from many towns of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, a petition signed by 32 people.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the
Petitions
certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy-
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to speak with-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
[ Translation]


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your cooperation.
The 32 citizens of Canada I just mentioned:
Humbly sheweth that:
In view of the fact that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year;
Secondly, Mr. Speaker,
In view of the fact that this grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the Canadian balance of trade;
Thirdly,
In view of the fact that the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy;
And in view of the fact that western farmers will pay one time Crow;
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important petition for us in the Province of Saskatchewan and everywhere in Canada.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present a petition in essentially the same words as those read by some of my colleagues. This petition is from the citizens of Canada, especially from the Province of Saskatchewan and the communities of Cornach, Fife Lake, Assiniboia and Rockglen.
To the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' contribution to the Canadian economy, and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate, that is, there will be no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, or the Crow. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

May 19, 1983
Petitions


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents from Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The petition has been duly signed. I have authorized the petition with my signature. I am sure that you will find this petition in order. The petitioners state that the Crow rate is non-negotiable. The petition humbly sheweth that 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 over $6.3 billion to the balance of trade in Canada.
The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' contribution to the Canadian economy and that the western farmers agreed to pay one times the Crow, in other words, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate, or Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will every pray.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that you honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
Humbly sheweth that:
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.
That the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy.
And that western farmers will pay one time Crow.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain Crow rate
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. [English]


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the undersigned residents of Canada from the towns of Simmie, Scotsguard, Shaunavon and Wymark. If it were necessary to prove the authenticity of the petition I could read the names of each individual. I can see that it is not necessary, Mr. Speaker. These citizens of Canada now exercise their right to present a grievance that humbly sheweth that 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. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow, that is, no change.
Wherefore the undersigned your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the statutory grain rate, that is the Crow rate. As in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray. This dated Tuesday, May 17, 1983. These petitioners have no objection to the Government's introducing good Unemployment Insurance legislation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions I have addressed questions to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) pertaining to the economic calamity which is descending upon the potato industry of New Brunswick.


Mr. Berger:: You turkey.


Fred Alward McCain: I do not think I have ever extended such uncalled for discourtesy to a fellow Member and I bemoan the fact that anyone would display such poor manners as the departing Member just did.


Gordon Edward Taylor: He is a Liberal.


Fred Alward McCain: There is an element of respect demanded. I shall not raise a question of privilege or a point of order, but I wanted to draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair was not aware of what happened. 1 was distracted for a moment. The Hon. Member may wish to continue.


Fred Alward McCain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The problem of the potato industry is virtually of a catastrophic nature. On May 6, 1983 I drew this to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture in questions listed on page 25226 of Hansard. The Minister responded in a rather oblique sort of way. At that point in time I tried to point out to the Minister that if there was no response with respect to the means at his disposal for assistance to this industry it would be too late. He has offered diverging sort of answers, delaying responses and nothing has happened.
However, I want to address one of the requests that I made of him, namely, that the Government should allow the agencies
May 19, 1983

which make loans to farmers for storable crops some leniency with respect to collection. As the policy has been administered, the potato agency, New Brunswick in this instance, is responsible for collection. If it does not collect, it has to pay whatever the farmer does not pay back on the loan for storable crops. This would not be a very difficult thing to do. It is something the Minister could have done forthwith had he chosen, but he did not choose to follow that route. The farmers in this circumstance may be faced with the necessity of the agency hiring a collection agency to get the money from the farmers who do not have money enough to plant crops, let alone pay back loans. This is something with which the Minister could have dealt forthwith but did not. I do not think this is very good consideration in view of the circumstances which exist.
I repeated my question a little later, on May 13, 1983. The Minister chose to diverge from the subject matter of my question. This was particularly true on May 6 when the Minister said the New Brunswick people should have a potato marketing board as that would resolve all their problems. The Minister said every Province but P.E.I. was ready to go into some kind of an agreement. I join P.E.I. in not being willing to advise the potato industry of New Brunswick to enter into any marketing board structure as long as the Minister of Agriculture of Canada does not lay upon the table a specific arrangement whereby price and production can be controlled. In that case it becomes a socialist state which I do not like anyway. Until an agreement is tabled in this House for Members to examine I think the Province of P.E.I. has followed exactly the right route, and New Brunswick farmers would be very ill advised to fall into a trap.
Time does not permit me to expand on the trap into which they could fall but they could find themselves in a situation without a market, having lost their export market, due to control of other Provinces over our affairs, or the affairs of P.E.I. It is not an easy resolution to simply say "let us put up a marketing agency" without asking what the abilities of the agency as a marketing board in New Brunswick or as an eastern Canadian potato marketing structure would be. We have to know who stays in business. That is a divergence from the necessity which exists in New Brunswick today.
The Minister has at his disposal four avenues through which he could have proceeded. He has apparently refused to follow any of these. At this moment in time farmers are sitting idle in their homes, looking at their machinery and their fields, unable to plant crops because of the delay of the Minister of Agriculture in acting within his scope of jurisdiction and within the judicial opportunity he has to interpret the regulations. He will not say that he will defer the repayment of storage loans. He will not say he will support the provincial farm loan agency in providing any assistance it might extend to the farmers. He will not say there will be a price stabilization program to help those who have marketed as little as 20 per cent of their crop at very depressed prices.
Adjournment Debate
This is a catastrophe, a disaster. It is not normal circumstance. The industry does not want handouts per se. However, when we have a problem of disastrous proportions the Minister should act on an emergency basis. Has he yet met with the New Brunswick Minister to discuss this?
The Minister could announce a price stabilization program which would enhance the credit of the farmers when they go to the bank so they can put in their crops. He will in no way make a statement on price stabilization. This is a discretionary capability which he has. He could do what he said he had done and has not done, namely, put Farm Credit Corporation lending officers in those areas where the potatoes are planted to approve loans forthwith on a bridge financing basis. None of these things have been done, and the planting season is upon us. I told the Minister last week, and I repeat, a week from now is too late, we need it today. The next question is will the Minister address the problem in the response which he will have dictated to somebody who will now answer me?


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, although no specific allocation of the funds under the Special Farm Financial Assistance Program of the Farm Credit Corporation has been made to potato producers, there is a conscious effort being made in the Maritime Provinces to handle these applications with urgency. To date the Farm Credit Corporation has been able to handle the demand without difficulty.
The Farm Credit Corporation has always been sensitive to the needs of farmers in sectors facing special problems, and potato producers are no exception. If the farmer is presently a borrower, the corporation can carry the account in arrears or can re-amortize the loan to help see the individual through this difficult period.
An essential part of the Farm Credit Corporation's mandate is its advisory services, to which all farmers have access. The corporation's credit advisors are trained in financial manange-ment and can help farmers work out various alternatives for their businesses.
In 1982-83, over $4 million was approved in the Atlantic Provinces for some 46 farmers who required help under the Special Farm Financial Assistance Program. Another ten loans have been approved since April 1. This is in addition to $10 million in regular loan approvals for 1982-83 and $1.6 million so far this year.
Under the Advance Payments for Crops Act, $6,801,500 has been advanced to potato producers in the Province of New Brunswick this year. These advances are considered current until July 31, 1983. The legislation for this Act does not allow forgiveness of the advanced for any reason. All advances must be repaid. However, the legislation does allow an extension of the repayment period for good cause. In this event, each producer would have to enter into a repayment agreement.
There are other possible solutions which we are currently investigating to determine the net impact on the producer. Normally the advance payments are to be repaid as the

May 19, 1983
Adjournment Debate
potatoes are sold. However, due to current circumstances, we are not applying any pressure for repayments until this issue is resolved.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-AIRCRAFT-ALLOCATION OF WORKSTARTING DATE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, today I questioned the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) regarding future layoffs of 420 Air Canada employees, and specifically the 150 Winnipeg Air Canada maintenance workers who are to be laid off in September. I am suggesting another alternative to the unemployment of Air Canada maintenance workers in Winnipeg.
In early 1984 it will be necessary for the Armed Forces 707s to be overhauled. Winnipeg has provided this service in the past and with their excellent facilities and skilled workpersons who are eager for the employment opportunity I believe that the upcoming contract should be awarded to Winnipeg. Not only is Winnipeg a logical choice, but this would provide a solution to the problem of layoffs as well as lessen the hardship on the over-burdened Unemployment Insurance purse.
As this overhaul contract is scheduled for early 1984, I am further suggesting that the date be advanced to September of 1983, the time Air Canada expects to lay off its employees. I understand that the 707s are experiencing nose landing gear problems, Mr. Speaker, so it would be advisable to bring them in for overhaul earlier. I would ask that the Minister of National Defence consider my proposition with a view to taking immediate action.
I would also like to stress that under no circumstances should this contract be awarded to the Montreal area as is feared in Winnipeg. As it is, too many contracts have been awarded to Montreal and Quebec, only to find that as a result of these deals additional loads are placed on the backs of the taxpayers.
Take as an example our infamous Canadian white elephant, Mirabel Airport. As it stands now, and that is about all it does, it is costing Canadian taxpayers $1 million a week. Another example is Canadair, something that I have warned the Government about since 1976. We now see that this Crown corporation will be laying off 570 people by mid-July and it will cost Canadians $2.3 billion to bail the corporation out. In 1976 I made clear my concern about Canadair and the $50 million loan guaranteed by the Government. Canadair would have to sell 500 aircraft in order to recover from its disaster course. Now Canadair is looking for $2.3 billion, and to break even it will probably have to sell thousands of aircraft. The next obstacle for consideration is to determine whether or not there is a market for these aircraft.
The west was also overlooked when Quebec was chosen to receive 48 per cent of the new fighter aircraft spinoffs. Another example of the same situation is the aerospace training centre. In August of 1981, it was recommended by a task force study that Winnipeg be the site for this centre. However, due to the fact that the Quebec caucus of the Liberal Party and its Chairmen stated that the centre would be built in
Montreal or not at all, the chances for Winnipeg receiving the centre quickly diminished, even though it had been determined that Winnipeg was indeed the superior location.
It is time that the Liberal Government stopped writing off the West and started looking at the vast amount of skilled ability the West has to offer. I need not remind the House that every Canadian bears the weight of unemployment which only creates low morale and high taxes.
It has been proven that the Winnipeg Air Canada maintenance workers are exceptional candidates for the 707 overhaul work, and I would strongly recommend that very serious consideration be given to the awarding of this contract to Winnipeg in September of 1983. The Winnipeg Air Canada maintenance workers, my Progressive Conservative colleagues and I will welcome an encouraging reply from the Liberal Government.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the specific question that the Hon. Member asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) this afternoon concerned the possibility of accelerating the time frame in which the DND 707 fleet would be overhauled and to do this by offering the contract to the Air Canada facility in Winnipeg to avert the layoff of 120 machinists.
After listening to his preamble and comments this evening I question very much the credibility of the statements he has made. I am particularly upset by the statement he made concerning the efficiency of the fleet at the present time. He referred in an off-hand way to some problem dealing with the landing mechanism of these planes. I think that is an irresponsible statement. What he is doing is using scare tactics that may cause concern to those people who are using that fleet now, and that is unfair to the very mechanics and machinists he is trying to keep employed.
I question his credibility in talking about regional disunity and favouritism. We do not need that at this time. He has already asked these questions on two previous occasions and seems to expect the adjournment debate to involve two other departments, namely Transport and Labour, on the subject of jobs for mechanics.
We are well aware of the quality of workmanship available for overhaul in the machine shop in Winnipeg. We have no quarrel with the quality of work carried out by the machinists, but it is not our intention to get into issues that involve two other departments.
With respect to the specific DND requirement to overhaul 707s, this work has been done in Winnipeg in the past. The Department has been satisfied with the quality of the work. However, the planes are not scheduled to require overhaul until some time in 1984. If the planes do not require the overhaul the Department is not in a position to request an accelerated program. To consider such an overhaul would not only be destructive to the good functioning of the Canadian
May 19, 1983

Armed Forces where it would no doubt disrupt operations, but would also be wasteful in terms of money which is always in short supply.
I reiterate, the inference that there are mechanical faults in the fleet at the present time is false, incorrect and completely misleading.
[ Translation]


CANADA COUNCIL-ALLEGED SCANDAL AT SHERBROOKE, QUEBEC
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in order to follow up on the question I put on May 5, 1983, to the Minister of Communications, who is responsible for the Canada Council. Actually, within the framework of the Oral Question period 1 did not have the opportunity to put my question clearly and completely, for it would have had to be preceded by a long preamble in order to be easily understood. Since questions from the government side must be shorter than those coming from the Opposition benches, that is, without any preamble, my question was not complete and hence, the answer was also incomplete and most unsatisfactory. That is why I must put it again today, and in doing so, I hope the matter will be deferred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture and that officials of the Canada Council will be called on by the Committee to explain publicly the decision to subsidize to the tune of $9,500 or $12,500-I would like to know the exact amount-the Art/Action performance produced by Darcheu, a so-called artistic performance produced from April 29 to May 1, 1983, by the Association d'artistes contemporains de l'Estrie.
Does that mean that we should add another $3,000 to set fire to irons in Montreal, with the same kind of gawking onlookers as were seen last weekend?
In Sherbrooke, the so-called Art/Action performance consisted of two artistic events, that is, artistic only for the so-called initiated, while normal and ordinary people would rather consider these eccentricities as being committed by crazy people or else drug addicts completely reckless and "freaked-out" or "permanently high", as such artists might say. Should 1 even try to argue as to whether this was really art? I do not think so. I will simply say that a first demonstration consisted of setting on fire a car in which live rats had been placed, while costumed people were gesticulating all around, the whole thing being watched by a handful of spectators who were not even entertained, except for the so-called initiated.
The second consisted in distributing to members of the audience small bags containing wood and paper shreds stuck between two planks and then cut with a chainsaw. If, at least, this was art for the initiated, well and good! But what is even
Adjournment Debate
worse and not good enough is that those events were subsidized by the Canada Council.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that it is very difficult for the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to tell the Canada Council anything because he would be accused either of not understanding a thing about art, as others have been before, or even worse, of interfering for purely political reasons. It is much too easy to deny the Minister the right to intervene, and the Canada Council must be warned that if it spends public funds, it must be held accountable according to the standards approved by so-called normal Canadian taxpayers, both when they pay and when they see what they have paid for.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion and that of many others, the action performances in Sherbrooke and even in Montreal are a waste of public money, and there can be no justifiable reason for us, as elected representatives of the people, to tolerate such waste. If such insanity must be treated, the Minister of Health should be asked to take care of it, but the Minister of Communications should not be asked to promote such things and even less to finance them. This is not art or even a sickness, but shameful goings-on that the Government should ban and prevent. It even has the duty to protect the people against this type of manipulation. Consequently, because normal and rightthinking people need to be reassured about the Minister's ability to act under such circumstances, the Minister must be accountable for the use of this subsidy, otherwise he must publicly denounce the Canada Council, or at least take this opportunity to warn the Canada Council that such autrageous waste of money might jeopardize the allocation of funds by the House and the Government. As members of the House, it is inconceivable that we should agree to be party to such waste. Mr. Speaker, I have with me a letter which Mr. Timothy Porteous, the Director of Canada Council, addressed to the Minister of Communications and which reads in part:
"That the artists involved in the Sherbrooke incident are supposed to be people of experience. That his only qualm is that they violated a municipal by-law which makes it illegal to start a fire without a proper permit, and that the release of live rats before the fire would be a significant point and would indicate the participants' opposition to the use of animals in laboratories."
It becomes therefore extremely difficult to separate the four-legged rats from the two-legged variety.
Mr. Speaker, the Canada Council is clearly trying to find an excuse, but I think we should urge the Minister to have the Canada Council appear before the Committee on Culture and Communications in order to account for this subsidy which was granted to this group in the Eastern Townships.


Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier) I

May 19, 1983
Adjournment Debate
have several comments to make on this subject in addition to those I made on May 5. I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) has been advised of the Sherbrooke incident and of the circumstances under which the Canada Council grant was provided.
As Hon. Members know, the Canada Council is an agency which makes its artistic decisions independent of Government. It has a mandate to help reflect and develop all types of artistic expression. This mandate includes funding of experimental works in the various art forms, some of which occasionally will be controversial, and sometimes, even offensive to certain people. As with most Canada Council grants to artists, the grant application for this series of "performance" events was reviewed by an independent jury of visual arts experts. For the information of the Hon. Member, $9,500 not $12,000 was awarded for 14 events of which this was one-the only controversial one. The organization receiving the grant is codirected by the director of the art gallery of the University of Sherbrooke. The artists involved included some of Canada's most reputable and experienced performance artists.
The Hon. Member, in this question of May 5, qualified the Sherbrooke event as a "bizarre and grotesque initiative"
undertaken by the Canada Council. Given my earlier comments, it is clear that the performance was not an "initiative" of the council. Rather, the Council simply responded to a grant application in the normal manner. The Council regrets that this activity may have violated the municipal law against setting a fire without a permit. Obviously, when the Council provides a grant for an activity it does not intend that a law be broken. Given the large number, and the wide range of activities which the Council funds, the resulting number of abuses of the freedom of artistic expression is very small, but they do tend to draw extensive press reaction, as this particular one has, and thereby call into question the broad range of worthwhile activities funded by the council which are of undoubted value.
Given this fact, Mr. Speaker, and the concern of the Hon. Member, I would recommend that this particular question be further answered by the Canada council before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock.
At 6.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, May 20, 1983