1983-10-06

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 4, 1983 consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 33 (Mr. Mazankowski).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair sees the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) rising but it is the Chair's understanding that he has used his allotted time.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the House tell us when, in fact, the Speaker would be addressing the question of the procedural debates, which was offered to take place this morning?


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, if 1 recall correctly, I believe the Speaker indicated that she would be entertaining arguments this afternoon. I presume now, in light of the special debate that will be taking place this afternoon, it may occur after that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is my understanding as well.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise in support of Motion No. 33 moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) which is now before the House. The purpose of this amendment is to make a change to Clause 17 of the legislation. Clause 17 deals with the duties and functions of the Administrator. In Clause 17(1 )(d) as it is now worded, the Administrator would have the power to "promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers".
1 would note this clause as presently worded would not give the Administrator the power to require or to order the companies to ensure the movement of grain in the most efficient possible manner. It would merely ensure that such arrangements between the various railways would be promoted. The purpose of this amendment would be to include the words "and shall require", in Clause 17(d), thereby ensuring that the Administrator would in fact have the power to order where necessary-and, of course, it would not always be necessary- the railway companies to exchange cars in the most efficient possible manner.
[DOT] (mo)
We in this Party have argued that there is in fact no need for a Grain Transportation Agency and that the Canadian Wheat Board should be empowered to carry on in the manner in which it has performed its functions in the past. I am pleased to note that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was, as usual, very eloquent in his support of the Canadian Wheat Board. Naturally we are also concerned that, because of our position on the Grain Transportation Agency, the Administrator may already have too much power under this Act.
The purpose of this amendment is to recognize that as long as we are to have a Grain Transportation Agency and an Administrator with powers to perform under the Act and to assist the Grain Transportation Agency, one of the essential powers should be the power to require the efficient use of railway cars. No matter what public agency ultimately has control over the transportation of grain, whether it be the Wheat Board-and it is our view that it should be the Wheat Board-the Canadian Grains Commission, the Canadian Grain Transportation Agency as proposed in the Bill or whatever, it should have the power to direct the railroads to exchange cars to promote efficiency.
There should be far more interchange between CP and CN in order to get these two companies working together for shorter hauls and quicker delivery of grain. Ultimately we in this Party support the integration of the railway system in Canada. We believe it is about time the railway transportation system should progressively be brought under the ownership of the people of Canada. In its present form this Bill would ensure a bonanza to the shareholders of CP, but it would ensure tremendous losses to Canadian farmers. It is for that reason that we have called for the Bill to be split and for there to be a speedy upgrading of rail facilities as well as a return of the coal lands to the Province of British Columbia. In so far as this Bill would impoverish farmers and benefit the shareholders of CP, obviously we are totally opposed to it.
In terms of the amendment itself, at the present time the Crow rate allegedly involves tremendous losses to the railway companies; they cry great crocodile tears at how much money they are losing and they hang on to loaded cars of grain for

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
movement to export positions even though they might be moved over another line much more efficiently. This would cut the distances, this would cut the costs, and it would add to the over-all efficiency of the movement of grain. If, at a time when movers of grain claim to be losing money, they are holding on to hopper cars of grain, if that is happening already, just imagine what would happen under the provisions of this legislation with the tremendous revenues which could potentially accrue to CP Rail for moving grain. What it is going to do naturally is try to hold on to that grain as long as possible. While this might benefit the shareholders of CP Rail, it would be to the detriment of the efficient movement of grain in Canada.
I have received many representations of concern not only from the Prairies but indeed from my own constituency. There are not many farmers living in Burnaby, but there are many retired farmers and people who are concerned about their friends and relatives in Saskatchewan and elsewhere in the Prairies. It is in that spirit of co-operation that I speak to this particular amendment. The amendment would ensure that in my area, in the Port of Vancouver which includes Burnaby, grain would be moved far more efficiently. As I have indicated, there is already a bottleneck in the Port of Vancouver. A recent study conducted by Travacon Research entitled "Vancouver Rail Access Study, Phase I Report" indicates very clearly that there are already bottlenecks in the Port of Vancouver.
I have noted on a number of occasions that there have been problems in my constituency in terms of the efficient movement of CP, CN and Burlington Northern, all three of which traverse the boundaries of my constituency. In my view, this report provides very eloquent testimony for the need for this amendment. If indeed the Administrator is to have powers under this Act, surely one of the most essential powers should be the power to ensure the efficient movement of grain and, where necessary, it will be exchanged from one company to another. This study forecasts very serious bottlenecks in the movement of grain and other commodities throughout the rail system, particularly in the Port of Vancouver.
I note in this Bill that there is not one penny which would go toward the upgrading of the Port of Vancouver, which of course includes Burnaby. This amendment would go a very small but important distance. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Vegreville has put it forward to ensure a more efficient rail system in this country.
I mentioned that under the present system the railways are holding on to their cars. I wish to quote from Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, the co-ordinator of the Crow Coalition, a truly outstanding Canadian, one who has served this country well. What more eminent authority could there be on the Crow than Mr. Justice Hall? At a meeting of the Transport Committee in Regina, Saskatchewan on August 9, 1983, he said:
We heard a lot about efficiency, and the whole idea of the railways about efficiency was to get rid of the branch lines.
1 do not have to remind this House how the Liberal Government is attempting to get rid of branch line after branch line in this country, but that is another speech for another time. On the question of efficiency, he said:
1 am told by senior railway people, there is a railway philosophy that once the line gets hold of a commodity for transport, it will hang on to that commodity to the delivery points, come hell or high water.
That is under the existing statutory rates. If they are holding on to grain now, imagine the extent to which they would be doing that in a very inefficient and unproductive manner under the new Crow rates.
I have received a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Joyce Hansford of Spruce Street in Burnaby, and it is important that this letter be read into the record. What she has to say is directly relevant to the amendment before us today in terms of the efficient movement of grain, particularly in the Burnaby-Port of Vancouver area. She writes:
Dear Mr. Robinson:
Further to our conversation regarding the proposed Crow freight rate where it pertains to the Vancouver waterfront, I cannot but emphasize the concern my whole family feels at the further threat to our livelihood by this proposed legislation over the years. We have had three generations working on the waterfront at one time.
Right now we have nine people directly concerned with this industry and I might point out that I am aware of families having more numbers than we have involved, not to mention friends.
If this container business goes to Seattle-
The implications of this amendment are that it could very well do so if it is defeated.
-(who incidentally have more container cranes than our two large and one small crane, plus one crane in the process of being erected), this will result in a waste of money! We even have one dock that has been condemned as unsafe and as far as can be determined no plans for its repair.
I emphasize that under this Bill not a penny would go toward upgrading the facilities in the Port of Vancouver.
This port has been the most productive, both in tonnage and profit and also the most neglected. 1 realize that last year this port took over its own autonomy. Are they now throwing this to the wolves?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I really question the relevance of the Hon. Member's remarks to the specific amendment now before the House. At the report stage in the House of Commons, remarks must apply in strict fashion to the amendment. Hon. Members should not stray away from the point in all directions. I appreciate the validity of the Hon. Member's points in a general way, but I would invite him to speak specifically to the amendment now before the House.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have tried not to stray in the course of my remarks and certainly I will in fact, in drawing this letter to a conclusion, show how it is directly relevant to the amendment which is before the House.
As my constituent concluded:
We feel quite bitter that now we are going to subsidize a foreign port again at the expense of unemployment in our own port.
I must ask our Government to please reconsider this legislation before they-
October 6, 1983


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


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to enter this debate on this very historic piece of legislation which is before us today.


Mr. Benjamin:: Black historic.


Cyril Keeper: Yes, it certainly is a historic mistake, as my colleague has indicated by his interjection.
We are dealing with an amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who is a Member of the Conservative Party. We in this Party, Mr. Speaker, are delighted and only too happy to support this amendment. It is good to know that even the Conservatives can come up with positive-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A good socialist amendment.


Cyril Keeper: They come up with useful socialist suggestions from time to time. It is good to see Members of the Conservative Party endorse the regulation of the free enterprise economy as this amendment proposes, Mr. Speaker, but to be a little more serious, I do welcome the initiative on behalf of the Conservative Party in this matter because it is a good amendment. It reminds one of the fact that while Members of the Conservative Party at the beginning of the Crow debate did not seem to understand the full historic significance of the debate before the House, they have recently come around and offered their support to the general thrust and direction of our critique of this legislation. Therefore, we are only too happy to support them when they come up with a positive, useful and constructive amendment.
This amendment seeks to give authority to the Commissioner of the Grain Transportation Agency to order the railways to act in an efficient manner. At the present time the Commissioner of this Agency does not have that authority. There appears to be evidence that such authority is required. In other words, the railways do not always act in an efficient manner when it comes to the transportation of grain. That is one very important, underlying assumption in this particular amendment. It is particularly important because efficiency underlies the whole notion of a free enterprise economy.


Mr. Nystrom:: Efficiency?


Cyril Keeper: Yes, efficiency is the philosophical underpinning of a free enterprise economy. It is this philosophy that is being applied to the farmers in an attempt to justify the change in the Crow rate. It has been indicated that the yardstick that much be used to measure how much of the cost of grain transportation the farmer must pay is the market place. That is another basic assumption underlying the free enterprise economy and is just as basic to that philosophy as is the notion of efficiency.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, that things do not always work according to the theoretical models of economists or free
Western Grain Transportation Act
enterprise ideologues. It is necessary from time to time to intervene in a direct way through public authority in the marketplace. That is what this amendment will do. It provides for us to move into the transportation sector of the economy and take a look at the social reality, which is that the railways are demonstrably inefficient in the transportation of grain. They come to us and say: "We need higher rates for the transportation of grain; it is costing us too much to transport it". If they were thoroughly efficient perhaps they would not have to come to us on bended knee and ask us to raise the rate charged to farmers for the transportation of grain.
The evidence that the railways are not always efficient in the transportation of grain comes from Mr. Justice Hall, a respected authority in this country in the area of grain transportation and a man of well known integrity. He took note of the fact that the railways often hang on to loaded cars of grain even though the other train company could move it to the ports for export in a more efficient manner. What is being said in this connection is that if you were the CPR and had 1,000 full cars of grain, you might let it sit there even while the CNR could take it to port. That is the height of inefficiency.
This positive amendment indicates that where the railroads insist on acting in an inefficient and wasteful manner, that naturally drives up costs and leads to a demand for increased freight rates for the farmers, who have nothing to do with this inefficiency. The amendment calls for authority to be given to a public agency to direct the railways to act in an efficient manner.
I hope the Government will accept the amendment. I understand that it is reluctant to do so, although I do not understand why. Is it because it is a positive suggestion coming from this side of the House? Is it because it is afraid to give direction to the railways even when there is a clear evidence that it is necessary?
When the railways come to the Government and ask for changes in legislation, changes in policy or for increased revenues for themselves, the Government listens with both ears. When Parliamentarians come to the Government and point out clear inefficiencies in the transportation of grain, the clear and documented need for a public authority to direct the railways to act in an efficient manner to reduce waste and costs, the Government turns a deaf ear, not only to the New Democratic Party but to the combined Conservative-NDP Opposition and to the farmers. This is insensitive, arrogant and stupid. I must say once again that I welcome this amendment because it gives some direction to the railways where it is demonstrably necessary.
There are other areas in which the railways need direction, as is shown by their actions. The call for passage of the Crow legislation says, in effect, that if we only let this Crow Bill slide through the House, there will be increased investment in the country and more jobs. Those are magic words, of course. We all know that investment is going on anyway and that, from the Manitoba point of view, it is maldistributed. There is

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
enormous investment in British Columbia, for example, but little or no investment in Manitoba-indeed, no investment in Manitoba. We could use the Government directing the railway-


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Hon. Member was doing well and was ready to sit down until the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) whispered in his ear "Go on, go on". Clearly we see filibustering here, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for raising the point of order but I do not think he should question the right of the Hon. Member to continue his remarks within his allotted time. Let us be clear about that.
However, the Parliamentary Secretary did raise the matter of relevancy and, as the Chair has pointed out, it is not an easy rule to apply. In cases of doubt, the Chair would prefer to give the Hon. Member who has the floor the benefit of the doubt. I must repeat again, however, that under our standard practices, at report stage in the House of Commons remarks must relate directly to the amendment before the House. Hon. Members should not stray far and wide and discuss the general content of the Bill but should as much as possible confine their remarks to the specific amendment.
I do not feel I can be any clearer. I appreciate it is not an easy rule for the Chair to apply. I appreciate also that Hon. Members may accidentally stray from the motion before the House. I do suggest however, that we are all keepers of the rules and practices of the House of Commons. I appeal to Hon. Members to respect those rules.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) will be given an additional minute.


Cyril Keeper: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the invitation to be a keeper of the rules. I will attempt, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate to my hon. colleagues the direct relevance of my comments with regard to this amendment.
This is an amendment which was introduced by the Conservative Party and which is supported by our Party. We are calling upon the Liberal Government to adopt this very positive amendment. We want the Government to see that this amendment can also be the Liberal way of approaching railways. I mention that because my earlier comments were moving toward the whole matter of investment in railway location in Winnipeg. That connects with this amendment because of the fact that a couple of federal elections ago the matter of railway location and investment in railways in Winnipeg was a central matter debated in Winnipeg.


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


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of rising until the Parliamentary Secretary rose. I
do believe he needs more information. I wanted to rise primarily to commend the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) of the Conservative Party. It is not very often I feel I can rise in the House and commend a Conservative for being so progressive. The Hon. Member for Vegreville is following in the good red Tory footsteps of "Red Ray", the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and I am very pleased-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are going to ruin my reputation!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -because "Red Ray" is one of the more progressive Members of that Party. He would support this amendment, which is a democratic socialist type of amendment, which gives the public, through the Administrator, the ultimate say in controlling the two railways, making sure that the priority is the public good, not the private good of the CPR. I believe that to be very important because the railways are there to provide a service. They are there to represent the people of this country. They are not there primarily for the shareholders of the CPR. I feel that is very important.
What this amendment does is that it gives the power to the Administrator of the Grain Transportation Agency the right to require different reciprocal and other arrangements between the two railways in the movement of grain. That is very important because the record of the CPR in western Canada, when it comes to service, is not a very proud record indeed, Mr. Speaker. Having grown up on a farm in Saskatchewan, with my whole family being involved in farming in one way or another for many years, I grew up, I suppose, with a natural instinct to be suspicious of the CPR because the CPR is usually shafting the farmers.
I remember a story about the CPR which the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) told me a long time ago. It is a story I also heard as a kid back on the farm. I think it really summarizes this amendment. It is the story of an old farmer who came home one day, Mr. Speaker, and found that a hailstorm had wiped out his wheat. He went into the house and found that lightning had struck his home, his wife had run off with the hired hand and the Income Tax Department was after him. The farmer went outside and looked up to the heavens. He shook his fist and he shouted, "The goddam CPR!"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I would adivse the Hon. Member to be careful with his choice of words, even in his stories. I also do not see what that story has to do with the amendment before the House.


An Hon. Member:: He thought you wanted to hear it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should cease and desist from quoting the Hon. Member for Regina West. It just gets me into trouble. However, Mr. Speaker, I feel that little story summarizes the very good reason why the Hon. Member for Vegreville has put Motion No. 33 on the Order Paper today. It is because the CPR has not dealt very fairly with the interests of the farmers in western Canada historically. I am sure the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would say the same
October 6, 1983

thing. I know the same thing has happened in his riding as well. The railways are more interested in the railways than they are in the public good.
When it comes to this motion today, Mr. Speaker, I feel it is probably very relevant to look at the tremendous power of the CPR because it is one of the most powerful companies in this country. When we are looking at this amendment we must realize and point out to the Government that it is necessary to give the Administrator this power because on the other side of the table sits a very powerful corporation, one of the most powerful corporations in our country.


An Hon. Member:: In the world.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In the world, I suppose. This corporation is not just involved in railroading with Canadian Pacific Limited as the chief company. It is also involved in all kinds of other businesses as well, including hotels, mining, transportation and shipping. I would just like to mention to you, Mr. Speaker, and particularly to Government Members, some of the subsidiaries of the CPR, which I think will point out to you why it is such a powerful company and why it is so important that Motion No. 33 be carried by this House. This amendment would give farmers, through their Transportation Committee, a little more power in dealing with the CPR.
Canadian Pacific Limited is a company which controls a number of the following companies: Canadian Pacific Investments, CPR, CP Air, Cascade Pipelines, CP Telecommunications, CP Bermuda, CP Shipping, Smith Transport, CP Transport, CP Express and CP Rail. That, Mr. Speaker, gives you an idea of the tremendous corporate power which the CPR has. It gives you an idea-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I suspect that the Chair is going to have a difficult time this morning in attempting to convince Hon. Members that their remarks must be relevant. In examining the specific clause which the amendment seeks to change-I do hope my remarks are not interpreted as the Chair wanting to participate in the debate-I cannot see the connection between the powers of the Administrator and control over subsidiaries and what have you. I would invite the Hon. Member, if there is a link, to demonstrate it as rapidly as possible.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am referring, Mr. Speaker, with respect and deference, to Motion No. 33 which the Hon. Member for Vegreville has submitted. It is a motion which would give the Administrator the real power to control the CPR, to direct the CNR, to allocate boxcars and make all kinds of arrangements which would be of benefit to the farmers.
Clause 17(d) would read that the Minister has the power to:
-promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements-
What the Hon. Member for Vegreville wants to do is to require them, if necessary, to make reciprocal and other arrangements. He wants the word "require" to be inserted
Western Grain Transportation Act because that would give the Administrator the power to control the CPR and CNR regarding arranging the cars on the various lines.
We have a very good example of this in my riding. The Port of Churchill is very important and there is a CN line which goes there and often there is grain on CP lines, which are not that far away, which should be going to the Port of Churchill and is not because we do not necessarily have the power to direct the CPR. For your information, Mr. Speaker, I was putting on the record a little bit of evidence which shows the House how very poweful the CPR is. It is an extremely big and powerful company but I will not list all the subsidiaries because there are 45 or 50, or perhaps even more. That shows you there is absolutely immense power resting in the hands of the CPR. I will respect what you said and not go into it any further.
Another point is that over the years we have tended to subsidize massively the CPR. We have used your tax money, Mr. Speaker, the tax money of your parents, friends, indeed the friends of everyone in this House, to subsidize massively the CPR. In return we have basically said to them that they do what they think is best, run the railway the way they want to without regard to what is happening to the services for Canadians. In fact, often the CPR profits are about the same as the taxpayers' subsidy.
To show you the power these boys have, Mr. Speaker, in 1967 the total federal subsidy to the CPR was $45 million and the CPR profit was some $33 million. In 1968-that is the first year both you and I were here, Mr. Speaker-this House voted them subsidies of some $40 million. Do you know what their profit was? It was $43 million in 1968. I am sure that if you were aware of that, Mr. Speaker, we would not have done the same thing in 1969. But in that year we again voted the CPR a subsidy of $35 million and its profits were $31.4 million.
I can go beyond that. I can go right to 1981 or 1982 and show you how we have given blank cheques to the CPR and it has spent the money virtually as it saw fit. There are many other models which could be followed. We had a very distinguished freelance-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member seeking to have his time extended?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent-[DOT]


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret that there is not unanimous consent.

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, how inconsiderate of the Government Members not to give unanimous consent to my colleague.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are not allowed to get up.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to know that my comments are going to be completely germane to the motion before us today.
1 must first say that 1 am a little perplexed. Before I came into the House this morning someone tried to tell me that the Conservatives were not speaking on behalf of their own amendment. I really could not believe that; I found it too much to accept. The Conservatives I know are far too principled and too supportive of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) to not speak on behalf of his motion. So I checked the record before I came in this morning and I found that so far in the debate on this motion they have been as supportive of their own motion as have Members of our caucus. So far they have matched us one for one, even though they outnumber us three to one. So I really want to know how committed they are in their support of the Crowsnest Pass rates.


Mr. Forrestall:: Over 42 per cent of your caucus did not vote the other day. Answer that one.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, as has been said by other Members of my caucus, we are supporting this amendment. It is not a bad amendment. Even though we have opposed the creation of the Grain Transportation Authority separate from the Canadian Wheat Board, we do support this amendment as it will empower the Administrator to require CN and CP to co-ordinate in an efficient and cost-effective way the delivery of prairie grain to port. The railways do not do that now. That works to the detriment not only of prairie farmers, but also to the detriment of ports like Churchill in my home Province.
This summer, when Mr. Justice Emmett Hall appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport in Regina, he told Committee members-that it is a pervasive railway philosophy to hang on to a commodity once it gets hold of it, come hell or high water, until it reaches its ultimate delivery point. He was not making some kind of back-handed criticism of the poor state of the rail system. No, he was passing on information received from senior railway officials.
Our grain delivery system is fraught with costly and inefficient back-hauls. It does not matter if the grain grown in one region of the Prairie would get to port faster if the railways exchanged carloads of grain from, say, CN to the CP line. What is important to the railways is that they keep that carload of grain on their own system, period. The railways are in a good position in Canada. They do pretty well for themselves, as was pointed out just a few moments ago by my friend from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). They are subsidized to the tune of millions of dollars by the federal Government. Yet in return they are not required to make sure they are able to co-ordinate between them an efficient system of grain delivery.
The competition between CN and CP for grain delivery does not help grain producers or the country, it only helps the railways. It seems to me that since they are public utilities, they should be treated as such and be accountable to the Government of Canada as such. As my colleague from Regina West said on Tuesday, the railways are a natural monopoly. In that situation competition has no place. If it were logical to have competing railways, it would make just as much sense to have competing highways and sewer and water systems, or competing hydro or telephone systems. We all know that does not make sense, and by extension it does not make sense for competition to continue to exist between CN and CP.
This Bill, if passed, will mean that the railways will be paid a handsome subsidy for some time to come. It does not matter whether it is paid directly to the railways or the farmers, or some mix of the two. Ultimately they will get the cash, which will guarantee not only their long-run variable costs and out of pocket expenses like maintenance and depreciation, but it also guarantees them a 20 per cent to 25 per cent return on investment. That is not bad. I know a lot of farmers in my constituency and in my Province who would jump at the chance to get that kind of return on their investment. Yet in spite of the continued generosity of the Canadian taxpayers to the railways, will they reciprocate by co-ordinating their operations for the most efficient, cost effective means of delivering grain to port? Will they enter into a reciprocal agreement using one another's lines and equipment?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Will they exchange grain traffic from one line to another? I think the answer is clearly no. As Clause 16 reads now, the Administrator of the Agency will be empowered to promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate efficient and reliable movement of grain. Well, whoever that Administrator may be, should this Bill pass he or she can promote and promote until they are blue in the face, but the railway companies will continue their artificial competition in grain transportation.
The railways, Mr. Speaker, have used their stable of lawyers and accountants to present a case that they are hurting under the Crow rate. If that is the case, it seems to me they would lose more money the further they hauled the grain. Therefore I ask, if the CNR picks up a load of grain in southern Saskatchewan and the closest way to port in Vancouver would be to ship it through Calgary, why does the CNR not do that? Why do they move it north to Edmonton and then through their own lines on a route that must be hundreds of miles longer and more expensive? If I was losing money as a result of hauling goods further when it could have been done cheaper, I would do my utmost to get that grain to port by the shortest possible route. If that meant passing it on to my competition, so much the better. The competition would do the same for me if it were like minded.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not voluntarily.

October 6, 1983

However, this is not the situation with the railways. I believe that undermines their case that they are losing money on the Crow rate. But setting that aside for the moment, if the railways are so unwilling to co-ordinate their grain delivery under a pricing system which they believe is losing money, what will they do when the revenues provided for moving grain under Bill C-155 start to roll in? They will hang on to those carloads of grain even more tenaciously. 1 think that would be a shame, not only for the prairie farmers but for the whole country. It would mean that tax dollars continue to support an inefficient grain delivery system only because we failed to give the Administrator the power to require co-operation between CN and CP on grain transportation.
If this amendment is accepted, we will be taking an important step to correct a long-standing problem in our grain transportation system. It will be more difficult for the railway companies to thwart the efforts of the Wheat Board to marshal large volumes of grain for export by refusing to enter into reciprocal arrangements to take traffic on one another's track. We will prevent the railways from shipping grain over needlessly long distances to the detriment of ports like Churchill only because the railways believe that once the grain is on the CP line it stays on the CP line.
In short, we will be going a long way toward creating that efficient delivery system that the Government talks long and hard about. Thefore, I think there is absolutely no choice but for this House to accept this motion before us today.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I thought perhaps one of the Conservatives would stand and speak this morning.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, they are tired.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Although this is a Conservative motion, I wish to make a few comments on it. I also wish to express support for the motion and I hope that the Conservatives will speak to their own motion.
The effect on this motion is to give the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator the authority to require the railways to enter into an interchange agreement permitting cars from either company to go on one another's lines. That agreement is very important to the efficient running of Canada's railway system.
My colleagues for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) have already pointed out that the Port of Churchill consistently suffers from Canadian Pacific's reluctance and refusal to let grains from their areas into the Port of Churchill. They refuse to do so even though places like Saskatoon, Humboldt and Yorkton are closer to the Port of Churchill to which grains can be moved more efficiently and cheaply than to the present terminal of Thunder Bay.
Canadian Pacific would allow that grain to go to the nearest port if it had any concern for the farmers, the efficiency and
Western Grain Transportation Act welfare of this country. However, that grain has always gone elsewhere with the exception of one year.
We have heard many people say in this debate that the railways are losing money in the shipment of grain. If they in fact lose money for every mile that the grain is hauled, why do they refuse to allow the grain to go on their competitor's line? Why would they haul that grain farther distances to port instead of going to the nearest port?
For that reason I sincerely believe that many Canadians as well as many Members in the House are being sold a bill of goods with this legislation. If the railways were really concerned about saving money, they would allow the grain to travel on the shorter routes of their competitor. As the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake pointed out, they would only be too glad to see their competitors take this paper loss. However, that is not the case because there is only one occasion when CP allowed the grain on its line to go on the CN line into the Port of Churchill.
The transportation critic for the NDP has often raised this concern in the House and I have raised it with the Minister, CN and CP. However, they all continually refuse to address these concerns and work out an agreement.
I am in favour of this amendment because I believe it is necessary. As Mr. Justice Hall pointed out this summer, if the railways were really concerned about efficiency they would take the initiative to allow interchanges in recognition of the fact that our grain must go to the nearest port, and that would increase the efficiency of the whole system.
My only criticism of the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is that it does not automatically require the railway companies to send grain to the nearest port. It simply states that the Administrator- whether a friend of the Liberals or Tories, whichever is in power-may require that the grain be transported to the nearest port or that an interchange agreement be arranged.
While we support the amendment because it is a step in the right direction, it is not good enough. If we are really sincere about having our grain moved to market in the cheapest and most efficient way, a factor which this Bill does not address, the railways would be automatically required to do so. We would not allow corporate considerations to hinder that movement. We would be concerned about the money going into the farmers' pockets rather than charging him more to ship his grain to ports which are further away.
Therefore I support this amendment and hope Government Members who have had a chance to think about it will change the vote which they cast in committee and indeed support this amendment.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Motion No. 33 before us would indeed improve the Bill if only to put some teeth in the clause. It would benefit producers since it would maximize their return. It would force the railways to exchange grain car for grain car.
27798

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Members of the House will be aware that we are not generally in favour of the creation of the Grain Transportation Agency since it is our belief that it simply adds another layer of bureaucracy. We do not want an Administrator whose powers will encroach on that of the Wheat Board. We would prefer that the Whest Board be given further powers to force the railways to co-operate with each other. If we are to be denied that, definitely the amendment before us would improve the role the Grain Administrator will be performing, and as such we have to support this amendment.
I think it is important when discussing this Bill to reflect briefly on the attitudes the railways have in the shipping of statutory grains particularly, but I think it is true of the shipping of all commodities. The railway philosophy is to hold on to the commodity come hell or high water, to hold on to it as long as possible, because in that way they maximize their return.
There are many examples. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall this summer in his testimony in Regina said that the CN sends grain west to Calgary and then north to Edmonton, around 200 miles, and then from Edmonton out to Vancouver. On the other hand, the CPR sends grain west to Edmonton, south to Calgary and then along its line to Vancouver. For all of us who have followed the ins and outs of the Crow debate, the words of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall that "Train loads of grain are passing like ships in the night" will long be remembered.
Is this efficiency? No. Whom does it end up costing? The farmers, the producers and the taxpayers of the country, they pay for this inefficiency. Whom does it benefit? It benefits the railroads. Surely it is not too much to ask this House to agree to an amendment which would stop this illogical business as far as the taxpayers are concerned.
It raises some other interesting questions, questions that some of my colleagues have pointed out. For instance, if the railroads do lose money hauling statutory grains, why do they attempt to hold on to those grains as long as possible? I suspect the railroads are not losing money but making money hauling statutory grains. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) made a very important point. He said that if this Bill passes the railroads will get a 20 per cent guaranteed return on investment. It will be even more in their vested interest to hold on to the grains as long as possible and to encourage the inefficiencies in the system as much as possible in order to get a greater reward for themselves. As I pointed out earlier, the farmers and the taxpayers are the ones who will end up paying the railroads even more.
What the amendment before us today will do is at least begin to cut out some of that. It will force the railroads to become more efficient and to act in a more co-operative manner. I do recognize that this runs counter to some of the philosophy in the free enterprise system. In the free enterprise system competition dictates that you have no truck or trade with your rival. CN should have nothing to do with CP and vice-versa. The problem is, as I have already mentioned, that
the consumers, the producers-the Canadian people-are the ones who get hurt.
The time has come to make the case that railroads in Canada should be treated like a public utility. We do not have two different power lines running parallel to each other. We do not have two different water mains running parallel to each other or two different telephone lines running parallel to each other-


Jesse Philip Flis: That is not relevant.


Simon Leendert de Jong: -because that does not make sense. It is recognized that ultimately the consumer of those services is the one who has to pay for their duplication.
The same case surely is made with our railways, which are so vital to the economic, social and cultural interests of Canada. The railroads should be considered as a public utility. Heaven knows, we have paid enough for them. The time has come to rationalize the system so that you do not have this insane duplication of services that we find time after time in our railroad system. At least the amendment before us moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville will cut out some of that insane competition.
I was interested in the remarks some of our Conservative colleagues have made. They have been good remarks. When the Hon. Member for Vegreville introduced his amendment, he said that Bill C-155 as a whole was written as a very favourable mechanism to the railroads. The major beneficiary in the whole Bill is the railroads. He also said that the producers are the ones forgotten in the whole exercise. Indeed,
I am happy to hear that Members of the Conservative Party are voicing those opinions. I think it is an accurate description and an accurate analysis of this Bill. I hope we will be receiving their support for some of the other amendments that we will be proposing that will make certain this Bill is of benefit to the producers and not to the railroads and their vested interests.
It is obvious from the few catcalls and comments from Members opposite that Government Members have not been convinced of the worthiness of Motion No. 33. I would suggest this necessitates more speakers by the Opposition to describe fully their arguments and thus penetrate the thinking of Members opposite. I urge some of our Conservative colleagues to make these points over and over again. Believe you me, gentlemen, it is necessary to repeat your points in order to convince Government Members across the way.
I invite more speakers from the Official Opposition to make their points and to make them forcefully. This amendment in Motion No. 33 is a good amendment, Mr. Speaker. For heaven's sake, Hon. Members, don't just sit there and not say anything about this good amendment. Stand up and make the case and help us to convince Government Members of the worthiness of your amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 6, 1983


Simon Leendert de Jong: I also invite some Government Members to stand up and give some rational reasons and arguments why we should not pass this amendment. Surely this is a debating forum. For Government Members to say nothing and to sit quietly and vote like a bunch of robots is a travesty of the purpose of this House and our parliamentary tradition. Surely, Mr. Speaker, they have some obligation.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member, who does not know very much about this Bill obviously, is now taking it upon himself to reflect upon the motives of other Members in this House. That is surely not part of the rules of debate in this House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't be so touchy, Maurice.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly was not referring to the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) has given his thoughts and opinions on this amendment, and I congratulate him for that. I certainly do not want to imply that he has wrong motives, certainly not that Member. But I do invite some of the other Government Members who will be voting on this amendment to stand up and explain to this House and to Canadians why they will vote that way. Surely this amendment is a rational one; it requires rational debate. The least we can expect from Government Members are some rational reasons why we should be opposing this amendment. Silence is not debate. Silence is not rational argument. Government Members owe it to the public of Canada to give something more than silence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to point out that in all the blathering from the Hon. Member who just took his seat, he did not discuss the merits of the particular amendment either.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You just came in. Where have you been?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I hope we will not indulge in that kind of bootlegging of comments on other Members' speeches. That is deliberate debate. If the Hon. Minister wishes to make a contribution, he should seek the floor and make one, not rise under the guise of a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) rising on the same point of order? If so, I must caution him because there is no point of order. Perhaps he is seeking the floor on a different point of order.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, all I wanted to say was exactly what you said, and I will sit down.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is a good Minister of National Defence; every time he comes into the House he starts a war!


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps you could seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) to share his wisdom on the amendment before us.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect the Hon. Minister has shared all his thoughts on this Bill with us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is the best one yet.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on what I consider to be a first-rate amendment which will enable the Grain Transportation Administrator to do what is necessary in order to obtain the most efficient production from the railway system of Canada. When I see words in an amendment such as "promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements", I see the essence of a motive which can only be applauded. If there is anything we can do as a House of Commons in improving this legislation to ensure a more efficient movement of commodities across the country via our rail transportation system, it behooves each Member of the House to stand when possible to speak in favour of such legislation and certainly to support it when it comes time to vote.
I heard Government Members suggest that the existing National Transportation Act and the Railway Act were sufficient guarantees to allow the Canadian Transport Commission to enforce regulations to ensure maximum efficiency of Canada's railroads. This is something which must be questioned. This is certainly not the case. At the Crow rate hearings, Justice Emmett Hall indicated that railroads hung on the loaded cars of grain for movement to export position even though movement over another line would cut the distance and therefore decrease the cost to the producer. Justice Emmett Hall understands what is going on with the Canadian railway system. He is well aware of a variety of areas where the system is being abused, and, I want to emphasize, being abused by railway companies to maximize their returns. Nevertheless, this slows the movement of grain to our port facilities.
I had a particular experience in my constituency this past summer which brought the need for this new power to my attention. As a result of a terrible storm in the Rogers Pass area of British Columbia, both the Trans-Canada Highway and the CPR mainline were washed out and the traffic over the CPR mainline was disrupted for many days. Had the transportation czar in Canada had the authority and power to do so, he could have stepped in very quickly and enabled CPR to take advantage of the CNR line which also runs through the

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Rocky Mountain corridor and on to western ports. He could have encouraged the transfer of rail cars from the southern line into the more norhtern route and could have allowed for a maximum flow.
As a result of this terrible rainstorm and wash-out, undue hardships were faced by many small businesses and ordinary Canadians. The transportation Administrator would have been able to act swiftly in such a situation and immediately order CNR to allow CPR to use its track so as to keep the vital grain transportation links open and to ensure that prairie farmers would have their grain delivered to West Coast ports. We have had first-hand experience in my constituency with the need for greater regulatory powers. I believe the amendment is a good start, I believe it is a good amendment, and we in the New Democratic Party are pleased to support it.
When we see example after example of the CPR taking a longer route than necessary, we always recognize the inherent danger of leaving private interests such as CPR with the responsibility of furthering the public good. Time after time in industry after industry when there is a conflict between public good and private gain, it is private gain that wins. Private interests are only interested in the public welfare when it fills their own private coffers. It is not necessary to throw aspersions at the private sector. After all, it is the mandate under which it operates. Its major motive is to obtain the maximum amount of profit for its shareholders.
We are talking about an integral transportation system which is necessary to move grain and other commodities from various areas of Canada to its coastal ports. Therefore I believe very strongly that increased regulatory power as proposed in this amendment with the words "promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements" is something that we as Members of the House of Commons, with the public good at heart, must support.
As previous speakers have indicated, we must encourage Government Members to give some consideration to this particular amendment. If they are not interested or do not see the wisdom of providing this additional regulatory power to the Grain Transportation Administrator, I ask them to stand in their places and explain to us as Opposition Members and to the people of Canada why this amendment is an inappropriate one, why this amendment is not in the best interests of Canadians, and why this amendment is especially not in the best interests of Canadian grain growers. Hon. Members opposite have a responsibility, particularly those Ministers who are directly responsible to the agricultural sector, to rise and say why the amendment is inappropriate or why it is not in the best interests of Canadian farmers or of the public good.
With those words I will rest my case and look forward to hearing an opposite viewpoint presented by Government Members, if in fact they can establish any logical opposition to this first-class amendment.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part again in the Crow debate and particularly to address the issue of the amendment before
us, Motion No, 33. As we all know, this is a Conservative amendment but I am pleased to speak on it as a New Democrat.
Our Party is supporting the amendment very strongly. I might note that the NDP have put up 14 speakers on this motion while the Conservatives have only put up ten. The Conservatives should put up three Members for every one of ours. It is we who are really speaking to the motion, fighting for it, asking the Government what is wrong with it and why it is not addressing this issue. We are asking why the Government is not speaking and listening to the voices of reason. We are asking why the Government is not prepared to accept such a sensible amendment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is the old question of quality versus quantity.


Lynn McDonald: The amendment before us is very precise. The clause reads:
The Administrator may-
(d) promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose
of maximizing returns to producers.
The significance of this amendment is that we need greater efficiency in the grain handling system. That is something that I am very happy to speak to as a New Democrat. I am concerned about seeing a much more efficient economic system operating. I speak as one who defends the farmer and the producer, wanting to see them get reasonable returns. I am not so concerned about defending the profits of CPR.
In order to improve the efficiency of the grain handling system, we want more interchange between the CP and CN systems, the two major systems in this country. They must work together if our farmers are to be well served. The railways must work together on shorter hauls. It is extremely appalling to me as an environmentalist, as somebody who is very much committed to energy conservation, to see the enormous waste in the transportation system. It is not only the rail system which is extremely wasteful in this way: we also see this in other modes of transportation, such as ships and planes. There is no excuse for not having greater efficiency in the rail system.
We have to be very careful of our resources. We must use them wisely. We are dealing with non-renewable resources which were given to us through no credit of our own. We are using them very rapidly. We should use as little as possible. This means using our transportation system in the most efficient way possible. Both CP and CN have track that would be better utilized by interconnection with the other system. Unfortunately, it is only in exceptional circumstances that we see these interchanges which promote efficiency and conserve energy. I am sure all Members could cite examples close to their own constituencies about the inefficiencies which occur.
This amendment is a step toward greater efficiency. We of course would like to see a much more comprehensive, inte-
October 6, 1983

grated system. However, that is a subject for debate on another day. We should at least take the first step toward efficiency with the amendment now before us, Motion No. 33.
We argue that the Grain Transportation Agency has been given excessive powers. The Administrator has too much power in the sense that his powers could encroach upon the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, that is the situation. We would have done it differently if we were in government. However, we are not; we are in opposition. We have to see how we can make the system the most efficient through amendments which can be put in place, given the context that it is beyond our control to make change. That is why we support this amendment. No matter what public agency has control over the transportation of grain, whether it be the Wheat Board, the Canadian Grains Commission, the Grain Transportation Agency or whatever, there must be the ability to direct the railways to exchange cars in order to promote efficiency.
Mr. Justice Hall is well known as a fighter against the Crow rate changes and is a knowledgeable person on the whole question of transportation. He made some interesting remarks on this. He really gets to the heart of the difficulty before us. I quote from his testimony;
We heard a lot about efficiency, and the whole idea of the railways about efficiency was to get rid of the branch-lines. That would have been very efficient from their stand-point. But on this question of efficiency, I am told by senior railway people, there is a railway philosophy that once the line gets hold of a commodity for transport, it will hang onto that commodity to the delivery points, come hell or high water. That works out this way and this is what we found, great quantities of grain grown on, say, the Goose Lake line . . . and now that may not mean too much to members from the east, but it is one of the great grain-producing areas in Saskatchewan between Saskatoon and Calgary served by the Canadian National Railways; it is closer to Vancouver at Rosetown than to Thunder Bay, so the trend is westward. Grain was taken to Calgary, but the CN has no line going from Calgary to Vancouver. So they hauled it then northward 200 miles to Edmonton so they can take it south again to Vancouver. That was the CN.
That is an example of an extremely wasteful procedure. It costs money and it is inefficient for the whole economy. It wastes energy. This is the kind of thing that has been going on. 1 again quote Mr. Justice Emmett Hall:
CP with the Hardisty line, which is another line going through Edmonton all that CPR grain went to Edmonton, but there is no line from Edmonton into Vancouver-so it went south to go to Vancouver. Trainloads of grain were passing each other like ships in the night between Calgary and Edmonton.
There we have examples regarding both CN and CP. Both were offenders in hanging on to the commodity they had. They were not concerned about efficiency in the system. They were not concerned about the farmer, only about getting a buck by keeping the commodity under their control.
An interesting exchange came up in the Transport Committee hearings in Regina with Mr. Justice Emmett Hall and a Member of Parliament. Referring to the railways he said:
If they continue to do business the way they are doing it now, and that is as though they both existed in a separate country and did not co-operate, 1 do not suppose there is very much we can do. But if the railways could come to a situation where the principle of transportation would be to the nearest port by the shortest route, you could increase the capacity very substantially.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Increasing the capacity is important. There have been holdups, which means people do not get their money when they should. Unfortunate situations have occurred as a result of these hold-ups. The Member of Parliament then asked:
This may be a bit of a naive question, but how do you get the railways to do that under the present system; under what we have?
Mr. Justice Hall replied:
I do not think it is by enriching them at the farmers' expense.
I heartily agree. Let me give a couple more examples of inefficiency, of wasteful use of energy. I wish to quote my colleague who has been leading our struggle regarding the Crow rate. He said:
The administrator is going to have a heck of a time getting co-operation. It was tough enough before, but under this new regime, and with the guarantees of variable costs plus in the rate system, the railroads would be damn fools to agree to move grains off their lines onto somebody else's line any sooner than they absolutely had to. They would be damn fools to do it-
CN would be smarter to draw grain from far south of Hudson Bay and all the way down the Gravelbourg, and get their maximum variable costs plus, rather than rely on grain coming on CP tracks from Yorkton to Hudson Bay. Either one of the railways would be crazy to go into any kind of reciprocal arrangement, at least up to the point where they get their maximum variable costs plus contributions to constant cost.
The railways are in it to make a buck. We have seen this with both CN and CP. They do not care very much about the producer. Only if they are forced into making these arrangements will it be suitable for the producers and we will have efficiency. They do not do it willingly.
It is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, that they be forced to do that, and that is the reason for the amendment that is before us today. That is the reason we are all concerned that the Government is not listening but is quite happy to let the railways go along making a buck and turning some of that money back to the Government by way of campaign contributions. The Government is not concerned about the energy conservation or efficiency aspects of the matter or about serving the farmers. We think it is about time the Government listen to reason and support the amendment before us today.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been listening with some interest to the Hon. Members of the NDP who have made a lot of noise about whether Members of our Party are speaking or not. I want to point out that there have been some excellent speeches made by Members on this side on this amendment. As well, the point was really made at committee where the only Member of the NDP present most of the time was the "Lone Ranger". We in this Party had a full complement of Members present throughout the hearings and committee reports.
It is very interesting to note that the NDP has been constantly opposed to the idea of the Grain Co-ordinator. Even at the time we were setting that Co-ordinator up, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and his colleagues were totally opposed to setting up the Co-ordinator. The Government has decided that it will provide for an Administrator and we have rewritten the clauses of the Bill over and

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
over again to put provisions in place so that the Bill does not only benefit the railways but also benefits the producers. We feel that this Bill should protect the producers when the railways are moving grain, rather than protect the railways.
The Hon. Member for Regina West said in committee that the amendment we are proposing is simply window dressing. He made this comment on page 128:81 of Transport Issue No. 128. Now he rises in the House and says that this is a very good amendment. We appreciate that because it is an excellent amendment. It will give this clause some teeth.
I listened to Members of the NDP while one after another of them rose, and I found that they had a lot of difficulty understanding exactly what this amendment really means. They talked about the concept of the railways holding on to their cars. That really is not what we are trying to do by this amendment. We are trying to say that the railways ought to allow CN cars to run on CP lines pulled by CP engines, but in fact the rate would still go to the originator of the car. The problem is which company gets the rate. If the railway hauls something at a loss, it still wants however many dollars that are left. That railway company is not prepared to give that money to a competitor.
I heard many comments to the effect that this concept would create some difficulty with the free enterprise system and that we ought in some way to put these two railways together as a public utility. The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) said that we would not have two power lines running side by side and I wondered if he had found that in his Province the CP ran in the southern part of the Province and the CN in the northern part, and that the problems arise in that small area in the middle.
We in Alberta have that same difficulty. In fact, CN cars were running one way and CP cars were running the other way on the same line. This instigated some negotiations between the two railways in an attempt to run cars on each other's lines. They found that, in effect, it balanced out and that there was no loss in revenue on this line at all. When the Prince Rupert terminal was being built, this difficulty came into question in a very serious manner because the line to Prince Rupert was a CN line, yet there was the necessity to move CP grain from the south to that terminal. Much time was spent in an attempt to have the two railways come together in an agreement.
When we read this Bill, we found that the Co-ordinator or Administrator really had no power to say that, if it is in the interest of the producer to maximize his returns, then that ought to be done. We ought not just to promote it; the power ought to be there to require it, particularly since we are putting forward so many hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies. We should not put this money forward to serve only the interest of the railways but also to serve the interest of the producers. That is why there ought to be some teeth in this proposal.
The clauses that we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, are Clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill, and particularly Clause 17. In committee many amendments were accepted that were proposed by this Party in an attempt to strengthen that clause. The reason for those amendments is that we felt these clauses were too lenient to the railways, so we inserted in Subclause (b) and Subclause (d) of Clause 17 the word "reliability". In Subclause (d) we inserted the words "and reliable" and the words "for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers". We rewrote the whole of Subclause (2) in another attempt to air our concern for maximizing returns to producers.
We are now attempting to add the words "and shall require", which we attempted to add in committee but were turned down by the Government. We are now trying to make the same very strong argument that we made very effectively in committee in the hope that the Government will see the light and add those words. The Administrator in the past has operated very effectively by seeing to it that cars were placed in areas where producers could get the maximum benefit from those cars, and he ought to have the powers to do so again if the railways do not come to an agreement on exchange lines.
I must say again that we are not in any sense trying to give a CN car to CP but simply want to see the exchange of cars running on the line that is so necessary in the areas of the Prince Rupert terminal, the Churchill terminal and in some of those areas in the Provinces where the lines come together in the middle of the Province.
In most cases where reasonable, the railways have come to agreements. There certainly can be in the future areas where the Co-ordinator or the Administrator, in the best interests of the producers, would want to have the power that we are proposing here that will allow him to require the railroads to come together.
I remember when we first began to set up the position of Co-ordinator some four years ago that the same problem resulted in the delivery of what at that time was called rapeseed to the West Coast. I suppose the same was the case in Thunder Bay as well. In that case, it was not the railway companies but was each grain company that requested that its car of rapeseed be delivered to its facility in the port. When the train was picking up the commodity across the Prairies, it would pick up a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool car, a Pioneer car, a Cargill car and a United Grain Growers' car. These cars would perhaps be situated side by side on the train as it moved to the port. We found that a train of some 100 cars arriving in the port might require some 50 switches in order to get each car going to the proper facility when the same product was in each car. They simply would not exchange cars to move them into the facility. That was a very time-consuming practice which resulted in cars not getting back to the Prairies as quickly as they ought to.
After much discussion and after bringing this matter to the public sphere, we worked out an arrangement to pool cars which increased the turnaround capacity. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that if we would have the ability to give the Administrator those powers, then if the companies had not agreed voluntary and it was in the best interests of the producers that that agreement be reached, the Administrator, with that best
October 6, 1983

interest at heart, would have the teeth to put this agreement in place.
We are very concerned that when you give this kind of money to the railways-who have not performed that well in the past on public subsidies-the Bill sought to contain clauses with teeth that will ensure the maximum performance by the railways to get grain to port in the best interests of the producer.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I was rather interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) who implied that we in the NDP did not support this particular amendment. I think the Hon. Member misunderstood what the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has been saying all along. If he wishes to check the record, he will find that the Hon. Member for Regina West said: "This amendment is some more window dressing on behalf of the Conservative Party and I will not use any stronger words. However, I can support the amendment, for all the good it will do." That is exactly what the Hon. Member for Regina West said.
It is refreshing to find that finally the Conservative Party speaks in support of its own amendment. This morning the NDP has put up nine speakers to the Conservatives' one in support of the amendment. This makes one wonder whether that Party has had a change of heart again with respect to the impact of the Crow rate and what it will do to the farming community in the country and to consumers generally, as I pointed out in earlier remarks on the Bill.
What the spokesperson for the Progressive Conservative Party called for several weeks ago was, in effect, a hoist on any amendments to the Crowsnest Pass rate. According to press reports, this stirred up a hornet's nest in political circles in Ottawa at that time because it appeared that the Conservative Party had changed its mind again and was saying, in effect, that because of the political difficulties in the country and because of popular support for the existing Crowsnest Pass rate, particularly in the prairie Provinces, it had decided that statements made by the official spokesman for a hoist of three years was being read as support for the Crowsnest Pass rate.
I do not know what happened between the time that statement was made and September 29, 1983, when it was reported in the Western Producer that the Conservative Party had decided it was not the better part of wisdom to follow that course and was arguing that it was going to drop the proposal. Perhaps that is the reason it has put up only one speaker today in support of the amendment.
As I understand it, the amendment to Clause 17(d) proposed by the Conservative Party would enhance the authority of the Grain Transportation Agency, through an Administrator, over the railroads and specifically would give him the power to direct them to exchange carloads of grain where such exchanges would improve the efficiency of moving grain to export positions.
Western Grain Transportation Act
As the Hon. Member for Regina West has already pointed out and as I pointed out the other day, while we would argue that there is no need for the Grain Transportation Agency and that the Administrator already has too much power in the sense that his powers encroach upon the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, this is a good amendment and we support it. No matter what public agency has control over the transportation of grain, be it the Wheat Board, the Canadian Grains Commission, the Grain Transportation Agency or whatever, it should have the ability to direct the railroads to exchange cars so as to promote efficiency. As Mr. Justice Hall noted, even at the existing Crow rate the railroads hang on to loaded cars of grain for movement to export positions even though the other line could move them to port over a more direct line, cutting the distance, costs and adding to the efficiency of the system.
In his testimony before the Transport Committee in Regina on August 9, 1983, Mr. Justice Hall said:
We heard a lot about efficiency, and the whole idea of the railways about efficiency was to get rid of the branch-lines. That would have been very efficient from their standpoint. But on this question of efficiency, I am told by senior railway people, there is a railway philosophy that once the line gets hold of a commodity for transport, it will hang onto that commodity to the delivery points, come hell or high water. That works out this way and this is what we found, great quantities of grain grown on, say, the Goose Lake line... and now that may not mean too much to members from the east, but it is one of the great grain-producing areas in Saskatchewan between Saskatoon and Calgary served by the Canadian National Railways; it is closer to Vancouver at Rosetown than to Thunder Bay, so the trend is westward. Grain was taken to Calgary, but the CN has no line going from Calgary to Vancouver. So they hauled it then northward 200 miles to Edmonton so they can take it south again to Vancouver. That was the CN.
CP with the Hardisty line, which is another line going through Edmonton . .. all that CPR grain went to Edmonton, but there is no line from Edmonton into Vancouver-so it went south to go to Vancouver. Trainloads of grain were passing each other like ships in the night between Calgary and Edmonton.
I do not know what else we did on the commission, but we shamed the railways into entering into an agreement to exchange cars-car for car-not exchanging traffic but car for car. That agreement, I think, still subsists. I think it can be abrogated on 30 days' notice. That is about the situation.
If you have ever seen an example of inefficiency, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that would be it. I think what Mr. Justice Hall was attesting to was that all of these measures tend to undermine the assertion of the railroads that they lose money every time they move a carload of grain. If that were so, presumably they would lose more money for each additional mile they haul it and then would do everything possible to get rid of it and stick their competition with the loss.
With the lush revenues from moving grain under Bill C-155, this tendency to hang on to loaded grain cars as long as possible so that the money will roll in as the cars roll over the road will be exaggerated. Without the authority the amendment would give vested in the hands of a public agency, you can be sure there would be little, if any, exchange of carloads of grain between the railroads for the sake of efficiency. Again I quote a few words from the testimony of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall at that Transport Committee hearing in Regina on August 9. Mr. Justice Hall, in dealing with that question, said:

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
If they continue to do business the way they are doing it now, and that is as though they both existed in a separate country and did not co-operate, I do not suppose there is very much we can do. But if the railways could come to a situation where the principle of transportation would be to the nearest port by the shortest route, you could increase the capacity very substantially.
Perhaps that goes to the crux of the question. I suppose the existing Crow rate is not so very bad in comparison with the inefficiencies in the railway industry in this country. Perhaps this is an area to which this House could address itself in greater detail than it has over the past weeks and months. I am quite sure that once this has been done, the House and the Government would take a different view of the existing Crows-nest Pass rate.
I understand my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, so 1 will conclude my remarks.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us proposes to change Clause 17(d) at page 8 by removing the words "promote reciprocal and other arrangements" and inserting instead "and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrangements". That seems like a very reasonable amendment. While it may be a little surprising to find the Tory Party advocating greater Government control of private enterprise, as in this case, that Party does have the option of going backwards and forwards at the same time. It is built right into the name "Progressive Conservative". That Party can switch back and forth very easily and say yes or no, or yes and no, without any embarrassment, but I hope it stays with this particular amendment because it does seem reasonable.
Presumably, the argument against this amendment would be that the railroads may already do this voluntarily. In fact, we understand they had an agreement to do this voluntarily. The problem is partly that the agreement is subject to cancellation on a month's notice and partly that there is no way for the interested public to monitor the performance of this agreement, nor in any sense to enforce the agreement to provide any compliance with the agreement. That is the nub of the question.
That is why it is so interesting to find the Conservatives pressed to admit that private enterprise would not be willing. That is the implication of the amendment. It must be compelled and required, because it would not be willing to do this in an efficient way on a voluntary basis. It clearly has the means to do it. The examples which were placed before the committee by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall were, of course, examples based on the record and practices of the railroads. The railroads know full well what inefficiency there was in conducting their business as they did.
As has been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), the railroad contradicts itself in complaining about the cost of hauling grain when it chooses to haul it for hundreds of miles unnecessarily. Obviously, the railroads are not essentially interested in efficient production. If inefficient operation will make money for them, then let there be inefficient operation. That is their philosophy. Anyone who uses
the rail service between Ottawa and Toronto is well aware that the railroad has no overriding sense of obligation to efficiency. It does not mind whether the train comes in late or not.


An Hon. Member:: That is VIA Rail.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: It is VIA Rail which, of course, is really only a function of the railroads and must take the railroads as it finds them. It must take the rolling stock as it finds it and must pay for worn out rolling stock as it finds it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I must caution the Hon. Member, as I have other Hon. Members, that he is straying somewhat from the amendment before the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With all respect, Sir, surely examples of railways inefficiency, whether in the use of tracks or rolling stock, relate to the very points made in the amendment. The inefficiencies are caused by not having reciprocal agreements which could be required, if necessary. The same kind of reciprocal agreement needs to be required in many other places, including the line mentioned by my hon. friend. It relates to the point of the argument in this amendment.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I point out to you and Hon. Members in this House that the title of this Bill is:
An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
I am not aware that VIA Rail in Ontario moves a heck of a lot of grain.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I will give the Hon. Member, of course, the benefit of the doubt. However, I thought he was straying somewhat from the amendment before the House in his last remarks.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I do want to explain that while I accept your direction and will not pursue that particular detail further, I was trying to speak as an easterner who is aware of the over-all conduct of the railroads we are dealing with, which includes what is, in effect, their creature, VIA Rail. Of course, if I keep on being interrupted by Hon. Members I might get confused again and stray off the subject. If Hon. Members want this, they can continue in their present conduct.
I believe there could be another important value in-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Talk about the jobs which your filibuster is costing Toronto.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Even the Cabinet now wishes to get into the act, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if the Minister will speak to this amendment. I hope he will. Since the Minister opposite seems to want to comment, I hope he will have an opportunity to do so this afternoon.
The point I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that if the public Administrator had this power to require-not just to
October 6, 1983

promote-this kind of co-operation between these two railroads for the sake of efficiency, there would probably be a spin-off benefit as well. He would probably be in a position to give the public more complete information about what the practices are of the railroads. That might even open up the question of what is the real cost of shipping grain since the railroad has been caught implicitly contradicting itself as to the actual cost in relation to efficiency.
1 would hope that this amendment would be adopted, that the Administrator would use his power to ensure the efficient handling of grain and monitor the practices of the railroad, so that the records would show whether the railroad has been handling grain efficiently in the past. I believe this would be very interesting because the debate about the Crow rate, which is the main subject of this Bill, of course, is likely to continue for some time. The same interests which want to increase the rate will still want to increase it even after this Bill has been defeated.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that this amendment will be adopted. If not in its present form, then it is conceivable, as I said before in this debate, that there might be some compromise arrangement available whereby the essence of the amendment could be adopted.
I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Therefore, the CBC has made the arbitrary decision of disallowing Sunday's broadcast by CHEX and its affiliates on the basis of an error by CRTC in drawing up a licence with a Richmond Hill cable TV company. What this means is that thousands of football fans in the east central Ontario region will be denied the privilege of viewing the game, a deplorable situation which is further compounded by the loss of thousands of dollars of advertising revenue.
I strongly urge the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to intercede immediately on behalf of football fans and force the CRTC to get its records straight and not deny football fans viewing rights because of a contractual error by the CRTC, a regulatory agency of the Ministry of Communications.

[ Translation]


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to draw the attention of the House today to the fact that a major contract has been awarded to a Quebec company in my riding, and I am referring to Bombardier, which in its twenty-fifth year has succeeded in breaking into a market ignored until now by Canadian companies, namely, military vehicles. Madam Speaker, about twelve months ago, Bombardier was awarded a contract worth nearly $140 million which created a lot of jobs in the Eastern Townships, 1,875, to be exact, and yesterday, another contract worth $68 million was announced, which means an additional 1,000 jobs in Quebec. The product, a 4-wheel drive jeep, will have 50 per cent Canadian content during the first year and 60 per cent the second. I think this is an incredible achievement for a Quebec company, and it is due to its ability to draw on its own technical expertise, to know where the market is and to diversify production. After starting 25 years ago as a snowmobile manufacturer, Bombardier was able to find new markets, and I think that thanks to the expertise of its workers and management, this company which we can really call our own has a great future.



LOUIS RIEL

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: The Crown corporation, CBC, has made a decision to exclude Peterborough from television coverage of the Toronto Argonauts' Canadian Football League game on Sunday, October 9. Peterborough is clearly outside the 75 mile black-out radius. As a result of this I have learned that the CRTC is entirely at fault because it neglected to add the 75-mile exclusion clause to a contract with Classic Communications of Richmond Hill, Ontario, which fully intend to broadcast the game via telecasts picked up from CHEX Television station in Peterborough, Ontario.



PLEA FOR POSTHUMOUS PARDON

Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, this House acted yesterday with unanimous consent to correct an historic injustice. Perhaps the Senate might also act in a similar manner.
The House acted to assist the Government of Manitoba to reinstate the constitutional rights of Manitobans so provided in the Manitoba Act of 1870. The Parliament of 1890 could have prevented that injustice through the use of the federal constitu-

October 6, 1983
tional powers of reservation and disallowance. But the Parliament of 1890 did not act. Yesterday's action, to be followed by speeches by the three Party Leaders today, is a noble act. It is correcting a wrong. Perhaps the House could find within itself the will and generosity of spirit to correct another injustice committed in 1885.
This House could and should act unanimously by passing Bill C-691 or, by separate resolution, to grant a posthumous pardon to the father of the Manitoba Act of 1870, Louis David Riel, who was hung for the crime of treason against the central Government in 1885. A pardon would not only be an act of forgiveness for Riel, whose cause was just but whose methods were criminal, but it would also serve to remove an ugly blot of bias from the Canadian system of justice. It would also be forgiveness for the Government of 1885 which played politics with an unstable man's life, and a negligent Parliament which did not even sit to consider the matter-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated Tuesday that we must stop treating the Soviets as killers. I believe it is an absolute disgrace that the PM-NDP alliance has such strong sympathies for the Communist movement.
In 1968 the Red Army invaded Czechoslovakia, suppressing that country. Through the 1970s the Soviets instigated violence in African countries, using Cuban proxies to enthrone and keep in power oppressive Marxist regimes. In 1979 they invaded Afghanistan, where some 100,000 troops have been slaughtering entire tribes and gassing innocent civilians. During the first 30 years of the Soviet dictatorship the latest estimate of the number killed by the Communists is 83,000,000, and most recently the Soviet Union massacred 269 innocent passengers and crew aboard Korean Airlines Flight 007.
How can we treat them as anything but murderers? The Soviets have no respect for the human rights of their own citizens, much less of the citizens of other countries. For the PM-NDP alliance to sympathize, almost condoning the actions of these human slayers, is almost as repulsive as the revolting acts of the Soviets themselves.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, the Province of Saskatchewan, breaking a 58-year old tradition on October 1, began allowing liquor,
wine and beer advertising on radio, television, and in the print media. 1 am concerned that this has not been done in the interests of the people of Saskatchewan.
I was puzzled when I first learned that a private television station from Toronto had contributed $5,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan in 1982, until 1 found that the station was CFTO, owned by Baton Broadcasting, which is in turn owned by the Bassett family of Toronto. It is no coincidence that Baton Broadcasting is also the owner of CFQC Radio and Television in Saskatoon. It just so happens that CFQC contributed $2,500 of its own money, and the CFQC vice-president and station manager is also chairman of the beer and wine committee of the Saskatchewan Association of Broadcasters, who have been instrumental in lobbying the provincial Tories to change the 58-year old ban.
I would like to add, Madam Speaker, that in 1982 the brewers and distillers of Canada gave a total of $51,000 to the Conservative Party of Saskatchewan, which is more than they contributed in the same year to the Conservative Party of Canada. The buying off of the Tory Government in Saskatchewan is an affront to the trust the people of Saskatchewan have placed in their Government, and I find a great deal of disgust in this whole idea.



RECITATION OF PRAYERS

Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about a very important part of the business of this House, a ritual that is not well known by many people in Canada. I refer to the practice of being led in prayer in private by the Speaker.
As Members know, the prayers are recited each day preceding the beginning of the day's business, with as many Members as possible in attendance, as well as pages and officials of Parliament. True, not all of us can be present, but I believe many try to take in the prayer session as often as possible. It seems to me that the commencement of this important ritual has been delayed every day this week. The delay has been caused because both opposition Parties have, for one reason or another, chosen not to be in the House or their seats for the prayer period. It should be noted that immediately after the prayer period, miraculously, Members file to the benches in goodly number.
I make these comments only to underline the fact that we do begin our daily activities with prayer, and that this might be an appropriate time and place to remind us that this is a practice worth preserving on all sides of this House. I believe we all benefit from prayer. It seems to me that if many can appear in their seats following prayers, there is no reason for them not to be in their places in time for the daily prayer.
October 6, 1983



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, since the Government has repeatedly refused to provide the Farm Credit Corporation with sufficient funds to honour the many loan applications of Canada's struggling farmers, it must at the very least implement an agri-bond program immediately. In fact the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said at one time that he personally supported the concept of agribonds to finance more credit for farmers at reduced rates. But he said that in March of 1982. If is now more than a year later and Canadian farmers are going bankrupt in record numbers while the Government drags its feet. Need I remind the Government that close to 300 farmers, including 35 in my home Province of Manitoba, have gone bankrupt so far this year?
To make the agri-bond program work, we suggest that the Government offer tax exemptions or reductions to encourage farmers and others to loan their savings to the FCC and the agri-bond program, with a capital gains tax waiver if the taxable portion is invested for not less than five years.
The Minister of Agriculture has said that he generally supports the idea. Farmers certainly support it, and we in the Progressive Conservative Party have long supported it. All that remains is for the Cabinet to make it a priority. Canadian farmers do not need any more of the Government's empty words. They need action.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, a MIRVd missile is one with multiple independent re-entry vehicles, or warheads. Each warhead is capable of attacking a separate target. For example, one MX Missile with ten warheads could destroy ten Soviet cities.
A U.S. Congressional budget office study indicated that the U.S. will be getting rid of 143 Titan and Minuteman III mark 12 missiles, with a total of 343 warheads, between 1983 and 1988.
Under the build-down proposal of President Reagan, when two missiles would be destroyed and one missile would be added, there would be a net loss of 72 missiles-sounds good! The 343 warheads contained on the Titan and Minuteman missiles would be replaced by 710 warheads on the MX, for a net gain of 367 silo-busting warheads. Some build-down!
There have been on both sides all kinds of meaningless offers, especially when the super powers are replacing used, old and obsolete weapons like the Titan or the S.S. 4s and 5s, and 11s to impress the world that they are both serious about nuclear disarmament. It is time that the middle powers convey
in the strongest possible terms the idea that this kind of spurious bargaining is unacceptable and does nothing but allow for a never-ending dangerous increase in nuclear weaponry.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, last summer, the Farm Credit Corporation asked our permission to borrow $600 million on the financial markets, but the Minister of Finance refused to authorize more than $250 million. 1 may add that many farmers have benefited from the temporary 4 and 5 per cent interest rate programs, but this was only for a two-year period, starting November, 1981. Madam Speaker, you will therefore understand the emphasis on the desirability of Government assistance to farmers, when we are discussing farm loans.
Madam Speaker, I deplore the lack of interest shown by the Minister of Agriculture and the entire Government for the problems and difficulties with which many farmers will be faced starting this year, when the temporary programs are about to expire and these farmers will have to go back to interest rates of 16% per cent. Madam Speaker, in the circumstances, I trust my representation to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) will help them understand the importance of this matter, and that they will show more compassion for farmers and a better understanding of the importance of the survival of agriculture in Canada.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, October 2 marks the tenth anniversary of one of the most infamous cases in Canadian judicial history, the Murdoch case.
Ten years ago the Supreme Court of Canada denied justice to a women who, as well as doing all of the housework and child care, did the haying, raking, mowing, branding and vaccinating cattle, and drove the tractor. Her husband argued that this was what an ordinary rancher's wife did and that accordingly she was entitled to none of the property accumulated by the couple's joint labour, but held in the husband's name. Shamefully, with the exception of Mr. Justice Laskin, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed.
As a result of this appalling case of judicial sexism, Canada's wives thronged to the women's movement. After concert-

October 6, 1983
Oral Questions
ed lobbying, both federal and provincial, substantial improvements were made in family property laws. However, full equality has yet to the achieved, and even good statutory provisions have been interpreted in a backward way. The Leatherdale case, as recently as last year, is an example of how the Ontario Family Law Reform Act has been narrowly interpreted.
Marriage in Canada is now recognized, at least in theory, as an economic partnership of equals. Yet farm wives still seek legal recognition as partners with their husbands on the family farm. The federal Government has yet to ensure pension splitting for federal public servants, judges, the Armed Forces and Crown corporations. Appointments to the Bench do not yet reflect the equal partnership and contributions of Canadian women to Canadian society. We have a lot left to do.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On October 1 he decided to let certain people who are investing in shares, or "puts and calls" in the marketplace, wheeling and dealing, or speculating, to have complete indexation on their capital gains and the right to write off their capital losses. Does he expect the House to pass legislation amending the Income Tax Act that gives special people special advantages but does nothing for the ordinary small business people, farmers, fishermen, and those who have a cottage or who invest in something like a coin collection? Why should those special people who wheel and deal in the marketplace have those advantages?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am very surprised at the Hon. Member's comments. He knows perfectly well that as far as capital gains are concerned, we have very substantial provisions to help farmers. We have, for instance, exempted private residences, which are not subject to capital gains. When the Hon. Member talks about farmers and home-owners, these people already benefit from exemptions where capital gains are concerned. As for shareholders, 1 made it clear in my budget that it was extremely important to increase in Canada the rate of Canadian participation in ownership of our industry, and that is done mostly through capital shares. The measures I have announced have received general support across the country. If the Progressive Conservative Party wishes to vote against this particular provision in the Bill, it can go right ahead, and at least we will know where the Party stands. However, as far as the legislation on indexing securities is concerned, the Hon. Member knows
perfectly well that the tax on capital gains will be maintained, but only on the actual gains made, in that case.


TREATMENT OF STOCK PURCHASERS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, if the Minister really intends to help sound, solid investment, why does this Bill allow relief for those wheelers and dealers who trade in "puts and calls", since they are essentially speculators who have nothing to do with investment because there is no investment in that? Why does he not just withdraw the proposal and allow proper allowance for capital gains or inflation gains to those who invest in real business or new business? Why does he not do something for ordinary Canadians, in the interest of jobs and the creation of new investment? Why does he not want to do something for them-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member seems to be repeating the question.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I answered the Hon. Member's question in my first reply, but perhaps I may add that in terms of the legislation that was announced and the program that has been in effect since October 1, these provisions apply to anyone who buys shares, whatever their purpose may be. My hon. colleague is well aware that under the market system we have in Canada and other industrialized countries in the free world, the stock market is the principal source of financing for businesses. Once more, I wonder what the Progressive Conservative Party is trying to do here, because I must say it is rather unusual to hear this kind of talk from the mouth of a Conservative spokesman.


APPLICATION OF TAX TO SPECULATORS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that we on this side have always been in favour of at least indexation of capital gains, if not abolishment. We have always been in favour of honest treatment of people by the tax department. How does the Minister justify this preferred treatment for a select group of investors while not looking after those people who really work, invest, and create in this country? Why does he want to favour that select group and not let the real creators and job builders in this country have the same kind of fairness that he proposes for these speculators?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am simply amazed at the Hon. Member's third question on this subject. It seems to be even worse than the first two. Canadians who invest in corporations by buying stocks contribute to the functioning of the Canadian economy. It is
October 6, 1983

essential, if you want to have a market economy and a free economy, that you have an active equity market. I indicated in my budget, following representations from all kinds of groups across the country, that it was important for Canadians to become purchasers of equity and that Canadians should invest more in the industrial development of Canada. It is real investment when you buy shares, just the same as when you loan money or make other investments.
1 want to remind my hon. friend that we have taken particular care of the situation of the farmers and particular care of the situation of the home owners by exempting farms and households from capital gains in circumstances that are specified in the legislation.
As far as the particular proposal is concerned, as I have indicated, the ISIP system is one that was developed after extensive consultation, and which received the broadest possible support across the nation.


CASH FLOW SITUATION OF COMPANIES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Most of the business survivors of the recession have cash flow problems. Their earned surplus and capital accounts have been reduced to dangerous levels. If there is even the slightest bump in the recovery of the economy, many of these recession survivors could go under. Inasmuch as the Government is looking to the private sector to reduce the level of unemployment by adding to its work force, is the Minister planning a taxation solution to aid the cash flow problem of these struggling companies, and will he bring in his solutions in an amendment to the Income Tax Act in the immediate future?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 would invite my hon. friend to read the April budget in which this question has been repeatedly and consistently addressed. The net result is that the debt-equity ratio of companies across the country has improved quite considerably in the last several months, thanks to the measures that were announced in the budget and thanks to the steps that have already been taken by various corporations on the basis of that budget. I invite my hon. friend to acquaint himself with the many provisions contained in the budget on this very issue. I want to assure him that the Bill itself should be introduced soon in the House, and I hope the Bill will get the Hon. Member's wholehearted support in spite of the opposition of his seatmate. I am glad to see my hon. friend has better and broader vision than his seatmate.


William James Kempling: Working one against the other won't work, Marc.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCE


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. I have read the budget and all the provisions in it. It just does not help the cash flow problem being experienced by many businesses in Canada. The former Minister of Finance in his November, 1981, budget put in place new capital cost allowance rules that have severely damaged the cash flow and the profitability of most businesses. Inasmuch as productivity and profit go hand in hand, and many businesses have put off the purchase of new productive machinery and processors because of the capital cost allowance rules, is the Minister reviewing this matter, and will he bring in an amendment to the Income Tax Act in the immediate future to address this problem?


Marc Lalonde: Indeed, Madam Speaker, I have addressed this very question in the budget by providing the possibility of taking losses three years backward and seven years forward. That provision again has been acclaimed by the business community as being one of considerable help in their current situation.


William James Kempling: You have to lose money to get it. Is that it?


Marc Lalonde: In addition, I would refer my hon. friend to the various provisions in the budget which, obviously, time in the Question Period does not allow me to enumerate.


THE ECONOMY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, not only is there a cash flow problem for the Canadian business sector, but there is a cash flow problem for the average Canadian citizen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is for the Minister of Finance. A letter written yesterday by the Business Council on National Issues urges the Government to extend its present policies to depress workers' incomes even further, and asks the Government to restrain itself from taking any further job-creation measures.
Will the Minister of Finance stand in this House of Commons today and tell Canadians that he is going to ignore that kind of advice and that he has identified the number one problem in this country as job creation? As far as the letter from the Business Council on National Issues is concerned, will he tell them where to take that letter, or tell them he is going to ignore that letter?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the priority problem as far as I am concerned is the growth of the economy and the creation of more jobs. That is going to remain our priority, my priority as Minister of Finance, and

October 6, 1983
Oral Questions
the priority of this Government over the next year. I am very pleased to assure the Hon. Member about that.


EFFECT OF UNEMPLOYMENT ON PEOPLE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, in terms of that response, we have seen the results of the Government's economic policies. We know that there are two million Canadians out of work, who are told repeatedly that to expect work is being unrealistic. We have a generation of young Canadians who are being told that they might never find meaningful work. We are finding people who have to retire ten years early. To say that being age 55 and out of work, you are better off dead, is also being heard. We have had three days of rioting and demonstrations in the Gaspe area. Is this the kind of policy that we can expect now and in the future, that is, fighting the problems of Canada's economy on the backs of Canadian workers, as the Minister has been doing for the last three years?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend that he seems to be looking at Canada only. In the last while we have had thirty million people unemployed in the OECD countries. That is a worldwide problem. Things have been improving lately. I am glad to see they have improved more rapidly since last November in Canada than in almost any other industrial country.
This has meant, for instance, that we have created 328,000 new jobs between last November and last July. It has meant that we have reduced inflation more than any other country. It has meant that we have been creating jobs just as fast as any other industrial country, and we intend to continue doing so, making our economy grow as fast as we can possibly make it grow, and thereby reduce unemployment. Our unemployment level is high, and it is a source of concern. But it would be misleading to let people believe that somehow Canada can isolate itself from the world context in which we live, and that tomorrow anybody could cut unemployment by half. We will have to address this question consistently and do everything we can together.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I make no apologies for looking at Canada. I am aware that we have two million out of work. All indications now suggest that figure will likely remain at that level for a number of years. It is very nice for the Minister of Finance to stand up in his position and listen to the National Business Council advise Canadians from high salaried positions that the rest of Canada simply has to stand back and wait.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SET FULL EMPLOYMENT TARGET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, other countries have set targets for their unemployment levels. They have identified full employment targets. Japan is one, West Germany is one, and Switzerland is one. Why does Canada not do the same thing and set some targets so we can start moving unemployment levels down, and implement some
strategies to accomplish that, rather than simply accepting the status quo and saying to two million Canadians, "That is the price you have to pay"?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Nielsen:: Yes or no, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I take the question of the Hon. Member very seriously. We have indeed expressed our concern about the unemployment situation. We have not only expressed our concern but we have dealt with it and led a strong attack on unemployment. The last budget included the provision of $4.8 billion in expenditures having to do with stimulus to the private sector, having to do with public expenditure. In addition, only in this year we are spending over $1.5 billion directly in terms of direct job creation. Our target is to reduce unemployment in Canada as fast and as much as we can. Our target is to create the largest possible number of jobs. In that sense we are all for full employment but we realize you cannot have it the next morning. It is easy to make a speech about it, but we have to take steps to achieve it. This Government has not only spoken and made speeches about it, but we have been acting on it as well.

[DOT] (M30)


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF COMMONWEALTH MINISTERS OF HEALTH
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of the Minister of Health of the countries of the Commonwealth, who are attending a conference in Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. In a somewhat laconic press release issued yesterday, his colleague the Minister of National Defence announced that the Quebec-based Bombardier Corporation had been awarded a $68-million contract. Could the minister indicate to the House what will be the impact of this decision on the employment and economic situations in Quebec? At the same time, could the minister indicate whether there is any connection between this contract and the Volkswagen file about which so much more has been written than about this $68-million contract?
October 6, 1983


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the Hon. Member for his question. It is a fact that my colleague the Minister of National Defence and I announced yesterday that the Bombardier Corporation had been awarded a contract of about $65 million to provide Jeep-type light utility trucks to the Canadian Armed Forces. This contract will create directly 312 jobs at the Bombardier plant, and indirectly a thousand or so more throughout Canada. As the Hon. Member is certainly aware, this contract is in addition to a $ 140-million contract also awarded to the Bombardier Corporation, to supply the Canadian Armed Forces with 2*/2-ton trucks, which has created directly 375 jobs at the plant and some 1,500 sub-contract jobs throughout Canada. The ILTIS technology which Bombardier acquired when Volkswagen set shop in Canada is finally bearing fruit, and as the Bombardier Corporation is marking this year its 25th Anniversary, Madam Speaker, we must rejoice that co-operation has existed and continues to exist between the Government of Canada and this major Quebec-based corporation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister of State for External Relations is reported today as stating that Canada would be willing to monitor any future peace or truce arrangement in Central America arranged by the Contadora group. Will the Minister tell the House in specific terms exactly what this role would entail, and whether this commitment followed discussions by the Minister of State or by the Minister himself with representatives of Honduras, El Salvador, and Costa Rica, as well as with the Contadora group and the Foreign Ministers of Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Cuba?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the position of the Canadian Government in relation to any peacekeeping corps in the area has been clear for some period of time. The position the Government has taken is that we are in support of the group of nations in the area that have been working toward peace. We do not see Canada as essentially playing a role in any peace corps in Central America, but we are prepared to consider it if requested.
The Hon. Member is concerned about the type of consultations that occurred before Canada established that position. I would take the portion of his question as notice for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to deal with upon his return to the House.
Oral Questions


Donald W. Munro: That does not exactly square with the reports, but I am glad to have the additional information.


REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, could the Minister assure the House that before any decision is taken the Government will allow Parliament, as it has in the past in the case of Cyprus and the Middle East, to debate any such monitoring role and to approve or withhold approval as circumstances warrant, before Canadians are sent to Central America? Could he give the House any information on the remark of the Minister of State that Canadians would act as "verification teams" to cover border areas, and would control the acquisition of foreign arms by the countries? Would he also let it be known whether there is any time limit placed upon the presence in that area of any Canadian groups?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I will bring the representations of the Hon. Member to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I want to emphasize again that the position of Canada is, and has been, that we are not seeking to play a role in any monitoring of peace in the area. We feel, as responsible members of this hemisphere, that if a request is made to us by the appropriate authorities for an appropriate type of participation, we should carefully consider that question.


ROLE OF PARLIAMENT
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. As this could be a dangerous and costly operation for Canadians to engage in, would the Minister assure the House that before any agreement is entered into, even if it is in response to a request, as he suggested, that the matter will be brought before the House for approval or disapproval before any Canadians are asked to engage in what the Minister has been suggesting?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member can be assured that the usual procedures and the appropriate ones for the Government will be followed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and other Ministers who would be involved.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON CANADIAN OBLIGATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade who just put his finger on why we feel so uncertain about what the Government may be doing. Is he aware of what the Minister of State for External Relations said, namely, that eventually Canada will have to pay the price for its involvement and interest in the talks, and that Canada has an obligation to support the group's efforts? Is he aware of

October 6, 1983
Oral Questions
that? In short, what did the Minister mean that Canada has to pay a price?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that the Hon. Member is putting the cart away in front of the horse. What the Minister said is exactly what was said in the House repeatedly on previous occasions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that if Canada is asked to participate, we will give the matter serious consideration. He went on to recognize the responsibility of Canada in relation to the role we have traditionally played, or the way in which we have been prepared to react to requests that contribute toward world peace in the past. I am confident that the Hon. Member opposite would be in full support of the principle that Canada continue to play the traditional role in working for peace that it has in the past.


INCOME TAX
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. He will know that his departmental officials have followed, in recent months, a very aggressive policy of reassessing income tax returns of artists, not just for the current taxation year but for three or four years back. In the view of the artists, the officials are treating them as if they were manufacturers, which they are not. Artists feel very strongly that, if that policy continues, the production and creation of innovative and creative art will simply dry up. Will the Minister give consideration to putting a hold on that kind of interpretation or that kind of policy, at least until he can work out a system which is fair to artists?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: First, Madam Speaker, I should like to reassure Hon. Members and tell them that we have no special programs to audit the income tax returns of artists in particular. I might remind the House that the general provisions of the Income Tax Act may be used by taxpayers whose situation is similar to that of an artist when they file their income tax returns. There are various ways of figuring out their income, just as there are special ways of figuring out expenses which may be deductible. Those general provisions of the Income Tax Act have been quite adequate so far with respect to the income tax returns of artists, and unless the Minister of Finance is shown that they ought to be changed, they will remain in force.


EXPENSES OF PART-TIME ARTISTS
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, the Minister surely knows that there are no new laws, but that the interpretations now being used in his Department have created an entirely new situation for full-time artists. I direct his attention to another group of artists who earn a lesser part of their income from the sale of art but work full-time as teachers and so on. They are not permitted to deduct expenses which they incur in producing their art, when calculating their income tax. Will the Minister give consideration to that aspect of the way in which his Department is assessing artists?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: In
the first part of my answer, Madam Speaker, I referred to the general provisions related to the interpretation of the Income Tax Act for people whose situation is similar to that of an artist. Under those provisions, a taxpayer may claim general expenses to maintain a work place, a studio and a place to sell works of art. There are as well very specific provisions for an artist who must incur special expenses to produce a work of art, and those expenses must be deducted from the selling price of that work of art.
The Hon. Member is wondering whether a special treatment might not be given to a group of artists whose art work is not the main source of income. I must say that it is difficult to make a general rule for such particular cases. However, on the basis of the facts submitted to us, we look into the situation of the artist and we try to be as lenient as possible in our interpretation of the Income Tax Act in those particular cases.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who is the Minister responsible for the federal Public Service. The subject is hospital insurance premiums. Is the Minister prepared to discontinue the federal Government's tacit support for the payment of these premiums by its payment, in the Province of Ontario and other Provinces, of part of the contributions of the federal public servants and, if his attitude is to discontinue this tacit support of this obnoxious form of taxation, will he compensate the public servants by folding that amount of money into the existing pay scales?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to take the Hon. Member's question under consideration.
October 6, 1983


MEDICAL CARE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister has been making a number of statements relative to the present controversy in the health care field. Does the Minister regard hospital and medical premiums as part of the extra billing controversy?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to receive the first question on Medicare, a month after Parliament has reopened, from my friend on the other side. I compliment him on having been made the medicare critic. 1 therefore know he is interested, and 1 appreciate that.
On the question of premiums, it is a practice in three Provinces. I have always said that, in terms of equity, premiums are a very regressive form of taxation. Unfortunately the Constitution does not permit us to take action in the coming Canada Health Act. As I said, in the case of Alberta, where thousands of people are cut off from having their doctor's visits paid by Medicare, if that Province had gone the route of justice and general taxation, it would not be in the mess it is.


SITUATION IN YUKON
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, if the Minister says this is a regressive form of taxation, 1 agree. Can the Minister explain why she levies hospital premiums in federal hospitals under her care, namely, in the Yukon, up to $318 per family per year?


Monique Bégin: I don't, Madam Speaker.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In a speech to an audience of native people in western Canada two days ago, the Minister said, and I quote:
I think that we are now finally beginning to realize that the native peoples of Canada have the right to expect a system of justice that reflects elements of their own cultural heritage-
He went on to say that the Government is busy working on a plan to codify the Indian law and to establish special courts, confirming the suspicion that Indian people have, that the Government is not really interested in consultation but is once again off on a tangent, putting in place a blueprint that is disrespectful of the legitimate aspirations which Indians have for themselves. Why has the Minister chosen this time to confuse the issue, just days before a parliamentary committee,
Oral Questions
which has met in 60 locations in Canada over the past year, will be reporting to the House on these very questions?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has considerably embellished the statement that I made last week. It is true that the Government is concerned about attempting to ensure that the law that is applied to our Indian citizens as far as possible adequately reflects their cultural heritage. In fact a conference will be held in Saskatchewan next week, of which my Department is a partial sponsor, to look at this question. It is a native peoples conference. We have been having the fullest possible consultation with native peoples on this issue. The native peoples group to whom is made that statement last week welcomed it.
I will welcome the report which the parliamentary committee will be presenting.


POSSIBILITY OF SELF-GOVERNMENT
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, the Minister, through his executive assistant, also speculated on the right of aboriginal peoples to some form of self-determination, although it is reported in the press that he was very careful to mention "self-government" rather than using the term "band government", which was his choice. Will the Minister assure us today that no decisions will be made with regard to the establishment of any form of band government, or any new system of justice, before the parliamentary committee has the opportunity to lay its report before the House and for the native people to react to the report? That is crucially important.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, questions involving Indian government are very much to the fore in the constitutional discussions which are going on between the Government of Canada and the native peoples and which will also, of course, very soon involve the provincial Governments. We are having a meeting of officials in several weeks. We are having a meeting of responsible Ministers early next month. These are all questions which are on the public record. Nothing is being done secretly or behind the scenes. It is all being conducted so far as possible in public, certainly with full consultation both with the native groups and the provincial Governments.


ONTARIO AND QUEBEC PROPOSALS TO ESTABLISH HYDROGEN INSTITUTES
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister will know that the Government of the Province of Ontario, in co-operation with the University of Toronto, established an Institute for Hydrogen Studies in 1981, and that they have asked for federal co-operation and assistance. He will also know that it now seems likely that the federal


October 6, 1983
Oral Questions
Government will be supporting a similar institution in Quebec. Will the Minister ensure that the Ontario initiative receives a fair share of support? Also, does he know there is absolutely no federal funding at present?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the two propositions are completely different. I am aware of the request by the university and the Government of Ontario. The project he is referring to is being partially initiated in Quebec by the private sector and will be supported by two levels of government. They are not of the same nature at all.


SITE OF FACILITY IN QUEBEC
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, when will the Minister be announcing the site of the new facility in Quebec, perhaps in Shawinigan or some other place, and what level of federal funding can we expect to see for that facility?
life. Indeed, I think it would be unwise for us to take any firm position publicly on the terms or conditions under which we would agree to participate in such a monitoring exercise.


Miss Jewett:: Madam Speaker, I take it that it is therefore useless to ask a further question of the Minister, but in any event I will try.


PRESENCE OF FOREIGN FORCES IN AREA
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister to think his position through again. If we are to participate in a monitoring role, would we not insist that all foreign forces, including American and Cuban, but particularly those forces in Honduras which are American, must be removed from the region before we would participate in such a monitoring activity? If he cannot answer, Madam Speaker, then a parliamentary debate really is in order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, there has been no final decision on that. There is a group named Electrolysor Inc. and Hydro Quebec which will be in a majority position in the corporation. We will be giving some grants through the normal programs of the Government, but the final decision has not yet been reached.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, again if the Hon. Member takes time to think about it, she will realize that it has been difficult at certain times in the past months and years to know when foreign forces are present in some of those countries, and the extent to which they are present. Therefore, I think it might be unwise to set those hard and fast conditions. However, I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would want to give careful consideration to any representations that the distinguished Hon. Member has made, and I will therefore pass her representations in that regard on to him for consideration. Again, I would certainly not be prepared to take any fixed position at this time.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade and follows some of the earlier questions with respect to the statement made by the Minister's colleague in New York yesterday. His colleague said that Canada would be willing to send observers to Central America to monitor any future peace agreement arranged by the Con-tadora group. I am glad, by the way, that the Government has finally discovered Central America. Can the Minister assure us that such monitoring would be undertaken only after all foreign military forces and military bases have been removed from the region including, of course, American military forces and military bases in Honduras?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, I think it is perfectly obvious to the Hon. Member that I cannot give her those assurances and, indeed, I would not want to do so. I think that the Hon! Member, upon reflection, will quickly agree that the conditions upon which Canada would agree, if asked to participate in the monitoring of peace in the region, would be dependent upon whether those conditions would contribute to the likelihood of peace and would prevent further bloodshed and loss of


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the hundreds of jobs that could be created at border crossing points in Ontario by the establishment of duty-free shops, and given the clear indication that, after a delay of a year and a half, the Province of Ontario will not co-operate in the establishment of these shops unless they are effectively run by and for the benefit of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, is the Government prepared to move ahead with this program under the constitutional authority it has for international trade? Will the government establish these duty-free shops at Ontario border crossing points, using private entrepreneurs, as has been done in other Provinces?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member should have taken this opportunity to tell the House that we ought to
October 6, 1983

be concerned about the fact that one of the Provinces which has the highest number of border crossing points, namely Ontario, has yet to participate in the duty-free shops national program. The Hon. Member and his colleagues must remember that, under the existing legislation, provincial authorities are responsible for importing, stocking and marketing alcoholic beverages in Canada. It is unfortunate that the Province of Ontario has chosen to protect its state monopoly and thus thwart private enterprise which the Canadian Government wants to promote through its duty-free shops national program. 1 did meet with the Ontario Minister responsible for implementing this program, but I have not yet received a favourable answer from him. We will go ahead with a unilateral program to issue operating permits for such shops, but unfortunately the permit holders would not be authorized to sell alcoholic beverages. I therefore urge Hon. Members to make representations to the Ontario Government so that it might forget all about protecting its state monopoly and work hand in hand with the Canadian Government to help private enterprise launch the duty-free shops program.


SUGGESTED ROLE FOR PRIVATE SECTOR
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, in view of the criticism of the Ontario regulations, is the Government of Canada now prepared to relax some of its regulations and invite members of the private sector to apply for an opportunity to operate a duty-free store in other Provinces of Canada in which the climate may be more favourable?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to know that New Brunswick already has such a store. Indeed, I attended the opening ceremonies of that shop with a Member who is well known in the House since he often occupies the Chair. As soon as we have made an evaluation of the experimental program, we will be ready to proceed with the expansion of the national program.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. The federal Government has announced a new development plan for the Nova Scotia fisheries which includes access to redfish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Can the Minister assure us that the trawler fleet capacity that is now lying dormant in the Gulf area, and especially the Georgetown plant in Prince Edward Island, will be reactivated in order to process Gulf stocks and provide much needed employment opportunities in that particular area?
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I would first like to remind the Hon. Member that no fishing allocations could be made on a bilateral basis between the Department and one single Province. All negotiations must involve all Provinces. That is why there has been no commitment made, although we have said that Nova Scotia, like all other Provinces, will be consulted on any allocation.
Second, I would be grateful to the Hon. Member if he would tell me whether or not he is in favour of allowing non-Gulf based vessels greater access. They actually already have access to redfish in the Gulf. Third, on the question of development land for the fisheries of Nova Scotia, yes, I have committed myself on that question, but as you can tell by the joint statement that Mr. Buchanan and myself have made public, it is well understood that the amount and the sharing ratio will have to be decided upon by Cabinet.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, the Minister must be aware that the Georgetown plant was closed by the action of his predecessor in office who denied Nickerson s the right to supply that plant with ships operating outside the Gulf. This is a matter that he will have to address since he has restructured Nickerson and National Sea.


POSITION OF INDEPENDENT COMPANIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Fisheries. In the restructuring agreements the Minister has committed himself to returning the fishery to the private sector as soon as it is economically viable. I hope I am paraphrasing him correctly. Since this will require existing independent companies to grow and strengthen their position in the industry, how can this be accomplished when they are faced with strong competition from this new Government backed enterprise?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has asked several questions. On the question of Georgetown, the history, with which I am familiar, that was confirmed to me by the Minister of Fisheries of P.E.I. is that Nickerson committee to supply Georgetown with their trawlers. Then they moved their trawlers to Riverport and, when Riverport burned, they moved their trawlers to Canso. It is the company that failed in its commitments. It moved its trawlers from P.E.I. Now that we have managed to have this agreement with Nova Scotia, I can tell my hon. friend that already, through the representation of my colleague, the regional minister for P.E.I., we are looking very closely at the possibility of supplying fish through that newly structured company, to Georgetown. Whoever gets Canso I think will also have to look at the possibility of supplying fish to Georgetown. I am very surprised that, even though that new company is not yet structured, my hon. friend is criticizing its actions.

October 6, 1983
Official Languages


Madam Speaker:: It being three o'clock, the House will now proceed with the order made on October 5, 1983.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) moved:: Whereas a fundamental purpose of the Constitution of Canada is to protect the basic rights of all Canadians, including Aboriginal peoples, Englishspeaking and French-speaking minorities, religious, ethnic and other minority groups;
Whereas the Constitution contains provisions respecting the status and use of the English and French languages in Canada;
Whereas the Manitoba Act, 1870 was enacted by the Parliament of Canada to establish the province of Manitoba and is part of the Constitution; Whereas in 1870 Parliament provided special protection for the use of the English and French languages in Manitoba under section 23 of that Act;
Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada, on December 13, 1979, reaffirmed this constitutional protection under section 23 of the Manitoba Act. 1870; Whereas the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada and is binding upon Parliament and the Legislatures of all provinces;
Whereas it is in the national interest that the language rights of the Englishspeaking and French-speaking minorities in Canada be respected and protected in a spirit of tolerance and civility, amity and generosity; Whereas an agreement was reached on May 16, 1983 by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba, with the participation of the Societe Franco-Manitobaine, to modify the Manitoba Act, 1870, so that the Government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba can fulfil effectively their constitutional obligations under section 23 of that Act; Whereas it is in the national interest to support continued efforts by the Government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to fulfil effectively their constitutional obligations and protect the rights of the Frenchspeaking minority of the province;
(1)	the House endorses, on behalf of all Canadians, the essence of the agreement reached by the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba, with the participation of the Society Franco-Manitobaine, on May 16, 1983, to modify the Manitoba Act, 1870;
(2)	the House invites the Government and Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to take action as expeditiously as possible in order to fulfill their constitutional obligations and protect effectively the rights of the French-speaking minority of the province.
He said: Madam Speaker, I feel truly privileged to participate in this debate. I should like to say, not without emotion, that it is perhaps the most important day of my life as a parliamentarian. For by the resolution which is before the House, we in this Chamber are called upon to do two things: first, to ensure that the Constitution will be obeyed; second, to right a wrong.
It is fundamental to our life as a free society, indeed to our existence as parliamentarians, that the Constitution be obeyed. The Constitution is the source of all authority in this land: it permits us to sit in this place and to make laws; it gives authority to the officers of the Crown to collect taxes or to ensure obedience to the criminal law; it is the source of the very authority by which the Queen reigns and holds office. If the
Constitution is not obeyed, then indeed the human contract on which this free society exists is imperilled. As Hobbes said, life indeed would then be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
This resolution is of fundamental importance because, first, it is giving our support to that principle of obeying the Constitution. Second, I have said that by this resolution we will be attempting to right a historic wrong. I think that is not only a very noble privilege and duty which falls on us but it also is an encouragement to all those in this country, no matter how weak or small or poor they be, to know that the men and women sitting in this place are dedicated to that principle of setting wrongs right.

What is this resolution about, Madam Speaker? It is about a law enacted by the Parliament of Canada in 1870, a law that created the province of Manitoba. This law was introduced before the Parliament of Canada by the then Prime Minister, John A. Macdonald. It gave provincial rights to a territory that was part of our Canadian territories at the time. But above all, it gave legal status to the desire of the people of Manitoba, the majority of whom were French speaking at the time, that both languages, French and English, would be entrenched in the Constitution and given equal status in the legislature, the statutes and the courts.
Madam Speaker, as we all know, twenty years later, in 1890, the Manitoba legislature passed a law making English the only official language, the result being that subsequently, unilingualism became official in Manitoba, a situation that was to last for many decades.
Although experts on constitutional law maintained that the 1890 law was probably ultra vires in terms of the Constitution, it was not until the seventies that a Franco-Manitoban, Mr. Georges Forest, challenged the law of 1890 before the courts. And the Supreme Court of Canada, a tribunal established by the Parliament of Canada under the powers vested in Parliament by the Canadian Constitution, declared that the 1890 law establishing unilingualism was ultra vires and null and void, and consequently, that the 1870 guarantee for two official languages still stood.
I admire the Supreme Court for saddling politicians with this problem, since it is its role. The Supreme Court must tell us what the Constitution says. It must not worry about the political, social or economic problems that may arise as a result of a Supreme Court judgment on a legal matter arising from the Constitution. In fact, after the judgment in December 1979, governments in this country were faced with a dilemma. Because the 1890 law was unconstitutional, this might mean that all statutes passed by Manitoba, all its policies and practices, had no legal authority. That is the question now before the Supreme Court of Canada, and it is there because Mr. Bilodeau asked the Court for a ruling on the consequences of its 1979 judgment.
October 6, 1983

Madam Speaker, it was at this point that the political authorities became involved. First of all, I wish to say a few words in praise of the man who was Premier at the time, Mr. Sterling Lyon, who in 1979 was Premier of Manitoba. Mr. Lyon quickly acted to repeal the unlawful and unconstitutional Act of 1890. He went even further, and started by ensuring that a certain number of services in Manitoba would be available in French, on demand. Mr. Lyon's successor, Premier Howard Pawley, tried to find a way around the eventuality that the Supreme Court would rule that everything that had happened since 1890 in Manitoba was illegal, which could even be taken to mean that the Premier's own legislature was sitting unlawfully and had no authority. Madam Speaker, it is indeed important, that the Constitution is respected, as I said earlier, both for legislators and forjudges.
At this point, an agreement was reached between the Government of Canada, represented by the Secretary of State and assisted by the Minister of Justice, and the Government of Manitoba and the Societe franco-manitobaine. They tried to find, as was their duty as political authorities and responsible leaders, a way of resolving this problem and thus preventing the utter chaos that might ensue if a judgment were to invalidate some ninety years of legislation. They found a formula that lead to the agreement referred to in the resolution before the House today. This agreement had many advantages, one being that politicians and the community leaders were saying: It is up to us to try to solve these problems. We cannot go to the courts again. Let us try to find a solution. It was a little like what we ourselves did in the House two years ago when the Supreme Court gave us a nice problem to solve as a result of its judgment in September 1981. At the time, the political leaders of this House and the Canadian Provinces managed to find a solution to the problem, and although the going was at times a bit rough, as I think my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), then Minister of Justice, will agree, we managed to find a solution that could be accepted by the vast majority of Canadians.
Similarly, the Pawley Government, our Government and the Franco-Manitobans drafted an agreement that had several advantages. First of all, under the agreement, Manitoba and the Parliament of Canada would be asked to adopt a constitutional amendment declaring all laws passed since 1890 to be valid, thus preventing legal chaos in this part of the country. Second, an agreement or constitutional amendment that would establish the legitimacy of the province and the Government of Manitoba would, as it were, reaffirm their constitutionality. Third, the agreement would release the province from the obligation, which it would have had pursuant to the Act of 1870, to translate the 4,500 statutes or laws still in existence that govern this province, substituting therefor an obligation to translate only the province's 400 principal statutes. The agreement would also enable the Government and Parliament of Canada to assist the Province of Manitoba financially in
Official Languages
accomplishing this task. Finally, the agreement would give Franco-Manitobans a number of advantages insofar as they would be able to receive services in French, over and above the provisions of the Act of 1870.

That is the situation today, Madam Speaker. It is important to repeat for those who think that this is a new right which is being given to that small minority of French-speaking Canadians in Manitoba that this is not a new right. This is a right which was given to them in 1870, which was unconstitutionally withdrawn from them in 1890, and which was restored by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1979. This is not a matter of giving new rights and privileges; this is a matter of re-establishing certain rights. And in return for not creating the chaos which would follow from the unconstitutionality of some 90 years of invalid laws, it said uncertain services will be delivered in French beyond those authorized and required by the law of 1870.
I believe it is a very important day for us in this Parliament, Madam Speaker, that the three Parties in this place have agreed that they will make this joint statement to say that no matter how old, how forgotten, and no matter how few people were protected by it, the Constitution must stand if, indeed, we are to continue to exist as a civilized society. Wrongs must be righted.
We cannot undo the past, Madam Speaker, and I am not one of those who is constantly trying to rewrite history and trying to seek redress for decades, perhaps generations, of injustices, real or imagined. However, we can be just in our time. The events in Manitoba are calling on us to do precisely that, to assist in the re-establishment of a situation of laws where, from today onward into the future, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.
I am encouraged, Madam Speaker, that there is a disposition in this place to speak with one voice on that basic principle. I know it has been said, even in my own Province, by some political leaders-who it must be said do not believe in Canada, who perhaps have a vested interest in that only French be spoken in my Province and only English spoken elsewhere- that these are but a small minority, that they are all but lost. Why worry about them? Well, Madam Speaker, I think it is fundamental to our existence as a people and, indeed, to our survival as a nation that we say no matter how small the minority, if they have rights, those rights will be respected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Lest some think that we on this side are inventing some new principle or some new basic authority or policy to govern this country, I would ask the indulgence of the House to let me make two quotations from the debates which took place in 1890 when there was a resolution before the

October 6, 1983
Official Languages
Canadian Parliament to abolish the use of French in the Northwest Territories, and in effect that meant in all western Canada.
There was a resolution moved in the early months of 1890 by Dalton McCarthy, who proposed to abolish the official status of French in western Canada. In that debate Sir John A. Macdonald utters his famous declaration which still stands throughout the land, and I hope will stand during the many centuries that this country will exist. I quote:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other; I believe that it would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible.
So spake Sir John A. Macdonald on February 7, 1890.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was a great speech, Madam Speaker, but if I could be permitted to voice an opinion, I think the greatest speech in that debate was uttered a week later by Edward Blake, who had been leader of the Liberal Party and who sat beside Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the House. Blake-and I think we can keep in mind that he was perhaps one of the greatest legal minds that this country has known-on February 14, 1890 spoke as follows:
I am not of those who believe that our path is made plainer and straighten by the circumstances of different nationalities and of different creeds.
He saw the dangers, Madam Speaker, and the difficulties of a bilingual and multicultural society even in those days. Yet despite the difficulties and dangers he saw ahead, he declared, in words which do him honour, that the survival and development of French-speaking Canadians was "a victory for humanity". These are his own words, Madam Speaker:
-if, as the case is, it has imposed greater difficulties and more arduous efforts and toils on those who are engaged in making a nation of Canada, it yet, by that very circumstance, gave the chance for more exalted triumphs, gave an opening for the exhibition of still higher and deeper and broader feelings of justice and liberality and tolerance than are permitted to a wholly homogeneous people.
Blake concluded:
I maintain that it is the duty of those who truly regard the progress and prosperity of Canada, who hope to see it advance in its path towards nationality, to defend the rights of the minorities in this regard, as by law and by convention and by national settlement established. I intend for my part to defend them just as warmly as if I were one of themselves; and 1 should regard myself dishonoured and disgraced if I were now to yield to the forces which press me to any other course.
That, Madam Speaker, is the spirit of Confederation which this resolution asks the House to endorse today. It is a spirit which goes to the very basis of our society and I am deeply encouraged by the unanimity with which this debate will be concluded, as well as by the spirit of co-operation and understanding which existed between the Leaders of the Parties of this House and which has led us to move this debate and second it, Madam Speaker.
I do believe that this country has entered a new period of understanding. I believe that if the events in Manitoba turn out in the way we hope and pray and in the way we have confidence that the majority of the people of Manitoba will
understand, I have confidence that living in this country will be, for all those minorities and all those other people who are asking for greater measures of justice, a turning point in the life of our nation.

Our forefathers have built a country where life is not particularly easy but is based on tolerance and fraternity. Madam Speaker, we would be unworthy of them if we failed to do everything in our power to make this nation survive and prosper, this magnificent country that was founded on the principle of reciprocity, of cohabitation of cultures and the principle of minority rights.


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I speak today on a resolution of consequence before this House. I do so with pride and in the genuine hope that our action will be helpful to our fellow Canadians in Manitoba as they search for an equitable solution to a problem which has troubled the soul of this nation for over 100 years.
[ Translation]
The purpose of this resolution is one which has touched the soul of Canada for decades. When I was very young in Baie-Comeau, we were taught at the local school the sad story about some of our Francophone brothers outside of Quebec. Even at that young age, we knew that an injustice had been committed in Manitoba. We did not know why or how, but we knew that certain basic rules-which we Quebecers, Anglophones as well as Francophones, could benefit from-had been broken. A Francophone minority, which had enjoyed an historical protection of its language in Manitoba, was suddenly cut off-amputated-from this guarantee which was so vital. We knew also, Madam Speaker, without being able to really evaluate its consequences, the less than glorious role some of our Quebec leaders had played in the outcome of this very painful situation.
I do not want today to go over all of the steps, again make all of the accusations, recite all of the injustices. Still less do I intend to blame anybody, Madam Speaker. The facts are clear and speak for themselves.
Our collective evolution has determined that two peoples speaking English and French were united in a great national adventure. This unique situation has given birth to our Canadian citizenship. This very noble outcome has not been without failings, Madam Speaker. Neither has it been protected from constant assault by those who wish that we give it up for a less grandiose vision, a more limited country, a less generous mentality. There is even a Member of the PQ government who said that any such initiative to help the Francophone minority in Manitoba was stupid.
This resolution compels us to remember our overriding commitments in this country of almost limitless space, overflowing with great opportunities for the future. These commit-
October 6, 1983

merits comprise a respect for our linguistic and other minorities, a long-held desire to encourage their flowering, and the duty to protect the rights of our minorities-wherever they are.
Manitoba is going through a period of disturbance. In making this gesture today, I do not want to exacerbate the complexity of this situation. In the final analysis it is up to Manitobans themselves to decide. I hope that Manitoba's leaders, who I assume are acting in good faith, will work together in a spirit of generosity to ensure that Franco-Manitobans are treated with dignity and respect.
Thus we have today the occasion to state our position on this question here in the House of Commons. By this resolution before us, we are asked to make a gesture. The significance and the impact of this action relate first and foremost to profoundly human values, values which define to a large degree the kind of generosity of spirit typical of Canadian society.
It is with pride that I announce today, in the name of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, our unanimous support for the resolution which is before this House.
Years ago this House approved the principle of official bilingualism for Canada. Simply put, it means that English and French Canadians shall have equal rights and equal opportunities across Canada. It is a noble principle, one which is capable of enriching the life of this nation. By our stand today we reaffirm our commitment and that of our Party given earlier in this same House of Commons by outstanding and distinguished Canadians such as the Hon. Robert Stanfield and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).
Bilingualism is a valued principle and an indispensable dimension of our national life. The program, however, must be implemented with fairness and with equity. It is diminished if it comes to be perceived by large numbers of Canadians as an instrument of division or an instrument of unfairness. Governments must always be alert to this possibility. Excessive zeal and regrettable statements by public officials have seriously hindered worthy programs in the past. We do not want that to happen here.
We are all children of our environments. We bring to given problems the judgment that has been shaped by the realities to which we have been exposed in our lives. In Canada, particularly in the area of language, these differ widely according to individuals and according to regions because of our sense of history. We must seek to understand these differences and consider them not as obstacles but as guides to the elaboration of sensible and realistic policies which will enhance rather than lessen the attractiveness of such policies in the minds of all Canadians. Sensitivity to people and the presumption of good faith should be the hallmarks of implementation. They will ensure for bilingualism a more durable character and more
Official Languages
pervasive acceptance. In the larger sweep of history these qualities will have served the country better than a divisive gesture or an uncaring remark.
I want to say a word to the people of Manitoba. I am aware of the problems that have arisen in many of your communities. We do not seek today to make them more difficult. Sadness always results when there is division among us. Strong people take strong stands on major issues and have done so throughout our entire history.
Our days together as Canadians have not always been glorious but neither have they been without absolutely splendid accomplishment. For all our imperfections, we remain in Canada a country of promise and a people of hope. We have come through so much together against overwhelming odds that our citizenship has become a privileged symbol in our lives. Our respect for the rule of law, our unparallelled record in civil liberties, our sense of tolerance, our respect for our neighbour and his property have combined to make Canada an admired nation in the world.
The issue before us today is one that must be approached in a spirit of conciliation. This is a quality for which Manitobans are renowned. It does honour to them and to their Province. The issue before us today is also one of simple justice. There is no painless way to proceed. There is no blame to be apportioned. There are no motives to be impugned. There is only the sanctity of minority rights. There is no obligation more compelling and no duty more irresistible in Canada than to ensure that our minorities, linguistic and otherwise, live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Manitoba Members of Parliament in our caucus, along with many Manitobans at home, have been deeply troubled by this issue. I have shared with them their moments of anguish but they have responded with courage and with respect. In a great unifying gesture to all of Canada they stand with me and our Party today in a historic and unforgettable endorsement of a fundamental tenet of this nation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: My friend, Robert Cliche, was a great humanist who sought, at all times, conciliation, the right approach, respect for the common man whose rights have been abused. He often quoted Felix Antoine Savard who once wrote: "Happy are those men and those peoples who get along together".
I believe, Madam Speaker, that with this resolution we have helped the process of reconciliation which must take place in Manitoba.

October 6, 1983
Official Languages
Many years ago, Madam Speaker, in welcoming a group of immigrants to America, one of the most outstanding jurists in that country, in that great republic, described for his audience of freshly arrived immigrants-which is not inappropriate for us because this very House of Commons reflects the fact that we are a nation of minorities, we are a nation of immigrants and should be very proud of it-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -what he thought was most important at that time. However, I think he also, inadvertently no doubt, described what is best in our citizenship as well. Mr. Justice Hand referred to it as the "spirit of liberty." He told the group of immigrants that the spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right. The spirit of liberty seeks to understand the minds of other men and other women. The spirit of liberty weighs their interests alongside its own without bias. The spirit of liberty knows that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded. The spirit of liberty, he said, is the spirit of Him, who near 2000 years ago taught mankind a lesson that it has never quite learned and never quite forgotten, that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest. That is what this resolution is about today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: This resolution is about fairness. It is about decency. It is an invitation for co-operation and understanding. It speaks to the finest qualities in this nation.
I say to you on behalf of my entire Party on this or any great issue that affects this nation that we stand before you, Madam Speaker, united in the sunlight, ready to work for a better Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, in 1867 Canada was created when the rights of French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians were acknowledged. If that had not been the case there would have been no Canadian federation. These rights were originally recognized in Quebec and the Parliament of Canada, and without these crucial rights, Canada would not have continued to survive. The various crises we have experienced in the course of our history occurred largely because we failed to respect the letter and intent of this duality. Madam Speaker, history has shown that when the majority exercises its powers with tolerance and imagination, we obtain the cohesiveness that is essential to the unity of a country. On the other hand, when the majority of its leaders fails to respect this principle, conflict and injustice are the result. That is the situation we are faced with today.

We have to see the history of Manitoba itself in the context of this resolution. Manitoba Members who have studied the history of our country will recall that Manitoba was the first Province to join Confederation after 1867. It was not, I might underline here, the will of the Government in Ottawa that this Province should come into existence. Quite the contrary. The federal Government of the day wanted the whole of the Prairies to be ruled as a territory from Ottawa.
Manitobans felt differently. Led by Louis Riel, English and French-speaking Members of the Red River colony alike forced the federal Government by their own actions to take notice of the moral legitimacy of their claims to a government of their own.
It is this I want to emphasize today, Madam Speaker, that Manitobans set the trend for the historical development of western Canada by saying that they, indeed, should have a government of their own.
The new Province of Manitoba, established in 1870 by the Manitoba Act, reflected in law the reality of its population. By law, the English and French languages were put on an equal basis in the legislature and the courts. It was a good beginning. [Translation]
Unfortunately, twenty years later, the Government of Manitoba no longer recognized those rights, the Franco-Manitobans were no longer in the majority and had become a minority group. We, the majority, must recognize these facts and the consequences resulting from the disappearance of those rights. Franco-Manitobans had become strangers in their own country. They no longer had access to public education in French. Franco-Manitoban teachers who taught the French language and culture to their pupils were threatened with dismissal. They could not be themselves in public.

I am pleased as a Canadian to be able to say that in recent times this sad period in our history has witnessed a new page. Modern Manitoba is in most respects a very different place indeed. Not only has there been a cultural renaissance by Franco-Manitobans with their school rights clearly established, but also the infusion of Canadians whose ancestors came from every part of the globe has made Manitoba one of the most diverse and interesting of our Provinces. The composition of modern Manitoba governments and institutions has borne witness to this change in the population. Recent court decisions have also reflected this new tolerance, this enrichen-ing openness.
With the Supreme Court decidion of 1979 it became clear that the provincial Act of 1890 was not only morally offensive but also unconstitutional. It became clear that the rights of Franco-Manitobans must not only be restored in practice but also in law. It was in this context that the present Government of Manitoba, following in the footsteps of the Conservative Government which preceded it, began discussions with the
October 6, 1983

Societe franco-manitobaine. The result of these discussions is the legislation now being considered by the Manitoba legislature which in essence is supported by today's resolution in the House.
When this process is completed and when it is passed by Parliament, as I am convinced it will be, as an amendment to the Manitoba Act, it will become part of the Constitution of Canada. I want to emphasize a few points about this important resolution in the Manitoba legislature. It not only conforms with the constitutional requirement established in 1870 that English and French have equal status in the legislature and courts of Manitoba, it also extends with constitutional guarantees many provincial services to Franco-Manitobans in their own language.
The second point I would like to stress-and I say this particularly as the Leader of a federal Party-is that the essentials of the resolution in the Manitoba legislature were the product of Manitobans. Although certain technical details were provided by the federal Government, it is of great importance for us in this Parliament to recognize that this resolution is a western Canadian solution to a western Canadian problem which affects us all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The third point I would like to stress-and this is important given the very diverse nature of the country and the population of Manitoba-is that the resolution before the legislature of Manitoba has the support of the spokesmen for the Indian and Metis people of Manitoba. It has the support of virtually all organized ethnic groups in Manitoba and, it goes without saying, the support of the Government of Manitoba. In short, most of the leadership of those who constitute a majority in Manitoba are now fighting for the rights of the minority. It is very important for us to bear witness to this today.
Therefore, in this context I want to say that we in the rest of Canada owe the Government of Manitoba, Franco-Manitobans, Metis, Indians and the ethnic community of Manitoba, our appreciation for their initiative, our gratitude for their imagination, and our support for their leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In conclusion, what we are doing today in unanimously supporting this resolution goes beyond support for the details of a particular Bill in a single Province on a given date. We are now acting in the spirit of those who created Canada in 1867, who out of necessity and by imagination created our fundamental duality. We are supporting a spirit of tolerance and a respect for diversity which should always be the hallmark of Canada and of Canadians. Never again should any Canadian say-
[ Translation]
-I am a stranger in my own country.
Business of the House

And, with the kind of collective leadership demonstrated by all Canada's national Parties today, 1 am confident that in the future of our great land no Canadian ever again will have to say that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to House Order of October 5, 1983, this resolution is deemed to have been passed unanimously.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, October 5, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, after the last hour everything seems rather anticlimatic, but I would direct the usual Thursday question to the Government House Leader and ask him what the business for the remainder of the week will be and to take us as far along as he can into next week.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, in the same kind of spirit we could add something to Bill C-155 and it could be disposed of very quickly, within the next few hours. But presuming that we will need time to talk about it, I want to confirm to the House that we will be dealing with Bill C-155 respecting the Crows-nest Pass freight rates today, tomorrow and Tuesday of next week. I will advise the House if there is any change, and so far as the business for next Thursday is concerned, in due course.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the Government House Leader for that. I trust he is sufficiently recovered from his affliction to convene a House Leaders' meeting at an early date, subject to the way he feels physically, so that we might discuss other pressing matters which we have not done for over two weeks now and which have nothing to do with Bill C-155.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his wishes for a speedy recovery. I can assure him that my health is quite good and was certainly not my reason for not having any meetings during the past two weeks. Actually, since many members had indicated a desire to speak to the Bill we are debating in the House, there was no need to have meetings in order to discuss business of the House for the

October 6, 1983
Business of the House
next few days. That is why I did not hold any meetings. A meeting was scheduled yesterday to discuss the resolution the House just adopted on the rights of Francophones in Manitoba, but, as my colleague will recall, we negotiated behind the curtains during question period and quickly reached an agreement without requiring a formal meeting with very positive results, as the House is aware.
1 can assure the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that if he would like a meeting to discuss other than short-term business of the House or if he wishes to discuss short-term business as well, he merely has to notify me and I can assure him that I am always available to see him, on very short notice. We on this side of the House are always willing to discuss short-term House business, but I assumed that for the time being, neither his Party nor the New Democratic Party were willing to discuss the duration of debate on Bill C-155, and since this is the only bill on the agenda and since it is our main priority before we consider proroguing, I did not think it would serve any purpose to have these meetings. However, if my colleague wants a meeting, we could have one at his earliest convenience.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would like, at the Government House Leader's convenience, to have such a meeting, not particularly to discuss business in this Chamber, but other matters relating to the administration of the House and so on which have been piling up on my desk in the last two or three weeks.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if my colleagues are willing, we shall decide on a time acceptable to all parties. Perhaps we could meet early next week, Tuesday or later, some time during the day, unless my colleague prefers a meeting this afternoon, but I know that we are to discuss the procedural aspect of the amendments, and I think it would be more useful, unless my hon. colleague indicates otherwise, to meet early next week.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I asked the Government House Leader some time ago and then asked the Acting House Leader some time in the last two weeks what has become of Bill C-653. Quite clearly the Bill seems to be lodged somewhere in committee. The Government House Leader indicated to me that he would check with the committee and perhaps the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to determine what the Government's intentions are with regard to this. I wonder whether he knows if something will be coming up in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we avoid interfering in the business of committees, but the Minister I referred to the
other day was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, perhaps the House Leader of the NDP is unaware that that Bill is now before committee, that the committee is holding current meetings and witnesses were heard this morning. I imagine that when the committee finishes its work, it will be back very shortly.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of committee reports.


Mr. Tessier:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House for tabling an amended version of the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, to replace the report tabled in the House on Thursday, September 29, 1983.


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


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with our critic, the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley), and we quite agree that it can be presented.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the unanimous consent of the House and may therefore proceed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Claude Tessier: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, as amended.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
October 6, 1983


PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present petitions from three communities in my constituency, Prince Rupert, Telegraph Hill and Kitimat. The petitioners are asking that their concerns regarding adult programming and the proliferation of pornography in various media be considered by this House and this Parliament as soon as possible, and that the Broadcasting Act be amended in the way proposed by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) on March 8 of this year.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,678, 4,679 and 5,010.


Mr. McKenzie: Does the Secretary of State intend to personally involve himself in the application of the Official Languages Act in Quebec, especially at Nordair, or does he consider that Quebec has only one official language?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: The question deals with the Secretary of State's personal involvement in applying the Official Languages Act in Quebec generally, and, more specifically, with respect to Nordair.
The Official Languages Act applies in all of the Canadian provinces, including the Province of Quebec, with respect to matters within federal jurisdiction and to subjects and entities to which the Act's provisions are expressly made to apply.
The Secretary of State is responsible for ensuring that those government services offered by his Department conform to the Official Languages Act and to federal bilingualism policy generally. His mandate also includes the encouragement and facilitation of the use of both official languages in operations of organizations and institutions in the private sector and in the non-federal public sector.
More specifically, with respect to Nordair, it should be noted that the Secretary of State is not responsible for ensuring that the provisions of the Official Languages Act are adhered to by Crown Corporations or subsidiaries of Crown Corporations such as Nordair, that are within the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. However, the Secretary of State would presume that, as a matter of policy and practice,
Order Paper Questions
Nordair would endeavour to provide its services to the travelling public in both official languages.


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River): 1.	Does the Department of the Environment have any record of the amount of salt used to keep roads clean in Canada on a yearly basis and, if not, for what reason?
2.	To the knowledge of the Government, what is the amount of salt being used by municipal, regional, provincial and federal Governments to keep roads and sidewalks clean on an annual basis?
3.	Has the Department done any research or sponsored any research on the effect of this salt on the freshwater resources of each region of Canada and upon the soil quality of each region of Canada?
4.	Has the Department taken a position on the use of salt for the above purposes and has it determined the safe level for the disposal of salt into the environment and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of the Environment and Statistics Canada as follows:
1.	Environment Canada does not keep records on the amount of salt used annually in Canada for de-icing purposes. Research into de-icing practices has shown that the impact on the receiving environment is of a localized nature and may range in significance from nil to severe depending on several site-specific variables. In terms of environmental priorities, however, de-icing practice on highways and roads is not a significant national issue and does not justify the resources that would be necessary for collection and management of salt-use data.
2.	Statistics Canada does not collect statistics on the amount of salt used by municipal, regional, provincial and federal Governments to keep roads and sidewalks clean on an annual basis.
3.	Yes.
4.	Because of the localized nature of the problem of the many site-specific variables that influence the definition of "safe" or "hazardous", concentrations of salt in snow melt, Environment Canada has not developed a national effluent objective for salt concentrations in point and non-point discharges to the environment.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Did the Canada Council distribute copies of the book "Flaunting It" and, if so, how many were distributed to (a) libraries (b) prisons (c) senior citizens' clubs (d) cultural centres (e) hospitals (0 native peoples (g) primary schools (h) high schools?
2.	How many copies of the book did the Council purchase?
3.	What was the total cost of the book to the Council?
4.	What were the distribution costs of the book to the Council?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows:
1.	Yes.

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
(a)	libraries (not including school libraries)	51
(b)	prisons
(c)	senior citizens' clubs	9
(d)	cultural centres (broadly defined and not appearing elsewhere on this list) 16
(e)	hospitals	4(0	native people's organizations	g(g)	primary schools	4(h)	high schools	732.	The Council purchased 208 copies.3.	The total cost was $1,489.28.4.	Distribution costs are not separately accounted for individual titles. Distribution of kits of 200 titles cost a total of $21,920, so the average per title was $109.60 or, in the case of "Flaunting It", approximately 60 cents per copy.
[ Translation]


André Maltais: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone)-Grain-Western Grain Stabilization Program, (b) Five-year averaging principle; the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)- Grain-Increase in premiums-Request for change in payout formula.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 33 (Mr. Mazankowski).
Madam Speaker:: Before embarking on the procedural arguments that Hon. Members will undoubtedly wish to make to enlighten the Chair, I would like to categorize for the benefit of Hon. Members the motions and the reasons behind my reservations concerning their acceptability. I think that will contribute to focusing the debate and having it take place with a certain order. I suggest to Hon. Member that it would facilitate the procedural debate if they were to relate their remarks to a group of motions, and I will group them, except of course where a motion stands by itself.
Motion No. 1 attempts to introduce into the Bill a disguised preamble. This is a very interesting point. It is not often that an Hon. Member attempts to amend a Bill in such a way as to include a clause setting out the objectives of Parliament in relation to the transportation of grain. Although the motion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) does not include the normal "whereas" paragraphs, it is an attempt to place in the Bill a preamble. In other words, what the Hon. Member cannot do directly he is attempting to do indirectly. In this regard I refer Hon. Members to a statement I made on July 13, 1981, at page 11463 of Hansard, in which 1 had referred to a previous ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on June 11, 1973, in relation to the inclusion of a preamble in a Bill.
Motions Nos. 2 to 19 inclusive, 59, 64, 66, 67, 70, 129, 134, 135 and 145 are substantive amendments to interpretation clauses namely, Clauses 2, 34 and 54 of the Bill. These motions attempt to modify existing definitions in various interpretation clauses throughout the Bill or tend to add completely new definitions or transfer definitions from Parts II and III of the Bill to Clause 2 which offers definitions for the entire Bill. In order to assist Hon. Members, Motion No. 14, for instance, standing in the name of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), changes substantially the definition of the word "grain" as it appears in Clause 2 of the Bill. Motion No. 129, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville would add to the Bill a new definition "Government contribution to cost increases". May I refer Hon. Members to a ruling of one of my predecessors which can be found at page 61 of Journals for October 28, 1970 when he said that, "It is not good procedure to try and introduce a substantive amendment by way of modification of the interpretation clause".
Motions Nos. 20 to 23 inclusive, 28, 36, 41, 54, 57, 80, 81, 85 89 and 166 go beyond the scope of the Bill. For example. Motions Nos. 22 and 23, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), add to Clause 2 new subsections which would impose conditions and burdens on the Canadian Pacific Railway not contemplated in the Bill as agreed to by this House at second reading.
Again, Motion No. 57, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville, introduces into the Bill a new clause which would allow for agreements to be made between the Minister and the railway companies other than railway companies as defined in Clause 2. Since the Bill covers only those railway companies which come under federal jurisdiction, I find Motion No. 57 to be outside the scope of this Bill.

October 6, 1983
Motions Nos. 87, 139, 146, 147, 150, 153, 155 and 165 are contrary to the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading. The purpose of the Bill, as 1 understand it, is to provide for new rates for the movement of grain through the Crowsnest Pass. Motion No. 87, for example, would keep the rates as they existed on June 16, 1983. This, in my view, is clearly contrary to the principle of the Bill. In other words, the amendments propose to negate the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading. That is really the difficulty with which the Chair is confronted.
Motions Nos. 104 to 114 inclusive, 172 and 173 infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. For example, Motion No. 105, by allowing a shipment in excess of 31.1 million tonnes to qualify for the Crow benefit and Motion No. 172 by adding new crops to Schedule I would involve expenditures not covered by the Royal Recommendation. It would extend the objects and purposes or relax the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.
Motions Nos. 51, 73, 86 and 151 give the Chair difficulties for two reasons. They are contrary to the principle of the Bill and infringe upon the Crown's financial initiative.
Motions Nos. 74, 152 and 157 are new propositions which are clearly outside the scope of the Bill. Motion No. 157 proposes to place in the Bill a new Part IV concerning "Shipper Share Limitations". This is a new concept not envisaged in the Bill. As Motion No. 74 is consequential to Motion No. 157, whatever decision is made on Motion No. 157 will also apply to Motion No. 74. Motion No. 152 proposes to extend the Crow benefit to the grain producers of the Peace River district, which likewise was not covered by the Bill as read a second time.
Motions Nos. 75 and 116 to 126 inclusive were dealt with in my statement on Monday last. They are clearly irrelevant to the Bill as amended by the committee and reported to the House. Any Member who compares these motions with the Bill as reprinted will quickly see what I mean. I would urge the Hon. Member who presented these motions to look at that. I am sure that he will readily agree with me.
As stated in Section 4 of Citation 773, Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
An amendment is inadmissible if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules, or if it is otherwise incomplete.
This rule must by extension be followed at the report stage.
Motion No. 174 proposing to amend the title will be ruled on by the Chair when the motion is reached, as I have indicated earlier this week.
I would therefore propose, in the interest of clarity and for the early conduct of the debate, to call upon the Hon. Member for Vegreville to present argument in support of Motion No. 1 standing in his name, and thereafter proceed to hear argument on the other motions grouped in the categories which I have suggested.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I would like to warn all Hon. Members that this of course is not a debate on substance; it is merely a debate on procedure. I will only allow arguments that deal with procedure and will not allow Members to go into the substance of this Bill because that debate will take place in the House later. These procedural arguments are naturally of interest to the debate in the House and that is why I am allowing them. I will ask all Hon. Members to keep very much in mind that they are presenting procedural arguments to the Chair and nothing else. I am warning then that I will be very strict as to relevance in all of their interventions.
I would also like Hon. Members to be brief because we have in mind that the debate on this particular Bill shall be unrepetitive, and that is one of the reasons I have suggested that we group the motions so that all motions which refer to certain procedural difficulties should be discussed together. The same arguments would apply to all of these motions. Therefore, I would ask Hon. Members to be brief and unrepetitive, because these arguments are allowed in compliance with the Speaker's discretion as outlined in Standing Order 75(10) which reads as follows:
The Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgment upon it.
The rules are very clear. There is the discretion of the Speaker to call upon Members to give explanations concerning their amendments. I would ask Hon. Members to take into account as well the beginning of that Standing Order which reads:
The Speaker shall have the power to select or combine amendments or clauses-
Of course, that means that the Speaker has the power to rule on the acceptability of amendments. Should the debate become repetitive or if it does not focus on procedural arguments and goes instead into substance, then there are other powers which the Speaker may use. I think all Hon. Members should be well aware of that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret having to interrupt my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), but before we find ourselves in any further difficulties, I would like to call something to the attention of the Chair. I would like to make it clear right now, Madam Speaker, that in no way am I calling into question a previous ruling of the Chair.
We are presently dealing with Motion No. 33. The next two motions to come up are Motions Nos. 34 and 35 which are consequential. If Motion No. 34 stands and is adopted, Motion No. 35 drops. If Motion No. 34 is not adopted, then we move to Motion No. 35.
I draw to your attention, Madam Speaker, that I drew to the attention of the House on Thursday, September 29, that I was pleased to hear your preliminary ruling dealing with Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29, that Motion No. 24 would

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
be voted on separately and an affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 would also dispose of Motions Nos. 26 and 27. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 25 would require further voting on Motion No.-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like the Hon. Member to tell me exactly what he wants the Chair to understand. We know all of this. We have been through the consequences of adopting one motion or another motion which stands on the Order Paper. The Hon. Member needs not repeat that.
I am just wondering if the Hon. Member is referring to the ruling of the Chair made when the Deputy Speaker was in the Chair. If he is doing so, he knows that that ruling has been made and that he has been asked consistently by those who were in the chair at the time not to come back before the House with that particular problem because, in the view of the Chair, that problem has been solved.
It appears to me that if the Hon. Member wants his Motion No. 25 to be debated now when, as a consequence of what was voted upon in the House, that motion is supposed to be redundant, which it is, I cannot allow the Hon. Member to discuss that. When a vote was taken on Motion No. 26 the Hon. Member had all the liberty in the world to vote against it, which he did not. He therefore seems to have expressed his view that he was in favour of Motion No. 26 and, as a consequence of Motion No. 26 having been voted, Motion No. 25 is redundant.
1 will not hear any more from the Hon. Member on this particular point.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Not on this particular point, Madam Speaker. I want to draw attention to a preliminary ruling of Madam Speaker, the first one put out in which she dealt with Motions Nos. 24 to 29, leaving out Motion No. 28. I have been seeking the guidance of the Chair. I am not sure whether I have a question of privilege or a point of order. The House decided on Friday last-and I should like to quote what the House decided-prior to the ruling of the Chair-I am seeking the Chair's advice on what recourse I have.
As reported at page 27600 of Hansard, the Deputy Speaker said:
I call the attention of the Hon. Member for Regina West to the fact that he apparently has spoken in the course of this debate and cannot be recognized again-
As reported on the same page, I said:
Mr. Speaker. I rose on a point of order. The Minister asked for the guidance of the Chair.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member will not go on in this vague and confused way. The Chair is obviously confused and has no idea what the Hon. Member is talking about. I want him to tell me clearly if he has a point of order. I should like him to decide in his mind whether he has a point of order or a
question of privilege. I cannot determine that for him. He can then rise and make his point, but rising and making a speech which the Chair is absolutely unable to understand will not be allowed at this point.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I will quote the record of the House and ask for your guidance since your advisers did not bother to read Hansard. At page 27600, in the right-hand column, one-third of the way down, this appears:


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I take it, then, that the Government is prepared to accept Motions Nos. 26 and 27, which are the same as the original wording of the Bill. Can I take it, then, that now he would bring in his consequential amendments to Motions Nos. 26 and 27 but that-
Madam Speaker, I wish you would stay.
-Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 29-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The record of Hansard will show that the Hon. Member has had extraordinary opportunities to raise this point of order. Having been the last occupant of the Chair to deal with the matter, I indicated at that time that the speakership and the Chair are indivisible in the House of Commons. I also indicated that the person who occupied the Chair when the ruling was made, the Deputy Speaker, ruled this point of order out of order.
I took a great deal of time to offer the Hon. Member opportunities for discussion behind the curtain in order that he might achieve what he wants to achieve.
I also took considerable time to indicate to the Hon. Member that no further consideration of this point of order would be given from the Chair in a procedural sense. I offered him the opportunity that he might like to take the benefit of advice from Table officers who might assist him. I went even further and suggested to him that he might consider some discussion with other Members of the House in order that he might make his point on this particular motion.
This point of order is now closed; it was closed the day before yesterday and it will continue to be closed. I will not recognize the Hon. Member on that point again. Debate please-and not the Hon. Member for Regina West under any circumstances.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on a different point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: On a different point of order?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since the Chair-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I left the Chair for a few seconds in order to let the Acting Speaker, who dealt with this matter and who knew the exact sequence of events and could relate to the exact words of that particular non-debate, take over.
As the Acting Speaker has said, that matter is closed. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order. It is not closed.
October 6, 1983


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, 1 wonder if I-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might defer to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr,. Nielsen), the House Leader, who will be presenting general arguments on your ruling, including Motion No. 1. I hope I will have the opportunity to participate in the debate at a later time but I think it would be important to have him outline in a general the thrust of our arguments.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order-


Erik Nielsen: I have had discussions with the Minister for the sake of order. Since I may agree with some of the Arguments he presented to the Chair I should like to hear those, and it may cut down on the time necessary for my presentation and thus save the time of the House.
In the meantime, however, I wish to stake out a caveat with respect to Standing Order 75(10). I think the logic of the Chair is eminently reasonable and, to use the words of the Chair, I would suggest to Hon. Members that it would facilitate the procedural debate if the groupings outlined by the Chair were to be adopted.
My problem is that I have spent some five to six days preparing my arguments on the 174 amendments and they do not happen to fall into the groupings that the Chair would like to see. It would have been an excellent idea for me to proceed in that way but I only knew this morning that that was the suggestion of the Chair.
I would not want to think for a moment that Standing Order 75(10) would be applied to give the Chair the same discretion with respect to the grouping of amendments for procedural submissions as the power exists in the Chair for the grouping of amendments for purposes of debate. I notice that Madam Speaker nods her head in the negative but I should like to make my submission before the Chair comes to that conclusion.
I think the suggestion of the Chair is eminently reasonable-had I known of it in advance. I am sorry that I did not think of it myself; I should have, but I did not. My argument, which has taken several days to prepare, is not going to conform strictly to the suggestion of the Chair.
I would suggest that the Chair hear the Minister first with respect to the Government amendment, and I will listen very carefully to those arguments. If there is any way I can accommodate those arguments I shall do so. That will likely result in a more ordered procedural debate and perhaps will even cut down the time I need to present the rather lengthy procedural argument that I have.


Madam Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member for Yukon if he could make an effort to proceed with his argumentation in the order of the groupings I have made. He will obviously recognize that many of these amendments have to do with the
Western Grain Transportation Act
same argument since some infringe upon the financial responsibility of the House, with the introduction of a preamble, with the scope of the Bill and against the principle-the arguments are the same.
I am sure that the Hon. Member, who has such a brilliant intellect, will re-organize that very, very quickly, and I hope he will do so.
L'hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):
Madam Speaker, we have no substantial objection to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) defending his own amendments. Perhaps it would help shorten the procedural debate the Chair has allowed on the subject. Now, I do not intend to repeat the argument I made before: former Standing Order 75(10) is quite clear in that the Chair has discretionary power but, with due respect, I would say that it is limited. If former Standing Order 75(10) is interpreted literally only the member who gave notice of an amendment and no one else, can provide explanations. This Standing Order reads as follows:
(10) Mr. Speaker shall have power to ... call upon any member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable Mr. Speaker to form a judgment upon it.
A literal interpretation of the Standing Orders would mean that in theory, only such members who have given notice of an amendment can be heard or asked for explanations, if you so desire. It is in our view very generous of you to allow a debate which goes beyond the provisions of former Standing Order 75(10). We on this side of the House certainly do not want to take advantage of your generosity, but we have no objection to the Minister who moved these amendments wanting to provide some explanation or to you wanting to hear him. If this shortens the procedural debate on the part of the Opposition, all the better!


Madam Speaker:: I simply want to remind the Hon. Minister that, more often than not, the Standing Orders are not interpreted literally. They are a guide. Some must of course be followed to the letter, but when a Standing Order provides some discretion, this discretion exists! In any case, I believe that these explanations which are being allowed will facilitate this debate.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the courtesy of the Chair and of the House Leader of the Conservative Party in allowing me to present our arguments first. I hope it is done for the sake of brevity. I would intend in my remarks, Madam Speaker, to speak to the rulings on three of the proposed Government amendments, Motions Nos. 14, 74 and 157, as put forward in the Order Paper. Also, for the sake of saving time, I would like

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
to speak to the amendment put forward by my colleague on this side of the House, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), which is Motion No. 152. Finally, I would like to make some additional comments on a few of the amendments put forward on behalf of the Opposition Parties. I believe we would be in a position to make some favourable comments on them and perhaps be able to help the Chair make a decision in that area. If that particular procedure is acceptable to the Chair, I will proceed. First, to deal with the matter of-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I would really prefer the Hon. Minister to discuss these amendments according to groupings. As I see now, the Hon. Minister intends to go through all of the amendments on which he would like to speak. That, I believe, would be confusing to everyone.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Madam Speaker:: If the Minister is now going to speak first, perhaps he could choose to speak on an amendment or group of amendments where the same arguments are relevant. Then I will let other Hon. Members speak on those particular amendments. I can then have complete explanations at least on a group of amendmnents.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I said in my previous intervention that the suggestion made by the Chair just today makes eminent sense. If we had established previously that that was the desire of the Chair, it would have been a good suggestion-had we known five days ago when we started preparing. But what the Chair is now asking us to do is to toss aside that five days of preparation, with what has been sprung on us just now.
Quite frankly, I could more easily follow the Minister if he proceeds as he suggests. But I intend to follow the wish of the Chair and try to keep within those groupings as far as I can. However, the Chair will, I am sure, show some leniency if I am not able to do that in all cases because my submissions and arguments have been prepared. They have been in the course of preparation for some five days, and I heard this suggestion just this morning. I am sure the Minister will follow that course as well, as far as he can. Right now, I am sure I can follow him more intelligently if he proceeds as he has suggested.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, indeed. There might have been some indication in the way in which I grouped the arguments in my preliminary ruling. However, it is a rare occasion when both the Minister and the Opposition House Leader agree on a procedure to be followed-


Erik Nielsen: That is the way the day started.


Madam Speaker:: I suppose the Chair would be placing itself in a very strange position if it were to insist on opposing that. I suggested a plan which I thought was logical and which would lead to orderly debate. However, if disorderly debate-if I may qualify it that way-or any other way of debating something is made easier by whatever plans Hon. Members have, I am willing to go along with that, and I will reorganize the arguments in my office once I have heard them.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for your judgment and discretion. You indicated that this day began with a rare note of unanimity. We are now continuing. I hope we can find some way of bottling that essence when we get to the debate on this Bill and thereby, perhaps, we could get it all concluded by six o'clock tonight.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: Dream on!


Lloyd Axworthy: It was a try, anyway. When you are on a good roll, you might as well keep going. The first amendment, Madam Speaker, which was proposed at report stage by the Government is Motion No. 14. It deals with the definition of grain and amends the Bill. I have read your ruling on this motion. I think it is clear you feel this is a substantive amendment to the interpretive Clause. I believe, as you quite rightly say, that according to a strict interpretation of the rules it would not normally be accepted under the procedure. However, I would like to make the case to you that what we are in fact doing in this particular motion is simply responding to a substantive part of the Bill which has already been accepted by the Chair under Motion No. 164, which gives the Governor in Council the right to add grains as part of Schedule I. That is simply a way of allowing Cabinet, the Governor in Council, to put forward additional specialty crops under the schedule, which would make them eligible for payment under the Crow regime. In order to make that happen, as you have already approved under Motion No. 164, we need to alter somewhat the definition under this motion in the interpretive area. All we are really doing under this motion is enabling the Governor in Council to include this definition of grain as part of the scheduling and, therefore, make it eligible for that rule.
I would only say, Madam Speaker, that this is partly the kind of result I saw taking place in committee where that flexibility was being shown and where some of the interpretations in the Bill, because they have consequence back to the substance, and vice versa, have to be tied together. I would hope, Madam Speaker, that you might accept that argument. I believe it might have the general acceptance of Hon. Members on the other side of the House. It would certainly not in any way change the substance, intent or meaning of the Bill. It would just facilitate the operation of the Governor in Council in this particular respect.
The second matter with which I would like to deal are two motions which are linked together, that is Motion No. 74 and Motion No. 157. Motion No. 157 is really the operative clause because it is dealing with the so-called safety net proposition. That was included by my predecessor in this portfolio as of May 10 as a way of providing a stronger guarantee of protection for farmers against any potential income loss if there were to be a drastic decline in the price of grain or a drastic increase in the cost of grain. The real question is, does it change the
October 6, 1983

intent, meaning or substance of the Bill? I do not believe it is a surprising proposition, Madam Speaker, because it is one which has been requested by Hon. Members in the Opposition.
I believe the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) in debate on March 2 introduced the idea into second reading debate at that particular point in time. The acceptance in principle was announced by my predecessor on May 4. The text of the amendment was released and circulated to Members of the House on May 31 during second reading and was not acceptable at that time because of that. But it was introduced, so it was fair notice. Certainly during the course of the committee hearings many witnesses endorsed and supported the idea of a safety net. The question is, does it in fact in any way run counter to the intent of the Bill or does it enhance it? 1 would make the case that it is very clearly within the context of the Bill, because not only does the Bill provide for compensation to the railways, it has a number of clauses deemed to be acceptable which provide protection for the farmers against loss of income. There is the limit on the farmers' share of cost increases over the years through a 3-3-3-6 formula. There are various amendments which deal with performance guarantees from the railways to ensure a degree of protection for farmers. There is the railway investment guarantee. There is a key clause, which has been accepted as part of a motion, dealing with the establishment of review machinery which would take place as soon as the Bill is passed. This is designed to look at methods of payment and the way in which it impacts on farmers' income and performance.
So there are a number of parts of this Bill which have as the principle the protection of farmers' income and their ability to pay. This is a sort of additional clause to enhance that particular area. I recognize that it is a substantial amendment, no question about that, but I do believe it lies within the course of these amendments. I not only recommend it to yourself, Madam Speaker, but obviously to other Members of the House. I believe it will be generally endorsed as further protection for the grain producer.
Motion No. 74, which you also ruled out, is really consequential to Motion No. 157. It is a way of adding to the actual amount of Government compensation to take into account the question of a safety net. So if you accept Motion No. 157, then Motion No. 74 would follow on it.
I want to speak briefly to Motion No. 152, Madam Speaker, in the name of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River. As you have said, it proposes a new scheme not contemplated in the Bill. The substance has some attraction. It is in a sense a living experiment of an alternative method of payment to producers. This is not the time to debate the policy implications but rather the motion's procedural acceptability. The Government finds itself in agreement with the Speaker's ruling that it is not within the boundaries of the Bill according to the rules of procedure, even though the substance may be worth examination at some point in time.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I might conclude by speaking to the amendment put forward by the Progressive Conservatives, particularly Motion No. 10, the definition of "export" put forward by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). This was the subject of some interesting debate during examination here and in committee. I would not want to comment on its procedural acceptability. That is really within your purview. But I would indicate that if it is ultimately ruled out of order, the Government would be prepared to give consent to introduce it, as we consider it favourably and are in agreement with it. So if it is ruled out of order, we would be prepared to accept it by unanimous agreement because it does enhance the Bill.
On the question of Motion No. 57, presented by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the so-called British Columbia Railway amendment, I would simply point out that if it presents procedural difficulties, then Government Motion No. 56 addresses the same issue. I believe that has been accepted by the Speaker, although the Hon. Member may want to address this matter, or perhaps his House leader.
I think Motion No. 156 is the same as Motion No. 57 and will have the same impact and consequences.
Those are the comments I have concerning procedural matters, and I thank the Hon. Members for their time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, this is a rather unique arrangement. Let me say just briefly and perhaps my House leader may want to comment further-I think the Minister is right with respect to Motion No. 14. The definition of "grain" is really consequential upon Motion No. 164, which would give the Governor in Council the power to add additional grains under the statutory freight rate regime. I believe my colleagues and I would have no difficulty with that.
Regarding Motion No. 157, while it is true that this is not a new issue-it was injected into debate by the former Minister of Transport and, for all intents and purposes, was considered to be an integral part of this legislation-the committee had difficulty debating this issue because of its procedural unacceptability. I am pleased that the distinguished Chairman of that committee is in the House today. We regret very much that we were not able to discuss this matter because it was something committee Members clearly wanted to debate. The principle is perhaps acceptable, but I am not sure whether the detail is acceptable. While we are sympathetic to the inclusion of Motion No. 157, I would think that in its present form we would have some difficulty with the detail. That is not to say that we are not prepared to discuss it at a later point. Perhaps there can be some agreement reached, so I will leave that open.
With respect to Government Motion No. 156 and the provision to include other railway companies under the provisions of this Act, and Motion No. 57 standing in my name, I think the Minister is correct. Those two motions have the same intent, and to the extent the Government's amendment is found in order, I would certainly have no difficulty in accepting the suggestion made by the Minister in support of the Government's motion. I think that for all intent and purposes
27830

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act it achieves the same purpose, and what we are after is an enabling provision for the Governor in Council to enter into an agreement with another railway, subject to the terms and conditions which may be outlined.
So, in a preliminary way, I think we can support the Minister on a couple of the items with respect to Motion No. 157, but 1 think it will require some further discussion.


Erik Nielsen: We are already making progress. The Hon. Member for Vegreville stipulated that we are prepared to consent to the Minister's proposals with respect to Motion No. 14. For his part, the Minister is prepared to consent to our Motion No. 10 dealing with the definition of "export", and to Motion No. 57 which is the same as Motion No. 156. I would suggest we need not go as far as the Minister has suggested and require the Chair to rule on those three items because if we have the consent of the NDP with respect to the meeting of the minds we have here we can dispose of Motions Nos. 10, 14, 57 and 156 immediately. The Hon. Member has left the door open on Motion No. 157, and I would suggest the Minister and the Hon. Member get together and perhaps an agreement on the wording of that motion might be arrived at, along with a representative of the NDP.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 had not anticipated that we would begin the negotiation process here on the floor of the House.


Erik Nielsen: It will save time.


Ian Deans: It will not save time, unfortunately. To begin, the argument right now is not a matter of determining the question of desirability. At the moment we are arguing whether something is admissible or not within the parliamentary rules.
We can determine later what may be desirable. It may well be that we could think many of our amendments were desirable. If that were to be the criteria used to determine whether thay are admissible, I suggest we could cast out the Speaker's ruling and say that we think they are all desirable and then get on with the debate on each of the amendments. However, that is not what we are charged with addressing this afternoon.
We are charged with determining whether certain things are admissible under normal practices and precedents of those normal practices in the House of Commons. I want to deal strictly with that for the time being.
1 would contend that the Speaker is correct in her ruling that Motions Nos. 14, 74 and 157 are inadmissible. I would suggest that there are in fact other motions which I would be quite content to concede are inadmissible. I would suggest that they are inadmissible for exactly the reasons set out by the Speaker in the preliminary ruling. Desirable though they may be, they go beyond the scope of the Bill.
In the case of Motions Nos. 157 and 74, they clearly go beyond the concepts as they were debated at second reading and in the committee. Bearing that in mind, if it were to be
decided as a result of some further negotiation that those particular proposals were desirable, we could, of course, come to the Speaker at any time and point out that there is unanimous consent for the inclusion of one or more amendments notwithstanding how the Speaker might rule.
Therefore I would ask that we deal strictly with admissibility on the floor of the House and that we determine the admissibility of the amendments as they stand. I contend that these particular amendments are not admissible. I suggest that we make our submissions on the admissibility of all of the amendments so that the Chair may then make a determination. Once we have seen which are acceptable and which are not, and then which ones may be desirable but not admissible, we then have a procedure to follow subsequent to this one. Through that process we can see which of the Liberal amendments, Conservative amendments and NDP amendments, though technically inadmissible, are desirable and therefore ought to be negotiated into the Bill.
Therefore I say that the Speaker has quite correctly ruled. There is ample precedent, which I will not go into, for ruling that a motion that (a) is not touching upon those matters decided at second reading or not contained in the Bill at the time of approval in principle, and (b) alters the intent of the Bill in such a way as to make it considerably different from the Bill that was given second reading, cannot be accepted on the strict test of admissibility.
Let me use Motion 157 as an example since it touches on all the others. It is entirely new. The only thing which has not changed is the number in the Bill. Beyond that, the wording is entirely different and the intent is entirely different. It is not an intent that was debated in the House at any other time nor is it an intent that could legitimately be placed before the committee for discussion. Quite clearly, it is not a matter that has been ruled on within the context of the principle of the Bill. Therefore I would suggest to the Speaker that, notwithstanding the good intentions of my two colleagues, I would find it quite unacceptable simply to make decisions on whether something is good or bad at this time. I suggest, rather, that we make decisions on admissibility, and I would contend that those matters are inadmissible.
While I have the floor, I ask that we look at a matter which I believe will assist us in determining the admissibility of certain amendments. Earlier today, the question arose as to the definition of the Bill. While I do not want to deal with that at the moment, I would like to deal with a question raised by the Speaker. When discussing the Bill earlier, the Speaker indicated that the intent of the Bill was to change the Crows-nest Pass freight rate. I believe that is a reasonable paraphrasing of the Speaker's words. However, that is not what the Bill says, and that is, of course, a major bone of contention in dealing with many of the amendments now being presented. If the intent of the Bill is indeed to change the Crownsnest Pass freight rate, then certain of the amendments might clearly be argued to be in order.
However, the Speaker will recall that at the time of the second reading debate and subsequently when we argued that
October 6, 1983

that was the intent of the Bill, we were told that it was not. We were told that the intent of the Bill was to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. Although it may appear at first gloss to be a point of some irrelevance, it is in fact a fundamental point when regarded in consideration of the intent of the Bill and the amendments that might be acceptable.
1 would therefore ask the Chair to consider that. 1 would want to argue at a later date, in quite a different vein, the admissibility of certain amendments that are before us if the Chair does indeed rule that the sole or even primary purpose of the Bill was to amend the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. I contend that if we deal with the statutory grain rate, then of course some of my argument will be quite different from what it would have been, taking into account what the Bill says, and what we were told repeatedly the Bill says, and what its intent is.
1 wonder if the Speaker would care to comment on that in order to determine what course to follow.


Madam Speaker:: Of course, it is not for the Speaker to determine what the full intention of the Bill is. The Hon. Member was referring to page 3 of my statement where I was certainly paraphrasing but giving an argument by way of an example that a certain amendment would be out of order since certain clauses of the Bill are intended to change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate and that whatever amendment I was discussing would mean exactly the contrary. 1 was giving this as an explanation of the way arguments can be mounted to say that a certain amendment is contrary to the principle of the Bill.
It is not for the Chair to determine the entire scope of the Bill, but it can determine that certain amendments go contrary to the expressed intentions within the Bill.


Ian Deans: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. The problem is that it poses a terrible dilemma. If the Bill is for the purpose of facilitating the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, then it is not unreasonable to propose amendments that deal strictly with the shipping and handling of grain as they are contained in the Bill. Some of the amendments are ruled out because they go beyond the scope of the bill. They would go beyond the scope of the Bill if the Bill were solely for the purpose of providing new rates for the movement of grain through the Crowsnest Pass. We are in a rather confused situation.
We have argued that the Bill was misnamed, that the Bill ought to have been called something else because that would then clearly define what its intent was. Therefore, you would know when you were going beyond the intent of the Bill. But in this case we are faced with the problem that the Bill says it does one thing when it does another. The Speaker has picked up very quickly on what it actually does, and has, in fact,
Western Grain Transportation Act
incorporated that on page 3 of the statement, which is what we have argued all along. I find that under normal circumstances this sort of confusion would never arise. In this case, because we are going to deal with-and I will not try right now to deal with it-the admissibility or the inadmissibility of the definition section, which would clear up the question, we are going to be faced with a dilemma. I just raise that for the Chair's consideration.
I understand the Speaker cannot change what is written on the face of the Bill. But what is written on the face of the Bill is not in any way the interpretation that any normal reasonable person, like yourself, Madam Speaker, could come to in reading the Bill.


Madam Speaker:: Could the Hon. Member, if he disagrees with that particular statement, enlighten the Chair and tell the Chair in what way the amendment he proposes fits or does not fit into the Bill? That would be of great interest to the Chair. The reason for which this period of debate is taking place is to allow Members to help the Chair in case the Chair has not fully understood the meaning of certain of those clauses, especially not having participated in the total debate that took place around this Bill, and has failed to understand exactly what was meant by certain amendments. It would be helpful if the Hon. Member could tell me exactly where he feels this fits or does not fit into the Bill.


Ian Deans: That will be part of my submission, Madam Speaker. I think, if you will allow me, I will introduce it as I go along and show you where I think that does infringe upon some of the amendments, rather than to pick them out right now and take undue time and probably infringe upon the time of my colleague who has a substantive statement to make about his views. I will do it as I unveil my views on what is wrong with certain of the proposals.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: will try to be very brief, Madam Speaker. I will speak first with regard to Motions Nos. 14, 74 and 157. It is my belief that it was the clear intention of the Government, perhaps not of the House, and it was accepted by the committee, that there would be amendments at report stage of the Bill brought in by the Government to do things with the Bill that were impossible for the committee to do because of the lack of the Royal Recommendation.


Ian Deans: That is too bad.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That would include the definition of grain by adding extra crops. If the definition of grain is static and cannot be changed except by an Act of Parliament, I suggest, Madam Speaker, that it will render the Bill rather stiff and inoperative because it will mean that new crops that should rightly be recipients of the Crow benefit would not be eligible without another Act of Parliament.
I do not think the Government or the House intended the Bill to be that restrictive in its nature. I would argue that this

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Bill is more than just a Bill to change the Crowsnest Pass rates. There are many other things in the Bill. It deals with the obligations that will be put upon the railways to provide a better transportation system. It deals with penalties to be imposed upon them if they do not. It deals, in several clauses, with limits which the farmers, the producers, will have to pay. There is no doubt it is increasing the cost of transportation to the producer, but it does limit the rate at which that cost can increase. It seems to me it was the clear intention to put a cap-if the cap is there in the Bill-on the cost to the farmers.
I would argue that Motions Nos. 14, 74 and 57 are within the scope of the Bill, provided they are covered by the Royal Recommendation, which Nos. 14 and 57 are. Motion No. 74 does not require an amendment to the Royal Recommendation because it simply incorporates a safety net into the calculation of the Government's contribution. Motion No. 157 would require an amendment to the Royal Recommendation, and that is provided with the amendment. I leave those three, Madam Speaker.
1 would like to speak on the various groupings now, if you want me do do so, or, if you prefer, I will wait until later and now make some comments about some of the others. But I can speak on those three motions now if that is what you prefer.


Madam Speaker:: I am just wondering at this point if the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) Has a main presentation to make. I had given the floor to the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and he deferred to the Hon. Member for Yukon, saying that the Hon. Member for Yukon would introduce this debate as far as the Opposition arguments are concerned. Here I am waiting for that magnificent presentation. Does the Hon. Member for the Yukon want to make it now?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, I will, Madam Speaker. Because it is relevant to the points raised thus far, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) has a very brief intervention to make. Then I will unburden myself on the Chair knowing full well the Chair will give the arguments which I will be presenting to it the entire weight they deserve.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise regarding Motion No. 10 that stands in my name. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) had mentioned there would be agreement. I have consulted with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), with the Minister of Transport and with other Members of the House and I will be withdrawing Motion No. 10 by leave. I will be asking leave to reintroduce a motion that I have reason to believe will be accepted unanimously by this House.
I ask whether you would like me to read it now. If I could notify the House of my intent by reading it, then at the appropriate time I could move the motion. The old motion would be withdrawn by leave. The new Motion No. 10 would read:
That Motion No. 10 be amended by substituting the following therefor:
"export" in respect of grain means shipment by vessel within the meaning of the
Canada Shipping Act to any destination outside Canada and shipment by any
other mode of transport to the United States for use of the grain in that country and not for shipment out of that country.
I would like your guidance, Madam Speaker, as to when the appropriate time would be to ask leave to introduce the motion.


Madam Speaker:: I would like the Hon. Member not to move that now because I would like to look at the new amendment. As soon as I am able to rule on it as to its acceptability, perhaps we can see what mode of procedure can be used to do that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, may I rise on a brief point of order and perhaps the Table officers can take note of this. Motion No. 130, which is in my name, and Motion No. 131 are duplicates. I think that was a typographical error.


Erik Nielsen: By Journals.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes. In Motion No. 130, I am proposing to delete lines 11 to 17 on page 30 which would delete the Section "Government share of the rate of cost change."
My second motion was to delete the section dealing with interim adjustment, lines 18 to 31. My motion, as proposed, was based upon the original Bill, the one before the reprinted version, so the lines do not correspond. I wonder if I might prevail upon the Chair and the Table officers to correct that because it would be rather useless to debate Motions Nos. 130 and 131, which are identical, when it was the intention to debate, in one case, the deletion of the Government's share of the rate cost change and, in the other, the interim adjustment. I would ask that that be considered.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my submission will be in three parts. The first part will be the briefest and falls within the suggestion by the Chair that I deal with motions according to group. The first group is Motion No. 1. I have read the concerns of the Chair with respect to Motion No. 1 which can be found on page III of the Order Paper for Monday, October 3, 1983. It is the intention that the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) be inserted immediately before the short title of the Bill as reprinted. It would appear that the precedents would support the Chair. Citation 779 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition reads:
(2)	Substantive amendments to the preamble are inadmissible unless the modification is proposed for purposes of clarification or uniformity. Journals, January 19, 1970, p. 323.
(3)	Where the bill, as introduced, does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one.
Of course this Bill does not contain a preamble. Citation 792 of Beauchesne's is to the same effect.
I find myself in agreement with the Chair's concern with respect to Motion No. 1. I would suggest to the Minister, who is at the moment unavoidably absent, that he might consider the desirability-and I would make the same suggestion to the NDP-of accepting Motion No. 1 as a preamble, and we could go about achieving that objective by consent.
October 6, 1983

Having dealt with that matter, I wish now to present a global submission with respect to all Government amendments that have been introduced and are now on the Order Paper pursuant to Standing Order 79(6). That Standing Order provides that the Government may propose an amendment requiring a Royal Recommendation at report stage of a Bill if at least 24 hours' written notice is given of the recommendation and the proposed amendment. 1 submit that there can be no doubt, therefore, that the Government has the right to introduce, as it has, amendments which require the Royal Recommendation. However, I have some concern about the form of the Royal Recommendation the Government has attached to its amendments.
I will not go into the question of the financial initiative of the Crown, nor will I trace the development of the Royal Recommendation or its applicability to the amendments in question. The Government has determined-and I agree-that its amendments require a Royal Recommendation. The question 1 would place before the House is whether or not the Royal Recommendation has been provided in the required form.
Citation 541 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, under the general heading, "Signification of Recommendation by a Minister of the Crown", reads:
The Governor General's Recommendation is communicated to the House and is included on the Notice Paper with the item of parliamentary business. When required, the Royal Recommendation is printed in a bill and when that bill is given first reading, the text of the Message and Recommendation of the Governor General is printed in the Votes and Proceedings.
These steps were carried out when Bill C-155 was introduced. I have no concern about the original Royal Recommendation that accompanied the Bill, however Citation 548 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition notes:
Amendments to bills are out of order if they attempt to substitute an alternative scheme to that proposed with the Royal Recommendation. Journals, April 11, 1939, p. 325.
This citation gives me some difficulty as it appears to contradict Standing Order 79(6). The solution to this contradiction rests in Citation 540 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition under the general heading, "The Royal Recommendation", which reads:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the Royal Recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private Members but also on Ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisors of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the Royal Recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
The key point to be found in Citation 540 is that the Royal Recommendation must be treated "once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced)" as laying down, "not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications" with respect to report stage amendments. Therefore, I would submit that if the original Royal Recom-
Western Grain Transportation Act
mendation were not broad enough to accommodate the proposed amendments which are now on the Order Paper under Standing Order 79(6), the proper procedure would have been to withdraw the Royal Recommendation and replace it before giving notice of a report stage amendment.
This has not happened in this instance. The Government has merely introduced new recommendations to cover each of the amendments, clearly in contradiction to Citation 540. Thus, rather than withdrawing the Royal Recommendation which was laid down on the Notice Paper with the Bill, the Government has put 14 new Royal Recommendations on the Order Paper in respect of Motions Nos. 14, 61, 71, 74, 82, 101, 142, 156, 157, 160, 164, 167, 168 and 171.
1 raise this matter for the consideration of the Chair because I believe that we are about to establish a practice which I have never experienced before. We are about to establish a practice which will undermine the financial initiatives of the Crown. I hope that you might consider this matter when making your final ruling on the procedural acceptability of the motions that you highlighted in your remarks in which you outlined the first concerns of the Chair with respect to an initial grouping of the amendments.
Clearly the matters placed on the Order Paper under Standing Order 79(6) fall within the purview of Beauchesne's Citation 540. In my submission, the way for the Government to have proceeded would have been to enlarge the original Royal Recommendation by withdrawing it and coming back to the House with a Royal Recommendation which would have accomplished the objectives that it seeks to accomplish in the amendments attached to the "notices" given under Standing Order 79(6). In the remainder of my submission, as I have undertaken to the Chair, I will endeavour to keep within the suggested parameters of the groupings that the Chair suggested in its statement today. I will deal with the first grouping that was outlined in your statement.
The first motion I would like to deal with is Motion No. 64 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Last Thursday you indicated this motion was related to a group of motions that appeared to be contrary to the content and purpose of the Bill and some of which appeared to have infringed upon the financial initiative of the Crown. The purpose of Motion No. 64 is to reduce, and I emphasize reduce, the amount of money that will be paid to the railways in a given year. Had the motion proposed to increase those payments, it would clearly have been out of order inasmuch as such an amendment would have sought to increase the financial burden imposed on the Crown by the Bill and would have been contrary to the principle to the financial initiative of the Crown, which I have just outlined partially in Beauchesne's.
However, in seeking to reduce the financial burden of the Crown or by reducing the expenditure of public funds, this motion merely asserts one of Parliament's traditional rights

October 6, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
and duties as Citation 233 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition points our at page 198. Citation 233 reads as follows:
It is one of the old standing principles of our constitution that the House of Commons should control the finances of the country. That is the right, privilege and duty of the House. It has been achieved by means of struggle lasting through centuries, beginning from the fourteenth century down to the seventeenth century, when it was fully confirmed, and since then it has never been disputed.
The cardinal principle on which the whole of our financial system is based is that of parliamentary control, and by this is understood not the control of Parliament in its constitutional sense, but control by the Commons alone. Upon this fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown, and peaceful growth, is grounded the whole law of finance and, consequently, the whole of the British Constitution.
The authority cited is Durell. I point out that Motion No. 64 proposes to reduce the amount of money that would be payable to the railroads in any given year by eliminating phased-in contributions to the constant costs of the railway. It does not eliminate payments to the railroad and, therefore, cannot be said to run counter to the proposal of the Bill as passed at second reading, but it would reduce the charge on the public purse, thus asserting Parliament's right to control public expenditure. This argument also applies to Motion No. 66, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer), whih is identical in wording to Motion No. 64.
With respect to Motion No. 59, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville, I submit that the objective of the amendment is to limit the charge that is to be levied on producers. Again, as it is the practice with Ways and Means Bills, it is the undoubted right of the Commons to reduce the imposition of the charge upon the public. This point is adequately demonstrated by Citations 526 and 527 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which consider the matter of amendments to Ways and Means Bills. The citation reads:
526.	Reductions can be made in committee on the bill, but no grant can be increased except upon recommendation of the Crown.
527.	So long as an existing tax is not increased, any modification of the proposed reduction may be introduced in the committee on the bill, and is regarded as a question not for increasing the charge upon the people but for determining to what extent such charge shall be reduced.
It might, however, be argued that Motion No. 59 seeks to increase the charge on the public purse by reducing payments by producers. I do not believe that this argument holds, and I so submit. If Motion No. 59 were to be grouped for debate with the other motions which seek to amend Clause 34 of the Bill, it could easily be seen that the effect of Motion No. 59, when combined with the other proposed amendment, would not substantially alter the financial effects of the Bill upon the public Treasury. In any event, the motion does not propose to reduce the amount currently paid by producers, and it does not by itself increase the financial burden upon the Government. I submit, therefore, that the House should be permitted to debate and vote upon this motion.
The comments I have made in support of Motion No. 59 also apply to Motion No. 86 which is similar in its intent, scope and effect. I was very glad to hear the intervention of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) with respect to his citation of the long title of the Bill, because by
doing that, he has supported the point that I am about to make with respect to the intent and purpose.
With respect to Motion No. 86, it has been traditionally held that although the House does not have the right to increase taxation or grant the payment of moneys from the public funds, except through the passage of Government-sponsored resolutions or Bills, it has also been established that the House has the right to amend proposals for the granting of money by reducing the amount proposed in any given measure placed before the House by the Government. This principle is underlined by Citation 244(2) of Beachesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
Amendments moved for the reduction of a grant are proceeded with under the general rules governing amendments. For instance, on a resolution granting $10,000 for a certain purpose, a member may move that the amount be reduced by $2,000. This amendment then takes the form of the original motion offering, in lieu of the sum thereby proposed, a reduced sum for the acceptance of the committee. Rejection of the amendment leaves room for the proposal, without limit, of amendments in the same form and of ever varying amounts. The reduction must be of a substantial and not trifling amount; nor may a series of motions be made upon the same grant, raising, substantially, the same issue.
Motion No. 57 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville seeks to provide the Minister with the authority to enter into agreements with railway companies other than those which are subject to federal jurisdiction. The most notable example of such a railway company is B.C. Rail which is sought to be addressed by Motion No. 57 and Motion No. 156.
Last Thursday when you expressed some concern about Motion No. 57, Madam Speaker, you indicated that this motion appeared to be beyond the scope of the Bill. The long title of this Bill is, as has already been cited, "An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof'. Under that broad rubric, there can be little doubt that agreements reached with railway companies other than those falling under federal jurisdiction could assist the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain.
Moreover, Motion No. 57 specifically states that agreements reached under its provisions shall-I am not trying to be humorous, Madam Speaker, I am trying to be very serious. As 1 warned the Chair, my arguments have great substance and I know the Chair is following them very closely.
These are rights as would be imposed or granted to railway companies falling under the definition contained in Section 2 of the Act.
Furthermore, and most important, Motion No. 57 specifies that no such agreement shall result in any enlargement of the Crow benefits or payments from the public purse. When a Bill is given second reading, Madam Speaker, the substance of the Bill is not open to debate. Rather, only the broad principles of the Bill are to be considered by the House during the debate and when voting on the motion for second reading. This point is clearly stated in Citation 734 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition
October 6, 1983

under the general heading "Second Reading", and reads as follows:
The second reading is the most important stage through which the Bill is required to pass; for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House. It is not regular on this occasion, however, to discuss in detail the clauses of the Bill.
The fundamental observation to be drawn from Citation 734, Madam Speaker, is that the clauses of the Bill are not to be discussed in detail. These are matters to be discussed in committee or at the report stage. The principle of this Bill, and thus its scope as considered at second reading, rests not in the specifics of given clauses but in the principle of facilitating the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain as stated in the title of the Bill.
In support of this contention, Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Chair to Citation 703 and Citation 704 of Beachesne's Fifth Edition. Citation 703(1) reads:
Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a Bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a Bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the Bill.
A Journal citation appears as authority. Subsection (2) of Citation 703 reads:
Some of the constituents parts of a bill are essential; some are optional. The title is an essential part; the preamble is not.
Citation 704 reads:
A bill may have two titles, one long and one short. Both the long title and the short title may be amended if amendments to the bill make it necessary-
The long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the bill. It should cover everything in the bill.
I fail to understand, Madam Speaker, how it can be argued that the principle of the Bill and its purposes, particularly in the case of a Bill which does not contain a preamble as this one does not, are established at second reading in such a manner that amendments are precluded at later stages in the consideration of the Bill. As I have mentioned, Beauchesne clearly states that the substance of the clauses of the Bill are not for consideration at second reading but should be dealt with in committee or at report stage. It is not, therefore, the substance of those clauses which establishes the purpose and principle of the Bill but, as Beauchesne notes in Citations 703 and 704, it is the long title of the Bill which serves that end. If amendments are to be precluded at future stages, then there is no need for those stages.
Furthermore, the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May, when speaking of the functions of a committee on a Bill, gives consideration to the matter of what constitutes the principle or objects of a Bill. Under the heading of "Functions of a Committee on Bill", the following words may be found at page 506 of Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition:
The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill clause by clause and, if necessary, word by word, with a view to making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable. The rules as to the admissibility of amendments are explained in detail on pp. 520-3 below, but the general powers of a committee and the limitations by which it is bound should be clearly borne in mind.
Western Grain Transportation Act
(1)	A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this principle.
(2)	The objects of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill, as introduced (see p. 489). Amendments, however, are not necessarily limited by the title of the bills, since a committee is empowered by S.O. No. 42 to make amendments "relevant to the subject-matter of the bill," provided that, where such amendments are outside the title, the committee extends the title so as to cover them.
The view that it is the long title of a Bill which sets out the purpose, principles and objects of a Bill is further supported by Elmer Driedger, one-time Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada, in his book, "The Composition of Legislation: Legislative Forms and Precedents". At page 153 of that book, Professor Driedger outlines a view of the nature of a long title of a Bill that is entirely in accord with the observations that I have cited from Beauchesne's and Erskine May. In the interests of time, Madam Speaker, I will not quote from the text but I do direct your attention to it.
In my submission, Madam Speaker, the objective of facilitating the movement of western grain as approved at second reading includes in principle the movement of grain by such companies as B.C. Rail, as long as such shipments do not alter the proposed changes that are to be made to the payment of federal subsidies or to the schedules containing the proposed freight rates that are outlined in this Bill as the methods of facilitating the movement of western grain. I would hope, therefore, Madam Speaker, that you will permit the House to consider Motion No. 57.
Moreoever, in the case of each of the motions that I have mentioned or that I will be mentioning in the course of my submission to you today, Madam Speaker, you have raised the concern that the motion in question appears to be contrary to the principle or the scope of the objects, purpose or principle of the Bill. I would ask that you re-examine each of these motions, specifically Motions Nos. 57, 59, 64, 66, 86, 129, 145, 153 and 155, in light of the submissions that I have made concerning the nature and extent of the purpose of the Bill. It is my hope, Madam Speaker, that upon taking a second look, you will come to share my view that each of these motions fall properly under the umbrella of the long title of the Bill.
In the comments that you made on Monday, Madam Speaker, you indicated that Motion No. 129 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville appears to introduce substantive changes to an interpretation clause and infringes upon the Crown's financial initiative. With respect, Madam Speaker, allow me to disagree with that interpretation. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition notes in citation 773(10) that a substantive amendment may not be introduced by way of a modification of the interpretation clause of the Bill and directs attention to a ruling of the Chair to be found at page 835 of Journals for May 21, 1970. Within the text of the ruling the following words may be found at page 836:
With reference to motion No. 2 it should be said in a preliminary way that
this amendment is defective in both form and substance. It must be recognized in
the first instance that motion No. 2 purports to amend the interpretation clause

Western Grain Transportation Act
of the bill. Accordingly, the form and content of the motion must be consistent with the purposes sought to be effected by the interpretation clause. Although the preliminary sentence of motion No. 2 appears to be in the form of an interpretation provision, what follows is a list of prohibitions and objectives to be observed in the administration of the Act. In other words, motion No. 2 is but a substantive proposition of a declaratory nature. If neither defines nor interprets any provision of the bill. While I sought long and hard, I can assure honourable Members, to find some ground on which 1 may be able to give the honourable member the benefit of any doubt so that motion No. 2 could be put to the House, it was not possible for me to reach a favourable decision in respect of this motion. For the reasons stated I do not think that motion No. 2 should be accepted.
In other words, amendments to an interpretation clause would be in order if they served, first, to define, or second, to interpret provisions of a Bill. In my submission, Madam Speaker, this is precisely the intent and effect of Motion No. 129. This motion merely serves to clarify the definition of the Government's share of cost increases as currently outlined in Clause 54 in lines 10 to 25 at page 29 under the term "cumulative Government share of the cost change".
With respect to the effect of the motion upon the financial initiative of the Crown, I believe it is important to understand that this motion would not increase the financial commitment of the Crown. For those reasons, I submit that the House should be permitted to debate Motion No. 129.
In commenting on the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 129, you indicated you felt that Motion No. 145 is consequential to Motion No. 129. Clearly, if you were to accept that Motion No. 129 is procedurally valid, that decision would resolve any problem with Motion No. 145. However, even if you find that Motion No. 129 cannot be put to the House, I would aks you to consider the acceptability of Motion No. 145. In my reading of Motion No. 145, it did not appear to me that it is necessarily consequential to Motion No. 129.
Without regard to the substance of Motion No. 129, it would seem to me that the effect and intent of Motion No. 145 is clearly identifiable on the basis of the provisions presented in the Bill as it was reported from the committee and, indeed, from the Bill as it was introduced in the Commons for first reading.
The definition of "cumulative Government share of the cost change" as outlined in Clause 54 of the Bill incorporates the substance of this motion. This fact, by extension, also speaks to my argument concerning the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 129. I believe I have reached the end of my submission with respect to the first grouping that the Chair suggested today.
With respect to the second grouping, in the case of Motion No. 153, 1 am once again of the view that the substance of the motion is in no way contrary to the purpose of the Bill-the purpose of the Bill as outlined in the long title of the Bill-nor am I of the opinion that it seeks to go beyond the royal recommendation. I submit that the intent of the motion is to permit the Governor in Council to make a more comprehensive regulation concerning the manner in which payments will be made under the proposed Act, the number of instalments by which payments will be made, the time at which payments will
October 6, 1983
be made, and the rules for information relating to the movement of grain with respect to which payments are to be made.
This motion does not attempt to increase payments and would not have that effect. Rather, it attempts to provide the Governor in Council with the authority to prescribe regulations governing payments, notwithstanding the requirement in Clause 55 that payments be made by a responsible Minister; no more and no less. This proposal to allow the Governor in Council to increase the qualifications and conditions attached to the recommended charge upon public revenue falls well within the scope of the authority of this House as outlined at page 712 of Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition where, under the general heading "The Royal demand or recommendation fixes the limits of a charge", there appears this sentence:
In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications, expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
The observation made at page 712 is strengthened by the following words found at page 714 of the same edition:
The problem has arisen through a change in the attitude of the House of Commons to expenditure. From regarding itself as primarily a check upon executive extravagance, it has turned more and more during the present century to pressing expenditure upon the Government. But during its period of retrenchment it had allowed the restrictions upon its powers of amendment in supply to be firmly established. The machinery by which this was enforced had been lost sight of, and it was generally held that it was the role of the Government, not only to propose new expenditure, but also to increase by amendment expenditure after it had been proposed, and the role of the Commons to accept or reduce the Government's proposals.
It is evident that the procedure both in the United Kingdom and in Canada is that the recommendation fixes the upper level of expenditure and is not open to upward amendment, but it is within the competence of the House of Commons to amend the provisions contained in legislation so as to reduce expenditure or increase the qualifications attached to expenditures. For those reasons I do not believe, Madam Speaker, and J so submit, that Motion No. 153 can be said to go beyond the Royal Recommendation.
With respect to Motion No. 155, you have indicated some concern that its substance is contrary to the principle of the Bill and that it may infringe upon financial initiative of the Crown. By itself, Motion No. 155 does not change the method of payment envisaged in the Bill, nor can it be said to authorize payments other than those permitted in other sections of the Bill. In that sense the motion, in my submission, cannot be said to infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. What the motion says is that in the event that payments are made other than to railways and pursuant to other sections of the proposed Act, the Governor in Council may make regulations to ensure that the spirit and general terms and conditions of the proposed Act are upheld as if the payment had been made to the railways. In other words, the motion proposes to strengthen the qualifications of the Act in the event of certain decisions being made by the Governor in Council. The motion fills in details within the broad reach of the Bill as recommended-I underline the word "recommend-
October 6, 1983

ed". It does not authorize spending not permitted in other sections of the proposed Act and merely serves to place a limitation or condition on spending if payments are made other than to the railroads. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to find that Motion No. 155 is in order and that the House should be permitted to consider that motion.
You will be delighted to learn, Madam Speaker, that I am about to reach the end of this submission. However, I would like to make a request with respect to the grouping of motions for debate. You asked us to make those suggestions. The motions which I have touched upon in my submission, along with many of the motions which you have previously indicated are in order, seem to relate to two broad subject matters. I believe that debate on these motions would be more comprehensible, more orderly, and would progress more easily if they were to be grouped for debate as they relate to these two subjects. Therefore, I propose that Motions Nos. 153 and 155, if they are now ruled in order, be grouped for debate with Motions Nos. 154 and 48, as all of these motions relate to the method of payment proposed in the Bill. As well, I would ask that Motions Nos. 59, 64, 86, 129 and 145, if they are now ruled in order, be grouped for debate with Motions Nos. 63, 68, 69, 99, 102, 115, 127, 130, 131, 133, 136, 138, 140, 143 and 148, as all of these motions relate to the rate structure proposed in the Bill.
I would be pleased to provide you with a written breakdown of these proposed groupings if that would be of assistance to you, Madam Speaker. I am sure I can get these notes back from Hansard in time to do so.
I thank the Chair and the House for their indulgence in listening to a rather lengthy argument. I am sure, Madam Speaker, you will agree it was necessary. Certainly, in my experience, it is the first time 1 have ever seen 174 amendments to a Bill come before the House. Only 46 of these were motions made by this Party, of which 71.7 per cent have been ruled to be in order. Some 109 motions have been moved by the New Democratic Party, of which 38.5 per cent appear to be in order. By the Government there have been 19 amendments moved, of which 78.9 per cent appear to be in order.
By virtue of the very bulk and number of amendments, the argument and submissions have been necessarily of some length. I hope that those submissions commend themselves to the Chair and that perhaps a measure of substance will be found so as to permit the motions which I have addressed to be put to the House. With respect to the motions I have not addressed, I do not intend to do so, because obviously I agree with the concern of the Chair with respect thereto.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the submissions of the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen). He obviously has done a first rate job in analyzing the amendments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Adjournment Debate


Ian Deans: No, I will not go too far. Do not worry. 1 agree in part with what he said. I wonder, however, if for ease of handling, it might be possible to call it six o'clock in order to put my comments in one block in one day's Hansard so that it can be considered by the Speaker in that way, rather than start now and then start over tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the opportunity to speak with respect to a question I raised just yesterday regarding the western grain stabilization plan. In response to my question, Mr. Speaker, the Minister said in part, as reported at page 27764 of Hansard:
I think it is a matter that would have to be more carefully assessed than one is given time to do during Question Period.
I again raise the question of the grain stabilization plan now simply because I believe at this moment in our history we need a response which is more extensive than a person can give during the Question Period.
The concern on the Prairies with regard to the western grain stabilization plan is extensive. We are hearing more and more about farmers who are becoming suspicious, who believe that their money is being taken for general Government revenues, who believe that political motives are being tied to the payout and who believe that somehow there is some scan which is operating. I do not necessarily associate or dissociate myself with those sentiments. I simply say I believe there is justifiable reason for farmers to be concerned.
The legislation was written in 1976, Sir, and it was based on the immediate previous history of the stable farm economic conditions of the 1960s. In the late 1970s and 1980s a much more tumultuous economic period demonstrated, with high interest rates and a high inflation rate, that the western grain stabilization plan was not sensitive to individual farmers' needs. The result was that once the plan was initiated in 1976, in the next two years, 1978 and 1979, there were payouts. The fact is, however, that at the present time we are having our most severe agricultural cost-price squeeze. Yet there has not been a payout, Sir, since 1978.

October 6, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Obviously, the concern about political interference, whether justified or not, arises from the fact that we had an election in 1979 and there were payouts in 1978 and 1979. You will recall, Sir, that in both of those years the public was suspicious. The Minister said in answer to a question by the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) two days ago that he does not expect to pay out this year, and we are expecting an election next year. Again, we have the suspicion of political interference. I am not going to say those suspicions are fact, Mr. Speaker, but I do believe it is important that the Government become cognizant of the concerns which exist.
One of those concerns, Mr. Speaker, is that the plan is not sensitive to the actual economic needs of farmers. Secondly, Sir, when we do this on a regional basis we make it less sensitive to the individual farmer's needs as opposed to a region's needs. That has two faults. First of all, it is possible to be on the borderline, or on the wrong side of a region, and to have suffered drought or low income but not get anything at all because the region was not affected. Conservely, as I know is the case, people who had wonderful farm incomes, because they were in a region that was generally depressed were getting their normal income plus payments from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund.
1 want to make this point strongly, Mr. Speaker. One of the main wrongs is that because the program covers a region it covers the fertilizer and machinery producers, the industry, on a regional basis. We do not have a program to protect individual farmers, but we do have one which protects essentially the broad base of our agricultural economy. The combine and tractor builders and the fertilizer manufacturers now have a guarantee that their stability is assured, but the farmers' individual stability is not.
I raise this broad spattering of a number of concerns about the program because I believe it is essential, since I believe there is going to be a review in October, to first of all invite Prairie farmers to send their representations to the Government. And secondly, to encourage the Government to invite the appropriate Committee of the House of Commons to start asking enough questions to ensure that this program is sensitive to individual needs, and that the farmers themselves will have an opportunity for extensive input into any changes that to be recommended.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that payouts under this program are connected to elections could only come from a wharped mind like that of the Hon. Member. I just cannot seem to follow his logic. The Hon. Member makes the point that the five-year averaging method used in the western grain stabilization program is, in his estimation, not sensitive enough as a level of support for making payout calculations. He uses the words "not sensitive to individual farmers' needs". As the Minister has pointed out in previous exchanges between himself and the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) on this question, the Government is aware of the
concerns expressed more recently by the advisory committee on the five-year averaging method, which is part of the current legislation. The Member does not seem to realize that. It has proposed a shorter averaging period to, say, three years, which would make it more sensitive to the current situation. That is what he is after. What it at the base of the concern is that the program payouts are not triggered quickly enough when net cash flow of western producers is dropping.
A major review which has been conducted is close to completion. Various adjustments or options for the Government which might alter the program and improve its effectiveness are under consideration but have not as yet been submitted to Cabinet. A change to a three-year average level of support would be one change that could be considered. I should like to add, however, that a three-year average would not have resulted in a pay out for 1980, 1981 nor 1982.
As has already been pointed out, a three-year averaging formula would respond more quickly to downturns in the farm economy. However, there are risks that payouts from the fund on this basis might damage the soundness of the program. The Government has to assess these possibilities very carefully.
The inference in the Member's question is that the effects of incorporating adjustments for inflation into the formula might make it more sensitive. However, the review of the program has suggested that had this been incorporated in the five-year averaging formula used in the past seven years, the western grain stabilization program would no longer be a sound program at the current levy rate. A period of rapid inflation which could make the program less sensitive to the western producers' needs is recognized.
There are, of course, a number of other areas of concern that have been brought out in this review and these touch on other matters outside the number of years averaged as a base for pay-outs.
I understand that there have been recommendations by the advisory committee to the Minister responsible for this program that the Government also consider a change so that receipts be calculated on a crop year basis rather than an annual basis, and participation options which would allow producers some opportunity to opt out under certain circumstances. Increased program flexibility would have to be balanced against maintaining a sound program. Other recommendations extend to including interest costs for farm equipment which are currently not included as eligible expenses under the program.
The Hon. Member should recognize that a major reason the fund has not been triggered, despite lower grain prices and higher costs, is the increasing volume of producer deliveries and export sales each year. These volumes have risen each year as the transportation and handling system has expanded and the Canadian Wheat Board has successfully increased export sales.
Nonetheless, I can point out to the Hon. Member that the Government will be taking into consideration the concerns
October 6, 1983

brought to its attention through the major review of the program and those made recently by the advisory committee.
grain-INCREASE IN PREMIUMS-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN PAYOUT FORMULA


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the courage and stamina of my colleagues who, for one reason or another, are still in the House.
My question was supplementary to that of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) regarding the grain stabilization program as it now exists and the concerns that have been expressed about it by producers.
Several producers have expressed concerns, not only recently but over the past number of years, about the effectiveness of the stabilization program. Most people would consider a stabilization program to be something that would stabilize the cash flow of producers in western Canada in the grain areas. It is not, and this is perhaps unfortunate, and was not designed as an insurance program, but as a stabilization program.
The review legislation that is in the Act had not been acted upon until recently. There is now an advisory committee to the western grain stabilization program that is acting. They have put forward two suggestions, of which I am aware, and the Parliamentary Secretary referred to one of them, that is, to bring the average payout calculation down from five years to three years. That would have triggered a small payout in 1982 and it definitely would have triggered a payout in 1983. When one considers the plight of western grain producers in those two years and the cost-price squeeze that has been imposed upon them, as well as the loss of income in real dollars which they have suffered, that payout in 1982 and in this present crop year of 1983 certainly would have been welcomed.
The western grain stabilization advisory committee, which was established to advise the Minister on these matters, made another suggestion which the Parliamentary Secretary forgot to mention. It suggested that it would be beneficial for the inflation rate to be established as a criterion on calculating the payout. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot used that in his question as a basis for his concern about the lack of money that would be available, and lack of payout in the years when it was necessary to maintain a cash flow for the producers. The western grain stabilization policy committee has asked and recommended that inflation be considered in the review along with the shortening of the three-year payout.
One of the concerns about the payout and the formula used is that certain items used in determining the cost of production are not included in the formula. One thing that has increased, I would say, tenfold since the formula was established is the cost of indebtedness for capital purchases which has been assumed by grain producers in the Wheat Board region. As I said, that has increased at least tenfold, and that key figure,
Adjournment Debate
the indebtedness of the grain producer, is not used to my knowledge in the formula for establishing the payout.
The Minister was questioned yesterday by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot and myself, and the day before by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). Proposals of a general nature have been put forward. I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister as to the acceptability of some of these proposals for consideration.
What about a self-administered RRSP? This would allow the producer on an individual basis to withdraw a fixed number of dollars from his income in years when his income was high and shelter it from tax until a specific year when his income fell. He could then draw that sheltered tax money down and use it to stabilize his cash flow. Those of us in the farming industry realize how cyclical in nature the financial returns are in the production of grain. That is a positive suggestion and it is something which could be considered very easily by the Department of Finance in conjunction with the responsible Minister. It would not really be an impingement on the finances of the Government. The Government could continue to make its contribution to the producers by allowing them to draw from income that was protected in years when their income was high.
Another matter of great concern and the subject of a recommendation that has been put forward by the western grain stabilization advisory committee is the decision to opt in or out. I would suggest very strongly that they be allowed to opt out. Since the plan started the maximum to be paid by producers has increased from $500 a year, to $900, and it is now 2 percent of $60,000, which is $1,200. I would suggest that, in all fairness to the producers, every time the premium is increased they should be allowed to decide whether or not to opt out. It would only seem natural that in fairness we should not lock people into a plan which forces them to pay a higher premium for stabilization than what was originally estimated. I will be interested to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's remarks.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I thought the Hon. Member would be tired of hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary, but I do want to say how much we enjoyed having the Hon. Member on the Transport Committee. He attended almost all of the hearings when we travelled across Canada. He is sitting faithfully through the debates on Bill C-155. I want to congratulate him for extending his working hours and taking part in this adjournment debate.
The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) makes the point that the western grain stabilization program apparently can be altered to respond to certain concerns, but not to others. It is true that the Government can raise by Order in Council, under very specific circumstances, the maximum ceiling on grain receipts so that an individual producer participating in the program would have his or her levy contribution increased.

October 6, 1983
Adjournment Debate
As the Hon. Member pointed out, these have risen from a maximum levy of $500, based on gross grain receipts for an individual farmer of $25,000 when the program was first put in place in 1976, to a maximum in effect at the start of the 1983 program year of $1,200 per producer based on a maximum of $60,000. As the Hon. Member must know, this element of flexibility in the legislation is based on the objective of the program to move toward covering 90 per cent of eligible grain sales; that is, as prices rise and volumes increase contributions by way of levy should rise and be adjusted to ensure that 90 per cent of grain receipts are covered under the program.
While this element of flexibility exists in the legislation, there is not the flexibility to make the changes that have been suggested, such as the one to the averaging period on which payouts are calculated. These are quite clearly set up on a five-year basis. The reasons for this, and the problems which may be attendant on a change for a shorter period, I have already outlined in my respons to the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).
I should point out, however, that the Act is not without other elements of flexibility. For example, there are provisions
that would result in the current levy for producers, set at 2 per cent, being reduced to 1.5 per cent with effect in January 1984, and there is a potential for a further drop to a 1 per cent levy rate. This element of adjustment built into the Act brings down levy contributions for farmers and for the Government as well. When it is established that the fund has reached a size where interest accumulation becomes large, a drop in the levy rate to 1 per cent would lower the maximum levy of $1,200 to $600, based on gross receipts of $60,000. As has been stated many times recently, the whole program is under review, and the Minister will be giving consideration to changes, not only to the number of years on which to base payout calculations, but also on other matters brought out in the review.
I assure the Hon. Member that I will pass his constructive suggestions on to the Minister and that they will go on to the review committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.18 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 7, 1983