1983-10-03

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 30, 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. 31 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Nielsen:: The Chair will recall that last Tuesday the Speaker expressed some concern about certain of the motions that were on the Order Paper, mainly as to their procedural acceptability or non-acceptability, and indicated at the time that the Chair might be prepared to rule on that first group raised last Tuesday today or tomorrow.
The first question I would have for the Chair is by way of suggestion. Would the Chair indicate when it will be the intention of the Chair to consider submissions with respect to the group raised last Tuesday, and when we might expect the remainder, so that we can consider whether or not we wish to make submissions on those?
If it is the intention of the Chair to make rulings tomorrow on those matters that were raised last Tuesday, then I would suggest that the Chair hear submissions on the first group at three o'clock this afternoon. However, if it is the intention of the Chair to go beyond tomorrow, then we would have more time to consider those of last Tuesday.
I suppose the more urgent request, though, is whether the Chair would give some indication as to when we would hear an expression of concern, if any, with respect to the remainder of the motions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe it is the intention of Madam Speaker to make comments regarding both matters raised by the Hon. Member after Question Period this afternoon.


Erik Nielsen: May I just clarify one matter. Making comments and making rulings are two different things. May we
rest assured that we will be permitted to make submissions at three o'clock this afternoon on the first group raised last Tuesday, if the Chair intends to rule on them on Tuesday?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the Chair's understanding that Madam Speaker intends to give Hon. Members an opportunity to comment.


Erik Nielsen: At three o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe that after three o'clock today it will be more appropriate for the Hon. Member to raise the matter again with Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Very well.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, when we left off debate on Friday, we were dealing with Motion No. 31 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), my colleague, who proposed:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 10 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 6 the following:
"(c) a person who in his opinion represents labour in the handling and
transportation of grain".
That particular amendment is very important because, as has been previously pointed out by Hon. Members, a history of conflict has arisen in transportation of grain. Too often I think the conflict generated has been that of a superficial nature involving many people trying to pit, as it were, labour against the farmer, or agriculture against the people who are moving the trains and unloading the grain.
[DOT] (UI5)
Of course, there are many railway unions within my own riding. These unions include those involved in running trains, seeing that the cars get moved and maintenance. There are also those who are involved in bridging and building. It would be very desirable for these many unions to have representatives at meetings of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. As has been suggested, it is certainly possible that different unions could be represented at different times.
The suggestion of my colleague for Regina West to have labour represented on such a committee is valuable because whenever there is a good management and labour working relationship, the job is accomplished much better. It is possible for those people who are working at the grassroots level to identify certain shortcomings and areas where changes are needed and bottlenecks can be cleared up in the movement of grain.
Our other concern is that health and safety always be considered. In this respect, I want to refer to the study

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
conducted by the NDP in its special task force report on occupational health and safety in the federal work place. Its report is entitled "Graveyard Shifts: Life and Death on the Job in Canada". On Thursday, January 22, 1981, Members of Parliament from my Party who were involved in this particular occupational health and safety task force were at a grain elevator at Thunder Bay. They made several observations which appear at page 40 of that report and I would like to put them on the record because I think it is important for those involved in the farming and labour sectors to be aware of the type of concerns that were analyzed.
They found that the most serious and obvious problem is grain dust. It is everywhere. Although it is more dense in some areas of the elevator than others, there is no area free of it. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) picked up a mask discarded by a sweeper who had been on the shift for less than an hour. The accumulation of the dust in that mask makes it next to impossible to breath through. I am sure that management sometimes may not be aware of these types of problems. The Hon. Member also observed that the risk of fire must also be great. In fact, there had been several recent explosions in other elevators along the terminal. However, none of the workers could remember when the last fire drill had been held in their elevator.
Why is there value in labour being represented on such committees? They have insight and experience from being involved in working conditions. It is important that some of their experiences be understood and relayed to any type of Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
1 also want to underline the link which exists between farmers and labour. Too often there seems to be people who want to try to split the two. Even within my own family, while my father worked on the farm he began to work on the railways on a seasonal basis. In a constituency such as mine there are many farmers who have gone on to work in the trades or maintenance of railways. If they had not gone on to work on the railways, their sons have done so. Of course, many have moved to western ports such as Vancouver of Prince Rupert. I have relatives who have worked on the farms and the railway in a riding and then gone to Prince Rupert.
Therefore, to try to drive a wedge between labour and farmers is to try to drive a wedge between families. There are many people on the Prairies who would not be fooled by that type of bogus wedge. In order to overcome those types of false wedges, I think it is important to see that the transport committees be represented by people involved in labour.
As the Hon. Member for Regina West has pointed out, we are sorry that we have come to this stage where the status of a labour representative on such a committee would only be that of an observer. I must say I was a bit disappointed when the Parliamentary Secretary referred us to Clause 11 and did not give any indication or guarantee that there would be an opportunity for the observers to speak up or have their voices heard. I underline that because, as my colleague mentioned, we in the New Democratic Party would be far happier to see a full-fledged member from labour on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, perhaps even a couple of members. However the membership might rotate, I think it would be important that we have that type of representation. Even if we increased the size of the committee from 18 members to 20 members, it would be highly desirable. 1 would urge the Government to consider afresh the offer made by my colleague earlier that he would be delighted to withdraw this amendment if we had some idea that a full-fledged member of labour would be represented.
I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) takes that suggestion into consideration. He has some labour union people living in his riding. A substantial number of railway people live in Winnipeg, and I am sure they would be delighted to see his concern in this area.
For the sake of unity and peace in the transportation of grain, for basic human relations, for the sake of communication and for the sake of understanding, I think it is important that this motion be considered and agreed to by all Members. I would strongly urge the Government to consider having perhaps a couple of full-fledged labour representatives on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and then we could have these matters dealt with in a way that is fair and that recognizes the human value of those who work with their hands to see that we have bread on our tables.
I think it is important that we recognize afresh that there is no such thing as an ordinary person in Canadian society. Everybody is extraordinary. Insights which labour people can bring to us on such a committee would be more than worthwhile. I would urge the House of Commons to look favourably on this motion but also to see that a full-fledged representative of labour is placed on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak on this amendment. I spent the weekend and part of last week in the West.


An Hon. Member:: You got more coverage than Mulroney did.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I was very impressed to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) speak in Saskatoon and again in Regina and make a commitment to the western farmers that the Progressive Conservative Party will do everything in its power to make sure the western producers would not bear the brunt of the upgrading of the railways. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition was as disappointed as I was when he got back to the House today and found that last week the Progressive Conservatives could have put up 48 speakers on these issues but deigned to put up only seven to make a contribution to the best legislation that this House can get to.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 am not sure whether it is appropriate for a Member to cast a reflection upon the attendance of other Members in participating in debate. There may be valid reasons for Members not
October 3, 1983	__________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________________________________27651
wanting to participate. For the record, Mr. Hovdebo attended 17 out of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Deans:: He is not on the Committee, and that is pretty good.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member was referring to a number of speeches in the course of debate, and as far as the Chair is concerned a reference to a number of speeches from one group or another is not unparliamentary itself.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it should be clearly pointed out that the Hon. Member who now shows a great interest in the Crow debate only attended 17 of 66 meetings of the Standing Committee.


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


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, considering that 1 was the second alternate, the third member on the Transport Committee, 17 out of 66 is pretty good.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He still could have attended every meeting, and he knows it. He chose not to attend more than 17 meetings. That should be recorded.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: This particular amendment is an attempt to get the voice of labour on this particular Committee. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) defends western farmers and this particular Bill. He has spent a considerable amount of time attempting to impute a feeling to the New Democratic Party that this particular Committee will not do any good. We know that the Committee has some flaws and that the Bill has some flaws. We also know that the total direction of this Bill as far as farmers are concerned is to reduce effectively the possibility of their survival.
Since we have the Bill before us and it seems that the Government is foolhardy enough to eliminate its chances in the West by passing the Bill or keeping it before the House, we must make it the best Bill possible. One way to make the committee work well is not, as the Hon. Member for Vegreville suggested, by eliminating any particular group, such as the co-operatives. We should bring in as many of them as possible. We made a motion to add labour to the regular Committee. This particular approach was turned down not only by the Liberals but by the Conservatives. We now allow labour at least to have an observer status. When one can only have the crumbs, I guess one accepts them. We need a strong labour voice. By having a labour member as an observer, at least there will be somebody there able to put forward labour's case.
In the last few years there have been a couple of grain handler strikes. Actually there have been very few. There are so many unions involved in the movement of grain that if one
Western Grain Transportation Act
of them strikes, it affects the whole operation. We need someone on the committee who can present the views of labour. It could work both ways. Having a labour representative will help to get out the story of labour a little better and to a few more people than would be the case with no representative on the Committee. Also labour will be able to understand a little better the position of farmers.
Every time there is a strike in the grain handling system, there is a great movement across the country to do something about the labour union. I am a farmer. 1 know that the movement of grain is important, but 1 think the time has come when we have to look at who pays the penalty for a strike. When there is a strike in the grain handling system, farmers are affected by the possibility that their grain will not be sold as quickly as it would have. Eventually they will be able to sell their grain, but they may have to carry it over a few weeks or months longer. If affects them because they are paying interest on money and it stops their cash flow. It also' affects the labourers, those working in every facet of the grain-moving operation. They are the ones to go without wages for the period of time the union is on strike.
In addition, a large number of elevators are involved in grain handling. They are paid for this handling of grain. Whether they handle it now or later does not make much difference as they will still be paid. When the grain is not moving, they are paid for storing it. Therefore, even while the unions are on strike the grain elevator companies including to co-ops go on collecting the storage charges. The grain handling strike does not affect the elevator companies. They are not affected the same way as the farmers, and obviously the union members who go without wages.
It is time the House looked at the penalties consequent upon a strike. There are two sides to every strike. If only labour pays the penalty, the grain companies collect storage charges as well as handling the grain later, whether this week, next week or two weeks down the road, they do not have much to lose. It is time that Parliament looked at imposing some kind of penalty on the other people involved in a strike.
Labour has made concessions to make the movement of grain more smooth over the years. If labour can be more knowledgeable about the needs of the system, I am sure we can find some kind of arrangement whereby labour will not always be on the outside. The Leader of the Opposition does not think that we should "Swedenize" industry in Canada. 1 say to him that "Swedenizing" must be pretty good because Swedish industry has fewer days lost to strikes than any other country. Labour is part of the discussion on every development in Sweden. That is what we should have here.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to say a few words on Motion No. 31. It is important that there be worker representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. The reason is that the railways will not run, the ships will not be loaded and the grain will not be sold unless the workers in the system co-operate. Since the workers

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
are so important to the whole industry, it is only common sense that they have representation on the Committee.
My only disappointment with the Minister and other Members is that under the motion to be moved by the Minister, the working person or labour union person on the Committee will have observer status only. 1 urge the Minister to ensure that the union person be a full voting member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It is important that the working people have a full voice. They are as important in managing the railways as the railway companies themselves. They are a very important part of the system and must be fully represented.
As has been said in this debate, there have been many strikes in our grain-moving industry. There are several different unions, such as the grain services union, the longshoremens' union, the railway unions, the grain handlers' union and so on. We on the Prairies become very frustrated when a union goes on strike and the system breaks down. One way of having a more efficient system and averting a strike is to ensure that workers have full participation at the table and more involvement in the management of their industry. There is no one better than the worker in managing the industry because he is the one who handles the cars and works with the equipment. If that person is fully represented, the system will operate much more efficiently.
The time has come to give the ordinary worker a much greater say at the bargaining table in terms of how companies should be managed. We in this country tend to cheer Solidarity and Lech Walesa in Poland. We all applaud the tremendous fight which he and Solidarity are putting up in that country. Until they were so cruelly and autocratically put down, the one thing they were campaigning for in Poland was worker control and participation in the management of industries. In addition to the straight political democracy that we take for granted in this country, they are also campaigning for economic demcora-cy. In that regard, Solidarity in Poland was ahead of what is the reality in this country. If we are going to applaud them for what they stand for in their country, then we can set an example in this country by making sure that we practice economic democracy.
1 am disappointed when the Minister says that he is willing to accept a labour representative on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, but only as an observer. It has to be more than an observer: it has to be a participant with full voting rights that are equal to those of the farmers, the railways and the companies. If we do that we will have a much better system. In fact, we should do this as a matter of course in all of our legislation or all of our companies and Crown corporations. If we did that, we would have a much more efficient economy. Canadians would tend to pull together, work together and co-operate to make their own industry much more productive.
I will give an example. In my Province of Saskatchewan, we have SED Systems, a high-tech firm involved in the agriculture business and communications. SED Systems was responsible for building part of the Canadarm used on the American
space shuttle. This is a very successful company. The ownership of that company is interesting. There is a real mix in the democratic sense. It is owned partly by the Government of Saskatchewan, partly by the University of Saskatchewan and partly by the company workers. It is a tripartite arrangement which works very well indeed.
We should strive for that kind of arrangement in this country. With that kind of arrangement there is greater pride, interest and enthusiasm on the part of the workers to ensure that the company goes well, is productive and makes a contribution to this country.
1 will give a couple of examples of what 1 mean. On August 10 at the hearings in Regina, Mr. Hugh Wagner, the secretary-treasurer of the grain services union, appeared before the special committee. He said, and I quote:
It is also ironic that the Minister of Transport introduces legislation to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to the railway companies when he does not seem to see the need for such basic things as $500 per car worth of safety modification on hopper cars. Transport Canada's reluctance in this regard makes true sceptics of us when we hear promises to strictly monitor railway performance in return for the windfall of higher freight rates.
[DOT] (M40)
The secretary-treasurer of the grain services union says that something as basic as $500 worth of safety monitoring devices on a hopper car would make things so much better and easier for the workers who handle those hopper cars. It would make things much safer in terms of physical health and mental health by relieving anxiety about the possibility of being injured.
I do not know whether the secretary-treasurer of the grain services union is right or wrong and I do not know whether we are dealing with $500 or $800, but I do know one thing from what he has said and that is that worries, concerns and anxieties exist about the safety of hopper cars. It seems to me that if more workers were on the boards of directors of comapnies, on transportation committees and on advisory councils, these kinds of concerns would be heard by everyone involved and there would be a much greater chance of remedying concerns of this sort which would hopefully create a more efficient system for farmers and everyone else in Canada. That, Mr. Speaker, must be our objective.
As 1 have said before, 1 hope that we can begin to establish that objective and set a precedent for all industries in Canada.
I have seen the operation of many industries in my constituency and I know that in most cases the people who are able to give the best advice about managing the company on a day to day basis are the workers who work for that company. They know the best way to load a car and the best way to organize an assembly line, because that is their livelihood and they do it all the time.
1 think the time has come to start practising economic democracy in the country. We must extend political democracy to include economic democracy so that, regardless of one's income, one has some real clout in a democratic sense over what happens to the economy. I think that is what Motion No. 31, if accepted, will do in a very minor way.
October 3, 1983

1 am pleading, Mr. Speaker, for the country to go in that direction. If we were to go in that direction, 1 think we would have a much better system and a much better country with greater equality and greater freedom for each and every person who lives in the country.
Why are we so cautious and conservative, Mr. Speaker? Why do we not become a bit bolder and give more power to the ordinary people? Why do we not decentralize our institutions and allow for more local control? Time and time again, I hear from the business community, from members of the Conservative Party and members of the Liberal Party that we must give more control to the businessman and to the private sector, that there must be more decentralization, more control of the economy, more incentives and the like. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, what about more control for the ordinary citizens of Canada? What about giving more control to the ordinary workers and the ordinary farmers of the country so that they can participate in the decisions that affect the direction the country is taking? What about decentralizing the power and putting it back in the hands of the ordinary people? I assure you that that would work very well, Mr. Speaker.
In my Province there is a very decentralized agricultural system. We have a country elevator system and the Wheat Pool is dominant. The Wheat Pool is a company that is owned by the farmers themselves and farmers are workers in every sense of the word. They have organized the largest grain handling company in the country and they have done it very efficiently and very well. It has worked well for Canada and it has worked well for the farmers themselves. We can use that as an example to show the many other industries in Canada how ordinary folk, regardless of their income, can make a great many important decisions.
Instead of worshiping the mighty dollar, 1 wish that members of the Conservative Party would begin to worship the ordinary farmer, worker and consumer in the country. If they did that, the whole country would be much better off. Have I run out of time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member wishes to continue, he will need the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes of the time of the House to speak to this amendment. It is interesting that 1 should speak after a Member of the New Democratic Party has spoken. As a former psychologist, I can sometimes see the consistency in the way some people use language and language structure. The concern about power and control that is expressed through the repeated use of those words characterizes, I think, much of what goes wrong in the minds of NDP Members. Their basic philosophy is that they would have Government control an
Western Grain Transportation Act
increasing number of Crown corporations. They are really asking for control to be placed in the hands of fewer people. It is a basic contradiction. The Conservative Party of Canada, Mr. Speaker, with its concern for the diffusion of power into the hands of many, many different people, is striving for the exact opposite of what the NDP strives for.
I stand in the House today to deal with one aspect of the Crow Bill, this specific amendment. It is a very good amendment and, if passed, would see that labour is represented in a way that allows it to co-operate in moving grain. It is a positive development, Mr. Speaker.
There is sometimes a sense of desperation on the part of Opposition Members, both of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, about what the Government is trying to do with the Crow situation. Before Members of the New Democratic Party attempt to run away with the thought that they are strongly opposed to this piece of legislation, 1 think it is wise to remind the House that the only reason we are faced with this piece of legislation is that Members of the New Democratic Party combined with Members of the Liberal Party to get rid of a Government that was moving grain. The New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party threw that Government out of office. We are now faced with this legislation which will not do western Canada and Canada in general a whole lot of good and in fact may do it a whole lot of harm simply because Members of the NDP put the Liberal Party back in office. In their search for power and control over all of the affairs of the nation, it is the Members of the NDP who make us stand today to deal with the Crow Bill.
If Members of the New Democratic Party had been concerned about western Canadian small businessmen, farmers, yound people and Canadian people in general, they would have gone along with the budget which the Canadian Welfare Council called the fairest to poor people in the decade of the seventies. That is the budget that Members of the New Democratic Party stood up and defeated, throwing the country into an election and giving us the Crow Bill.
It is sometimes difficult for me to sit in the House and listen to my own Party's positions being so badly mangled and misinterpreted. The Conservative Party of Canada is the only Party in Canadian federal politics that consistently, in all areas of human endeavour, speaks about the need for co-operation. The alacrity with which we are prepared to support this amendment is simply one small example of the continuing commitment on the part of this Party to co-operative federalism and to co-operation in the affairs of mankind. Yes, Mr. Speaker, this proposed amendment takes us one small, necessary step toward co-operation in the grain handling industry.
We all know that a work stoppage in the grain handling industry is hard on the workers, hard on the companies and is even harder on the farmers and the customers. Every time we come to confrontation, we create victims. Our approach has always been consistent and it is to seek and move toward co-operation on every conceivable occasion. We should cooperate with provincial Governments, with labour, with large business and with small business.

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Canada is a nation of immense geographic size with a relatively tiny population. Each time that we forget the need to co-operate and replace that need with an attitude of confrontation, we hurt ourselves and we hurt succeeding generations.
Much of the difficulty in this country has come about in the last 15 years because the Liberal Party of Canada, joined by the New Democratic Party, seeks power for themselves, power over the lives of Canadians by some small elite group. That is the philosophical ideology which guides both of those Parties in this House, and it inevitably creates confrontation. When one tries to centralize power in the hands of a few, it will be resisted by free people who want the diffusion and decentralization of that power.
I would be happier, Mr. Speaker, if we had an amendment before us today which would create a full voting member. However, we are prepared to support this amendment because it is a small step in the direction of co-operation. It is a small step in the diffusion of power. I commend the NDP for giving up their usual approach of centralizing power in the hands of the few and presenting this amendment for which I urge the support of the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had not really intended to enter into this debate. However, I feel it is time to clear up the muddy waters. Our Party would have preferred that an amendment be accepted by the Government which would have made the labour representative a full voting member of the board. In fact, we were tempted to move such an amendment in committee. It was ruled out of order because the decision was made that that would require an expenditure by the Government and, quite clearly, the opposition is not in a position to move an amendment which requires an expenditure by the Government. That is the way the rules operate.
We accept, somewhat reluctantly, that the only way we can get those people who are so vitally concerned about the transportation system and whose co-operation is so desperately needed on the board, or at least to be heard by the board on an ongoing basis, is to have them as non-voting members; in other words, to have them as observers.
Our position, in terms of worker participation, is consistent with the positions which have been taken by this Party since its inception. For example, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), who is just about to depart from this House, would have read in his previous incarnation some of the statements of this Party made at its founding convention, and statements of this Party made at subsequent conventions, where we very strongly advocated the participation of larger and larger numbers of people involved in the decisions of government. In fact, we were true to that philosophy in December of 1979 when the Conservative Party, then the government in office, brought forward a budget which we anticipated did not enjoy the widespread support of the people of Canada. We moved a motion condemning that Party for moving to subject the people of this country to usurious taxes.
There was an election held subsequent to our decision to oppose the government and, by golly, we were right. The people of Canada, given the opportunity to vote on the budget of the Conservative Party in 1979, voted it out of office. If that is not an example of our commitment to participatory democracy, what is? How could we have involved more people in that decision than to have given the Canadian public an opportunity to cast its vote? I say to the Hon. Member for Calgary West, we were consistent right down the line, as we always are. It strikes me as odd that the Hon. Member's days of studying philosophy did not allow him to study it in sufficient depth so that he could see the consistency of what this Party has said.
What aggravates me, Mr. Speaker, is that here we are, as usual, fighting on behalf of the people of Canada to give them some way of having their say in the decisions made by government, and we are thwarted at almost every turn by the Tories. The Conservative Party, reluctantly, at the last moment, recognizing that there is some support for what we are proposing, gives its begrudging support to what it is we are trying to do.
1 put to you, Mr. Speaker, that what this Party wants to see in this country is exemplified by what we have proposed in committee by asking that those people who are most actively involved in the transportation system be given a full voting place on the board, and subsequently, because that was not permitted, to give them observer status at least. What we are attempting to provide for those people is what we would like to see provided on all boards of all commissions for all the operations of government. The people of Canada must be given an opportunity to say what they believe is in their best interests.
We want to see those who are most affected, which in this case would be the employees of the transportation company, those people who, frankly, are most eligible, take part in the discussions which would affect their day to day lives. I know that that kind of thinking is foreign to the Conservative Party.
I know it has difficulty coming to grips with that kind of proposal. I am surprised, however, that the Liberal Party is having difficulty coming to grips with it. I can understand that the belief of the Conservative Party has historically been that those with the money should have the say. I can understand that and can well appreciate that the attitude of the Conservative Party has always been that those who own everything should be the ones who have the say and the workers should never be heard from. That Party has been anti-union since its inception. It became a political party in order to oppose the trade union movement. It is just that simple. Margaret Thatcher will never be out of favour in Canada as long as there is a Tory Party here to stand up and spout her garbage. But let me say I am disappointed with the Liberal Party. I would have thought it might have accepted representatives of labour as fully-fledged members of the board in order to have their input, accepting the fact that they also should be part of the board and answerable for its decisions.
October 3, 1983

1 believe this is the appropriate way to make these boards work. Labour does not want to be a sort of adjunct. It is quite prepared to sit down and be part of the discussions, to come to decisions and to stand up and defend those decisions before the public. The only way to guarantee it that opportunity is to include labour among the fully-fledged members.
As 1 think about it, I cannot understand why the Minister himself would not have agreed that observer status in this instance is not enough. It is denying a very significant segment of the industry which is most involved in this particular legislation an opportunity to accept its responsibility and to take part. 1 would urge upon the Minister that he divorce himself from the Conservative philosophy that those with all the power should be given more. I urge him to recognize the need to involve the workers and their representatives. The railroads, in particular, I might say, would work an awful lot better if some attention were paid to the people who do the work out on the lines, the people who have to get the trains from where they are to where they have to be, through all of the difficulties. 1 would urge the Minister, given the fact he has already accepted that labour should be given observer status, to go even further. Even though he would not have the support of the Conservative Party-which, frankly, 1 do not care about-he would certainly have our support.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 31 to give official observer status to representatives of the workers who perform the important task of cleaning, loading and transporting grain.
1 want to take issue with the fact that this motion gives only observer status to labour. 1 would urge the Government to reconsider that. We are going to see massive improvements to our transportation system which could affect many workers right across Canada.
I want to speak about my riding for a moment, where a large amount of the money will be going in double tracking, retunnelling and a new diesel maintenance shop in Golden. In places like Revelstoke these changes could mean the relocation of many workers from Revelstoke, a divisional point on CP Rail. It would mean the relocation of mechanical workers from a small place called Field, British Columbia. These people are already subject to very tough Government measures regarding living in the parks. If they wish to sell their home, they must sell it to someone who has a need to reside in the park. But if they move to Golden, how will they do that because there will be no railway workers to live within the parks?
These are the kinds of concerns labour has, and they should have some say in what is happening. A long-time divisional point like Revelstoke has a population of about 9,000. If 1,000 of those workers are relocated to a place like Golden, which could happen, I think it is imperative that labour have someone sitting on this Committee to discuss the concerns of that community which would lose a major part of its payroll.
Western Grain Transportation Act Labour should have the right to vote, not merely that of an observer.
We have seen, Mr. Speaker, some of the ramifications of the Conservative type of legislation in British Columbia, legislation which was brought in without proper consultation with labour. It is sad, sad, sad that the Liberal-Conservative Government in British Columbia has moulded itself together virtually to roll back labour's voice in the communication which takes place between Government, labour and the people.
It is imperative, Mr. Speaker, that labour have a voice and full voting privileges. It is imperative that labour have full knowledge of what is taking place so we do not have the confrontation we have had in the past. It is high time that Canada started to recognize we should have full co-operation between labour, management, business and community so that we do not have to face the kind of conflict we see today where Government comes in and arbitrarily rolls back the advances made in human rights and other issues. Labour has to have a voice in negotiations which take place. In Revelstoke the CP payroll alone is about $1.5 million a month. If they were to lose that payroll, can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what would happen to that community? These are the kinds of things that labour must be able to sit down and discuss to find ways of resolving these issues. If it means a better economic system of transportating the grain, that is well and good. But labour and management must be able to sit down and come up with some kind of program to offset the kind of changes being made.
To use the taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, to upgrade a rail system, and at the same time virtually destroy a community and its workers, 1 think is wrong. Labour must be involved, along with the other groups, and they must have the right to full representation and the right to vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 31 (Mr. Benjamin) agreed to.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved:: Motion No. 32
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 10 and II at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"an employee of the Canadian Wheat Board'.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak on Motion No. 32 which takes the position that the Canadian Wheat Board is the most important of the agencies to take part in the movement of grain. The reason for putting this amendment before the House is that we recognize that marketing and transportation are so closely linked that it is impossible to control one without having some control over the other. By making the administrator an employee of the

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Wheat Board, we would be making sure that linkage was there continuously.
In the presentation of the Canadian Wheat Board to the Committee they indicated some disturbance about what might happen in the development of a committee which had as much power as the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and was not related to marketing as closely as it should be. The Wheat Board is an agency established under legislation passed by this Parliament in 1935. It has three basic responsibilities. One is to market the wheat barley and oats. I will not go into them specifically but I think they have to be put before the House. Second, it had a responsibility to provide price stabilization for the farmers for those grains which it held by annual pooling. Third, it attempts to assure every individual farmer of a portion of the market available in any particular year.
The result of the Wheat Board controlling the marketing of grain has been that whether one lives in Peace River or as close to Thunder Bay as possible, one still has a fair proportion of the market in any particular year, which is quite different from the situation with which I grew up, when the amount of grain that could be sold in northern Saskatchewan was relative, possible only when the grain near to the ports had already been sold.
I would like to place in context the real need for the relationship between marketing and transportation. Mr. Jarvis, who is the Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board, stated before the committee:
The Canadian Wheat Board, like any other sales organization, must control shipment of its own products in order to ensure performance. For these reasons, the Board has always held the view that overall control of the system, as it is developed in co-ordination with the total of the grain industry, should be administered by the Board.
In the last number of years since the Conservative Government's short term in office, we have established the Grain Transportation Agency. Although Mr. Jarvis did not suggest that the Agency was entirely useless, he suggested the extension of that kind of power to a group which had more responsibility might effectively eliminate the relationship between the Wheat Board and transportation. Consequently, he went on to state:
The Board still feels that the system operates most efficiently and effectively if grain transportation is fully coordinated by the major sales agency. If this is not permitted, it should be clear that we view any further reduction in the Board's ability to coordinate transportation as a very serious step backward for the export sales program for western Canadian grains.
What Mr. Jarvis was attempting to point out to the committee was that if one separates the responsibility for transportation so far from marketing, one finds no assurance that products which have been sold will get to the consumers, and that instead of improving the transportation system it may become worse than it is at present. It has been doing a pretty good job in the last while, and I think much of that can be attributed to the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board has been the main agency in controlling both sales and transportation. If the two are separated, it is bound to affect the
efficiency and the effectiveness of the total grain sales operation. Mr. Jarvis went on to state:
Our strong concern is that with the establishment or a grain transportation agency by bill C-155 and under Section 97 (b) of the Canada Grain Act, further powers could readily be shifted by order in council from the Canadian Wheat Board to this agency at a later date.
That in itself is a very great danger to every farmer who has derived a great deal of security from the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a Government agency but one operated on behalf of, and financed by, the farmers. 1 want Your Honour to know that no money from the taxpayers of Canada goes into the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. The sale and marketing of Canadian grains by the Canadian Wheat Board is financed entirely by the farmers. Therefore, since what we are discussing in this Transportation Act is the movement of grain, it is very important that we have the kind of control over that movement which allows the farmers' agency to operate well and effectively. If we do not, we will be doing a real disservice to the farmers.
It is possible, as Mr. Jarvis pointed out, that if we do not have a close relationship between the Wheat Board and the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, we will be doing a disservice to the operation. He went on to say:
These powers could include those the board currently has under Section 2l(k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which allows the board to operate the block shipping system. Any such transfer in the future would result, we believe, not only in major problems for the efficiency of the transportation system but also for the effectiveness of our sales efforts.
If we allow this kind of situation by passing the Bill without the amendment we are suggesting, we will be contributing to lack of efficiency rather than increased efficiency.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious to hear from the Official Opposition in this debate. After all the great words we heard out in Regina and Saskatoon over the weekend, I would like to know where all this fighting to keep the Crow is coming from with regard to the Official Opposition. It seems to me that the Conservatives should be charged with false pretences as an Official Opposition.
The amendment under discussion is in accordance with the wishes of 90 per cent of the grain producers in western Canada who support orderly marketing and want to see the Wheat Board strengthened, not weakened. This legislation undermines and weakens-in fact, attacks-the Canadian Wheat Board. It will allow for the removal of certain powers. The Bill would set up one man, the Grain Transportation Administrator, as an agency. This agency, of course, even though it is comprised of only one man, has all the powers of any government agency.
We already have at least four agencies involved in the handling and transportation of grain: the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canada Grain Commission, the Canadian Transportation Commission, the Railway Committee and the Marine Committee. This legislation inserts an additional agency into this mix.
October 3, 1983

My colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), quoted the Chief Commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Jarvis. I want to quote the words of a well-known and respected figure in western Canada, one who served about ten or 12 years as President of the Sask Wheat Pool and then another dozen or so years as Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. I refer to one Charlie Gibbings, who the committee voted not to invite and then voted to invite. When he could not come on the day they chose, they then voted not to invite him. We will also remember that out West.
Other colleagues will be quoting the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee, the National Farmers Union and other organizations who want the authority envisaged in this legislation left with the Canadian Wheat Board. But let me quote Mr. Gibbings:
As this committee has been told before, it is imperative that grain sales and grain transportation not be separated.
The Wheat Board Advisory Committee has told us repeatedly that the marketing and sale of grain are inextricably linked to the transportation of that product and that transportation is vital to the success of marketing and sale by the Canadian Wheat Board. That is $6 billion worth of export grain in addition to whatever we consume in Canada.
Mr. Gibbings goes on to say:
The Canadian Wheat Board must be able to arrange transportation of its own product, or it cannot fulfil its obligations to Western grain producers or their customers overseas. The Board's marketing success depends on its ability to make day-by-day or even hour-by-hour decisions on grain movement. Its flexibility must not be compromised.
Providing powers to a Grain Transportation Administrator can do nothing else but compromise and threaten the prospect of the Canadian Wheat Board's ability and flexibility in the marketing and sales to be compromised.
At the moment we have a Grain Transportation Co-ordinator who works closely with the Canadian Wheat Board and Canada Grain Commission. The fact that we are moving record volumes proves that it is working.
The Canada Grain Commission allocates 5 per cent of the cars for individual producers and the Canadian Wheat Board allocates the rest for board and non-board grain under a quota system and a block system. It is working fine. Then why do we need another agency imposed on a group of agencies that are already doing a first-class job? That is why we submit that the Senior Grain Transportation Administrator is one person who should be an employee of the Canadian Wheat Board. This employee-an official, officer or even a commissioner of the Wheat Board appointed by the Minister-operates under the purview of the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board as an agency of Her Majesty.
Every attempt has been made since 1935 to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board legislation. In more recent years, who has mounted the attacks, the undermining and criticisms? The private grain trade. The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange does
Western Grain Transportation Act not like it. The railroads would like to have most of the say in where the rolling stock goes and when, at their convenience.
Mr. Gibbings pointed out:
We have a group of individuals in the GTA and in Transport Canada whose abstract economic principles tell them that the grain industry has gone the wrong way over the past hundred years. They want to see the transportation system in a certain configuration, and they expect farmers, the grain companies, the Wheat Board, and our customers to adjust to accommodate it.
I suggest the reverse approach be taken. Let the transportation system develop to meet the needs of the people who are using it. That is the approach that makes real economic sense, and the Government should allow it to proceed by keeping bureaucracy out of the grain business.
We have always been operating throughout these decades on the basis of what is best for the railroads. They are a utility which everyone must use both directly and indirectly. Surely the railroads and every other transportation system should function to meet the needs of the shippers and receivers, the loaders and unloaders and the handlers of commodities that are to be moved.
Mr. Gibbings is right on. The situation should be the other way around. Our transportation system should be set up to meet the needs of the people who are using it, instead of the people who have to use it adjusting their operations to suit some people in the Department of Transport and the two railroads.
Most fundamentally of all, the attempt to undermine and reduce the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board has always been with us, particularly since the end of the Second World War. There was legitimate cause for the grain co-operatives and the grain producers to band together and build their own country elevator system to enable our three Prairie Pools and the United Grain Growers to handle some 80 per cent of all our grains. The private grain trade does not like that.
In addition, even the Government of the day in 1935 under R. B. Bennett recognized that there had to be a central marketing and sales organization for Canada's export grains. The subsequent Mackenzie King Government, particularly in the first and second year of World War II, really put the Canadian Wheat Board Act into a functioning state and enlarged its powers. Since the war those powers have been broadened to include the setting up of a block system, the administration of a quota system for the amounts of grain that farmers can deliver and the allocation of the cars to move that grain under those quotas in the block system. Surely that is keeping the railways functioning to meet the needs of the people who must use it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired. He would require the unanimous consent of the House to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


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

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, once again we witness the NDP grasping for straws, trying to sow the seeds of fear and attempting to create a mountain out of a molehill.


Mr. Fisher:: All great Tory tricks.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is another great farmer from Toronto who wants to get into the debate. Certainly his comments would be welcomed, particularly his expertise.
The NDP are trying to create the impression that the Grain Transportation Administrator will undermine the role of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not believe that that was ever the intent behind the establishment of a Grain Transportation Co-ordinator or Administrator. Historically, over the last four years I do not think there is any evidence that that has in fact happened. Quite the contrary.
If the NDP are concerned about the possibility of the Wheat Board's integrity being undermined, perhaps they would do well to pass their eyes over Motion No. 39. If passed, this motion would ensure that the provisions of this Act respecting the functions and the duties of the Administrator would not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make available the quantities and types of grains necessary to achieve sales in its own behalf and in the interests of producers.
Quite frankly, the evidence that we received during the course of the committee hearings made two or three points very fundamentally clear. The Grain Transportation Administrator was serving a very useful function. His role was supported by all parties involved in the handling and moving of grain, and that should be continued. We heard time and time again during the course of the development of the legislation that all parties to the whole grain handling and transportation system supported the concept of the Grain Administrator.
Our Government established the concept of an administrator in 1979. It was felt at that time there was a clear need for it, and the concept was put in place for a trial period. It was not enshrined in legislative form but as a trial mechanism which has worked very well. I do not think, other than a few radicals, like the Chairman of the Advisory Board to the Canadian Wheat Board and a few other NDP socialists who want to see everything concentrated into one empire, that there is any great amount of negative reaction to the concept of the Administrator.
Let us look briefly at the terms of reference given to the Grain Transportation Authority in 1979. First, the objectives were to increase the grain handling and transportation system s capacity to achieve a 20 per cent increase in exports in 1980 and a 50 per cent increase by 1985 to 30 million tonnes. Those objectives have been achieved.
I do not think the Grain Transportation Authority would suggest for one minute that it achieved those targets on its own. It provided the mechanism wherein all parties could come
together and sort out the difficulties and work together in a cohesive manner. I think that is important. We heard from the NDP about the importance of having all parties at the table to ensure that everyone was aware of their responsibilities and that everyone knew what everyone else was doing. That was really the start of it. While the Grain Transportation Authority did not have a whole lot of legislative authority, it did have a lot of persuasive abilities. It was in that connection that it was able to assist in facilitating the movement of grain and overcome certain bottlenecks.
The second objective of the GTA was to ensure that prairie grain moves to domestic consumption and export positions in a prompt, efficient and orderly manner. Third, its objective was to secure the co-operation and participation of the industries concerned in providing the required transportation and handling services and facilities. Fourth, the GTA was to carry out the required planning and implement the changes necessary to make the forwarding system operate more efficiently and effectively, and to increase its capacity to meet i he 1985 target of a 50 per cent increase in exports. Fifth, it was to keep all parties and the public fully informed about the system's operations and shortcomings.
From that day hence there have been regular documents and publications released by the Grain Transportation Authority which make for some very interesting reading. For example, the January, 1983 "Grain Transportation Update" has the headline "New Grain Exports Records". I have its annual report for the 1981-1982 crop year. In April, 1983 the headline is "Another Record Breaking Winter". It talks about the West Coast performance and some of the difficulties. The August, 1983 headline reads "Canada Exports 28.3 million tonnes".
The GTA does not only publish the good news but it publishes some of the critical news and some of the things that have to be done to be sure all parties are fully informed and aware of the difficulties. I think the GTA works very well. If anything, it has enhanced the integrity of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Prior to 1979 the Canadian Wheat Board was continually embroiled in all the difficulties, arguments, charges and countercharges that were levied at the various players within the system. On frequent occasions the Wheat Board was caught in the middle. I think the Grain Transportation Authority has provided that kind of safety valve and it has taken a lot of the heat that would normally accrue to the Canadian Wheat Board.
In specific terms, what were the responsibilities? First, it took responsibility for the primary allocation and use of the car fleet, including the CN and CP grain-dedicated fleet, Government hopper cars, federal and provincial, and Canadian Wheat Board hopper cars. Second, it allocated railway equipment between the Board and non-Board sectors and between the various users of cars for non-Board grains.
It was in that connection that the role of the Administrator or the Co-ordinator was very important. Because the Board was involved in the allocation of cars, 1 am not suggesting this
October 3, 1983

was the truth but there was a perception that they were unfairly allocating a more favourable proportion to those Board grains and non-Board grains. However, that was overcome to a large extent by the bringing together of all the parties, by letting the public know what was going on and by the Administrator acting as a referee.
Third, the responsibility of the GTA was to develop policies and procedures where necessary to ensure proper functioning of the allocation system. Fourth, it was to determine future needs for rail cars and to make recommendations to the Minister of Transport on the required acquisitions for the grain fleet.
That is another area in which it did an excellent job. It has constantly monitored the hopper car and rolling stock fleet requirements, the cars that were going out of service and the need for additional cars coming on.
The GTA has served a very useful role and it will continue to do so. The important element in terms of this institution is that it must be neutral and function in a neutral way. It must not have any vested interest, either in the Board or in the non-Board side of things. It must have the necessary stature to deal with transportation issues on an equal footing with all participants.
I think that contrary to what my friends in the New Democratic Party suggest, there has been support for the concept of the Co-ordinator and it has come from rather interesting places: for example, a joint submission by the Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Let me finish with this quote from a submission: "Very important institution. The Pools accept the formal establishment of a grain transportation agency administrator with co-ordinating functions and powers." I can quote further comments of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, who said that they worked very closely with the Grain Administrator but they were concerned about any erosion of powers in so far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned. That protected feature is enshrined in the legislation. Therefore, we on this side will be voting against the motion of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to follow the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). He said our Party was once again, to quote him, "grasping for straws and making a mountain out of a molehill". It is interesting that he would say that because up until now he has been following the leadership of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) in all the motions before the House. If he thinks we are always grasping for straws and making mountains out of molehills, why is he following the leadership of the Hon. Member for Regina West? Last week he supported the amendment by the Hon. Member for Regina West to move from one member to three members the Wheat Pool membership on the Senior Grain Advisory Committee. He also supported our amendment to make sure that Wheat Pool committee men, chairmen and secretaries could seek office. Today he is supporting another motion to ensure that labour has a voice on the Committee. He
Western Grain Transportation Act
has taken his Party and the leadership of his Party very, very seriously. He is taking his cue from this side of the House. It is very ironic that he has to say that kind of thing.
He must have some concerns as well because Motion No. 39, in the name of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), ensures in a legal sense that no power is taken from the Canadian Wheat Board. 1 am sure he must have the concerns we have as well. Once again he is following the leadership of the Hon. Member for Regina West.
Although Motion No. 39 on the Order Paper in a technical and legal sense will make it impossible, if the Government supports it, to take away any of the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, it is very important that the chief officer or the Administrator of the new Committee be an employee of the Wheat Board. I say that from life's experience. When one looks at organizations, whether it is a political party, a business organization, a volunteer organization or a people's organization, the chief administrating officer has immense discretionary power by virtue of the office; the office is very important. What that person says or does, what staff that person has around him or her, gives that person an awful lot of power. For that reason 1 would like to see the Administrator be an employee of the Wheat Board.
Once again I say that we should listen to the voice of the people. The people in this case are the farmers of the land. They are saying overwhelmingly that Canadian Wheat Board must be the most powerful agency, that the Canadian Wheat Board must be the agency which markets, sells and tries to get them the best price for their grain. Any diluting or weakening is not responding to the wishes of our constituents. I remind my friends in the Conservative Party of that reality. I say this because I believe in democracy and that ordinary citizens have to have more say over the direction of the country.
If we allow the Administrator of this new Committee to be any person whatsoever, with the powers we are giving this person we run the possibility through the discretionary acts of the Administrator of taking away powers from the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe that does not go in the direction the people want, and we in this Chamber are supposed to represent the people.
I am sure as an urban Member, Mr. Speaker, you realize the points I am making are very important. In the Bill the Administrator is given tremendous power. It is said that the Committee may, on its own initiative, or shall, at the request of the Minister or the Administrator, advise and make recommendations to the Minister or the Administrator on any matter affecting transportation, shipping or handling of grain. In other words, immense powers are vested in the Committee and immense powers are vested in the Administrator himself or herself.
The Administrator is appointed for four years. Once the Administrator is appointed, that office, the make-up of the person and the gut feeling of that person about the transportation of grain become extremely important. It is also provided

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act in the Bill that the Administrator can be reappointed after his first term in office expires. For reasons like that it is very important that the Administrator be an employee of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is a farmers' organization. If one were to have a vote in my riding among permit holders, I would venture to say that over 80 per cent or 90 per cent would say that we must strengthen the Wheat Board in every conceivable way. It is as important to the farmers as a trade union is to workers in the Kootenays or as a professional association is to lawyers and doctors of the country. For reasons like that we must ensure that the Administrator is someone who comes from their organization, from the Canadian Wheat Board.
Over many years farmers have fought to build a co-operative movement. They have banded together collectively to help one another, to share and to work for the common good or common cause. They fought for many years. One could speak for hours in the House about the struggle to build the Canadian Wheat Board, about the tremendous problems with the Grain Exchange in Winnipeg, the Richardson family in Winnipeg, the commodities market, the Chicago futures market and the great Depression which was complicated by the fact that there was a drought. People of my grandfather's and father's generation sacrificed much to leave behind an agency or a system which represented the ordinary farmer, which ensured that ordinary farmers, whether small, middle-sized or large, obtained fair prices for their commodities, which ensured quotas, planning and an organization in place that would treat everyone equally. I want to see that organization strengthened. I do not want to see it weakened by default. That possibility is there when we allow the Administrator to have such powers and discretionary bases. Of course, every Administrator will reflect his own ideology and philosophy.
1 say to Hon. Members of all Parties and from all regions that farmers are exemplified or represented by Roy Atkinson, the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. They made very clear in their testimony before the committee that it was very important for the Wheat Board to be supported. It is very important that urban Members from Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal or wherever understand-


An Hon. Member:: Winnipeg-Fort Garry?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suppose, although he should know, being a westerner. They should understand that the Wheat Board Advisory Committee is elected by farmers. They want to strengthen the Wheat Board and make sure that anything the House does does not deviate from that principle.
I have before me a transcript of the proceedings on August 18. Mr. Roy Atkinson, the Chairman, said-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Another radical socialist.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I hear the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) indicating that he is another radical socialist and that he will not listen to him. I do not know whether or not he respects democracy, whether or not he likes or dislikes Roy Atkinson. This man is the Chairman of the Wheat Board
Advisory Committee in Canada. He probably thinks Peter Lougheed is a socialist. He worships Margaret Thatcher; he is a clone of Margaret Thatcher.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why didn't you go and hear him if you like him so much?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 have heard Roy Atkinson many times. He is an old friend. He speaks the will of the people. He speaks for the people. He is the voice of the people. He was elected by grain producers, and that is important. 1 wish the Conservative Party would respect democracy. When we mention the Chairman of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee, they start to laugh and show disrespect for the farmers' own elected person. That is shameful. They rise in the House and talk about the Chamber of Commerce or Iron Ore of Canada, organizations of the elite which represent a small wealthy group, as if they are gods. Then they are snarky and make various kinds of unflattering utterances when we talk about someone who represents the voice of the people, like Roy Atkinson.
I am sure my farmers will be very interested in knowing that the Conservatives do not take the Wheat Board Advisory Committee very seriously at all. When there are elections for that office in my riding, various people participate. For example, in my riding we elected a very brilliant young farmer, Michael Halyk, who sits on the Wheat Board Advisory Committee. He represents us very well. I am sure he would be interested in knowing that the Conservative Party laughs at the Chairman of the Committee and at the work he is doing, just because he happens to be a person who is not afraid to speak out on behalf of Canadian farmers.
Are you starting to rise, Mr. Speaker, or could I have a few mintues to continue? It would be interesting to have some of these quotations on the record, such as the one of Mr. Roy Atkinson.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to continue with his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to Motion No. 32 as it gives us an opportunity to consider a number of matters. It again gives NDP Members an opportunity to say why we oppose this Bill so strenuously, and that is that it threatens the entire way of life on the Prairies. That is not just because of changes to the Crow rate and all that goes along with that. We have gone into the details of this on other occasions. We believe this is part and parcel of a long-term trend which will erode not just the way of life which has been built up on the basis of the statutory grain rate, but the whole economic
October 3, 1983

framework of western Canada, of which the Canadian Wheat Board has been a central part.
It comes as no surprise that Progressive Conservative Members do not support us in this amendment. They are not interested in defending the way of life which has built up over the years in western Canada. That is not clear to many western Canadians yet, but some day it will become clear that that is not on the agenda of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives are not a genuine defender of the way of life that has built up on the Prairies over the years as a result of certain economic institutions like the Canadian Wheat Board and historical arrangements like the Crow rate.
The fact that the Progressive Conservative Party is being picky about this amendment and is not seizing every opportunity, along with us, to reaffirm the role of the Canadian Wheat Board in the Prairie economy is a very clear indication of what we have been saying all along. The Conservatives are in line with the Liberals in so far as the long-term agenda in the West is concerned. What is that? The long-term agenda is fundamentally to transform the economy of western Canada so that western Canadians, in this case grain producers, do not have the control over their own destiny which they formerly had and would like to keep.


Mr. Breau:: It is so that they will have a railway.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They have a railway, can have a railway and will have a railway as long as there is the political will to make the railways do what is necessary in this country. There is absolutely no reason why we should have before us this piece of legislation in order to have a good railway system. My Leader indicated in the House last week that we are prepared to go ahead with a Bill dealing with railway upgrading and expansion. However, we do not believe this should be done on the backs of the Canadian grain producers, unlike the Liberals and Conservatives who have capitulated to the blackmail of the railways in this country.
I come back to the Progressive Conservatives. The people in western Canada know that the Liberals are not their friends, so we do not have to debate that. However, there is still a significant number who believe that, when it comes to this kind of issue, they still have friends in the Progressive Conservative Party. That is not surprising because the Conservatives have taken almost every position they can take on this Bill. They have danced all over the place. They have been on one side of the fence, on the fence, on the other side, back again and then over again. It is very difficult to know what is going on. But, given the historical presence of the Progressive Conservative Party in western Canada, it is not surprising that there are still people who hope that the Party to whom they have given their loyalty over the years is a genuine defender of their interests.
Many western Canadians who do not think so now will come to think in the near future that the Progressive Conservative Party has abandoned the protection of their way of life on the Prairies. That will soon come to be known. They cannot bring themselves to defend this amendment which would reaffirm
Western Grain Transportation Act and reassert the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board because that Board is responsible for orderly marketing.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a symbol in Canada of orderly marketing, the way in which we have tried to protect grain producers and others from the effects of the marketplace. That is something which always rubs Conservatives the wrong way. Yet they have had to accept the Canadian Wheat Board over the years.
I cannot hear what the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is saying. If he is going to have a bit of a jape between him and his comrades, maybe he could say it a little louder so that I could respond.
It is no surprise that the Progressive Conservative Party is not with us on this amendment, given the constant penetration of the Progressive Conservative Party by neo-conservative American ideas. There has been an abandonment of the Tory tradition in Canada of wanting to build up institutions to protect the common good and the people of Canada. It is not surprising that the Conservatives would not be with us on this amendment to reaffirm and reassert the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. In their heart of hearts they would like to see orderly marketing in this country eroded. One way they can begin to do that is by allowing step by step the erosion of the Canadian Wheat Board. That will not just have an effect on orderly marketing of grain in this country, but a symbolic effect on the acceptance of orderly marketing throughout the country.
These are the people who normally rant, rave and froth at the mouth about bureaucrats who are not accountable to the elected people, to Parliament or in any other democratic way. Yet they are willing to lay back and take the appointment by Order in Council of one person who will not be accountable to the Canadian Wheat Board, to Parliament, nor be accountable in any of the ways which they always stand up and mouth off about with regard to the kind of accountability they would like to see. When it comes to the crunch, when they have to choose either accountability or their own hidden and not so hidden ideological agenda for orderly marketing in this country, what do we hear? Nothing. We hear the Hon. Member for Vegreville get up and whine about the NDP, as if that was some kind of argument. He has not said why he does not think the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board ought to be asserted in this way in the amendment.
I hope the debate on this amendment will be an opportunity for those who are paying attention to this debate to see clearly once and for all that the Progressive Conservative Party has an agenda other than strengthening the economic institutions that we have built up over the years in western Canada. On this amendment they refuse to come to the defence of the Canadian Wheat Board. With their procrastination on the Crow rate, their indecisiveness and talking out of both sides of their mouths, they have abandoned the whole of western Canada.
May I call it one o'clock?

October 3, 1983
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.00 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, Public Service bashing seems to be a hobby of the Official Opposition. The latest incident occurred when the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) said that a Tory government would seriously consider throwing about 44,000 Canadians out of work, or 20 per cent of the civil service.
It can be small comfort to the thousands of honest, hardworking Canadians who work for the Public Service that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) has repudiated his Treasury Board critic's numbers but not his intentions. It is small comfort indeed, when the Leader of the Official Opposition was reported in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of May 26, 1983, as saying, "When we", the Tories, "come in walking softly and carrying a big stick, it's going to cause mass cardiac arrest in the Towers-of-Power of Never-Never-Land". The Public Service bashing by the Leader of the Opposition has included a claim heard on CBC television on May 26, 1983, that, "They've never worked in their lives. They've never done a day's work".
The Leader of the Opposition has threatened the Public Service on a number of occasions with some obscure actions to be taken if his Party should ever form a government. In the face of this Public Service bashing, Madam Speaker, simply stating that his Party has not considered cutting 44,000 Public Service jobs is not good enough. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition's anti-Public Service bias could mean that he will get around to considering Public Service reduction at some point in time.
The goal of Government should be to provide the people of Canada with better and more efficiently delivered public services-


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



EDUCATION


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, yesterday marked the commencement of Canada's first National Universities Week. Ongoing publicity resulting from the chronic problem of under-funding has often overshadowed the host of positive and important achievements of our colleges and universities. It is hoped, therefore, that National Universities Week will not only underline the problem of under-funding but will also highlight the vital role played by post-secondary institutions.
At the present time, and well into the foreseeable future, universities and colleges are going to be key players in the economic recovery of the country. The technological revolution will require thousands of well trained and highly skilled people, and there will be a premium on those with a high potential for training and those with superior basic skills such as can only be provided by post-secondary schools.
As well, universities have always played an important role in research and development, a function that is becoming increasingly important if not vital to our future. Academics are being called upon to work jointly with business and government toward the application and development of new technology-related products and techniques in Canada.
For some time academics have been warning policy makers that chronic under-funding will result in the inability of institutions to graduate sufficient scientists, researchers, and even teachers, to meet the Government's stated goals. This warning must be heeded.
The motto selected for Canada's first National Universities Week has been well chosen. It is, "We have the future in minds". Might I add that we, the legislators, would do well to mind the future of our colleges and universities.



ABORTION


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, on Friday the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) reaffirmed the support of the New Democratic Party for the concept of freedom of choice on abortion. The choice is conveniently given to the patient and to her doctor but is denied to a third very involved player, the unborn child who is the occupant of the womb. Quoting the names of agencies and institutions that support so-called freedom of choice does not make a wrong right.
A new individual's existence begins at conception. When the ovum is fertilized it acquires a distinctive genetic pattern which makes it a unique human being. It already has in place analogues of a major life-preserving system. It requires only time and nutrition to achieve full human development. The
October 3, 1983

legal dictum that the act of birth is the dividing line between regarding a fetus as human or not is an arbitrary distinction without functional basis.
It is the duty of society to defend and protect the rights of the most defenceless of human beings, the unborn child. Support of the principle of freedom of choice on abortion is an abrogation of the duty of society to protect those who cannot protect themselves.



THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal Government are becoming more arrogant every day. Instead of calling a First Ministers' meeting, the Prime Minister interviewed four of the Premiers and then, because those four refused to say, "Yes, yes, Mr. Prime Minister," he questioned whether he would even see the other six.
As well, the Prime Minister has told the people that Bill C-155 will create jobs when in its present form, it will destroy the cattle industry, the hog industry, and the processing industry in western Canada, and will destroy the thousands of jobs that the potential expansion of these sectors would create. Bill C-155 will also force more farmers into bankruptcy creating a loss of more jobs. The National Energy Program all but ruined the petroleum industry in western Canada, and now the Liberals are doing the same thing to much of the agricultural industry. This Bill will certainly enrich the railways though.
If the Prime Minister wants to reduce inflation, why does he not start squeezing out some of the lard from his own administration by cutting out the unnecessary joy trips in government planes made by his Ministers? That in itself would save $1 million.
Worse still, the Prime Minister is now excusing the communists for shooting down the Korean passenger plane by calling it an accident.
The Canadian people want a free enterpriser with fresh ideas to head the Canadian Government, namely, the national Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Brian Mul-roney, who calls shooting down the passenger plane murder. So resign, Mr. Prime Minister.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I wish to object most strongly to statements made by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) in Saskatchewan over the weeken professing full-fledged Conservative support for the Crow rate. His protestations of true blue fidelity to the Crow rate have been flatly contradicted by the fainthearted
efforts of Members of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons.
The truth is, Madam Speaker, that Conservative Members had 48 opportunities to speak in defence of the Crow rate in the House on Friday, and chose to put up only seven speakers. They are permitted to speak three times as often as are Members of the New Democratic Party, and instead they speak one-third as often. If that is defending the Crow, then the Conservatives should be arrested and charged for impersonating an Official Opposition. If the Leader of the Opposition says that that is defending the Crow, then he should change his last name so that it begins with a "B" instead of an "M" because he is slicing it that thick.
We intend to tell western Canadians that the Opposition Leader's words have not and are not being matched by action. When prairie farmers find this out, we think that Members of the Conservative Party will lose some seats because they have betrayed the interests of western Canadians.
The voters will also be interested to learn that CP Limited contributed $50,000 to the Conservatives in 1982, doubling its contribution of $25,000 in 1981.1 think it is fair to ask why-


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



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, the Manitoba NDP Government is the worst Government in the country for business, and it is the most anti-business regime in Canada. Because of its socialist philosophies, businesses are being driven out of the Province. Because of the policies of the federal Liberal Government and those of the Manitoba NDP Government, the country of Canada and the Province of Manitoba have no hope for economic recovery.
In 1981 and 1982 the outflow of money from Canada totalled more than $23 billion. Under the federal Liberals and the Manitoba NDPs, 1983 is also proving to be another year of economic disaster, with expansion for the whole of this year predicted to be a valueless 3 per cent and falling rapidly. The unemployment rate is at 12 per cent, which means that two million people are unemployed. Under these two governments we will see only further recession with an expected $21.7 billion deficit in 1983, increasing to $31.1 billion by 1988.
The Manitoba government is blind to the fact that its policies are only creating problems which are adding to our already sick economy. Under these anti-business, anti-profit and anti-entrepreneur philosophies, we will never see and enjoy a healthy economy or full employment.

October 3, 1983



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, many Canadians honestly believed that the now-ended CHOSP grant program was more than just government lip service to the housing problems of Canadians. How sad that this is not the case. Many problems concerning this program have been brought to my attention, but none so ignominious as the problem which was forced on residents of Langley, British Columbia, and on many Canadians across the country.
In the case of the residents of Langley, B.C., two applicants mailed their grant applications in what should have been adequate time to be considered for the $3,000 grants. In one case it was six full days, and in the other, eight. In both cases mailing times were documented. In one case there were sworn affidavits. Neither arrived at the CMHC in Vancouver by the May 5 deadline.
Slow postal service is not uncommon in Fraser Valley West. Even an eight day delivery for the 30 miles trip from Langley to downtown Vancouver is, sadly, not unheard of. What is truly incomprehensible in this instance is that one Crown corporation, Canada Post, literally thwarted the efforts of Canadians to receive assistance from another Crown corporation.
The President of Canada Post has apologized for the poor service but cannot give my constituents the grant. The Minister responsible for CMHC has apologized and said he would have liked to include postmarks, but added that no money is left for these innocent victims. These innocent Canadian taxpayers seek only what is rightfully theirs, service. They are being denied this by a Crown corporation-


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



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, during the Conservative "Dump Joe Clark" campaign last spring, the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) attacked his predecessor again and again, saying that, "If you spot Pierre Trudeau 100 seats in French-speaking Canada, the Liberals will win the Government ten times out of ten." Well, Madam Speaker, we hear that during the weekend the new Leader of the Opposition resurrected his famous mathematical equation. He told his audience in Saskatchewan that, "If you do this, you will get that, ten times out of ten". We hear this morning some more examples of that famous Mulroney math. Iron Ore of Canada, following in its former president's footsteps, is throwing 600 more people out of work in Sept-Iles and Labrador City. What is more, Iron Ore has reported a $37 million loss for 1982, and we all know who its president was for that year.
The people of Canada have now learned, as the people of Schefferville, Sept-Iles and Labrador City have learned all too well, that a vote for Brian Mulroney means you will lose your jobs ten times out of ten. They have also learned, Madam Speaker, that a vote for Brian Mulroney is a vote for financial mismanagement and deficits ten times out of ten. You can be sure that the approach used by the Leader of the Opposition in Schefferville, now being followed in Sept-fles and Labrador City, is the same approach he would use as Prime Minister, in ten Provinces out of ten, ten times out of ten.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have in my possession a transcript of remarks by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at a community reception in Sault Ste. Marie on September 25. Referring to the stalking and destruction of Korean Airlines Flight No. 007, the Prime Minister said-and I understand he repeated it on the weekend-this was an "accident" and "we have to be careful that other more serious accidents do not happen". This was no accident, Madam Speaker. It was cold, calculated, deliberate murder, and our Prime Minister's willingness to give the Soviets the benefit of the doubt does not reflect the thinking of the world community of nations, nor the outrage and disgust of our own Canadian people.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In Montreal over the weekend the Prime Minister spelled out his Government's priorities for actions, which may in themselves be laudable. What was shameful was that he did not include the needs of two million unemployed Canadians. They were not among his priorities. He did not include the needs of four million Canadians who are living in poverty. They were not on his priority list. When is the Prime Minister going to recognize that there are millions of Canadians without jobs, without adequate incomes, and who are fighting for their very survival? When are they going to become his top priority?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member will realize that her question is
October 3, 1983

pretty rhetorical. It is not a request to clarify Government policy. It is not a request for information. It is really an attack on the Prime Minister's speech. However, if her question is non-rhetorical, then I will tell her that, of course, the reduction of unemployment is a major priority of the Government of Canada. All the policies of the Government have been established with a view to bringing about a continuing recovery in Canada and with a view to reducing the unemployment rate. That is the basic economic policy which has been laid out by the Minister of Finance, and which has been followed persistently and successfully by him.


RATIO OF POPULATION LIVING IN POVERTY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is
true, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Finance may inadvertently have spelled out the Government's priorities when he said last week, "A moderation in the pace of economic recovery is not only acceptable but helpful." In other words, slow down the recovery, put more people out of work, create more poverty. That is what the priority is of the Minister of Finance. One out of six Canadians are living in poverty. If the Government follows the advice of the Minister of Finance, would the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how many more Canadians is it prepared to see living in that condition? Is it going to accept one out of five Canadians living in poverty, or one out of four? How many is the Government going to accept if it follows the advice of the Minister of Finance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member has misunderstood the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance was paying attention to the necessity of maintaining a sustained recovery, not a recovery which would bloom immediately into renewed inflation and a downturn, but a recovery which will be so based that it will continue over a period of years and will lead to a progressive reduction in the unemployment rate. I believe that has been the policy which the Minister has recently reaffirmed with his colleagues in Washington where these matters were discussed at the International Monetary Fund Meetings. I believe the Hon. Member, upon reflection, would agree that that is a very desirable objective.


HUNGRY CHILDREN
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister does not seem to understand the real facts which exists in this country. Let me give him one shocking figure which he can remember. Today there are 119,000 children in metropolitan Toronto alone who are living in poverty, and over one million such children in Canada as a whole. If a single parent mother came to the Deputy Prime Minister and said, as they have to me, "I cannot get a job; I cannot get into a retraining course; I cannot feed my children properly", what advice would he give her? Where do people like that fit into the Government's priorities?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talks as if she is the only Member of Parliament who receives Canadian citizens and who discusses their problems. Last Saturday I spent five hours in my office listening to individuals who have problems and, who are affected by the unemployment rate. In each case I attempt to provide the best advice and assistance I can. That is my responsibility as a Member of Parliament. As a member of the Government, I feel we all have the responsibility to bring about improvement in the economic situation.
The Hon. Member has referred to the situation of children in Canada. Obviously there are improvements that can be made, not only for children, but also for the single elderly. But there has been no Government in the history of this country which has done more for the children of Canada than the Government presently in office and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has consistently brought measures into this House to improve the situation, particularly of low income families and the children of those families.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I am sure I express the sentiments of all Members of Parliament when I say how grieved we are over the accident which occurred at Lac-la-Biche involving the three young people who were enrolled under the Manpower employment program.
In view of the fact there is going to be a military board of inquiry into this serious accident, can the Minister tell the House if the information derived as a result of this board of inquiry will be made public, especially to the parents and families of the people who were killed?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I hasten to join with the hon. gentleman in offering my condolences to the parents of those who died as a result of this accident. I also join with the hon. gentleman, and I am sure other Members of this House, in offering our condolences to the bereaved of those who died in other mishaps during this particular weekend.
I would indicate to the hon. gentleman that indeed there is going to be a board of inquiry. I will seriously consider, having received the report, what portion of that report can be made public.


AGE OF EQUIPMENT
Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, can the Minister assure this House that none of the people who

October 3, 1983
Oral Questions
survived that accident will be made scapegoats for faulty equipment, in view of the fact that some of the equipment they are using is now 40 years old and of World War II vintage?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. gentleman that the boards of inquiry formed to study events of this nature are of the utmost competence. I want to assure the hon. gentleman that the facts will be found out and conclusions drawn based on an objective analysis of those facts.


FINANCE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, and it goes back to the alarming report on the weekend about the level of poverty in Canada. The report indicated some 40 per cent of single parent families are at the poverty level. Is the Minister aware that literally thousands of these families living at the poverty level continue to pay taxes while, according to the most recent data available, about 5,000 Canadians who earned over $50,000 a year paid not one penny in income tax? If he is aware of this apparent injustice, what does the Government plan to do about it?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as far as the first part of the question is concerned, indeed the Government has taken steps to reduce the level of taxation at the lower end of the spectrum. 1 refer him to my April budget where some four million Canadians saw their tax decreased this year. I refer him in particular to that portion of the budget where we have provided that the workers' allowance increases from 3 per cent to 20 per cent while keeping the upper limit of $500. We have also taken steps to ensure that the child tax credit would be maintained at the level it was last year in order to assure that low income families-


Mrs. Mitchell:: Not enough, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: 1 hear a Member saying it is not enough. Of course it is not enough, and we will try to do more, and as the economy picks up and as we get the resources, we will allocate them to the people most in need. That has been the policy of this Government and this is the way we intend to pursue our policy vigorously. We want growth in this country so there will be more revenue for the Government and the people of Canada, and in that way we will be able to provide even more help to people in need. This is a very high priority for the Government, and always has been.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister, who normally has a fair record for dealing with the facts in the House, knows that his most recent budget and those of his predecessor gave proportionately greater tax breaks to upper income Canadians than they did to the average people and the poor.


NON-PAYMENT OF TAXES BY WEALTHY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, so long as ordinary workers whose income is below the poverty level pay taxes, so long as pensioners whose income is below the poverty level pay taxes, so long as single parent families whose income is below the poverty level continue to pay taxes, how can the Minister justify a situation in this country where more than 5,000 Canadians earning over $50,000 do not pay one penny in taxes? Answer that question.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have not examined the files of those 5,000 Canadians for the good reason, as the Hon. Member knows, that Ministers do not have access to those files. The Hon. Member knows the income tax law and the provisions of the law. I do not know exactly how these people manage their affairs and how-


John Edward Broadbent: Ask Allan MacEachen.


Marc Lalonde: -but the Hon. Member knows that in effect eventually these people are called upon to pay taxes. There are provisions in the Income Tax Act to take into account investments people are making and the losses they suffer in preceding years, for instance, if they have incurred losses in their business operations.
The fact is that the basic tax rate for people making $50,000 a year is higher than the tax rate for people with low income. There may be individual cases, a limited number as the Hon. Member has indicated, where, if you take into account events which have occurred in the previous years, although they may have made $50,000 this year, they may have suffered very heavy losses in the previous year or two which they are entitled to recuperate under the Income Tax Act.


Sidney James Parker: Well, change the Act.


Marc Lalonde: I hear "Change the Act". I invite my friends to participate in the debates when those Acts are considered because they will-


John Edward Broadbent: When we did, you voted against the changes.


Marc Lalonde: Well, that is it. The NDP is always against change and progress and they are against growth, and that is not new.


John Edward Broadbent: How is that for a witticism, Madam Speaker?


Marc Lalonde: I thought it was pretty good.


John Edward Broadbent: I will try the Deputy Prime Minister.
October 3, 1983


MEDICAL CARE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, on the weekend in the Province of Alberta, which has that wonderful and benign Conservative administration, somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 Albertans were cut off medicare. That took place in this country in 1983 in the Conservative Province of Alberta. Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that this violates in the most fundamental way the principle of universal medicare? If the Government of Canada agrees with that, when is it going to take some action against such vicious, inhuman activity by a provincial Government, instead of just talking about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada provides for universal access to medicare. That was a principle introduced by a Liberal Government. In fact I happen to be the Minister who introduced that Bill, and the principle of universal access is still a principle of the Liberal Government. I hope that when we take action to ensure-


John Edward Broadbent: When? Do it now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that the principle is respected, that the Hon. Member will be a little more helpful than he has been on other pieces of important legislation before the House of Commons.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF NORWAY
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of His Excellency Svenn Stray, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIA RAIL
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, we all listened with interest last week when the Minister of Transport announced that the rails might soon be rolling again in cities across Canada, where 20 per cent of the VIA Rail service was terminated in 1981. Given the fact that I have learned today that some of those trains may be rolling within 30 days, or could be rolling within 30 days, would the Minister inform the
Oral Questions
House whether these hearings to which he referred, will apply to all areas across Canada and not just to specific ridings for the political spinoff advantages that they might supply to the Government in power today?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, yes, I will give that assurance.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I thank the Minister for that assurance, and I can assure him that he will be hearing from delegations right across Canada.


BY-PASSING OF CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister. It did not go unnoticed that the Minister of Transport did not go to the CTC, the normal course of action to take when opening hearings. He went directly to VIA Rail Canada Incorporated, which means that he gets an immediate result for his approaches. Would the Minister make the same approach involving 20 per cent of the passenger rail service in Canada, until such time as the CTC or the Canadian Railway Committee is able to determine that it should not be in operation, and given the fact that his present actions have already represented a flip-flop from a position of a former Minister to a more reasonable position of a current Minister?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the changes that we are considering were in fact put in place by the previous Minister in terms of establishing a review after a two-year period. What we are simply considering is what changes may have taken place in certain market conditions in different regions of the country, and to go back, as any proper corporation or organization would do, and assess the impact and results of those decisions, and the reintroduction of those lines wherever that may be possible and economical according to the standards and guidelines set forward in the decision in 1981. That is what we are presently examining. However, we would want first to discuss this with VIA Rail. We want to ensure it still fits within the fiscal framework that we have for that particular corporation and, at the same time, consider how we can improve services in areas where there have been market changes. As I said previously, when we are prepared to move on those fronts, we will let the House know.


VANCOUVER ISLAND PASSENGER SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport, who has just added confusion to a problem which has arisen on the West Coast. I hope the Minister is aware that the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission has called hearings on the West Coast concerning the application of CP Rail into the operation by VIA Rail of the E & N Railway on the east coast of Vancouver Island. It is complicated, but I hope he has got hold

October 3, 1983
Oral Questions
of that notion. Since a Crown corporation, VIA Rail, is operating this passenger service, 1 am wondering if he can tell us why the Railway Transport Committee accepted an application from CP Rail to discontinue the service which, incidentally, the Minister should know, CP Rail is under a statutory obligation to operate in return for very generous compensation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his very careful and precise explanation of the facts, of which I am already in full possession. If he were in full possession of the facts he would know that, indeed, the arrangements between VIA Rail and both CN and CP are under contract, that the ownership of the rails is retained by the railroads, and that the services are operated by VIA Rail. The application is now before the Transport Commission. It has both the responsibility and the obligation to receive such applications. I would not want to comment on the case until such time as those hearings are completed and decisions are made, at which time it would be or could be referred to me.


REQUEST FOR COPY OF CONTRACT
Donald W. Munro: The Minister apparently believes that I have within my possession an understanding of the relationship between CP Rail and VIA Rail. In this connection, I should add that documents have been denied me and others. I wonder therefore whether the Minister is prepared to make available to me and to those who will be attending the hearings this week in Victoria, Comox, Courtenay and Nanaimo, a copy of the understanding between CP Rail and VIA Rail involving the operation of E & N? That is not a public document, so far as I know.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would be quite pleased to look into the-representations of the Hon. Member, but he would have to recognize the fact that in such transactions there are commercial arrangements in which there are fiscal arrangements being made. I would have to consult the signatories to the particular agreement. However, I will consider his representations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister is aware that Canadian citizens employed by American railways in Canada have been involuntarily removed from their railway pension plans, without prior consultation or warning, by the U.S. Railway Retirement Board. The Minister has informed me that this issue was being raised with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and with the U.S. State Department by the appropriate officials. Could the Minister report to the House on the success of these representations made on behalf of the affected Canadian workers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to report to the Hon. Member when 1 check further into the actual results of these representations. I do not have the details at my hand at the moment, but I will check and make them available to the Hon. Member.


NEED FOR INFORMATION
Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I would like to ask a very brief supplementary question, Madam Speaker. I would merely remind the Minister that there are thousands of Canadians across this country who are worried sick about their pension benefits and they should get some information from the Minister as rapidly as possible, and this should not be delayed any longer.


Erik Nielsen: What do you say to that, Al? Answer that one. Yes or no?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I agree.


INDUSTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but it had better be answered by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance will know that an industry task force, an advisory task force, which was appointed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to check into the forest industry, felt it necessary to issue an interim report reminding the Government of its previous commitment to extend to the logging industry certain fast write-off provisions as a way to help the independent side of the logging industry, the independent trucker. As he knows, this is not the first time that the industry has made this request. At a time when we desperately need to stimulate the forest industry, would he agree that it is unwise, not very prudent, to delay the implementation of these provisions any longer?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, obviously the Minister of Finance receives many recommendations for incentives to various industries. The task force report was received a while ago. Its recommendations are subject to examination at the present time. When I have reached a particular conclusion I will be very happy to inform the House, through the form of budget, normally, or in other ways.
October 3, 1983


INNOVATIVE TAX REGIME URGED
Frank Oberle: While the Minister carries on this inquiry and examination, would he also take into account the advisory committee's strong words with regard to the so-called grant programs for modernization and expansion? It stated, for instance, that it was "deeply skeptical" about grants for expansion of pulp and paper production. It stated that while grants were clearly "addictive", they were not necessarily a good system for helping the industry. Would the Minister also take under advisement the suggestion that we have consistently made that, instead of these grants to help the industry, he should really be working toward a more innovative tax regime to help all industries to recapture their market positions?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, we shall certainly consider the suggestions made by the task force. I should, however, like to inform the Hon. Member that the views of the task force are not shared by all members of industry, far from it.
Furthermore, as the Hon. Member is aware, although the tax credit system is advantageous for companies that make profits, other companies like those in the pulp and paper industry which in recent years have suffered very considerable losses were unable to benefit from the tax credits being offered, and the net result was that although these companies were basically sound, they were unable to make plans for necessary expansion projects. This occurred in a number of cases, and I think that generally, industry agrees it is a good thing to have both a grants system and a system of tax credits, since grants will help the weaker sectors that are unable to take advantage of the tax credit system.


EDUCATION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who, of course, will be involved in National Universities Week, speaking tomorrow evening, I believe. Can he give any hope at all to the universities and colleges in Canada at their time of genuine national crisis as a result of swelling enrollment and very serious, almost crippling, Government cutbacks, including the federal Government's cut-back of $102 million in fiscal transfers? Specifically, will the Minister take up the suggestion which I made a few weeks ago that, since the situation is so critical, the federal Government might indeed join with the Provinces to establish a joint emergency fund
Oral Questions
designed to assist universities and colleges throughout Canada?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question. Indeed, the question of funds being available to students is a matter of prime concern. As she already knows, this Parliament unanimously approved Bill C-161 under which more than $60 million was transferred to Provinces to help students especially in this crucial year. Last summer I brought to the attention of all provincial Ministers of Education the importance of transferring that money to the students. Unfortunately, in some Provinces, of which British Columbia is one, those moneys were not transferred directly but have been used by some Provinces to reduce their corresponding share.
If we are to put more money in any fund, it would be with the clear understanding by the Provinces that the money would at least be transferred to students and not used by Provinces to offset their own financial responsibility.


Pauline Jewett: I entirely agree with the Minister. The Government should never have entered into block funding in the first place. We in this Party, as well as the academic community, urged it not to at the time.


REQUEST FOR NEW FUNDING FORMULA
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, with reference not only to students but the institutions themselves, I want to ask the Minister specifically if he will develop a joint emergency fund for the institutions, to be spent in no other way? Will he also use this moment when we are under six and five to begin talking with the Provinces about a new funding formula that will ensure that federal money does in fact go to the universities?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has put her finger on something very important. In our Constitution there are two levels of Government, one of which especially has exclusive jurisdiction in matters of education. When the federal Government wants to spend money and help the university community, it cannot go over and beyond the Provinces. We have to ensure that we agree on the objectives and we have to agree that the money must be spent in that sector. Although we would increase our block funding-and the Hon. Member has very specifically pointed out the need in the community to maintain an increased level of funding-there is no need for the Government to increase it if there is no involvement on the part of the Provinces to make sure that the money is used in the system.
A permanent feature of our negotiations in the last few years has been to make sure that we get a formal commitment from the Provinces that the money will be earmarked for the post-secondary level and will be spent in that sector.
27670

October 3, 1983
Oral Questions


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister has been quoted as saying that Canada will use its position on organizations like the IMF to stop loans to countries which trample on human beings. I believe he used Viet Nam as example. Will he tell the House whether he, in fact, said that and if it was a statement of Government policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not think that is a statement of Government policy. To the contrary, it has consistently been our view that applications to the International Monetary Fund for assistance should, in the main, be judged upon economic and financial criteria. If we introduced political considerations it would be very difficult to manage the Fund in a commercially satisfactory way. I do not recall having made that statement but, if I did, I would be very surprised.


David Kilgour: The speech referred to was made in Bangkok, I believe.


HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, will the Minister tell us if he believes that the Government of Canada should take no position with respect to the IMF and the trampling upon human rights wherever that takes place in the world?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the question is a very difficult one. It has been addressed in another context by the standing committee with respect to the delivery of foreign aid. I thought the conclusions of the committee were sound because, in the main, the committee did not recommend the suspension or termination of aid in countries where there had been violations of human rights. It did say that where the violations were so gross that aid programs would be inconsequential or inoperative, then that would be a matter to influence not granting, reducing, or terminating aid.
As far as the International Monetary Fund is concerned, to my knowledge there has been no rule, except the general one, that applications should be based and judged upon economic criteria. That has been the Canadian view. Although there have been other countries which have requested that financial issues be judged upon non-financial criteria, we have not endorsed that view up to the present.


SHIPPING
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It rises out of the fact that on Thursday of this week the UNCTAD arrangements with respect to the new code of ethics for liner operations, the 40-40-20 split on trade carriage will come into effect.
Will the Minister indicate to the House what steps his Department will take to monitor the initial phases of this new arrangement for the purpose of protecting Canada? Does he, at this point in time, have any reason to believe that Canadian shipping or shippers might be detrimentally affected by Canada not being a signatory to that agreement?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is no indication of that kind at present. As the Hon. Member knows, the negotiations on that were a responsibility carried out by officials of External Affairs, in consultation with people in the marine administration. I recognize his concern and would certainly undertake again to ensure that a proper monitoring and analysis are done. We would try to prepare such an assessment for him.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF STUDIES
J. Michael Forrestall: The Minister will be aware that if we were signatories to that agreement and were to reserve for ourselves the right of moving 40 per cent of our in exports and imports, it could mean up to 30,000 new direct Canadian jobs for Canadian merchant marine engineers and others.
At the end of his review period during the initial stages of this arrangement, will the Minister undertake to review or release in public whatever reports or studies are done, and to make some visible comment on the gradual re-establishment of a Canadian merchant marine so that we might take immediate advantage of the opportunities accorded under this United Nations arrangement?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the development of a deep sea fleet is a subject that has been examined many times by different federal Governments, including this one. It is a subject in which we certainly have a continuing interest. However, there are certain significant interest groups in the country, particularly those in the west port areas, that are quite strongly opposed to the introduction of such a fleet. I would hope, with his co-operation and that of others, once we are able to complete the debate on the Crow Bill it will give me more time to go places out West to meet with such groups to see if we could arrive at a more cordial arrangement and therefore be able to pursue that matter more constructively.
October 3, 1983


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. I believe all of us in the House would want to commend the universities of Canada for the 150 years of very important contributions they have made to the development of the nation.
Could the Minister explain to the House why spending on research and development by our Canadian universities, which was at a level of 12 per cent through the 1960s and 1970s, dropped to a level of only 8 per cent in 1983? The actual performance of research within our Canadian universities dropped from some 25 per cent through the past decade to only 19 per cent for 1983. Could the Minister explain this sudden reduction of spending on research and development within the universities, and say what he proposes to do about it?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the issue of spending for research and development generally is, of course, one of prime importance to the Government and fundamental to the technology policy which I introduced in the House last May. I am sure the Member in question is gratified by the increased levels of funding which have been provided to NSERC. The other granting councils are primarily responsible for all research and development at the post-graduate level in the university system in Canada.
What we see happening across the country on an almost weekly, if not daily basis, is an increased effort on the part of industry to involve universities in research as well. We have some outstanding examples with which the Hon. Member is undoubtedly familiar, such as at the University of Waterloo, which I will be visiting on Friday this week-


Erik Nielsen: What time?


Donald James Johnston: -to examine its success first hand. It is also happening elsewhere. It is also happening at McGill with Allelix. It is happening at the University of Quebec with Bell Northern Laboratories. It is also happening at the University of Calgary, to name a few examples that have come to my specific attention. On the whole I would say the picture is a very optimistic one, that the level of awareness of the importance of university research has reached Canadians on a very broad basis. We can look to much more active co-operation and effective applied research at the university level, a level we have not seen in the past to the same extent whatsoever.


MISSION ORIENTED RESEARCH WORK
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State presents a very rosy picture but
Oral Questions
he did not answer the question. The Statistics Canada figures I refer to show that university investment in and performance of research declined by almost two-thirds from what they were prior to 1982.1 asked the Minister why that was the case.
Does the Minister feel in terms of specifics that universities should be making a more mission oriented approach to the very serious economic problems that our country has to contend with for the balance of this decade, and does the Minister have some suggestions as to how the work of the universities might be made increasingly relevant in seeking that goal?


Donald James Johnston: Yes, indeed, Madam Speaker, the mission-oriented research, which I assume the Hon. Member is referring to as applied research as opposed to basic research, is something which the universities are involving themselves in more and more. But it is also terribly important, as the Hon. Member will know, being an aeronautical engineer himself with a great interest in science, and fundamental to the well-being of the entire scientific establishment in this country, that basic research not be forgotten; there must be a major thrust at the university level toward maintaining and enhancing the basic research capacity.
That being said, we have introduced programs, such as the program in micro-electronics unveiled by NSERC earlier this year, which will enable somewhere between 26 and perhaps 30 work stations to establish engineering faculties across this country which will enable engineering students to design very large integrated circuitry which will be co-ordinated through Queen's Control Centre and, probably, will be produced by a number of Canadian corporations and then returned to those universities for testing. There is an example-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister no doubt will be aware that some 2,000 Greek Cypriots have been missing since the war of invasion of 1974. I presume he is also aware that many of these people have been seen, indeed fairly recently, and we have good reason to believe that at least a lot of them are still alive. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs give the Government's commitment to take up this matter very seriously as a humanitarian issue to see that these people are released from the camps in Turkey and are able to return to their homes and families?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I

October 3, 1983
Oral Questions
will certainly take note of the Hon. Member's interest in the question and see what can be done on the matter.
In the past week I did have discussions with the President of Cyprus and discussed the situation on that island. I do not say that it was his obligation to raise this question, but it was not raised, nor was it raised in the discussion I had with the Turkish Foreign Minister. In both conversations I was attempting to develop a better understanding of the situation in Cyprus, and particularly to what extent we should recommit ourselves to maintaining our peace forces in Cyprus. But I will examine the Hon. Member's question.


CANADIAN PEACEKEEPING FORCE
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, could the Minister comment more directly on the peacekeeping issue itself? There is considerable concern. When there is discussion in the press about withdrawing Canadian troops, which we all want, without the context of the withdrawal of Turkish occupying troops and the establishment of a just settlement in accordance with a United Nations resolution, this does cause concern. Could we have a very firm commitment that the troops will stay until there is a proper and a fair settlement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Canadian peacekeeping forces have been in Cyprus for 19 years. The intention originally in putting them in Cyprus, along with forces from other countries, was to create the possibility for a political settlement. One wonders after that length of time how long it is justified to keep the peacekeeping forces there, particularly when there seems to be rather little progress made in terms of a political settlement. I think it is relevant for countries like Canada to raise this question if only to encourage the parties involved to make some progress in securing a political settlement.
I want to assure the Hon. Member that Canada will continue to play a responsible role as is required by the circumstances. But I think at the same time we ought to be putting some pressure on the parties to reach a political settlement so that these forces can be removed.


COLLEGE FOOTBALL-BANNING OF ATLANTIC CONFERENCE
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. The CIAU has barred the Atlantic Conference from being eligible for the National College Football honours, affecting universities such as St. Francis Xavier, St. Mary's, Mount Allison, and Acadia, which will be ineligible to play in the football finals. Did the CIAU directors contact the Minister before making this decision?


Hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Madam Speaker, this matter has been under consideration in our Department since July, and I can give my colleague the assurance that our offer to mediate between the CIAU and the Atlantic association still stands. The two organizations have been unable to agree on a game schedule that would be convenient to all universities. As Hon. Members are aware, last year, some last-minute changes had to be made, resulting in a loss of $50,000 plus academic time for students at the University of British Columbia. Madam Speaker, we are maintaining our efforts to finance university associations, but in this particular case, while our mediation offer still stands, it was the CIAU that refused to allow the Atlantic region to participate in the Vanier Cup, and we deplore this.


AMATEUR BOXING-INQUIRY RESPECTING MINISTER'S POSITION
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. It concerns the doctors' report on the banning of amateur boxing in Canada. Can the Minister, in a short one minute or so, tell us whether she agrees with the banning of amateur boxing in Canada?
[ Translation]


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Madam Speaker, in amateur boxing as in all other sports, associations are governed by a national association that determines the rules for that discipline. In the case of boxing, we have had a commission of inquiry which has reported on its findings and recommended the appointment of a commissioner, but since there are federal and provincial jurisdictions to be respected, the position of commissioner has not been created although there are strong recommendations to do so. We are meeting the provinces at the end of the month, when we will be working on a set of rules of conduct. However, we feel that the rules should apply equally to both men and women in all sports disciplines, including boxing.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on Friday, September 29, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
October 3, 1983



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 46(2),
I wish to table, in both official languages, a notice of ways and means to amend the Income Tax Act and also the draft regulations related thereto.


PETITION
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition in support of my Private Member's Bill which amends the Broadcasting Act. This petition was signed by a large number of people in my riding of Broadview-Greenwood and in other constituencies in Toronto.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,815 and 4,966.
	Order Paper Questions		
Ken McKinnon	Dairy Farmer Dairy Farmers of Canada	01/11/81	01/11/84Jacques Boucher	Dairy Farmer Dairy Farmers of Canada	31/10/80	01/11/83Raynald Giroux	Dairy processor National Dairy Council	14/01/83	14/01/86Neil Gray	Dairy processor National Dairy Council	01/11/81	01/11/84(Candidates under consideration). Vacant	Dairy processor National Dairy Council	-	-Francois Goulet	Food wholesaler Canadian Grocery Distribution Institute	31/10/80	01/11/83Eugene Vallee	Food retailer Association des detaillants du Quebec	14/01/83	14/01/86Victoria Billingsley	Consumer advocate Consumers' Association of Canada	31/10/82	01/11/85(c) Remuneration and expenses are	fixed by the Governor inCouncil pursuant to Section 6 (2) of the Canadian Dairy Commission Act:	Members	Claude Chevalier	$ 549.70Ken McKinnon	$ 3,909.39Jacques Boucher	$ 3,633.97Raynald Giroux	$ 3,306.51Neil Gray	$ 7.309.75Dwight Stacey	$ 4,141.81Francis Goulet	$ 946.20Eugene Vallee	$ 2,991.85Victoria Billingsley	$ 9,990.89
The members all receive the same per diem rate of $200 per day for attendance at meetings of the Committee as well as $200 a day for the time spent to travel to attend meetings and return home, plus travel and accommodation expenses.


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


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes, pursuant to Section 5 of the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.
(a)
(b) (i)
(ii)
Members
Expertise & Orga-	Term of Appointment
nization Affiliation	From	ToClaude Chevalier	Dairy product marketing	31/10/80	01/11/83
(President of Committee) Dairy Bureau of Canada
Others amounts paid
Translation Service	$	1,679.58Luncheons and Coffee	$	848.08Expenses of invited guests	$	796.90
(d) No other direct funding is provided. However, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, etc., are covered by the Canadian Dairy Commission budget.
2. (a) The Advisory Committee advises the Canadian Dairy Commission with respect to matters arising under the Act and as are referred to it by the Minister or the Commission.
(b)	The Committee has been considering subjects such as alternative domestic skim milk powder pricing systems, dairy product promotion and sales to the food service industry, the quality of dairy products, and monitoring programs, attitudes towards nutrition and health aspects of dairy products, coordination of industrial and fluid milk price increase

October 3, 1983
Order Paper Questions
announcements, new users for skim milk powder, and low fat dairy products, etc.
(c)	In 1982-83, the Committee met twice. No fixed number of meetings is required.
(d)	The Committee's opinions and recommendations are not published but are recorded in the minutes of the proceedings.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the composition of the Board of Directors of the Canada Grains Council and what is the address and occupation of each individual?
2.	What is the compensation and what are all the benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the Council?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. See below.
2. Compensation nil. Directors receive travel and accommodation expenses when attending meetings of the Council.
1. The composition of the Board of Directors is as follows:
Name	Occupation	AddressMr. Dobson Lea (Chairman)	Farmer	Jarvie, AlbertaMr. Julian Smith	Vice Chairman- Canada Grains Council	Toronto, OntarioMr. Boyd Anderson	Farmer Past President Saskatchewan Assoc, of Rural Municipalities	Fir Mountain, Sask.Mr. Harry Vis	Robin Hood Multifoods Ltd. Chairman, Canadian National Millers Assoc.	Willowdale, OntarioJ. A. Campbell	Farmer Director, Palliser Wheat Growers Assoc.	Southey, Sask.Mr. R. L. M. Dawson	Senior Vice-President Cargill Grain Co. Ltd.	Winnipeg, ManitobaMr. H. DeBoer	Farmer Director, Canadian Federation of Agriculture	Annapolis County, Nova ScotiaMr. Lome F. Hehn	Farmer President, United Grain Growers Ltd.	Winnipeg, ManitobaMr. H. C. Heimbecker	President Parrish & Heimbecker Ltd. Chairman, Canadian Feed Industry Assoc.	Toronto, Ont.Mr. D. R. Larsen	Manager Pioneer Grain Terminal Limited	Vancouver, B. C.Mr. Maurice Lavallee	Manager Feed & Fertilizer Div. Cooperative Federee de Quebec	Montreal, QuebecMr. Gerry McLintock	Vice-President Continental Grain Co. Ltd.	Winnipeg, ManitobaMr. Lome Parker	Farmer Director, Manitoba Farm Business Assoc.	St. Agathe, ManitobaMr. C. R. Pike	Vice-President C.P. Rail, Prairie Region	Winnipeg, ManitobaMr. Fergus Young	Farmer	Ennismore. Ontario
Director, Ont. Wheat Producers Marketing Board


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Minister of Justice have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I regret I must have missed your calling of Reports from Standing and Special Committees. I wonder whether the House would agree to reverting to reports so that the report of the Standing Committee on Transport could be tabled.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I assume that the report deals with Bill C-163, an Act to set up an Aviation Safety Board. If that is the case, we not only would welcome the report but, if the Hon. Member wishes to move concurrence later this day, we will ensure that it is dealt with in all stages today.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to reverting to Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, I thank the House for its consent. I have the honour to present the eighteenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
[Editor's Note: For above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western
October 3, 1983
[Stage Direction]
grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 32 (Mr. Benjamin).
Madam Speaker:: Before beginning the debate, 1 would like to make another preliminary ruling, as I promised to do last week in the House. This time it covers all the amendments, but before 1 commence my ruling 1 would like to ensure that the Leaders of each Party have a copy. Since there are so many numbers involved, 1 think it is very important that Hon. Members have a copy to follow.
I would like to indicate to Hon. Members that I have now had an opportunity to examine all the motions standing on the Notice Paper in amendment at report stage to the Bill now before the House. It is my intention to make a comprehensive statement on all the motions, including those motions to which I had referred in my statement to the House on Thursday, September 29, 1983.
I would first like to refer to the motions that give the Chair some concern about their procedural acceptability. These are Motions Nos. 1 to 23 inclusive, 28, 36, 41, 51, 54, 57, 59, 64, 66, 67, 70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81, 85, 86, 87, 89, 104 to 117 inclusive, 116 to 126 inclusive, 129, 134, 135, 139, 145 to 147 inclusive, 150 to 153 inclusive, 155, 157, 165, 166 and 172 to 174 inclusive.
Motion No. 1, as I indicated to the House last Thursday, seeks to introduce into the Bill a disguised preamble. Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 13 to 23 inclusive, 28, 36, 41, 51, 54, 57, 59, 70, 80, 81, 85, 89, 134, 135, 146, 147 and 166 go beyond the scope of the Bill, in some cases are substantive amendments to an interpretation clause, and also infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown.
Motions Nos. 6 to 12 inclusive, 64 to 67 inclusive, 73, 86, 87, 139, 150, 151, 155 and 165 are contrary to the principle of the Bill as agreed to at second reading and in some cases infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. Motions Nos. 104 to 114 inclusive, 172 and 173 infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown. Motion No. 129 attempts to introduce substantive changes to an interpretation clause and infringes upon the Crown's financial initiative. Motion No. 145 is consequential to this motion and therefore cannot stand on its own.
Motion No. 152 proposes a new scheme not contemplated in the Bill and goes beyond the royal recommendation. Likewise, Motion No. 153 is contrary to the purpose of the Bill and also goes beyond the royal recommendation.
Motion No. 157 proposes to introduce an entirely new proposition which is contrary to the purpose of the Bill. Motion No. 74 is consequential to Motion No. 157 and therefore cannot stand on its own.
Motion No. 174 seeks to amend the title of the Bill. Our precedents would not permit an alteration in the long title of a Bill unless such substantial changes are made to the Bill that would necessitate a change in the title to reflect the content and intent of the Bill. However, as Motion No. 174 is the last
Western Grain Transportation Act motion to be considered, we will wait until we reach the motion before making a final decision upon it.
In my statement on Thursday last I had referred to Motion No. 61 as giving me some procedural difficulty as to its acceptability. That was at first blush. I have now had a second look at this motion and I feel that it is relevant to the Bill, covered by the necessary royal recommendation and therefore will be proposed to the House at the appropriate time.
However, I have no difficulty in ruling on Motions Nos. 75 and 116 to 126 inclusive. These motions are clearly irrelevant and bear no relation to the Bill as amended by the committee and reprinted at report stage. Therefore they will be removed from the Notice Paper.
I would hope that the procedural arguments that Hon. Members may wish to place before the Chair on the other motions to which I have referred could take place soon. I would suggest Thursday morning at the opening of the day's sitting in order to allow Hon. Members sufficient time to consider the reservations I have just expressed. I will then be in a position to study Hon. Members' arguments and come back to the House with my final decision on the motions.
I will now refer to those motions that are acceptable to the Chair. They are Motions Nos. 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, to 50 inclusive, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 60 to 63 inclusive, 65, 68, 69, 71, 72, 76 to 79 inclusive 82, 83, 84, 88, 90 to 103 inclusive, 115, 127, 128, 130, 131, 132, 133, 136, 137, 138, 140 to 144 inclusive, 148, 149, 154, 156, 158 to 164 inclusive and 167 to 171 inclusive.

As Hon. Members are aware, Motions Nos. 24, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 31 have been disposed of. Motion No. 32 is now before the House. Motion Nos. 33, 34 and 35 should be debated separately and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 37 and 38 should be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 39 and 40 should be grouped for debate. An affirmative vote on 39 will dispose of 40. A negative vote on 39 would necessitate the question being put on 40. Motions Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 will be grouped for debate. Motion No. 47 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on 48 will dispose of 49. However, a negative vote on 48 will require the question to be put on 49.
Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53 should be grouped for debate. Motion No. 50 will be voted on separately and a vote on Motion No. 52 will dispose of Motion No. 53.
Motions Nos. 55 and 56 will be debated together and voted on separately. Motions Nos 58 and 60 will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 61 and 62 should be debated together. An affirmative vote on 61 will dispose of 62. However, a negative vote on 61 requires a vote on 62. Motions Nos. 63, 101 and 102 appear to be related and should be grouped with Motions Nos. 103 and 142 for debate. The voting sequence should be as follows: Motions Nos. 63, 103

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act and 142 separate votes; Motion No. 101 in the affirmative disposes of Motion No. 102; Motion 101 in the negative requires the question being put on 102.
Motion No. 65 should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 68 and 69 will be debated together and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 71, 72 and 76 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 77, 78 and 79 should be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: Motion 77 in the affirmative disposes of 78; Motion 77 in the negative requires question on 78; Motion 79 by itself.
Motion No. 82 should be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 83 and 84 should be debated together with an affirmative vote on 83 disposing of 84 and a negative vote on 83 requiring the question to be put on 84. Motion No. 88 will be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 90, 91 and
92	will be grouped for debate with separate votes. Motion No.
93	causes the Chair some misgiving as to its procedural acceptability. However, 1 am giving the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt and I suggest that it be grouped for debate with Motion No. 94 but that each should be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 95 and 96 should be grouped for debate but voted on separately. Motions Nos. 97 and 98 should be debated separately and voted on separately.
Again, I have some doubt as to the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 99 but will rule in favour of the Hon. Member. This motion will be grouped with Motion No. 100 for debate and a vote on 99 will dispose of 100. Motions Nos. 101, 102 and 103 I have dealt with when dealing with Motion No. 63. Motion No. 115 should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 127 and 128 will be grouped for debate with a vote on 127 disposing of 128.
Motion No. 130 should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 131 and 132 should be grouped for debate and a vote on 131 disposes of 132. Motion No. 133 should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 136 and 137 will be grouped for debate and a vote on 136 will dispose of 137. Motion No. 138 should be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 140 and 141 will be grouped for debate and a vote on 140 disposes of 141. Motion No. 142 was grouped with Motion No. 63 and others and has been mentioned earlier. Motions Nos. 143 and 144 will be grouped for debate and a vote on 143 disposes of 144. Motions Nos. 148 and 149 will be grouped for debate and a vote on 148 will also dispose of 149. Motions Nos. 154, 156 and 158 should be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 159, 160, 161 and 162 should be debated together but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 163 and 164 will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 167 and 168 ought to be debated together but voted on separately. Motions Nos. 169 and 170 will be debated together and voted on separately. Motion No. 171 should be debated and voted on separately.
I apologize to Hon. Members for taking so much time of the House with this statement. I suppose Hon. Members understand that it was impossible to do it otherwise. However, as Hon. Members are aware, there were 174 motions to be dealt with, which have taken a good deal of time and study. I have made the grouping, I think it is right, but if Hon. Members who are intimately aware of the content of some of the amendments feel they can make a suggestion to facilitate the grouping, I would welcome that. I ask them to bring it to the attention of the Table officers.
That is the preliminary ruling. I ask Hon. Members to reflect and make their arguments to the Chair on Thursday morning, if that is agreeable.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I thank the Chair and the Table officers for the assistance which this lengthy statement will give us in considering our submissions concerning the acceptability or non-acceptability of the motions which have given the Chair some concern.
I have one concern. Naturally we will harness all of our resources in an effort to address the motions in this statement which the Chair has given today where the Chair has some concerns about their procedural acceptability. However, I would simply point out that the very able Table officers, with all their resources, have been studying these motions since last Wednesday. They have had some five days to come up with this very lengthy statement. We are going to try to make the Thursday date suggested by the Chair, but that only gives us, I am sure the Chair appreciates, two days to do the kind of work that the Table has taken five days to do. It is certainly not balanced. We will certainly try to make the Thursday date.
The other matter gives me more concern. It occurs on page 3 of your statement where the Chair says: "However, I have no difficulty in ruling on Motions Nos. 75 and 116 to 126 inclusive. These motions are clearly irrelevant and bear no relation to the Bill as amended by the committee and reprinted at the report stage. Therefore, they will be removed from the Notice Paper".
I, of course, did not anticipate the concern that would be expressed by the Chair with respect to these numbered motions. I urge the Chair, before removing them from the Order Paper, at least to allow us to make submissions with respect to the conclusions reached by the Chair. It may well be, as I was prepared to do today, that we will agree with the Chair on some of the concerns you raised last Thursday. Before deciding about hearing any submissions that certain motions are going to be removed from the Order Paper, I submit that the fair course to be followed, and I suggest that the Chair follow it in this case, is to hear submissions with respect to that decision before making it unilaterally.


Madam Speaker:: I would point out to the Hon. Member that this particular group of amendments is, in my view, so obviously out of order because they do not relate to the Bill as it was reprinted. I can give the Hon. Member an example and I would like to mount those arguments for Hon. Members and I will do so in time. However, they are so obviously out of
October 3, 1983

order that I think much time could be saved if I do mount those arguments and give them to Hon. Members in detail.
If the Hon. Member wants to take time to look at them, I do not mind; but when the Hon. Member has looked at this particular group of amendments, I think he will agree with me that they are so obviously out of order. The Hon. Member can look at them and I will certainly listen to any reasonable argument unless, in mounting all of my arguments, the case seems to me to be so close that I will rule definitively on it.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have simply not had enough time to look at them. The chances are that the care with which you have examined these amendments will compel me to come to the same conclusion, but I would at least like the opportunity to look at them. If I come to another conclusion, I would then like to be able to submit arguments on it.
The last point I make is with respect to those so-called amendments that have been filed under Standing Order 79(6). Nowhere in last week's statement or this week s statement has the Chair commented with respect to the acceptability or unacceptability of those amendments which the Government purports to file under Standing Order 79(6). Are we to assume, in the absence of any comment from the Chair, that the Chair has found them all to be in order? If that is the case, we of course would want to have the opportunity to make submissions with respect to their acceptability.


Madam Speaker:: I will tell the Hon. Member right away that not all of those motions were found to be in order. If the Hon. Member is referring to those that required a royal recommendation, I can tell the Hon. Member that those royal recommendations were attached to the motions and therefore, in that respect, they would be in order. Some of them have been ruled out of order. In any event, we can all look at this. I will take into account the remarks of the Hon. Member and I will also take into account that on Thursday perhaps Hon. Members will not be ready to present argument and then we can postpone it.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would like to make it quite clear that none of the proposed amendments filed by the Government under Standing Order 79(6) is numbered. I know the Chair has addressed concerns with respect to some Government amendments that are numbered, for instance No. 116. However, nowhere in last week's statement or this week's statement has the Chair directed its attention, as far as I am aware, to those amendments filed by the Government under Standing Order 79(6).
Before coming to any conclusion on those amendments, I would appreciate first if I could have some indication from the Chair as to whether or not any or all of them, or one or more of them, are acceptable or not acceptable; and second, of course, could I have the opportunity to make submissions with regard to any of the concerns that may be expressed by the Chair on any of those amendments? In any event, I would like to have the opportunity to make submissions on certain of
Western Grain Transportation Act those or all of those amendments which may appear to us to be unacceptable.


Madam Speaker:: I will listen to the arguments the Hon. Member has to put to the Chair concerning that. Neither I nor some of the officers of the Table really know what the Hon. Member is getting at, but I am sure that when he makes his presentation it will become much clearer to us.
Before I sit down, there has been a mistake made in the retyping of the ruling and I would ask Hon. Members to look at the paragraph that is numbered three on page 2. Motions Nos. 6 to 12 inclusive, 64, 66 and 67, 73, 86, 87, is the proper version. There was a mistake made in the retyping.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I do not seem to be getting through regarding the Standing Order 79(6) question. The Chair has not addressed the regularity or otherwise of the amendments filed by the Government under Standing Order 79(6). I would like to know, as I am sure would other Members, whether the Chair has any concern with respect to any one of those amendments filed under Standing Order 79(6). If the Chair does not have any concern with any of those amendments, then I will, of course, have a global submission to make with respect to their acceptability or unacceptability. If the Chair has any concerns, I would request the Chair to state those concerns now or perhaps tomorrow in the same way that the Chair has for all of the numbered motions that stand on the Order Paper. I am asking for guidance.


Madam Speaker:: 1 would prefer, rather than consulting here without fully appreciating the Hon. Member's question, to let him know what my feeling is on that particular question tomorrow.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, to help clear the anxiety of the Hon. Member Leader for the Conservative Party, I think the Chair has already commented on Government amendments. In fact, two were held in reserve last week and the Chair has since accepted No. 61 but still holds in reserve or considers the advisability of No. 14, which is a proposal affecting the interpretation clause. In fact, those comments have already been made and we will be prepared to submit arguments similarly.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with two matters. Both of these matters have already been raised, but I would like to add my voice to them. One is the question of whether or not it is possible to be ready to argue on all of these proposals by Thursday morning. I do seriously question whether everyone can be ready to do that. I hope we can work out a more satisfactory way of dealing with them.
On the question of the acceptability of Motions Nos. 75 and 116 through 126, you, Madam Speaker, referred to having no difficulty with ruling on the motions. I would simply like to ask that there be the opportunity at least to make representation on one of the motions, either No. 116 or one of those

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
numbered between 116 and 126; the same argument would be applicable in all of those cases since each of the motions deals with the same topic but uses somewhat different numbering in order to arrive at somewhat different conclusions. I would hope that at least the opportunity will be afforded to Members to make their representations on those motions and, indeed, that they need not be made repeatedly but could be made on any one of them since each of them addresses the same general topic.


Madam Speaker:: I would be prepared to accept that because I fail to see how any of these amendments are relevant to the Bill. I think I would accept one single argument about the relevancy of all of these motions. I do warn the Hon. Member, however, that at first blush and even further than that they do seem to be out of order.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, you have just made a statement that is both long and detailed. Bearing in mind that the easiest thing to do would be to wait for tomorrow's Hansard in order to read your statement, I am wondering if you might ensure that all Hon. Members have the opportunity this afternoon to have that statement in hand so that we can have the opportunity to go through it as we deal with the amendments.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I am told that we have sufficient copies to circulate to all Hon. Members who are interested. I suppose that as usual Hon. Members can get them behind the chair.
Motion No. 32 is now before the House.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I would like to speak this afternoon on Motion No. 32, which is an amendment presented by the New Democratic Party.
What we are trying to establish is the clear authority of the Canadian Wheat Board over the movement of grain. We have no real opposition to the appointment of a Grain Transportation Agency Administrator, as long as that is the person where the buck actually stops. If there is a problem with grain transportation, that individual should be answerable and responsible for co-ordination and efficiency in the movement of grain throughout the country. Very clearly, whoever the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator might be, he must be answerable to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is recognized, Mr. Speaker, as one of the best, if not the best, orderly market systems, in terms of its sales, its record and its representation of the producers of this country. It may very well be the best agency in the world.
Part of the problem, Mr. Speaker, which I have encountered in grain transportation in my own constituency comes, perhaps, from the lack of boxcars and hopper cars to move the grain out of certain areas. There are a good number of elevators each and every year which are plugged for a good portion of the year, either because there have been no cars into
the siding to haul the grain out, or rail conditions are so bad that cars cannot be loaded up to full capacity. Meadow Lake in my constituency is a good example of an area where the rail is in such poor condition that a hopper car cannot take out a full load of grain because the track cannot physically stand the weight of the loaded hopper car. However, the important problem is when there are no cars at all. I can think of cases where farmers have to haul grain to many small delivery points which are already plugged with grain, and this causes some very real problems. If the elevator is plugged, the local farmer cannot, of course, haul his grain to that elevator. In some cases farmers for many miles around end up hauling grain long distances in order to sell it, especially if they are under the time constraints of a quota. In most cases in which I have made representations to the Canadian Wheat Board, we have been successful in having quotas extended for a period of time. The Canadian Wheat Board understands that sometimes there is a need to extend the quota because the farmers have been unable to deliver by reason of plugged elevators. This is not the fault of the grain company and it is not the fault of the farmer, but it is the fault of the rail companies, I suppose, because the box cars are not there. Or is it the fault of the Grain Transportation Agency? Is it the fault of the CN or the CP or is it the fault of the grain company? It is very difficult to tell. That is why it is important, Mr. Speaker, that the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator who is put in place be responsible solely to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board, of course, is responsible to the members who make up that board, the farmers of Canada.
The fact that the elevators are plugged for a good portion of the year indicates some efficiencies which must exist because there are a number of delivery points within the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency which do not ship any grain in the wintertime. In fact, there are places like Denholm and Brada and others in various parts of northwestern Saskatchewan which only ship during the busiest times of the year for farmers, which is just before, during and just after harvest, and around seeding time. It seems very unfair to me that there cannot be a consistent flow of grain through the elevators as the farmers hault it in. There are all sorts of reasons why that does not happen right now. That is why I feel that if there is a Grain Transportation Agency Administrator set up, the buck has to stop with that individual. Right now there might be a problem with the grain cars not coming into a certain delivery point. You can call the Grain Transportation Agency and you are told the cars have been allocated. There are so many cars at that siding on Wednesday, for example. Well, on Wednesday the cars do not show up. When a complaint is made, the Grain Transportation Agency says, "The cars were allocated. It is the fault of the rail company. " If a complaint is made to CN or CP, you are told, "Well, we did not have enough cars. We could not deliver them." You are also told that their crews are overworked, that they could not get there, that they have been on a double shift.
October 3, 1983

I am not blaming the employees of the rail companies. However, the point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that there is not a whole lot of co-ordinating going on. It seems quite often that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. The only thing which the local elevator agent sees, and the farmers see when they want to haul their grain, is that there are no cars there and they cannot haul their grain to a plugged elevator. The farmer usually gets upset with the local elevator agent, who in turn has to pass it on to someone else, or he tells the farmer whom he should contact, and quite often the Member of Parliament for that area is contacted. We, as Members of Parliament, try to make representations as best we can to the grain companies themselves, because they allocate the cars out to the different blocks. We deal with the transportation agency, which tries to be very helpful. In fact, it goes out of its way to be helpful, but sometimes the situation is beyond its control. We also deal with the Canadian Wheat Board. It is very happy to accommodate and extend the crop year if just cause can be shown. We also have to deal with CN and CP, which seem to be more interested in the main lines and commodities which they can haul to maximize their own profits, especially in terms of Canadian Pacific. It is more interested in upgrading the rail lines in order to haul coal than it is to haul grain because hauling coal is where the real money is.
I suppose that the point we are trying to get across by presenting Motion No. 32 is that there is a need for better co-ordination and better service in the transportation of grain. That can best be accomplished by the producer agency, which has worked so well for so many years in the Canadian Wheat Board. We have heard some Hon. Members of the Conservative Party who have spoken in the House today being very critical about a producer organization, which has in fact worked so well. They made comments which at least the Conservatives viewed as insulting about the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Council. The Conservatives say that they want to preserve the Crow rate for a three-year period. But certainly their actions in this House do not portray that as being their real desire. They might say it, but they are not carrying it out. They say they want to save the Crow just as they say they want to save the Canadian Wheat Board. But what we see is that the Conservatives and Liberals together do the opposite through the amendments they propose or by not supporting the amendments we in the NDP move to strengthen such agencies as the Canadian Wheat Board, which has done a very good job for producers for a good many years.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see my time has come to an end.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo some of the statements made by my colleague and emphasize a few other reasons as to why we are asking that the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator be made an employee of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The producers know the value of having the Canadian Wheat Board market their grain. In fact, even people writing
Western Grain Transportation Act Canadian history have recognized both the uniqueness and the strength of a marketing agency such as the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to refer to a comment made by Donald Creighton, a historian, who wrote in Canada's first century. He was talking about the enthusiasm and energy grain growers were putting into a giant new co-operative marketing venture, the Wheat Pool, which only a few years ago they had given to political action. He was referring, of course, to the progressive movement. The Wheat Board had proved to the farmers complete satisfaction that a single selling agency could do more for them than they could do for themselves through ordinary commercial channels.
It is important to recognize the benefits that western Canadian farmers have received from the Canadian Wheat Board. The largest proportion of wheat, oats and barley is produced in the western Provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, with a small proportion being produced in British Columbia as well. The farmers of western Canada are ever mindful of, and grateful for, the fact that the Government of Canada, through an Act of Parliament, has given to the Canadian Wheat Board the sole authority to export wheat, oats or barley grown in their area. Over the years the Canadian Wheat Board has come to handle 90 per cent of the grain exported from Canada.
It is a unique and very important institution to western Canada, Mr. Speaker. By pooling the farmers' grain, the board ensures that the farmer gets a return proportionate to the amount of grain he has delivered. Contrast that with the open market situation which is subject to wide price fluctuations over a short period of time. Farmers did not have access to information which would allow them to make the type of marketing decisions most beneficial to them, but they found that through the Wheat Board they were able to get the best price for the grain. The system had smoothed over the hills and valleys, as it were. That is especially important when you consider some of the northern rural areas of Manitoba.
Because of their presence at committee hearings or because they have availed themselves of the opportunity of looking at briefs, Members will be aware that the Canadian Wheat Board itself indicated its concern regarding the original proposal and the powers of the Administrator as envisioned under the Act without our amendment. The Canadian Wheat Board, like any other sales organization, must control the shipment of its own product in order to ensure performance. For these reasons the board has always held the view that over-all control of the system as developed in co-ordination with the industry should be administered by the board.
Our amendment, Mr. Speaker, seeks to enhance Wheat Board control over the sale and transportation of grain. I might add that the board still feels that the system operates most efficiently and effectively if grain transportation is fully co-ordinated by the major sales agency. It should be clear, Mr. Speaker, that we view any further reduction in the board's ability to co-ordinate transportation as a step backwards for the sales program involving western Canadian grain exports.

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act I think those words have to be taken very seriously, coming as they do from the major farm marketing agency. Farmers have found it beneficial to work together in a marketing agency such as the Canadian Wheat Board. I also hasten to add that as a Member of Parliament I have always found the board, its commissioners and officials, to be very accommodating. They are always ready and able to ensure that we are provided with the best information. Also, the Canadian Wheat Board has been very accommodating in providing farmers the opportunity to visit, be briefed by and to understand the operations of the Wheat Board. I have taken constituents from my riding of Dauphin-Swan River to Winnipeg and we have been provided a tour by the Canadian Wheat Board. Our farmers have had the opportunity to ask questions of board officials, any questions they might have about their permit book, Wheat Board surveillance of crops, how the board is organizing the transportation system, any questions about the block shipment or about turnaround time for cars getting back to the elevator sidings. We have found these officials to be very helpful. I know that even as Members of Parliament, we have had occasion to drop in there. We have had the opportunity to ask questions and to be provided with the answers.
In the West, we have confidence in the Canadian Wheat Board and have been pleased with what it has been doing. Our amendment wants to ensure that this type of work will continue. That is the intention of the motion, that the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board over the movement of grain remain.
I notice that Your Honour is rising at this time, so I just want to make it very clear


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired and he may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I also enter the debate on the very important amendment that has been introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). As Hon. Members have previously indicated, the preservation of the Canadian Wheat Board is essential if western agriculture is to remain a healthy and viable industry in western Canada.
The role of the Wheat Board in western Canada is indeed unparalleled anywhere in the world. It is a unique organization, one which should be preserved. We are therefore afraid of what exists in the Act, not so much what is specifically stated but, rather, what is implied, and the powers that it would give the Government to change the Wheat Board in the future by Order in Council. Our concern is that the Wheat Board could be changed by Order in Council at some time in the future and
its authority and powers over transportation eroded. We must only consider the experience of VIA Rail to know that this is not an empty fear but, rather, a real fear.
There have existed, especially with VIA Rail, instances where the Government, through Order in Council, has really taken measures that have reduced the effectiveness of VIA Rail. We are not the only ones who have expressed this fear. Mr. Jarvis, the Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board, when he appeared before the Committee on Transport considering Bill C-155, stated the following:
I am going to be more specific now. Our strong concern is that with the establishment of a grain transportation agency by Bill C-155 and under Section 97(b) of the Canada Grain Act, further powers could readily be shifted by Order in Council from the Canadian Wheat Board to this agency at a later date. These powers could include those the Board currently has under Section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which allows the Board to operate the block shipping system.
It is a concern of the Wheat Board which Mr. Jarvis' testimony to the committee brought forth. He went on to state the following:
-because we should have realized any new agency would not be content to simply split the car fleet, but rather, would keep looking to expand its own powers.
Therefore, Mr. Jarvis raised two ways in which the powers of the Wheat Board could be eroded. One would be through Orders in Council. Second, the new agency which is being established, would seek, as do many agencies and bureaucracies, to expand its powers and put pressure on the Wheat Board and its ability to fulfil its important role. Not only is the Wheat Board concerned, but, as well, the Wheat Pools, the Famers' Union, the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee, and significant and knowledgeable individuals have all expressed the same fears about Section 13.
It is essential that the Wheat Board have the ability to direct traffic to make certain that, with regard to the grains it has for sale and the customers it has located, the transportation system is there to meet those orders and needs. For example, in the Wheat Board's submission it is stated:
Currently about 85 per cent to 90 per cent of all producer deliveries of grain in western Canada are to the account of the Canadian Wheat Board. Competing successfully for international contracts and executing them to the buyer's satisfaction requires flexibility and decisiveness. Decisions regarding transportation availability during contract negotiations cannot await a decision by another body. In addition, often there is information which the customer regards as highly confidential and some information which could expose Canada's competitive position.
The Canadian Wheat Board, like any other sales organization, must control shipment of its own product in order to ensure performance. For those reasons the board has always held the view that overall control of the system, as it is developed in co-ordination with the total of the grain industry, should be administered by the board.
Again, the statement by Mr. Jarvis brings forth another important point. The Canadian Wheat Board must have the flexibility to meet transportation demands almost on a day to day basis. It cannot await the decision of another body. The creation of this agency which Bill C-155 would create, is really only the creation of another layer of bureaucracy. It is just another actor who must be consulted and brought into the picture. It is complicating matters and, in the end, will have a
October 3, 1983

negative effect on the Canadian Wheat Board being able to perform its duties, duties which it has performed so well in the past.
Not only is the Canadian Wheat Board's submission clear on this point, so was Mr. Gibbings', the former Chief Commissioner of the Wheat Board, when he stated in his presentation to the Transport Commission hearings:
The board's marketing success depends on its ability to make day-by-day or even hour-by-hour decisions on grain movement. Its flexibility must not be compromised.
We maintain that what we have in front of us today, the section that we wish to amend can, and, indeed, most probably will, compromise the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to fulfil its role.
In Bill C-155 we really find an attack on western agriculture. There are three basic and main pillars in western agriculture. All three of them are attacked, in one way or another, by Bill C-155. The first pillar of western agriculture involves the Wheat Pools, the cooperative effort of the vast majority of farmers in western Canada who pool their efforts together through their organizations, their Wheat Pools. The second major supporting pillar is the Crow rate. The third is the Canadian Wheat Board. All three of them are under some form of attack by Bill C-155. Mr. Gibbings, in his submissions, makes this clear when he said:
We have a group of individuals in the GTA and in Transport Canada whose abstract economic principles tell them that the grain industry has gone the wrong way over the past hundred years. They want to see the transportation system in a certain configuration, and they expect farmers, and the grain companies, the Wheat Board, and the Wheat Board's customers to adjust to accommodate it.
Mr. Gibbings concluded by saying:
I suggest the reverse approach be taken. Let the transportation system develop to meet the needs of the people who are using it. That is the approach that makes real economic sense, and the Government should allow it to proceed by keeping bureaucracy out of the grain business. The Government has repeatedly stated that it will not remove existing responsibilities of the Canadian Wheat Board; yet it proposed to open the door to do so with the expanded Grain Transportation Administrator provided for in Bill C-155. If the Government is sincere, why does it not demonstrate this by eliminating the new agency, thereby firmly locking the door on the possibility of the board's effectiveness being eroded at the whim of individuals who are not responsible to grain producers or their customers.
Mr. Gibbings has the same fear that the Wheat Board will be under attack and will have its power eroded over time by what is in Bill C-155. As Mr. Gibbings pointed out in his submission, there are those who consider the development of western agriculture to have gone the wrong way in the last 100 years. They want to reverse it. Who are they? They are the grain companies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to speak to this motion which has the effect of making the Grain Transportation Agency an employee of the Canadian Wheat Board rather than an agency of the Government. I should commence by saying that we are not particularly pleased to have to resort to this type of amendment simply to make the agency an employee of the Canadian Wheat Board. We would prefer that it not be set up as an ongoing entity at all.
In order to make the House understand our position, I would like to point out the background of the present Grain Transportation Agency. Members will recall the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 when we had three bumper crops in a row. Along with those bumper crops there was a combination of labour strife, bad weather, mountain slides and late starts in the shipping season in those ports that freeze up. Above all, there was a tremendous shortage of cars for moving grain.
The railways had not purchased any new grain cars since approximately 1952. Therefore, the fleet of cars was getting old. The existing cars were not maintained, and normal additions were not made to the fleet when those cars were wrecked or removed from service because of their age. The grain companies assumed there was something wrong with the way the Canadian Wheat Board was allocating cars when these problems occurred. No one asked the simple question as to why there were not enough cars being supplied by the railways. The initial pressure was put on the Canadian Wheat Board, whose duty and function it is to arrange for the allocation of cars from the number that are available. Since there was some concern that there was an unfair allocation of cars, the Grain Transportation Authority was established.
That agency used most of the staff from the Wheat Board. It conducted some experiments with allocating cars differently, but I would remind the House that ultimately it reverted to exactly the same method of allocation that was in place before it came into existence. It appears that the agency became useful since figures show that while exports dipped to 18 million tonnes in 1978, it was up to approximately 29 million tonnes by the end of the 1982-83 crop year. However, I think it should be made clear that this increase was not a result of having a Grain Transportation Agency. It was achieved by having people from the Wheat Board continue the allocation system which was used prior to the experiments, which did not prove anything. The old allocation system is still being used. The basic reason for this increase was that there were 8,000 more hopper cars. As a result, more grain could be moved. It was as simple as that.
We have some fears that including the Grain Transportation Agency under this Bill and calling it by a slightly different name will lead to less efficiency. Its chief function seems to be that of taking some of the heat from the grain companies which they used to direct at the Wheat Board. The fact is that the Wheat Board personnel still does most of the work, therefore, it makes eminent sense to keep the Grain Transpor-

October 3, 1983
Adjournment Motion
tation Agency under the Wheat Board, which is an agency which farmers are familiar with and have come to trust.
Our Party as well as the farmers have doubts that a permanent agency will benefit producers. For instance, rather than 18 employees, we understand that the new agency intends to have a working staff of some 35 professionals. We are not sure what they will do, but any new agency whose priority is to double the amount of staff begins to create questions in the minds of people about what sort of power it is attempting to grab and what extra influence it is attempting to impose.
I do not think we should stray from the very straightforward basics of marketing grain. I will point them out because I believe they are fundamental to the kind of car allocation and transportation arrangements that are built into the system. The first priority is to sell the product. Once that potential market is found it must be established which grains and what kind will be purchased in that market. The next step which sometimes causes problems is getting the right grades, the right grains and the right amounts at the right point on the right day. To do that, the marketing agency has to have full control of the process. If it does not, if it is shifted over to another agency as is proposed in this Bill, the chief function and the main reason for that agency to exist is downgraded and undermined. That is why we are afraid of that kind of agency being established on a permanent basis. We think that as a co-operative, short-term entity it functioned and showed that the Wheat Board was fair in its allocation of cars. The facts speak for themselves. The agency ended up adopting the original methodology which the Wheat Board used. This tells me and virtually all observers in western Canada that there was nothing much wrong with the system they had in place. It was eminently fair. It tells me as well that we should look again at setting up an agency that is separate and distinct, otherwise we have one more potential impediment to the completion of that all-important sale of grain from the farm to the final buyer.
We urge Members on both sides of the House to reconsider this agency and to support the amendment which would put it back under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, which has done an excellent job in the past and can continue to do so.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! 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 Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)- Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Removal of urea formaldehyde from Manitoba homes. (b) Manitoba Government's noncompliance with regulations; the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-Employment-Denial of access to training for grade six educated workers, (b) Policy inquiry; the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr.	Corbett)-National
Defence-Canadian Forces Base Chatham, N.B. (b) Prime Minister's statement.



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. 32 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: While I am on my feet, may I have the permission of the House to deal with Motion No. 25 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)? The matter was raised on Thursday of last week and again on Friday.
As explained in Citation 792 of Beachesne's Fifth Edition, "the rules concerning the admissibility of amendments at the committee stage. .. are applicable to motions in amendment moved at the report stage of the bill".
Since the House, in its wisdom, agreed to Motion No. 26 on Thursday, September 29, 1983, Motion No. 25 would now have the effect of amending what the House has already agreed to.
Beauchesne's Citation 773(2) states that:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision which the committee has given upon a former amendment.
Further, Beauchesne's Citation 774 says, in part, that:
If it appears during the course of discussion that an amendment or new clause which has been moved is out of order, then the Chairman directs the committee's attention to this fact and withdraws the amendment or clause from further consideration by the committee. As examples, the discussion of an amendment or clause brings forward the fact:
(1)	that the question raised thereby had already been decided by the committee;
(2)	that the amendment was inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee-
For all these reasons, I now have to rule that Motion No. 25 is out of order and should not be proceeded with further.
Motion No. 25 (Mr. Benjamin) withdrawn.
October 3, 1983


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you complete your ruling-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has ruled. The Chair is not prepared to hear argument reflecting upon a decision of the Chair. The Hon. Member was given opportunities on two days last week and again today to raise any further arguments which the Hon. Member had in mind. He did not do so. He did not take advantage of the opportunities, and the Chair has ruled.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chair will recall, and the Chair agreed with me last Thursday or Friday, that this matter would stand until Madam Speaker was prepared to make her ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A ruling has been made with regard to this.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will you please return to your seat?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What for?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer)


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that need straightening out.


Simon Leendert de Jong: First Tory today.


Charles James Mayer: It sounds as if we needed a central recording agency for those people to the left to keep them in line.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The NDP Members are nervous.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) says the NDP Members are nervous. They ought to be nervous with their performance to date on this very important Bill on behalf of farmers which they have so badly misrepresented to producers. I must say I do not need any lectures from these weed growers, such as the Hon. Members for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and I do not know where else they come from.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us.


Charles James Mayer: We have them going, Mr. Speaker. When you strike a responsive note, you get a little bit of noise from them.


Simon Leendert de Jong: You have a great imagination.


Charles James Mayer: Members of the NDP talk about supporting the Canadian people and what it means to be a producer in the
Western Grain Transportation Act West and to have the Canadian Wheat Board sell on behalf of producers-


An Hon. Member:: Don't get rattled.


Charles James Mayer: I happen to have had quite a bit of experience with quotas and what it is like to sit in a grain truck in a line-up. In fact, when I was a little guy of about 12 years of age, that is how I learned to drive a truck. My dad used to take me to town and leave me in the truck, and I would get a chance to drive a length of the truck in front as one moved ahead in the line-up. I do not need any lectures from those characters to my far left on what it is like to have the Canadian Wheat Board and what the quota system means. I suspect that not very many of them even know what the block shipping system is. They have blocks between their ears but I do not think they know very much about a block shipping system. I think that is evident in their performance this summer in committee.


Mr. Miller:: Sit down.


Charles James Mayer: As I said, it was a real treat for me as a little guy to think that I could drive a truck for 20 feet or 30 feet with a load of grain on it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: What a great contribution.


Charles James Mayer: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the real disappointment was-and I do not know whether any of the Hon. Members to my far left have ever experienced this-when you got very close to the elevator door and had a chance to dump your load of grain, the elevator agent would come out and say, "I am sorry, there is no more room. You will have to come back tomorrow." I know what that meant to my dad who was hoping to be able to sell some grain to pay bills. I know about all those things. I do not need to have lectures from the hon. gentlemen to my left. Anybody who grows up in western Canada knows the problems of raising grain, knows the vagaries of the market system and knows full well the value of the Canadian Wheat Board.


An Hon. Member:: How is your relevancy coming, Mr. Speaker?


Charles James Mayer: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that all the NDP is doing is attempting to raise a political ruse. Our record in terms of this Party in supporting the Canadian Wheat Board is well established. For the NDP to engage deliberately in what I consider to be scare tactics in so far as this particular clause in the Bill is concerned is nothing more than political cray fishing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gustafson:: Our Leader was in Regina yesterday.


Charles James Mayer: My friend from Assiniboia said their Leader was in Regina yesterday.


Leonard J. Gustafson: No, our Leader.



October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: Our Leader. I can understand in both cases. When their Leader is in Regina they are nervous. Wait until the next election and see how they bring him out. I can also understand that when our Leader is in Regina they are nervous. I know he pointed out that we are going to sweep the Province in the next general election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: I look forward to that, Mr. Speaker.
Let me point out a couple of things. One of the things the Official Opposition did during the committee hearings-and I agree there is some concern over the power given to the Administrator-was to have the length of office of the Senior Grain Transportation Administrator reduced from seven years to a term of four years. I think that is a step in the right direction. I think that will address some of the concerns which the NDP may have with regard to the length of time the Administrator will be in office, as well as some of the powers he may enjoy on behalf of the producers. Second, if the NDP is really concerned about democracy and that the Administrator should not have such powers, why does it not raise the issue of the type of appointment which the commissioners for the Canadian Wheat Board have? On the one hand Members of the NDP are saying that they do not want the Administrator because they think he will be an agent of the Government and will have too much power, but let me point out that at least the Government of the day will have the chance to reappoint the Administrator every four years. However when it comes to the commissioners of the Canadian 3Vheat Board, let me read you, Mr. Speaker, what their tenure of office is. Part I of the Canadian Wheat Board Act reads:
3(3) Each commissioner holds office during good behaviour but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council, but no commissioner shall hold office beyond the age of seventy years.
There is a little inconsistency. If they are really concerned about the length of office of the Administrator, I would like to see them be consistent and carry the same concern over to the office of the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners. There is nothing contradictory between having an Administrator and having the Canadian Wheat Board. If we think about it, it can enhance the kind of work the Canadian Wheat Board does so well.
I would like to look at what the Pools indicated in their brief under the section entitled, "H. Grain Transportation Agency Administrator". They said:
The Pools accept the formal establishment of a Grain Transportation Agency Administrator with co-ordinating functions and powers.
Then I would like to refer to a question which was put by Mr. Benjamin to Mr. Jarvis, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. By the way, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) gave Mr. Gibbings a very nice promotion. He has since retired as a commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board, but he referred to him as the former
Chief Commissioner. Mr. Gibbings served western Canadian agriculture in a very distinguished way. He was the former distinguished head of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, but he never served as the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think the record should be corrected in that regard.


Mr. McKnight:: He also served as a director for the Roval Bank.


Charles James Mayer: That is true, he is a director for the Royal Bank.
I would like to refer to Proceedings No. 127 at page 22 of the Standing Committee on Transport. At that point Mr. Benjamin was speaking-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should refer to Members by their constituencies.


Charles James Mayer: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is reported as asking:
Do you feel it was a mistake to establish a Grain Transportation Agency?
His question was posed to Mr. Jarvis, who replied:
We have said in the brief that we find, in relating to the Grain Transportation Agency and the prime function that it plays, and that is splitting the rail car fleet, the available fleet, between board and non-board grains and among the companies for non-board grains, that this has not been cumbersome and it has worked, as far as we are concerned.
I think the evidence is there that it has worked. It is one of the major factors in the increase of grain exports from 18 million tonnes to 29.2 million tonnes. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) made that point well, except he was not smart enough to understand what he was saying. I thought he made a very eloquent argument in favour of the Grain Transportation Agency. One of the more thoughtful speeches of that group to my left today was the one by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). He made quite a thoughtful presentation. He really came down with an argument in favour of the Grain Transportation Administrator and against the amendment of the Hon. Member for Regina West.
Mr. Jarvis continued:
What we wanted to underline here is that if there is any contemplation to transfer more power from the Wheat Board to that body, then, of course, we would be opposed to its existence.
That is not what this clause in the Bill does. I do not understand what is their concern about this. Let me read what the GTA said about a grain transportation agency. It indicated that there was never any serious question raised as to the continuing need for a body to allocate cars between users and to co-ordinate over-all movement. Based upon the GTA's experience, it was its view that such a body must have the following characteristics. I do not want to go through them totally, but I will summarize them. First, it must be neutral, that is neutral as far as the committee is concerned. It does not have an axe to grind. It is there to co-ordinate and to get all the players together, including the railways which the NDP, in its blind adherence to dogma, want to lock out of the room. I
October 3, 1983_________________________ COMMONS DEBATES
do not understand why the NDP would not want to have them in the room so that they could grab them by the scruff of the neck, shake them up a little and say, "Why don't you guys perform?" They want to keep them out of the room, the same as they wanted to keep the truckers out of the room. First, it must be neutral. Second, it must have a clear mandate. That is what this section is doing. The agency must be responsive to the needs of the grain handling and transportation industry. It must have accountability to the industry. Most important, I would submit, is that the agency must be equipped to deal effectively with the concerns of grain producers. That is the main thing this Party has tried to address in its concerns over the Bill, that we must stand up for the producer.
I do not understand Members of the NDP. I do not understand why they would not be in favour of more producers on the Grain Transportation Committee. On the one hand they say they will block the Bill, hold it up and use everything they can to kill it. Yet, when they rang the bells last Thursday, I think almost half their Members were away. Now we see them proposing amendments which will strengthen the Bill. They are going to make it a better Bill. They talk about our being inconsistent. I could get into that if I had enough time, but we have been entirely consistent in our position from day one on this Bill. I suspect that Members of the NDP are squirming a little because they cannot get their act together. They have Members from British Columbia who are under a lot of pressure to support the Bill. They want parts of the Bill, they do not want other parts of it. They should make up their minds.
Let me put on the record what the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), a former distinguished Minister of Transport, said when the Bill was introduced for second reading on May 12. He said:
The statutory freight rate, Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, is tantamount to a constitutional right for the producers of Canada. If it is to be traded or bargained away, the end result should be something as good as, or something better in place than, we have had before. Looking at this Bill, and notwithstanding the so-called "good intentions" of the Minister, we are not ending up with anything as good as, and certainly not anything better than, what was the case before.
That has been our consistent position throughout the whole debate on the Bill and throughout committee proceedings. Let me reiterate by indicating that we are in favour of the Grain Transportation Agency for the reasons I have outlined. We think it will enhance the work of the Canadian Wheat Board which is needed and vital. As a result of that, we will not support the amendment.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks this afternoon by saying that I represent only a few farmers in the northwest corner of my constituency, but I represent a large number of railway workers, both working for CPR and CNR, who have a very vital interest in an efficient transportation system. They have a very vital interest in seeing that the railways operate as efficiently and as actively as possible. When railways do not move goods, whether it be grain or anything else, workers in my constituency are laid off.
Western Grain Transportation Act I find it strange that the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) suggested that Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party did not have their act together and have not been consistent while Members of the Conservative Party have been consistent from the beginning. The Hon. Member should remember that Members of my Party said from the beginning that we were opposed to the Bill, that we would not support the Bill and that we would do whatever we could to impede or stop its passage.
I also remind the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette that the Bill has been on the Order Paper and debated for months.
A couple of weeks ago after many dozens or hundreds of speeches by Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, we heard a proposal by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that the provisions of the Bill be stood over for three years. If anyone has taken time to decide what to do about it, it is Members of the Progressive Conservative Party!
We heard a great deal about the Canadian Wheat Board, the Pools, the National Farmers' Union, the Advisory Committee to the Wheat Board and what they have supposedly said. It has been suggested that they are not opposed to the Bill. I would like to quote from a statement by Mr. Jarvis, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, who said:
Our strong concern is that with the establishment of a Grain Transportation Agency by this Act (Bill C-155), and under paragraph 97(b) of the Canada Grain Act, further powers could be shifted by Order in Council from the CWB to this agency at a later date. These powers could include those the Board currently has under Section 21k of the Canadian Wheat Board Act which allows the CWB to operate the Block Shipping System.
I said at the beginning that I am not an expert in this field. However, if I understand English, Mr. Jarvis was saying as politely as he could that the Wheat Board is happy with the present situation and that it does not want any more power given to another person or agency which will mean in effect taking power away from the Wheat Board.
I remind Hon. Members that the Canadian Wheat Board was established by the Conservative Government of Bennett in 1935. It established it because it came to the conclusion, a conclusion shared by almost all prairie grain producers, that the sale of grain to private agencies, with all the up and down speculation every day, left the farmer with the short end of the stick. That Government wanted orderly marketing of grain, and that is what the Canadian Wheat Board does.
In its presentation to the standing committee which dealt with this Bill, the Wheat Board currently markets about 85 to 90 per cent of all producer deliveries of grain in western Canada. In order to do this, it says, and I quote from its brief:
The Canadian Wheat Board, like any other sales organization, must control shipment of its own product in order to ensure performance. For these reasons the Board has always held the view that overall control of the system, as developed in co-ordination with the industrty, should be administered by the Board.
The Government is proposing to give more power to the Administrator, who is not a representative or an employee of the Wheat Board. Keeping in mind that what Mr. Jarvis

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act pointed out could happen under the power which the Government holds through this Bill and the Canada Grains Act, we can see why the Wheat Board is worried about what will happen. Again I quote from the presentation of the Wheat Board to the committee:
The Board still feels that the system operates most efficiently and effectively if grain transportation is fully co-ordinated by the major sales agency. If this is not permitted, it should be clear that we view any further reduction in the Boards, ability to co-ordinate transportation, as a very serious step backward for the export sales program for western Canadian grains.
I do not know how the board can make its position any more clear than in the paragraph which I quoted and in the statement of Mr. Jarvis. The board feels very strongly that it must maintain the control of the shipping, sale and delivery of grain which it markets for Canadian farmers.
As the board indicated, it markets between 85 and 90 per cent of all grain produced in western Canada. That is why we moved this amendment, to make it clear that the Administrator is responsible to the Canadian Wheat Board. With this amendment we intend to assert the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board over the movement of grain. As the Bill now stands, it would erode the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. That would be a mistake. It would impede the ability of the Wheat Board to control the grain car fleet, something we say is essential.
If you have an Administrator who is not an employee of the board, the board would not be able to control its block shipping system as it has until now. The block shipping system now permits the board to ship grains of a specified grade or quality or a blend of grades and qualities to meet the needs of its customers.
Let me reiterate what was said by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and answer some of the complaints of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette. The reason farmers could not deliver their grain to the elevators in the past and why it has been better lately is not that there is a grain Administrator. The failure in the past was not the fault of the Wheat Board. The reason the situation is somewhat better is that we have 8,500 more hopper cars. That made the difference in the ability of the farmer to deliver. The board has been able to move the grain out of the elevators to the ports, something it could not do before.
The block system, as it has worked until now, permits the board to ship grains of a specified grade or quality or a blend of grades and qualities to meet the needs of its customers. Without this ability, sales of Canadian grains for export by the Wheat Board could suffer. Our competitive position would certainly be weakened. The Wheat Board made that point in its submission to the standing committee.
The movement of grain could be delayed by having an outside agency, or Administrator, without the day to day knowledge of sales and the grades, quantities and location of grains in storage, to assume control of the grain car fleet. The Wheat Board must be able to call the grain it needs, when it needs it, and be able to assign cars to the points where it knows it is stored, the proposal in this amendment meets the needs of
the Wheat Board which, in turn, meets the needs of grain producers in western Canada. That is why we have moved the amendment.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I certainly appreciate the welcome being given to me by the comrades on my left. I am sure the reason so many Members of the NDP are rising to speak is that so few had the opportunity during the Transport Committee hearings to make their concerns known. Most Members on this side who represent rural western Canadian ridings took part at one time or another in the hearings that were held throughout the summer months.
I am sure I heard the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), the agricultural spokesman for the NDP, correctly. If not, it will show up on the "blues". He said he would just as soon not have this agency at all. He said that if he had expressed his concerns properly, he would have said that he would just as soon not have this agency. That means that the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre was saying that he would just as soon not have four producers on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and just as soon not have a feed grain user.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I didn't say that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I think it will show up that the Hon. Member said, "If I had my way, we would just as soon not have this agency." When we start from that point, it is a little disconcerting for those of us who would like to have moved an amendment about the amount of grain we would like to see in western Canada, transported in an efficient manner in the best interest of producers.
Some of my colleagues pointed out part of this, that there is a lot of concern about these appointments. The Chief Commissioner and the other four Commissioners are appointed. They are responsible to the Minister. They are Canadian Grain Commission appointments. These appointments are all made in the best interests of the producers.
Some of the amendments to this Bill that were accepted in committee were put forward by our Party. They have to do with authority, duties and functions of the transportation Administrator, through the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It says "promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing producers' returns". I presume the NDP are against the phrase "for the purpose of maximizing returns to the producers". I think those of us on this side have much more faith in the ability of the producers to make their feelings and concerns known to any government that happens to be in power if their returns are not being maximized and are suffering through some regulation or action taken by either an appointed or an elected person. The producers in my part of the country and
October 3, 1983

their part of the country were certainly able to make their views known.
I had some responsibility, along with the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and under the chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), for establishing the four-year trial period with the Senior Grain Transportation Authority. That was established because we travelled across western Canada and consulted with the Alberta Pool, the Saskatchewan Pool, the Manitoba Pool, the private grain companies, the railroads, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission, the employers' union on the west coast and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. Everyone we met with encouraged us, under the auspices of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who was then Minister of Transport, to establish in a formal way this body called the Senior Grain Transportation Authority and put in place someone who had some authority to allocate between board and non-board grains.
To go back in history, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member for Lisgar can correct me if I am wrong and elaborate on this, but I recall that when we first started that study in 1979, it was necessary to ship three cars of grain to the west coast to get one car load of the particular grain that was required. That meant that if a carload of No. 1 grain was required, it took three cars to be sure that No. 1 was received because they would end up with a car that contained No. 2, a car that contained No. 3, and a car that contained grain that was lower in protein. These were the concerns that were expressed to us by the system participants whom we consulted with and indeed, Mr. Speaker, by the producers. We felt then, and we still feel, that it is necessary that the Senior Grain Transportation Authority be led by a neutral body and that the co-ordinator or Administrator establish the direction and the fairness that is required so that every producer in the West who tries to deliver grain and has an opportunity to deliver grain has equal access to the system.
Another thing that was done at that time in a very formal way at the cost of Canadian taxpayers was that the railing for the movement of grain passed Thunder Bay. When the Seaway froze, grain moved past Thunder Bay to the Ports of Halifax and Sorel and Saint John. That was done under the auspices of the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Authority or, as that position was then called, the co-ordinator. By doing that, Mr. Speaker, the movement of grain continued throughout the year and did not stop when the Seaway was frozen. Hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain moved by rail from Thunder Bay to ports in the eastern part of the country.
Some of the Hon. Members on my extreme left have spoken about this Party. At least the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who just spoke said that the Canadian Wheat Board was established by a Conservative Government. That is something we have known for a long time and is
Western Grain Transportation Act something of which we are quite proud. However, as those Hon. Members spoke, they have accused us of not being very firm and of changing our minds in this debate. I would like to take this opportunity to read from House of Commons debates of Friday, May 13, 1983. In fairness, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) did not say that about me, and I guess he knows why. On that date, the Hon. Member for Regina West said, as reported in Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I have a short, quick, to the point question for the Hon. Member. Does he support the position of the Government that the grain producers should pay increased freight charges for shipping grain, or does he believe those freight charges should remain at the statutory grain rate level?
I answered:
Mr. Speaker, if I had to choose between the Bill as presented and the statutory grain rate as it exists now, I would be forced to choose the statutory rate.
A little further on in the debate, I was asked a question by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis). He asked whether we felt there was adequate funding of the movement of grain. My answer was:
__if this Bill goes through as it is, to the farmers in western Canada, and if they
will listen I will explain. I feel, and my Party feels, that the $651.6 million is certainly generous enough, at least until 1985-1986. It is certainly the benefit of the Crow. If it were protected in inflated dollars rather than in constant dollars,
I think that would be sufficient for the railroads to continue moving grain.
I think that is consistent, Mr. Speaker, with what my Party has put forward since the beginning of this debate.
I would like to draw to the attention of Hon. Members something of which they may not be aware. The Canadian Wheat Board does not-I repeat, does not-sell all the grain that is sold on behalf of producers in western Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board sets the price of the grain that is sold and it completes coutry-to-country contracts and contracts with other corporations.
All of the grain that is sold is not sold by the Canadian Wheat Board. It is sold by agents of the board, and those Hon. Members who are cognizant of the Wheat Pools in western Canada should know that those Pools have a company called Excan and that company is in the business of making export sales of grain on behalf of the Canadian Wheat Board. While it is doing so, it is making a commission, it is making a dollar. The producers of western Canada are well served because there is another sales agency that is taking action on their behalf.
It is not only the Canadian Wheat Board that is involved in the business of selling grain. That is why we need an authority that is neutral and that cannot be accused of acting in the sole interest of any of the system participants on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. That is why we feel that the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee must be neutral and must be independent. There is more at stake here than the Canadian Wheat Board's fear that some of its present powers may in the future be taken away.
As I said when I rose, I am sure that the grain producers in western Canada have the ability to make their feelings well known in a very strong and forceful manner to anyone, whether elected or appointed, who impinges upon their ability to

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
move grain and receive a profit from it. That is the simple reason why we find it very difficult to support this motion.
There is an amendment that I put forward in committee which my colleague will be putting forward later on in debate. The motion that I put forward in committee dealt with the duties of the Grain Transportation Administrator and reads as follows:
The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make available the quantities and types of grain necessary to achieve sales commitments on behalf of and in the interests of producers.
I think that sums up our concerns, Mr. Speaker, and our belief that the way the Bill is presently written with the duties and authorities of the Administrator placed where they are serves the best interests of the primary producers of grain in western Canada.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the motion before us put forward by Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party. When we look at the question of the growing and selling of grain, the factors of maximizing production and maximizing sales in the international marketplace are all very directly related to the nation's ability to transport and move its grain. What this country needs is an efficient transportation system which will move as large a volume of grain as any of our producers have the capacity to grow. And seeking that objective, it becomes paramount that we have a system of transportation co-ordination which is autonomous with that of marketing. We must have a system which is neutral in relation to that of marketing, because when one takes a look at the whole question of transportation, the enormous complexity of that question must be borne in mind. It is not simply a case of getting a hopper car from some country point to port. There is also the question of the very large number of grades in any one specified grain. The numbers are enormous.
Transportation has to be co-ordinated with the ships coming into port. It has to be co-ordinated with the capacity of the rural points to deliver. I challenge those who believe there is no issue in terms of grain transportatioan to put the simple question to the rural farmers on the Prairies, those permit holders, "Are you satisfied with today's transportation delivery system? I know intuitively that the overwhelming answer will be a rejection of the notion of complete satisfaction, because virtually every community believes there can be an improvement in transportation.
Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party have been arguing essentially with an illogical set of logical-sounding logic. What they are in effect saying is that ducks are good swimmers. "Les is a good swimmer. Les is a duck." Quite frankly, what they are telling us is that the Canadian Wheat Board is good. We in the Conservative Party are saying that some of the authority which the Wheat Board now has ought to go into a special agency, therefore, we are attacking what is
good. The argument simply does not hold, Mr. Speaker. There are many examples of good in which we make divisions. Automobile dealers may have a specialized truck lot apart from their car dealerships. A doctor may practise as an M.D., apart from those who are dentists. If we look at our society we see that in every profession there are examples of good being divided, and a specialization of good would probably equal more good. Hon. Members in the New Democratic Party would have us believe something else. They would like to have us believe that because the Canadian Wheat Board is good- and there is no argument against that-if we did anything at all to remove what is presently within the authority of the Wheat Board to some other agency, that we are attacking what is good. That kind of logic simply means that all NDP Members are ducks and none of them can swim. That simply is not borne on by the facts.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Alt-house) earlier this day said that in 1978 the transportation system in this country was a mess. Little did he know that he was making the case for having a specific agency, because it was in 1979, the following year, that such an agency was set up and there was a very significant improvement in grain transportation on the Prairies.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Because we ordered cars three years before that.


Arnold John Malone: I do not know how I would get along, Mr. Speaker, if I did not have the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre helping me. He said it was because they ordered the cars three years before that. That is the point. If in 1979 we had put up the agency and then ordered the cars, it might seem that, well, it is the cars, all confused. But, no, they were there three years before. Yet the Hon. Member said in his speech that in 1978 the system was a mess. Then in 1979, one year after the three years with which he starts, when the agency is in place, he tries to say, "Well, it does not have anything to do with the agency. It was all due to the cars which were ordered three years sooner." That kind of debating, Mr. Speaker, by Hon. Members of the NDP is called "squirrel-cage debating". It means that the faster they run the more they stay the same. There the Hon. Members of the NDP are pedalling away in their squirrel cage, trying to make Canadians believe that somehow the Conservative Party is attacking the Canadian Wheat Board. That is just pure balderdash, and it ought to be recognized as such by Canadian farmers everywhere.
We have indeed 8,500 more hopper cars. We also have an agency which is able to give its full attention to co-ordinating those cars into an active transportation system. Members of the NDP like to speak a lot on this particular Bill. They like to speak when they are recognized. They like to speak when other people are recognized. I would like to challenge them to ask a question in a questionnaire distributed among their farmer permit-holder constituents: "Do you believe, when you have a transportation concern, that you will get more attention by calling the Canadian Wheat Board rather than the transporta-

tion agency?" 1 believe, at least in the area which I represent, there is a belief today that the Canadian Wheat Board is a good agency, but that, in the question of transportation, when it comes to getting action, it is much more effectively done when someone's full concern is focused solely on the question of transportation.
The Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) was saying earlier in his speech that the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board have been very helpful. What he was really saying was that since it is helpful, how can we possibly in any way demote the Wheat Board? That was followed on a similar theme by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) when he said that the Wheat Board is absolutely essential. We find that each of the Hon. Members is implying that because the Wheat Board is good we cannot in any way detract from any of its powers. But what we really need is farmers who can grow to capacity, a Canadian Wheat Board which can market to capacity, and a transportation system which can deliver to capacity.
The autonomy of a transportation system is essential because it is its autonomy which gives it its status. What we want to have is a group of people who are proud to be working for a very efficient transportation system. So when farmers, grain elevators locals or grain elevator companies call the agency, the full focus of attention of that agency should be on transportation. We do not want people who wear a number of hats, one under which they market grain, another for the handling transportation. I believe that kind of separation is important.
I believe the amendment being put forward by the New Democratic Party is not at all in the best interests of the producers of western Canada. In fact, what should happen is that we should achieve a type of system whereby transportation is considerably improved from what it is today. Clearly the farmers at present, Sir, are not happy with their transportation service. They are much happier than they were prior to the establishment of an agency in 1979, but most farmers believe that quotas can become larger and can open more frequently than has traditionally been the practice in this country. In short, I feel it is important to underscore that what we have to maximize is the full capacity of this nation to become a producer, exporter and mover of grain. We must put specialists into all those categories so that not only will the farmers be able to sell all the goods they can grow but we can also deliver them effectively in order to meet and keep our markets.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I add this thought? If producers can deliver their grain much more quickly then they can convert their product into cash, put that cash in the bank and earn interest. They would then be able to avoid a considerable amount of borrowing, on which they have to pay interest, in order to pay their operating expenses. That is all dependent upon transportation. It is a question of how large and how fast quotas open. If the NDP Members do not believe this is very
Western Grain Transportation Act important to the primary producer, then they do not understand farmers and they do them an enormous disservice.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in this debate very briefly to outline some of the reasons why I personally, along with my Party, would not be able to support the NDP amendment. I would also like to illustrate a number of, for the lack of a better word, red herrings that the NDP Members have dragged into the debate this afternoon, mostly because they are trying to generate scare tactics directed at the majority of grain producers in western Canada.
The first question concerns the Canadian Wheat Board and its acceptability on the Prairies, and whether it is going to be around for a long period of time. In my opinion, and certainly in the opinion of the agricultural producers I represent in southern Manitoba, indeed in all of Manitoba, there is absolutely no question that the Canadian Wheat Board rates as highly now in the esteem of grain producers as it has for a long, long time. Producers in Canada, primarily in the West, feel that while there are some things we could do better with the Wheat Board, the concept, which was put in place many years ago for all the reasons we have heard, is a good one and should remain. No one has said in any way, shape or form that that is going to change. It is not in trouble, although the NDP would like to make it seem that some political Parties would like to decrease, shall we say, the powers of the Wheat Board. That, of course, is utter nonsense.
Some years ago, I, along with two other Members of Parliament, was part of the whole exercise of setting up a grain transportation co-ordinator. It was a great learning experience not only for the committee which I had the honour to chair but also from the point of view of the people with whom we came into contact. The reason the Conservative Party moved to set up that co-ordinator is that we felt, in discussions with the industry, that the direction the industry was taking or wanted to take was unclear. It was unclear to the participants themselves.
It has been mentioned that we held extensive hearings throughout western Canada, into Ontario, parts of Quebec and even in the Maritime Provinces to see just where we should be moving. We found an incredibly complicated system, as I think everyone in this House will realize. We found a system with 160,000 farmers, all individual producers, entrepreneurs or, if you like, small-businessmen. We found a system with two major railways that were in some cases competing against each other, in some cases not possibly as strenuously as they should, but with a large number of employees and a tremendous capital investment in that particular area. We also found many elevator companies which had not only investments on the Prairies, but some substantial investments in facilities in Thunder Bay, the Port of Vancouver and, to a lesser extent, Prince Rupert, as well as investments in the Province of Quebec in elevator facilities.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, all these players, if you like, in this vast complex business of producing and marketing grain have a highly vested interest in the whole system. Rightly so, because they have a lot at stake. Given the number of people

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act involved in this one industry, it was not very surprising that we found friction. We found that unless there was a co-ordinating body to sort out the conflicting interests and in effect set out the direction in which the industry should go based on what the various groups want, over time the industry will virtually pull itself apart. That, in our opinion, was starting to happen when we set out on our task force study.
In our first few meetings it was obvious that the people involved were very cautious about saying too much or doing too much with a group of politicians, which may jeopardize their bargaining position later on. The first meeting we held in which all the participants came together, and that happened to be in Winnipeg, was truly remarkable. While we as a committee had heard from other people that there was dissatisfaction with the system, we did not realize how extensive or deep that dissatisfaction was until we tried to get everyone to sit down and talk out their problems. We could not do it. It was impossible because there was so much distrust within the industry. Over a number of weeks or months, there were a series of meetings. Many times they were with the Canadian Wheat Board, which was distrustful at the start but eventually came around to being of great help. In the final setting up of the grain transportation co-ordinator, the commissioners and the people involved in the Wheat Board were of substantial help. It is true to say that it would not have been set up unless the Wheat Board had given its help and assurance that it was willing to go along with the concept. I believe they saw the need for a co-ordinator because of the distrust that was inherent in the industry at that time. In effect, it made their life a little easier because it took some of the responsibility from them and set it into someone else's area. That of course made it a little easier for them.
So over the period of time we studied this matter, until the transport co-ordinator was appointed, the hostilities and tension surrounding the various participants slowly started to ebb until we could sit down together and have a reasonable discussion and know where we were going. These were all grown men, intelligent people, but they all distrusted each other initially, and obviously they all had a substantial vested interest in an industry which they did not want taken over by anyone else.
What has been the outcome of the appointment of a grain transportation co-ordinator? I think if we look back over the last number of years, one of the things that we can truly be proud of is the establishment of that body. It has helped out substantially. One will find very few people in the grain industry who have very much to say in a negative way about the grain transportation coordinating agency that was set up. The Canadian Wheat Board, the railways, the elevator companies, the three prairie Pools, farmers in general and farmer's organizations all agree that that was certainly one positive step taken under the Clark Government. I think all of us in the House would agree. Therefore, in my opinion, any move which would have a tendency to downgrade that body, even though it would be transferred into another area and made more permanent because of the legislative component attached to it, would be a disservice to the grain industry.
The Canadian Wheat Board, it is true, appeared before the Standing Committee on Transports and indicated some concerns, although in my reading of its brief they were very mild concerns about the direction that the legislative body would take. That is only natural. It was, once again, staking out its position. It was very gently telling the politicians, "Do not go too far because we think we are doing a good job in selling grain. We want to ensure that we maintain that. We want to maintain certain activities that we consider to be important". The politicians have basically said, "Yes, we agree that you will maintain those particular areas, the responsibilities that the Wheat Board has had in the past", and we have proceeded from there.
I have spoken with various officials of the Canadian Wheat Board. My riding is just outside of Winnipeg and, of course, the head office of the Canadian Wheat Board is also in Winnipeg. I can tell Your Honour that its officials are not concerned about the particular aspect of the dilution, shall we say, of their powers.
I return to the point at which I started my remarks by saying that the NDP, for some reason, is using this particular amendment as a simple and pure scare tactic. What Members of the NDP have said here this afternoon in terms of the potential destruction of the Wheat Board, or suggestions that the Conservative Party wants to destroy or in any way downgrade the Wheat Board, amounts to sheer and utter nonsense, and should be taken as such. I cannot support the amendment, and my Party cannot support the amendment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Regina West is rising, I presume, on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt in the course of a very good debate, but I wish to draw a matter to the attention of the Chair before proceedings go much further.
I know that the Chair and the Table officers are in consultation as a result of something that happened earlier this afternoon. I want to assure the Chair completely that I am not trying to debate or question the ruling of the Chair. I would like to ask, though, that the Chair refer to Hansard of last Thursday, at page 27600, wherein it is reported that I rose on a point of order and said:
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the remarks of the Minister. Madam Speaker grouped Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 for debate. No. 24 should bevoted on separately. Affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 would dispose of Motion Nos. 26 and 27. A negative vote on Motion No. 25 would require further voting on Motion Nos. 26 and 27, and Motion No. 29 is to be voted on separately-
I went further in my point of order to say:
Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order. The Minister asked for the guidance of the Chair.
October 3, 1983

The Minister had just said that he was prepared to accept Motion No. 26 and move the appropriate consequential amendment. I stated:
I am asking for the guidance of the Minister. Is he saying that he is accepting all five of those motions, two of which are identical, and he would then move consequential amendments following the deferred votes? Or is he only accepting certain ones, and what would be the procedure then? Do we vote separately in spite of Madam Speaker's preliminary ruling? Do we vote separately if the Government indicates it is prepared to accept amendments that the Speaker said should be voted on in concert? I think we are going to find ourselves in trouble farther down the road.
In the next column, on the same page of Hansard, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is reported as saying:
I was asking what the appropriate timing for moving such a motion was. I know that Motion No. 27-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I want to extend to the Hon. Member every opportunity for him to raise the level of understanding of the Chair, but there is some difficulty. As I understand it, the matter has been discussed before in points of order. It would help me, in the beginning, if the Hon. Member for Regina West could explain the point of his point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Very well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Then, if he wants to develop it further, I would be better able to understand it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I confess immediately to not being an expert in these sorts of things. I really rely on my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). The point is that it was agreed on Thursday, implicitly and specifically, that an opportunity would be provided for discussing the merits and demerits of whether or not Motion No. 25 should be withdrawn. I want to provide Your Honour with another quote. The Minister was asking for advice, I take it, from the way he spoke as reported at page 27600 of Hansard, about the timing of his consequential amendment and the acceptance of my Motion No. 26 and Motion No. 27, the amendment of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). I then said:
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 Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 29 will remain under debate and will be voted upon separately?
Mr. Deputy Speaker asked if that was agreeable to the House, and some Hon. Members agreed. Mr. Deputy Speaker went on to say:
Motions Nos. 26 and 27 appear to be the same motion. Therefore, we can put these two motions at the same time and they can be voted on by the House, presumably. With the consent of the House I am taking Motion No. 26-
That was on Thursday, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, Your Honour yourself, the Acting Speaker, raised the subject with regard to Motion No. 25 and whether or not it should be withdrawn, whether it was superceded and became redundant with the adoption of Motions Nos. 26 and 27. Your Honour said, as reported at page 27622 of Hansard:
Western Grain Transportation Act
I understand that last night the House considered Motion No. 26. In accordance with Madam Speaker's ruling which grouped certain motions, it would follow that Motion No. 25 would now be withdrawn.
I gather that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wanted some consideration of the issue. If he has any comment, perhaps now is the time, because it should logically now be withdrawn.
I then said:
Mr. Speaker, at the moment, my druthers are that it does not logically follow that it be withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I know the essence of the argument that the Hon. Member is making. He referred to remarks that I made on Friday indicating at that time that I could not see anything in his own words which supported an argument that Motion No. 25 should be put to the House. I am further aware that the Deputy Speaker, the previous occupant of the Chair, has ruled that no vote will be taken on Motion No. 25.
I think I know what happened, that is, that the House did not protect Motion No. 25 when it made certain judgments as to how it wished to proceed with other motions. I would think it was an oversight at the time, but that is not the business of the Chair to judge unstated arguments by the House or by Hon. Members. Therefore, we are faced with a problem, it seems to me, involving the desire of the Hon. Member for Regina West to protect a vote on Motion 25. The problem is that the Deputy Speaker has ruled that Motion No. 25 has now fallen as a result of the vote on Motion No. 24.
The Hon. Member needs to offer me some argument that gets around the problem that a decision has already been made. I want to make it clear that it would not be possible for me to overrule the decision already made by an individual previously in the Chair.
There is another method I can offer to him. He may want to take a few moments to see whether there would be unanimous consent, among representatives of the Parties or through whatever other means he wishes to take, that his Motion No. 25 be eventually put to a vote.
As I said, in attempting to helping him, I must say that it seems to me that the House was silent on that matter at the time and that that is his difficulty. I cannot overrule previous decisions. I would now invite the Hon. Member to address his remarks to some field of language that gets around that problem. To repeat the procedural argument related to the problem is now out of order because there has been a ruling on it already. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments. 1 was coming to another point that you made on Friday when I said: "That is why I would like to ask if Your Honour-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: This is the third time 1 have interrupted the Hon. Member. I cannot entertain arguments which proceed along a presumtion that the Chair is going to overrule itself. That is not in order at all.

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not what I am asking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I need to know what the Hon. Member is asking.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am asking the Chair to consider what I requested and what the Chair agreed to on Friday, that is, to leave this matter in abeyance until-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to advise the Hon. Member that I am reliably informed that the previous occupant of the Chair has ruled that Motion No. 25 will not be voted on.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is no way that the present occupant of the Chair can overrule that decision.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am not asking you to do that. I am asking you to consider what the Chair said on Friday when I said, "Hold this in abeyance until Monday, and we can discuss it further." The Acting Speaker said that the Chair would accept the Hon. Member's request. We had no chance to discuss that today. It was ruled upon by the other Speaker. We were told on Friday that this matter was in abeyance and we would have an opportunity to discuss it further, but no such opportunity was made available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: This is now the fourth time that I have offered the Hon. Member for Regina West a possible solution to this problem.
I see an Hon. Member and a Minister seeking the floor. I should have thought that a moment's private conversation behind the curtains would have done the Hon. Member a great deal more good than lengthy points of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to deny the Hon. Member a chance to debate his motion but the facts are fairly clear. If he really now wants to introduce Motion No. 25, it runs counter to Motion No. 26, which is in his name and was carried. He cannot really have it both ways. Under Motion No. 26, he proposed that there be six members, each representing one of the six largest primary elevator licencees in Canada. In Motion No. 25 he is proposing that five members be included representing the licensed primary elevators.
He has had one of his motions carried which provides for six members representing the primary elevators to sit on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. Does he now want the House to debate this issue again so that he can have an opportunity to reduce that number from six to five? I really do not quite understand it.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point that was just made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). As I recall the statement made by Madam Speaker, she indicated that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 would dispose of Motions Nos. 26 and 27. Logically, an
affirmative vote on Motions Nos. 26 and 27 would dispose of Motion No. 25.
I heard Members of the NDP previously making an appeal for logic. Surely the same appeal should be made to them. They might try to be logical. I know it is not their intent to be logical in this debate but simply to filibuster as they have said publicly. Surely they should respect the rules of Parliament and at least a semblance of logic in what they say. One cannot introduce two amendments which have different points of view, have one accepted and then say they want the other one debated.
After all, they are beginning to stretch the point a little far, and they just might begin to convince people across the country that they are really not serious at all but are just here to waste the time of Parliament, which we all know is probably the reason. At least they should not be so blatant in their admission of that, and I would suggest that the ruling of the Speaker should stand.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the problem lies in something that took place last week. Let me put quite bluntly where the difficulty lies. When the Speaker grouped the motions for debate, ruling that some were in order for debate and others were not, I suggested at the time that there should be some time given for a review of that ruling before the debate proceeded. If we had that time we would have asked that Motion No. 25 and Motion No. 26 be dealt with separately rather than grouped for debate because they were, in fact, different questions. We were not given that opportunity.
The Minister chose to accept the second of the amendments offered within the grouping that the Speaker had determined were suitable, without any opportunity for discussion. We would have preferred to deal with the first amendment, but we were not afforded the opportunity of dealing with that amendment because the Minister moved to accept an amendment that satisfied him rather than the one which we considered to be the most important of the two.
What happened on Thursday was that my colleague raised that very point. He first asked that the Minister's suggestion that he would accept one of the amendments not be agreed upon at that point because we considered the other amendment to be of greater substance. At that particular point, the Speaker agreed not to put the accepted motion of the Minister. On Friday you yourself, Mr. Speaker, indicated to my colleague, the Member who has just spoken, that you did in fact agree that the question of Motion No. 25 was still before the House.
That is the essence of what was said on Friday afternoon. We did not anticipate at all that the Deputy Speaker would walk into the House today and make a ruling on Motion No. 25. We did not even anticipate that Motion No. 25 was still under consideration by the Speaker today. We anticipated that if there was to be any further consideration of the merits of Motions Nos. 25 or 26, an opportunity would be given to the House to discuss the relative merits before the question was put on either of them.
\

October 3, 1983

Quite clearly, in the sequential order that the amendments are listed in the Speaker's ruling Motion No. 25 would have to have been disposed of before Motion No. 26 could either be accepted or turned down. Common sense tells us that and the rules of Parliament tell us that. While debate on the questions could proceed dealing with each and every one of them at the same time, Motion No. 25 would have to be put to the House before Motion No. 26 could be agreed to or turned down.
That is the essence of what we were saying. It is grossly unfair that the Speaker should walk into the House in the middle of the afternoon and make a ruling which had not been asked for and make a ruling without allowing discussion to take place with regard to the relative merits of the argument to be put and expect us to sit back and allow the second of our choices. I make it quite clear that we would accept Motion No. 26 if Motion-No. 25 were voted down, but we wanted Motion No. 25 to be considered as the more substantive of the two. We do not appreciate the Speaker's making a ruling on something about which no ruling was necessary.
I therefore ask you to reconsider, if you will, between now and tomorrow whether, in fact, there may have been a misunderstanding as to what took place on Thursday and Friday. We are quite prepared to discuss the matter further privately in order to find some accommodation for the question we put before you. It is not up to the Minister to say which of the four or five amendments grouped at any one time is acceptable to the Minister. You can imagine, for example, that if we were to accept that kind of procedure and there were five amendments grouped for debate, one of them being the Minister's, he could rise at any point in time and say, "That one is acceptable to me, and so everything else is out of the way." That is ludicrous, Mr. Speaker. I can see from your face that you can see the stupidity of that and you can, therefore, understand the point that I am now making. It is not up to the Minister to say something is acceptable or otherwise. It is up to the House to dispose of it. It was our intention, safely protected by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), that we should deal with Motion No. 25 before we dealt with the Minister's intention to accept Motion No. 26. That was said by the Hon. Member on Thursday, reiterated by the Hon. Member on Friday. It required absolutely no Speaker's ruling on Monday. I simply ask that until tomorrow we be given an opportunity to discuss it further, and that Motion No. 25 not be removed from the Order Paper.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point of order on the same subject. For clarification, I think at the very beginning the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) moved to adjourn the House. The Hon. Member for Regina then gave up his right to speak. We then introduced Motion No. 27 which was the same Motion as Motion No. 26.


Ian Deans: No.


Leonard J. Gustafson: It became a matter of politics in this House, at which time we had upstaged the NDP. We were getting
Western Grain Transportation Act some ink in the papers in western Canada, and the NDP became very jumpy at that point and it made its move to Motion No. 26, thus bypassing Motion No. 25.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I may be able to assist in the resolution of the problem. I will try to do so. I see the Hon. Member for Regina West rising. I have recognized him several times and I wonder if he would let me see if I could find a solution to this problem.
We can take the issue in this order. In the first instance I know that all Members will recognize that it is the policy of the Chair that rulings are, if I may call them such, indivisible. It is not possible for me to overrule a ruling made by a previous occupant of the chair. That option I do not find possible. I do not think any Hon. Member would want the Chair to start that kind of practice. We would soon have four different Speakers offering four different kinds of rulings.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We do.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: You would never know what was going to happen in the House.
The second option which the Hon. Member may be able to achieve himself is by way of private discussions which would lead along the subject matter of unanimous consent. I have to leave that to him. It is pointless for me to put that proposition to the House right now, and it would do the Hon. Member no service. Judging from what was said by the two Hon. Members who have spoken on that matter, I think I would have difficulty getting unanimous consent for the Hon. Member now.
There is a third issue which the Hon. Member for Regina West and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) have raised, and that is, that somehow the Chair committed itself to creating certain opportunities for the Hon. Member for Regina West. I will look at that. This argument is made and it is made with myself in the chair on Friday, found on page 27622 of Hansard. The exchange was as follows:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand that last night the House considered Motion No. 26. In accordance with Madam Speaker's ruling which grouped certain motions, it would follow that Motion No. 25 would now be withdrawn.
1 gather that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) wanted some consideration of the issue. If he has any comment, perhaps now is the time, because it should logically now be withdrawn.
In the next paragraph the Hon. Member for Regina West concludes by saying:
That is why I would like to ask if Your Honour could just leave this matter in abeyance until Monday and we could discuss it further.
The Chair replies with what is obviously a repeat of the same warning, a warning that Madam Speaker grouped these motions, but it logically follows from the treatment of the motions by the House that Motion No. 25 would now be withdrawn. The words used are:
The Chair would accept the Hon. Member's request. I do not hear a procedural argument which would affect the statement I made to the effect that, with the passage of Motion No. 26, it would automatically follow that Motion No. 25 would be withdrawn.

October 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
I then went on to indicate to the Hon. Member that I could see no harm to the proceedings of the House if his request were met. That is, in his own words, "Leave it in abeyance until Monday and we could discuss it further."
The question now arises for the Hon. Member and his colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain, whether there is some way in which my words on Friday give to the Hon. Member for Regina West some opening for a better treatment by the Chair or by the House. In opposition to that question is the fact that my predecessor ruled that Motion No. 25 was deemed withdrawn. I will undertake to consult with the Table officers to determine whether there is some way the Chair can assist the Hon. Member, or the Table officers may be able to advise the Hon. Member of some procedure which he might find available. I want to warn the Hon. Member in advance that I do not know of any, but I am prepared to put the matter in the back of my mind. I am not prepared to consider overruling the previous Deputy Speaker. I am prepared to do a little research to see if in some way the Chair can fulfil its duties, which is always to offer assistance to Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Well, help us out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: But the Hon. Member understands in advance that I regard the previous Speaker's ruling as binding. If we can leave it at that, fine.
I do not think we can entertain more points of order on the matter because the point is very clear. The issue is very clear. I do not think the House should have to take up too much more time on the matter. If the Hon. Member is satisfied with that, we can proceed in that fashion. If he is not, I will now give him an opportunity to speak again. One of the responsibilities of the Chair is to move the business of the House along in some orderly fashion and I will have to do that as quickly a possible. The Hon. Member for Regina West.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Speaker.
I only want to be helpful in discussions which I hope will take place. I have had conversations with some of the Table Officers only to point out, for the sake of discussions that I hope will take place between now and tomorrow when the House convenes again, that Madam Speaker said in her preliminary ruling that Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 standing in my own name and that of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) appear acceptable to the Chair and should be grouped for debate. But she then went on to say that Motion No. 24 should be voted on separately, and an affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 would dispose of Motions Nos. 26 and 27, but a negative vote on Motion No. 25 would require further voting on Motions Nos. 26 and 27.
I take my share of responsibility and say that collectively we erred on Thursday and Friday by proceeding to deal with Motion No. 26 before we dealt with Motion No. 25. I hope that discussions can occur. Since Motion No. 25 was our first choice amendment, we filed Motion No. 26 in the event Motion No. 25 failed. I only ask, Sir, that in the discussions
which I hope will take place, we will find a way, by unanimous consent or in some other manner, without asking the Chair to be overruled or asking the Chair to overrule itself, I hope we can find an agreeable solution to this sometime tomorrow. When we debate Motion No. 25, it may be tomorrow or any other day. In terms of undoing what we did on Thursday and Friday by not dealing with the motions seriatim as they appeared on the Order Paper by way of votes, we will find ourselves in trouble down the road. I am as guilty as anyone in the House. Over a period of a few minutes or even seconds we were frantically trying to figure out what happened to what because we did such and such. I think we have to undo it, and I hope the discussions will arrive at a way of undoing it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not want any misunderstanding. This occupant of the chair is not offering to the Hon. Member some form of debate or further debate on the matter. I can make that clear by indicating that any other occupant of the chair would, from this point on, feel that the Hon. Member has not only had fair hearing but that I personally have given every moment of time I can. It is not a question of the Chair offering some way to overcome what amounts to a decision of the House. I simply offered some help to the Hon. Member, that research could be done to see if there was some alternative procedure for him.
As far as the status right now is concerned, the matter has been decided upon, and Motion No. 25 has been withdrawn. I am not sure whether there are other Hon. Members who wish to address themselves to Motion No. 32.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Has the Hon. Member not already spoken to his own motion?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Presumably the Hon. Member is on another point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, I rise on the same point of order, a further point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is not possible because I have ruled on that point of order and cannot entertain debate on it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is an agreement of the House that Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 29 would be debated and voted upon separately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I know the Hon. Member for Regina West feels that I have done my utmost to be of assistance to him, and that he will see a substantial reduction in my interest in being of assistance to him if he is not prepared to take my rulings on a courteous basis. On debate, Motion No. 32.
October 3, 1983


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak for a few moments this afternoon on Motion No. 32 in the name of my learned friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I readily admit that I am not a farmer and as such I do not have first hand knowledge of the farming industry. I do represent many farmers and 1 talk to them when I go home to my constituency. I talk to the officials of municipalities, towns and villages in my constituency as well. Over the last few months many of them have passed resolutions which they sent to the federal Government calling upon it to preserve the Crowsnest Pass rates for the transportation of grain. They have done this out of interest for the farmers in their communities and for the economic wellbeing of their communities as service centres to the farming industry.
I have listened today with interest and with some amusement to the speeches in this debate by Members of the Progressive Conservative Party. I especially noted the comments of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), who happens to be my neighbour in Manitoba. He charged the New Democratic Party with a poor performance in the debate on the Crowsnest Pass rates or on Bill C-155. This is somewhat amusing. The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette, in a ringing piece of oratory which will long be remembered, on a day during the debate of Bill C-155 when we had about half the number of Members of the PC Party rising to enter into the debate as Members of this Party-


Mr. Blenkarn:: Come on.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: This was from a Party whose Leader on the weekend in Regina and Saskatoon said that it would oppose and do everything it could to stop the Bill.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: There were 1,500 Conservatives in Saskatoon; you would have been proud.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Approximately 1,500 Conservatives gave him a subdued applause.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was there. There was a standing ovation.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Returning to the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette, he spoke about our performance. Today we heard from the hon. psychologist for Calgary who stretched the credibility of the House and insulted the Canadian electorate by intimating that the NDP was responsible for Bill C-155 being introduced in the House of Commons. This is one of the best pieces of creative thinking in the House for some time.
If the Conservative Government had not been chucked out of office in the winter of 1979-80, the Crowsnest Pass freight rates would be long gone, dead and buried. During Question Period today we heard the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) come on as a strong defender of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. He is from the Province of Alberta. I would like to ask him what kind of strong support those rates have from the Premier of that Province or from the provincial Minister of Agriculture. Not very much, I am afraid to say. Who is talking about good performances!
Western Grain Transportation Act
The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette also talked about this Party's inconsistency in its position on the Crowsnest Pass rates. This Party is the only one that has been consistent from day one. In fact, we have been consistent for many, many years. Our bottom line is that we are opposed to the changes. The Tory position, since the introduction of Bill C-155, has marked one of the most notable turnarounds since St. Paul took a trip toward Damascus.
Once again the Progressive Conservatives are joinging with their ideological bedmates, the Liberals, to put into effect a system which will once again leave western farmers with the short end of the stick. We have them voting against the continued wellbeing o the Canadian Wheat Board and in favour of the ability of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and the Grain Transportation Administrator to weaken the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. I say to the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), who is not in the House at the moment, that yes, the Conservatives are voting against good by voting against Motion No. 32.
What are we trying to do with this motion? Basically we are trying to maximize the returns to producers, as was said in the House this afternoon. How do we maximize returns by putting into place two systems which may very well be conflicting, by putting in place two bosses? If you have split responsibility, in the end nobody is responsible. The Canadian Wheat Board has been doing its job well for 40 or 50 years. I do not see why that has to be changed now. If we look at the record of the Grain Transportation Agency since it has been in place, what it has done over the last two or three years is to experiment with systems. In the end, it has gone back to the same Canadian Wheat Board allocation system it was using before. Basically, it has done nothing. It is an extra cog in the wheel, a cog that takes time, could possibly add confusion and in the end would not serve the best interests of western producers.
I listened with interest to the comments of the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta). He said that in his travels in and out of Winnipeg, he often spoke with members of the Canadian Wheat Board who expressed to him that they are not especially concerned with this provision of the Bill. That flies in the face of the testimony which the Canadian Wheat Board gave when it appeared before the Transport Committee over the last couple of months. I quote from their presentation;
The Canadian Wheat Board, like any other sales organization, must control shipment of its own product in order to ensure performance. For these reasons the Board has always held the view that overall control of the system, as developed in co-ordination with the industry, should be administered by the Board.
The Board still feels that the system operates most efficiently and effectively if grain transportation is fully co-ordinated by the major sales agency. If this is not permitted, it should be clear that we view any further reduction in the Board's ability to co-ordinate transportation, as a very serious step backward for the export sales program for western Canadian grains.
That seems to be completely contradictory to the statement of the Hon. Member for Lisgar. We should take note of that. The Canadian Wheat Board has done the job well for many years. It has concerns about the grain transportation authority.

October 3, 1983
27696___________________________________________
Western Grain Transportation Act
We must address those concerns and make the grain transportation authority part and parcel of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Basically, we want an efficient system that will not have conflicts, not have two bosses, two systems working against the best interests of Canadian farmers. I therefore ask all Members, especially the Conservative Party which is trying to pretend it is the defender of the Crow and western farmers, to support Motion No. 32.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest to the comments of some of my Conservative colleagues. At first I was surprised at the anti-Wheat Board attitude they displayed. I thought as I listened to them, particularly those from the Prairies, that perhaps they were trying to develop some other arguments, sustainable by factual information, which had shown conclusively that this move was going to be of lasting benefit. I then came to the conclusion that I should not have been so surprised, looking back over the history of debate on this legislation; the weak-kneed, lily-livered approach they have taken to supporting the farming community in prairie Canada. Almost on bended knee they hoped the Liberals would push this Bill through as it would save them from having to do so later should they ever become a government.
As I listened to the debate on this clause alone, I began to see what was behind the Tory push. This amendment that we offer is aimed at strengthening the transporting of grain to the export markets. What we are talking about is the responsibility that has been taken on by the Wheat Board to find the markets, to ensure that the demand in world terms can be met, and to ensure that the farmers of Canada have available to them the grain transportation system that they need.
It has the responsibility when selling wheat abroad to make sure that the transportation system in place will be available and ready to carry that wheat to the ports so that it can be shipped on time and the grain farmers of western Canada will be assured that their reputation will not suffer at the hands of some other body. That is really what this is all about. I do not understand the Conservative position. It is mind-boggling.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Which position are you talking about?


Ian Deans: My colleague asks, "Which position". I can understand him being puzzled about which position, given the numbers of positions that the Conservative Party has taken since the Bill was introduced. As my old friend and colleague from Sudbury would have said, they have more positions than Masters and Johnston, and let me tell you that their intent is not as good as the intent of Masters and Johnston.
Their leader has been speaking in Saskatchewan, speaking in Manitoba, talking to 1,500 Tory flunkies, getting them off their backsides to cheer for useless rhetoric which does not in any way reflect the true Conservative position. We know the true Conservative position because we have taken a look at it. Others across the country are now beginning to look at it.
What is the Conservative position? The Conservative position today is whatever happens to be the most specious, the one that provides them with the shortest run gain, the argument that they can put forward that will satisfy, notwithstanding whatever argument they may have put forward yesterday. I find it improbable. We have the Tories bemoaning the fact that we are trying to protect the interest of the prairie wheat farmers while they, hand-in-glove with the Liberals as usual, support Liberals at every turn in the committee, speaking together as one and representing the same interests, the corporate interest as usual.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The railroad.


Ian Deans: My colleague says, the corporate interests, and adds, sotto voce, the railroad, I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of other comments I want to make. I will wait until tomorrow to complete my remarks.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on September 27, 1983, I posed a question to the Minister of Consumer and Coprorate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) regarding the removal of urea formaldehyde from Manitoba homes. I asked her to respond and thought that I was to receive a progress report on the problems which have occurred in Manitoba because subcontractors are not being paid and liens are being placed against Manitoba home owners. I was shocked by her response. The answer she gave me was nonsense. It was to the effect that her Department did not have contractors and she could not understand the question.
I went on to ask her why the Manitoba NDP Government is not co-operating with the federal Government by giving progress reports about the operations of the different contractors in Manitoba. She informed me that she had no knowledge of the subject. 1 found that very strange, and I will go into that further in just a moment.
I would like to deal with the history of the problem of urea formaldehyde. Lirst the Government recommended urea formaldehyde foam insulation for homes. The Government is now recommending its removal by Government registered firms which have been proven in Manitoba to be unreliable and inexperienced. A performance bond should be a prerequisite for the hiring of these firms. In Manitoba these firms are
October 3, 1983

hiring subscontractors and not paying them. Subcontractors in turn are placing liens against properties they have worked on.
I would like to point out that there is a time limit with regard to liens. If something is not done about a lien within 40 days, the matter ends up in court. I hope the Minister will take some action so that none of these home owners will end up in court regarding payments to contractors and subcontractors.
Home owners are left with uncompleted work. Wires are left hanging, windows are smashed, woodwork is destroyed, exterior walls are torn down and the home owners do not know when to expect the replacement of those walls.
I appreciated receiving a call this morning from someone in the Minister's office. The caller was seeking information about what was going on in Manitoba. I gave her office the addresses of some of the affected home owners and a little bit of background information so that they will know what to look for when a member of the Minister's staff is sent to Manitoba.
I understand that will be this week.
Home owners will be facing a cold Manitoba winter with no protection against the elements. They face two prospects: They may become ill due to formaldehyde gas poisoning or they may become ill due to exposure to weather. Home owners feel that they are at the mercy of the contractors. The Manitoba NDP Government is not reporting names of delinquent firms to the federal Government and obviously the Manitoba Government is not concerned with the plight of these home owners.
Let me tell you about the plight of just one home owner in Manitoba. He will have snow blowing right through his house because the gables are wide open. He has plywood covering the lower part of his home. He has broken an agreement with the contractor and could have a libel suit on his hands. He has had to retain the services of a lawyer at his own expense and has had to repair damage done by the contractor at his own expense. Apparently Consumer and Corporate Affairs has only one person in Winnipeg assigned to deal with these problems. This one person must deal with problems regarding urea formaldehyde in three western Provinces. With those kinds of problems, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister should look at expanding her staff.
In Toronto, Canada's biggest class action suit has been launched against the federal Government because of the urea formaldehyde situation. If the Government continues in the same manner, more suits can be expected.
On September 27, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs denied knowing about the problems in Manitoba. However, on September 9, a telex was sent to the Minister by Mr. G. J. Markowski, President of HUFFI in Winnipeg, describing the situation. On September 16, that telex was acknowledged by the Minister who said that the matter was under careful consideration. I find it very strange that she could not give me a progress report instead of telling me that she had no knowledge of the subject when I raised the matter in the House. This would clearly indicate that mail is leaving her office signed by someone else and that she is not aware of it.
Adjournment Debate
Why did the Minister mislead the House? What will she do for these home owners? What action is she going to take against the Manitoba NDP Government for not reporting the names of delinquent firms as requested in order to protect the home owners? I would like to remind the Minister again that there are just a few days left to remove some of these liens before the home owners find themselves facing a court action.
I hope I can receive a more satisfactory answer this evening than the one I received last week.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that my reply to the question of the Hon. Member last week could have inadvertantly misled the House. I must in all sincerity say that the question he posed offered me no alternative but to answer as I did. The question he asked, as reported at page 27500 of Hansard for September 27, was:
Has the Minister had any consultations with the Manitoba NDP Government as to why it is not conforming to federal Government regulations? Will she work in conjuntion with the Manitoba Government to have the liens removed immediately, have the foam inslation removed, and have the outside sidings replaced?
I replied, and I quote:
The Province of Manitoba has not informed me of the difficulties and I am glad that the Hon. Member is fulfilling his obligations as a Member of Parliament by bringing the matter to my attention.
No, indeed, I have not received a request from the Manitoba Government. I have had no formal request. Yes, I have had a number of requests from people across the country, including people from Manitoba, which we are investigating. I suggest to the Hon. Member that had he posed his question differently I would have given a very different answer. Now I have an opportunity to answer the Hon. Member more fully, I am very pleased to say to him that I was aware of the specific problem in Manitoba and we had, indeed, responded and we are working on it.
The original question put to me by the Hon. Member had really four separate points: my Department's relationship with UFFI contractors; the specific problem of liens in Winnipeg; the question of houses remaining unfinished, and the Government of Manitoba and performance bonds. I would like to deal with all of these points because when we looked back at the question it occurred to us that there were many questions all within the one.
First of all, I will speak about the licensed contractors. The UFFI Centre does not licence contractors but maintains a register of those who have demonstrated their ability to carry out corrective measures for UFFI.
The Hon. Member mentioned provincial involvement and performance bonds. As I understand it, it is not a provincial requirement in Manitoba that contractors post performance bonds. I am not clear on what the Hon. Member was talking about when he mentioned these bonds and I will be pleased to receive details of any problems he thinks may exist.
There is certainly a problem with one contractor in Winnipeg. The UFFI Centre has a system for identifying contrac-

October 3, 1983
Adjournment Debate
tors who seem to be taking on too many contracts for UFFI work for the number of trained employees they have. I should point out, however, there are very few across the country who have tried to do this, although we have had problems, as I said earlier, right across the country. The particular contractor who caused the problem in Winnipeg was identified by this system. As of August 3 he has not been permitted to take on any new work, although he is required to complete the jobs for which he had already contracted. I would like to assure the Hon. Member of this.
Nevertheless, the situation is not as bleak as my hon. colleague seems to fear. The contractor in question has made arrangements with two of the suppliers who had imposed the liens. I am aware of about 60 liens. I would be interested to have details of the 150 which were mentioned by the Hon. Member. Those suppliers have agreed to continue to supply the contractor as long as the home owners agree to make their payments to the contractor and the supplier jointly. The contractor is confident he will have all his outstanding contracts completed by December 15. UFFI Centre officials will be monitoring his progress.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I do not have the option to offer the Minister the opportunity of extending her remarks by unanimous consent. Her time has gone considerably over the three minutes she is allowed. Accordingly, there is no way for me to get around it. I am sorry to inform the Minister that three minutes is the time allowed for the reply on the late show and the Chair, by tradition, has been requested by the House to be quite rigorous in the application of the rules.


EMPLOYMENT-DENIAL OF ACCESS TO TRAINING FOR GRADE SIX EDUCATED WORKERS. (B) POLICY INQUIRY
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, on two separate occasions I have raised a question with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) regarding a policy which presently exists in the Canada Manpower offices across the country, in that it is denying training assistance to adult Canadians who apply for training and who have functional grade seven or less as their level of education. Manpower offices, by policy, denied them admittance or the necessary support for training programs. Twice I have raised this in the House. The last time the Minister followed it up with a letter from which I will quote from as follows:
A careful evaluation of the Canada Manpower Training Program confirmed that academic upgrading at lower levels rarely led to further skill training or to employment. In view of these findings and the Senate Committee recommendations, it was determined that the Commission should withdraw from low-level BTSD funding at the Grades 1 to 7 level.
I find it most objectionable, Mr. Speaker, that in this time of unemployment and misery across the country a Government would set a policy denying admittance to Manpower Training Programs because people do not have an education, the very
people we should be helping. That is a fact; I have it in writing from the Minister.
I also have a letter from Frontier College which came across my desk today, one portion of which I would like to read, as follows:
It is a shock to most Canadians to realize that several million adults have fewer than nine years of school. Of course, for these people, as you suggested, it is extremely difficult to obtain access to provincial or federal training programs.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is denying these people the opportunity to go into training programs, by way of a policy, not by an Act, because an Act like that would not pass this House of Commons. It would discriminate against people because they lack education or because their educational level is not above grade 7. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this most reprehensible step that the Manpower Offices across the country are taking.
I have a paper from UNESCO which says that 28.4 per cent of Canadian adults have less than grade 9, an educational attainment well below the requirements of our society. The very people we should be helping are being denied that help through a policy implemented by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Government conducted an evaluation which indicated there was no use in giving people who are functionally illiterate an education because they do not go on to take skill training, and do not contribute to society anyway. The Minister also claimed in his letter to me that part of the reason for withdrawing support for those unfortunate people who are functionally illiterate is that the Senate Committee on Finance has determined it is a waste of money. I tell you that it is not a waste of money, Mr. Speaker. If we do not address the problem, if we do not make the people in Canada aware that there are millions of adult Canadians walking the streets of our country who have every right to this education and who, perhaps through an accident of birth, did not get that education when they were young, then they are being denied Manpower Training Programs paid for with tax dollars, programs to which they on many occasions have contributed.
The Frontier College has been teaching people to read and write for years. People coming out of university have gone and worked on train gangs on the railroads to teach people to read and write. This policy is wrong, Mr. Speaker, absolutely wrong and absolutely deplorable. I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider this most reprehensible policy.


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for the point he raised, because it is a very essential and important point in dealing with the matter of education in Canada. There is no doubt but that there is too great a number of Canadians, especialy adult Canadians, who do not have the functional education to be part of the labour force in a way that could meet the challenges of industrial conversion with which we are involved at this point in time. However, one thing we must also bear in mind at this same moment is that there are some limitations to

the responsibility of the Government of Canada so far as adult education is concerned, and so far as the primary and secondary levels of education are concerned.
When an adult finds himself or herself in the situation where he or she must go back to school to receive instruction to prepare for training in the new skills that will ensure him or her of the kind of permanent job we are attempting to create in this country, the responsibility, and we must be well aware of this, is essentially, according to our Constitution, the responsibility of the Governments of the Provinces. There is no doubt but that adult education is an essential objective that we must pursue simultaneously with the training of Canadians in those new skills and jobs where the future of the economy of Canada lies.
I am not ready to subscribe to the interpretation that the Hon. Member gave to the Minister's letter to the effect that those people are automatically barred from training. I would rather think that the Minister is certainly not prepared to write off the workers with grade six education. However, the basic responsibility to provide academic upgrading at these low levels rests, in fact, with the Provinces. There is certainly a need on the part of the Provinces to question themselves on their adult education priorities.
There is no doubt that if there are any programs in the country that should address adults personally, they should be for those adults who have reached only the lowest grades of education, because the proof is there on the table that those with very low levels of education have much more difficulty in being successfully trained in order to find permanent jobs. Essentially what we have in mind, therefore, is to establish the minimum skills an adult should have at the beginning, and then integrate the adult in the training programs that the Minister has launched and that the House has approved. Those are the kind of steps that should be taken if we want to achieve the creation of permanent jobs we are all looking for in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Ordinarily, it is the Parliamentary Secretaries who provide answers during the adjournment proceedings. It may help a little bit, and this is not intended as inadvertent criticism, particularly since there are two Ministers present, to remind them that these are the difficulties suffered by Parliamentary Secretaries. Their Ministers and Departments provide them with answers which cannot be compressed into a three-minute period. With that as note, perhaps I could recognize the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett).


NATIONAL DEFENCE-CANADIAN FORCES BASE CHATHAM, N.B. (B) PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity of again raising the issue which I raised last week with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais), who now must take the responsibility for the closure of CFB Chatham. Your Honour might recall that last week I asked the Minister how he could reckon his Department's decision
Adjournment Debate
and his endorsement, the decision of his colleague, the former Minister of National Defence, to close the airbase in view of the pledge that was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1976, when he gave his "personal word on CFB Chatham's permanent status". He also went on to say that the base was fulfilling a need and that there were no plans to close it down.
It is interesting that at that particular time, in response to the question, the Minister of National Defence did indeed raise himself to his feet and say that it was the Department's intention to close the base down. I suppose he made the quickest flip-flop the Government has made since it has been in power. Within a matter of seconds he reversed his decision after an interjection by the Hon. Member for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). He said it really was not the Government's intention to close the base but just to close down the fighter squadron aspect of it. There is no question that, for all intents and purposes, the base is being closed with the elimination of that fighter squadron. The fact that the F-18s are being transferred to Quebec from Cold Lake, Alberta, means that there will be 3,500 jobs directly or indirectly affected. There will be $33 million in annual revenue lost to that community. It is a community that is already suffering approximately 50 per cent unemployment.
It is also interesting for the House to know that at the last Liberal convention, which was held here in Ottawa, there was a resolution that passed by the full plenary of the Liberal group there gathered which said:
WHEREAS the closure of CFB Chatham would cause irreparable harm to the already struggling economy of the Miramichi, and whereas the recent provincial election has shown the announced closure has greatly diminished the traditional faith of Miramichiers in the Liberal Party-
All of which is extremely true, continues to be true and even more substantial than perhaps it was then. It continued as follows:
Be it resolved that steps be taken that will ensure the current level of employment at CFB Chatham not be reduced.
This motion was passed without dissension by the Liberal Party, which I assume included a clutch of Ministers opposite, and probably the Minister of National Defence, who put their stamp of approval on it.
What has been the response of this Government? It says that in order to compensate for those 3,500 lost jobs it will move the pay directorate of the Armed Forces to the Chatham area. It has promised a trickling of megafunds for some port development and it has maintained that it will establish a fluid bed minerals research centre.
Those projects collectively, with everything else it has announced, will not amount to a 10 per cent replacement of the jobs that will be lost due to the phasing out of the 401 Squadron, which the Minister, and his Department and his Government, are intent on inflicting on those people who are already experiencing 50 per cent unemployment in the area.

October 3, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Today the Deputy Prime Minister rose in his seat in response to a question from my colleague for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and told her, the House and the nation that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) initiative is a policy of reducing the unemployment rate.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) will apparently respond to my question which more properly should be answered by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais). It is probably an indication of their concern for the area. I want to ask the Government where is that policy for reducing unemployment in the Miramichi region of New Brunswick? Where is it when they stand and say one thing and then create a situation that will eliminate 3,500 jobs instead of creating more. There are no concrete steps whatsoever being undertaken by this Government to begin to address the problems that will result from the loss of those 3,500 jobs, or to reduce substantially the unemployment rate which now exists in the Miramichi area. I ask this Government through this Minister to address that in a positive way; do not give these people words but, rather, bread and butter. Give them jobs.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I should like to update the Hon. Member. I am no longer the Minister of State for Mines, I am the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
I have some difficulty in understanding why the Hon. Member referred back to the situation in 1976 when the Government was just beginning the process of acquiring a new fighter aircraft to replace the CF-101 Voodoo, the CF-104 the Starfighter, and the CF-5.
In his adjournment debate statement on February 9, 1982, and again on April 19, 1983, in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, he seemed to understand the military and strategic reasons the CF-101 operations with the advent of the CF-118 should cease at CFB Chatham, and what the Government was doing to enhance the economic base of the Chatham region.
The then Parliamentary Secretary for National Defence made it very clear, during her response in the adjournment debate, that because of strictly military, strategic considerations and economic needs, it was decided that the CF-18 be based at Cold Lake and Bagotville and that two deployment bases at Comox and Goose Bay would also be used. This decision on the basing posture of the CF-18 had to follow a decision on the best kind of aircraft the Government could afford and what capabilities it possessed. The Hon. Member seemed to understand that very clearly.
In a speech to the Chatham-Newcastle Chamber of Commerce on November 7, 1981, the Minister talked about the standing down of Squadron 416 at CFB Chatham after termination of the CF-101 flying operations on December 31, 1984. The intent of the Government in seeking to establish a broad base for the economic well being of the region was clearly outlined by the then Minister in his statement given in Chatham.
In addition to the current units presently stationed in Chatham, less 416 Squadron, the DND directorate of pay services comprising approximately 350 personnel will be transferred to Chatham starting in 1985 and a building to house this directorate is being built in the downtown core.
An interdepartmental committee on the future of CFB Chatham is continuing its work and proposals encompassing initiatives by the federal, provincial, municipal Governments and private industrial firms, are being considered.
The Minister had constructive and positive discussions with the Mayor of Chatham, the local MLA and the Member from Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) this week. There is an ongoing process of discussion at all levels of Government, and I am optimistic that appropriate activities and initiatives will offset the termination of 101 flying operations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
At 6.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 4, 1983