1983-09-30

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, last Wednesday, the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) rose in the House, under the provisions of Standing Order 21, to announce that he could not support a decision by the Canadian Government regarding the establishment of a Bell Helicopter plant in Quebec. I would like to refer to a statement by the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) which appeared in Le Droit of June 13 of this year, in which he said that, as leader of the Party, he would decide on the positions to be taken by the Progressive Conservative Party and that he would not tolerate haphazard statements by fellow members. In the circumstances, all members of this House must be anxious to know whether the new Leader of the Opposition approves the establishment of the Bell Helicopter plant in Quebec. If he does, what is he going to do about the Hon. Member for Erie?
I purposely asked two simple questions in order to have a reply within the next few days.


COAST GUARD
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, for years the Progressive Conservative Party has been urging that the icebreaker fleet of the Canadian Coast Guard be upgraded. Not only will the procurement of new icebreaking vessels enable the Coast Guard to fulfil its obligations in the St. Lawrence and Arctic more adequately, resulting in safer and longer shipping seasons and generally stimulating commercial navigation, but also it will provide badly needed work for hard-pressed Canadian shipyard workers. For these reasons we on this side are pleased to see the Government finally
acting on our recommendations and placing orders for six light icebreaking vessels.
The next step, might I suggest, Madam Speaker, should be the design and construction of heavy icebreakers for year-round use in the Arctic Ocean and Northwest Passage.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, I rise to correct a statement made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) two nights ago. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Liberal Party has undermined Canada's relationship with the United States. He said it is time for Canada to say who its friends are. Contrary to this statement and others made by the Leader of the Opposition, Canada-U.S. relations are healthy. In fact the relationship is stronger now than it has been for some time.
The U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Robinson, Jr., has recently stated that things are going very well between this Government and the Reagan administration. The American trade representative, William Block, has been quoted as saying that Canada-U.S. relations are strong and thriving. Mr. Block said that issues between the two countries are being addressed in a spirit of co-operation.
There have been many recent signs to indicate that Canada-U.S. relations are prospering. The United States has applauded the new trade policy of this Government, which calls for an increase in free trade between the two countries. That trade policy recognizes the United States as Canada's best trading partner and strongest ally.
Another important sign of a strong relationship is the recent appointment of a senior official to deal exclusively with Canada in the U.S. State Department. There are other signs of a healthy relationship. Canada and the United States are working together in a serious and co-operative spirit to combat the problem of acid rain. Canada has shown it is a committed ally by assuring a greater contribution to western security and by agreeing to allow the testing of the Cruise missile-


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

September 30, 1983


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I continue to voice my concern about youth unemployment. As recently as 1981 youth unemployment was running at a rate of 13.3 per cent. Last year it moved up to 18.7 per cent. According to the OECD it will average 22 per cent this year and next. This pretty well reflects the statistics in my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. The over-all message from the OECD is that the magnitude of the unemployment problem left over from the recession is overwhelming.
This problem is particularly serious for young people who shoulder the major part of the burden of a global recession and high unemployment. As the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has already observed, frustration and apathy among the young could lead to social discontent. With respect to my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, great concern is not enough.


DENIAL OF NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE FRANCHISE TO SASKATOON
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, this particular week there has been another phase in what I call the "battle of Saskatoon", which is the battle of trying to get a National Hockey League hockey team to that city. As you are aware, the St. Louis Blues were for sale last spring. The National Hockey League would not accept the offer which was made by a group of representatives from the city of Saskatoon.
On Wednesday afternoon, my friend, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), proposed a motion in the House during Private Members' Hour which was amended by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), and which, thanks to the Liberals, passed. What that amounts to is that the granting, transfer, and operation of professional sports franchises should be looked at by the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee.
[DOT] (M10)
I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and the Chairman of the Committee, the Hon. Member for Rose-mont (Mr. Lachance), to see that this matter is taken to the Committee as soon as possible, and that the president and directors of the NHL be asked to appear as witnesses to explain why they turned down that offer, which was a good one, without any real explanation. I believe we now have an opportunity to bring the battle of Saskatoon to a successful conclusion.


WORLD MARITIME DAY
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, this is a statement I wanted to make yesterday on the occasion of World Maritime Day, but because of the NDP adjournment motion stalling the proceedings of this House-


Mr. Nielsen:: You kept the bells ringing.


Jesse Philip Flis: - 1 was denied the privilege of doing so. The International Maritime Organization, I MO, a specialized agency of the UN based in London, England, designated September 29, 1983, as World Maritime Day.


Madam Speaker:: Order. If the Hon. Member is going to continue in that vein I want to remind him that the only thing possible at this time is to make a statement on an issue which preoccupies the Hon. Member. There is no question that statements under Standing Order 21 should be used to offer good wishes on the occasion of one or other special day.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I MO, like its sister organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, which has its headquarters in Montreal, is concerned with the promotion of safety. With ICAO it is air safety, with I MO it is safety of life at sea.
As one of the world's largest trading nations, Canada draws upon maritime services to transport over 200 million tons of international commerce annually. Domestic waterborne trading exceeds 65 million tons annually. With over 500 active ports and harbours, Canada annually hosts approximately 60,000 commercial vessel arrivals. The safe and effective administration of this country's maritime environment is entrusted to our Canadian Coast Guard whose members are globally recognized for their professionalism. It is my pleasure, therefore, following the occasion of yesterday's World Maritime Day, to draw to the attention of this House the important of shipping to the Canadian economy and population.
I feel I speak for all Members of this House when I wish seafarers throughout the world, our Coast Guard, the I MO organization, and all 125 nations which are members of I MO, continued success and achievement.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, a Manitoba businessman named John Buhler, and other White Farm Equipment dealers, are making a serious attempt to retain White Farm Limited as a viable separate entity. Last night Mr. Buhler telexed a letter of intent to buy, along with a deposit of $100,000, to the receiver. He plans to assemble a $11.6 million offer in conjunction with other White Farm
September 30, 1983

dealers and possibly a financier. But, Madam Speaker, he needs more time.
I urge the federal Government either to view this letter of intent as a legal, solid offer, or to extend the deadline from 9 a.m. tomorrow, Saturday, until October 15, by which time Mr. Buhler expects to have ironed out the details. At stake is the fate of 119 White Farm dealerships. There are also the thousands of farmers who own White Farm equipment and require replacement parts for that equipment, who must be considered.
This latest offer is especially important to my home Province of Manitoba, where there are 20 White Farm dealerships employing more than 200 people. Relocating the company s assets in Manitoba, as Mr. Buhler has proposed, would place the headquarters in the very region where the products are in high demand.
The Government has already seen to it that an offer to purchase by White Farm's parent company in the United States was rejected. 1 urge the Government therefore not to let this offer also slip through its hands.


ABORTION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver-East):: Madam Speaker, tomorrow women and men across the country will mark a day of action for "Choice on Abortion". The issue is choice, not pro or anti-abortion. The right of the indvidual male or female to exercise freedom of choice in private medical and sexual matters is a hallmark of Canadian society. The Badgley Report documented economic and geographic inequities in the abortion law. Fewer than 30 per cent of hospitals in Canada perform abortions. Increasing numbers of women must obtain abortions in the U.S. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies, of course, is preferable to abortion. If birth control information, education and counselling were more readily available, the number of abortions would decrease. However, the federal Government has been steadily eroding Planned Parenthood's funding.
In 1982, 72 per cent of Canadians believed that the decision to perform an abortion should rest with the consenting patient and her doctor. Ninety-five per cent of doctors approve of abortion in some circumstances. The Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church, and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women support the removal of abortion from the Criminal Code.
The NDP reaffirmed our support for freedom of choice and a full range of reproductive health services. Over the past 20 years many countries, regardless of political system or religious ideology, have legalized abortions. As Grace Maclnnis said in 1969, "There will never be-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
I am aware that a role that has been assigned to the Speaker is part of the problem, but my question relates to government-to-government communications and responsibilities.
The Soviet charge d'affaires in Ottawa first abruptly rejected a formal note from the Government with regard to the shooting down of the Korean aircraft, and second, declined to accept the unanimous resolution of this House condemning that action. Has the Government conveyed to the Soviet Government its displeasure at the conduct of the charge d'affaires and, if so, would it table any notes or correspondence relating thereto?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Prime Minister):: The other day the Speaker of the House said that with respect to the resolution passed by the House-


Erik Nielsen: The note.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -this was her responsibility.


Erik Nielsen: The government note.


Mr. Cousineau:: You don't want to listen.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The situation is well known. The Government has made representations with respect to compensation, both here in Ottawa and in Moscow.


Mr. McGrath:: But they won't accept it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Russians have returned the mail and they have now come up with a request of their own for compensation for the damage suffered-


James Aloysius McGrath: Have we accepted their note?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -by the action, by the sanction we imposed on the transportation of Aeroflot to Canada. Therefore, call it diplomatic ping pong if you want-


Mr. McKnight:: You guys blew your serve.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -but we do not accept their view, obviously. We are continuing our constant effort to ensure that the investigation will take place, and to amend the rules of international law on this subject, as presented by the Minister of Transport at the ICAO Council meeting. We are continuing to request compensation. We are making efforts to define further what the compensation should be. This is not an easy exercise. We all realize that fact. However, this is one in which tenacity, perseverance, patience-


Erik Nielsen: When is it going to come?

September 30, 1983
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: -are the order of the day. As my hon. friend knows, in a previous instance, in the Comos instance, after reacting negatively, because of the tenacity of the Canadian Government, the Russians finally made compensation.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, has the Government received an acknowledgement of any kind, at any time, from the Soviet authorities of its formal request for an explanation of the atrocity in which ten Canadians went to their death, and its concurrent request for compensation for the victims' families and, if so, would the Minister table any notes or related documentation before this House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I find it difficult to answer because the facts are known. The Russians are aware-


James Aloysius McGrath: Where is the note?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -of our representations on that subject.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I said before, they are returning these notes, but they cannot be ignorant of the fact that we have protested very strongly-


Erik Nielsen: Table the note.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -and that we have established a presumption of guilt, to speak the legal language familiar to my hon. friend. We have done that.


Erik Nielsen: Table the note.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have constantly pressed for it, and we will continue to do that.


Erik Nielsen: Table the note.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am really at a loss in determining what my hon. friend really wants to know.


Erik Nielsen: Table the note.


Mr. Hees:: Just answer his question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, it is pretty peculiar that the leadership of the Government would advocate an evenhanded posture with regard to the super powers when one of them will not even acknowledge its existence. There is a serious problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED ROLE FOR NEW CANADIAN AMBASSADOR
Martin Brian Mulroney: Will the Government take the initiative, Mr. Acting Prime Minister, of instructing our ambassador designate, Mr. Peter Roberts, who,
I understand, is leaving for Moscow on Monday or shortly thereafter, to hand our formal protest and demands for compensation to the Soviet Foreign Minister when he is presenting his official credentials in the Soviet Union?
[DOT] (U20)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, when Ambassador Pearson left Moscow he had an extended meeting with Mr. Gromyko. He spelled out, in oral terms, the case that Canada was making against what happened to the Korean airliner.


Erik Nielsen: Answer the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Russians are quite aware of what we are doing. What is it that my hon. friend wants? He wants me to table the note that we have sent to the Soviet Union, the one that they returned?


Erik Nielsen: Will Roberts present it? Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Just answer the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What is it that the Leader of the Opposition wants? Mr. Roberts will obviously, at the first occasion, repeat the case that the Canadian Government has been making repeatedly against the Soviet Union.


Erik Nielsen: Deliver the note. Roberts delivers the note.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They will return it again. He will deliver the message that is in the note. The Russians have established that in order not to recognize responsibility they cannot accept the note.


Erik Nielsen: Where is your tenacity?


Jean-Luc Pepin: They recognize that. Thus, we will keep repeating the case we have already made against the action taken against the Korean airliner by the Soviet Union.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the Minister is saying that he is absolutely helpless in the face of a simple, straight forward problem that has to be dealt with on a government-to-government basis. That is what he is saying.


INSTRUCTIONS TO NEW AMBASSADOR
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I see that the Minister has just taken instructions from the Minister of Finance who would be better off sticking with problems in the economy rather than advising in external affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: My question is very straightforward. Will the Government instruct our ambassador to designate who, I understand, will be meeting with the Soviet Foreign Minister to present his own credentials, to present the outrage and dismay of the Canadian people as expressed in that note, given
September 30, 1983

this absolutely unacceptable international violation? Will he at least do that on behalf of the families who are aggrieved?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously we will be doing that. But the departing Ambassador of Canada in the Soviet Union has already made that case very, very strongly in his last visit with the Minister of External Affairs of the Soviet Union. Our case has repeatedly been made for a full explanation. We have asked that in the UN Security Council and at the ICAO meeting. ICAO has decided to have an investigation. Unfortunately, the Soviets will not participate in that investigation. Admission of responsibility-we have pressed that very strongly. Full compensation-we have pressed that very strongly. I do not think any Government in the world has been clearer on that than Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Instruct Roberts to deliver the note.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 will make sure that when Mr. Roberts presents his credentials to the Soviet Union he will repeat it for the tenth time.


Some Hon. Members:: Deliver the note.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and it is further to the concerns expressed yesterday about the very high level of the budget deficit. I recently read a compilation of 16 leading North American economists who all expressed the same concern about the very high level of deficits and the effect this has on the economy. Their conclusion was that we would either have record high interest rates, a crowding out of private sector borrowers and high inflation, or an aborted recovery. Since that is the conclusion he will have to deal with whether he likes it or not, what action is he proposing to take to deal with this, since his budget of last April clearly has not been enough?
[DOT] (U25)


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right in making reference to the fact that most analysts in the United States in particular, and in Canada as well, feel that the size of the deficit is important in terms of the performance of the economy over the medium and long term. I have indicated this in my own budget and I have taken a number of steps in that regard. In the speech I made to the International Monetary Fund 1 also indicated that this was a very important issue to be addressed in North America over the next while.
If my hon. friend would check the statements of the analysts he has referred to, he will find that practically all of them have mentioned this as a medium-term problem and not as a
Oral Questions
short-term problem, and that there is no crowding out of private investors at the present time and none is expected this year. Most analysts do not expect that there will be a serious problem in this regard at least until late next year.
In my own budget I have taken steps to reduce the deficit gradually over the next few years. As the Hon. Member knows, the plans contained in my budget have been very well received by the country and by the financial markets as being a responsible step to gradually moderating the size of the deficit.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I think the Minister is living in the past again, it is clear that the commentary we have been hearing has suggested that this recovery, which is very tentative right now, will be aborted.


LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me refer back to the conclusions reached by the Conference Board a couple of days ago. Those conclusions indicated that the unemployment rate in Canada relative to that in the United States would decline far more slowly and would still be around 11 per cent in five years' time. That is clearly related to the level of interest rates over that period of time. Is the Minister doing anything to address this problem, or will he consign to a further five years of misery those one and a half million Canadians who are out of work today?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member chooses to refer to one report made by one organization. He neglects to refer to reports made by the 18 other organizations that have taken somewhat different views in this regard. I can refer him to a statement made by the former head of the C.D. Howe Institute, Judith Maxwell, who has taken a very different view.
Rather than engaging in a battle of forecasters with my hon. friend, I would invite him to look at the facts. He will see, for instance, that our interest rates, in spite of the large deficit that exists this year, have declined since the beginning of the year. I hope that they will continue to decline gradually. What is even more important is that our interest rates have declined significantly compared to those in the United States.
The spread that formerly existed between U.S. and Canada interest rates has narrowed extensively for short-term papers. We now have an interest rate in this country which is half a point below that in the United States. I think the Canadian economy has performed very well in that regard. The world financial institutions and the Canadian people at large are showing a great deal more confidence in the country than my hon. friend seems to be showing.

September 30, 1983
Oral Questions BANKS AND BANKING


BANK OF MONTREAL-REPORTED OFFER TO BUY UNITED STATES BANK
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance, who is well aware that the Canadian banks have become rather notorious because of their unwillingness to assist Canadians in their struggle to survive in a sea of red ink. However, we learned something very interesting in the last couple of days. The Bank of Montreal, with its historic high interest rates this particular year, is now planning to use in excess of half a billion dollars to buy a bank in the United states. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can explain to the House and Canadians how this transaction by the Bank of Montreal will assist Canadians? How will it create jobs and create an economic stimulus in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 will not comment on rumours and speculations about an issue such as this. My hon. friend knows that. Perhaps I can raise one question in his mind. What if such a purchase, for instance, were to be made with money that was made by the Bank of Montreal in the United States? If not one Canadian dollars was involved, would he have the same attitude about it?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I believe that is somewhat of a glib response.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that the Constitution gives him the responsibility of ensuring that the Canadian banking system operates in the best interests of Canadians. Will the Minister, recognizing his constitutional responsibility and knowing full well that the takeover that I speak of will occur very quickly, intervene? Does he plan to do anything about this?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I answered this in the first part of my previous reply. I remind the Hon. Member that we in this country have everything to gain by having Canadian financial institutions and manufacturing institutions with branches abroad and being very active internationally. This country needs a lot more Canadian multinationals and large Canadian firms with Canadian shareholders and with Canadian head offices. I thought the NDP had complained enough about foreign multinationals being in this country. They should now rejoice if we have in this country strong institutions that are ready to take on institutions in other countries.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: They never rejoice.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I remind the Minister that in excess of half a billion dollars which the Bank of Montreal plans to spend to
take over a bank in the United States could have been invested in the Canadian construction industry and this would have created 50,000 jobs in this country. That is the kind of economic development, stimulus, and social response the banks ought to be encouraging in this country.


SPREAD BETWEEN LOAN CHARGES AND INTEREST DEPOSIT RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I want to turn to the interest rate situation which was raised by a previous questioner. With all economists now agreeing that present high interest rates are keeping a lid on any real recovery program in this country, is the Minister of Finance prepared to meet with the chief executive officer of Canada's banks to see whether they are prepared to reduce the interest rate spread in this country, which at the moment is higher than it has been since the early 1970s?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated to my Hon. colleague that 1 am always glad to meet those who are responsible for our financial institutions in Canada, including banks or any other organization, if that can be helpful in improving the economic situation in Canada. I would also remind the Hon. Member that, as I said earlier, we have brought down interest rates in Canada very rapidly during the past year, and that at the present time, the prime rate in Canada is the same as in the United States, despite the fact that our inflation rate here in Canada is higher than it is in the States, even today. As a result, the real return on money in Canada is less than it is in the States at this time, and just the same, we have succeeded in maintaining this policy without a devaluation of the Canadian dollar. I have always tried to keep interest rates as low as possible in this country, and that has been the objective of the monetary and fiscal policy we have pursued since last year, and we intend to continue our efforts to reduce interest rates as much as possible. I think that what has happened during the last six months is a clear indication of the resolve of the Government and the Bank of Canada to work at keeping interest rates as low as possible.


EMPLOYMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has stated the need to involve the private sector in creating new employment opportunities, a position which this Party accepts and endorses without qualification. The only program in place to provide direct incentives to the private sector is the Access Program which was announced in April of this year. It set aside $95 million to provide 31,000
September 30, 1983

jobs for Canada's young people. Can the Minister give the House an estimate of how many jobs have been created under that program?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asked how many jobs. I am not sure whether he means jobs for young people, or overall. The figure overall is about 81,000. I believe I have the figure for young people here somewhere. I will try to dig it out and give it to the Hon. Member.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL INITIATIVE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I am sorry the Minister did not understand the question. My understanding is that to date not one job has been created under the Access Program, notwithstanding the fact that it was announced in April of this year, at a time when his own Department was telling his predecessor through a study that youth unemployment was going to get progressively worse during the year. That is the point the Minister seems to miss.
Given the importance of youth unemployment and unemployment among women, is the Minister prepared to convene a meeting of his provincial counterparts to see whether they can devise ways of involving the Provinces, as they did under the NEED Program, in a program similar to Access which would target incentives to the private sector to hire not only young people but women, who are also hard hit?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I refer both to this year and to oncoming years. In the year 1983-84 we are spending $390 million in assistance to provide young people with jobs. 1 believe that approximately 130,000 young people have been put to work as a result of those efforts. Looking ahead from 1983 into the next two years, through Career Access we believe that 36,000 people will find jobs and with the Job Corps another 8,000 young people. We expect that 66,000 young people will find work through the Canada Works Program. It will be seen that not only has there been a considerable impact on youth employment in the past through projects and programs which have already been mounted, but we expect that effort to continue successfully.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State for External Relations, who is also Acting Prime Minister this morning. It is my information that the French navy frigate La Henaff and the seismic ship Lucien Beaufort, sighted on August 11 carrying out surveys within Canada's exclusive economic zone and outside their 12 mile territorial limit, were not there to assist fishing boats, as claimed, since the three or
Oral Questions
four trawlers operating out of St. Pierre and Miquelon were on refit in August. What was the real purpose of these ships from France when carrying out seismic surveys within our exclusive economic zone, and is it true that France is presently issuing exploration permits for oil and gas within their claimed 200 mile zone between St. Pierre and continental France, which is really Canada's exclusive economic zone?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the facts as narrated by my hon. friend are basically correct, and they have been reported in the press in the same fashion. Upon being informed of the presence of the two ships, the Canadian Government asked the French Government for a full explanation. There has been an exchange of correspondence between the two Governments on the subject.


Erik Nielsen: Did they accept it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, they did. It is a better tradition than the one we just talked about.
The French tended to downgrade the significance of "the coincidence" in which two ships happened to be in the same area at the same time, one, a seismic ships, and the other, a military ship. This has also been the subject of discussion on the negotiations with respect to the state of the French request for the extension of the continental shelf around St. Pierre and Miquelon, the Canadian position being that we recognize the 12 mile territorial zone, but we do not recognize the extension. The Canadian Government has repeated its willingness to discuss further with the French. It has been decided to hold another meeting next spring on the subject. Depending on where you sit, this was-


Madam Speaker:: Order. 1 must interrupt the Hon. Minister, but his answer is really too long.


CANADIAN FISHING RIGHTS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister. The implication that this was just simply two ships which passed in the night is hard to accept. I would say to the Minister that if French claims are accepted it would mean the loss of fishing rights on St. Pierre Bank for Canadian fishermen.


James Aloysius McGrath: We might even lose Newfoundland.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of this threat, what steps is Canada taking now to protect our fishing rights, especially our scallop fishing rights on this Bank? The rights of our scallop fishermen are being seriously threatened by the Americans on Georges Bank. If this is followed through it could well mean the total destruction of a $75 million scallop fishery in Atlantic Canada. What steps is the Government taking to protect that fishery?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot say what steps are being taken because there

September 30, 1983
Oral Questions
has been no change to the situation as it existed before. This incident, or call it whatever you like, this happening of the two ships being there at the same time, did not influence the situation of the fishery as it is now. I have already indicated that the discussion on the extent of the zone recognized by the Canadian Government around St. Pierre and Miquelon is following diplomatic channels.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Acting Prime Minister. According to this morning's Gazette, KHD, a German multinational company is threatening to close down its research laboratory in Montreal. The company has already received $34 million in grants from the federal Government since 1974. What action does the Government intend to take to protect the jobs involved and to keep this laboratory here in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of this situation. I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as soon as possible.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. It was in The Gazette this morning, on the first page and it is just another example of economic blackmail by a foreign company. To get back to my supplementary question, I would like to know, for future reference, why the Government refuses to become directly involved by taking shares in a company it subsidizes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is seeking a debate on this matter. There have been situations where the Government of Canada did take equity in companies it was assisting. 1 do not think we can start a philosophical debate on the issue this morning, but as far as the substance of the problem is concerned, I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. On September 21 the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau raised the subject of the Canada Post Corporation's cancellation of highway service deliveries, post office to post office, in the small communities of Canada. Fortunately, that has been postponed,
at least. 1 should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if this postponement of the cessation of services to the small communities of Canada is permanent, or is merely a temporary cancellation of the program which was to be introduced by Canada Post?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I have to say once again that I am not au fait with that situation. 1 will bring it to the attention of the Minister. 1 apologize for the fact that the Minister responsible is not here this morning. All the Ministers have good reasons and I could recite them. I will have to take the question as notice.


Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the position of the Acting Prime Minister. There is no question but that the population of Canada as a whole wanted some reduction of the deficit on the Canada Post service as it is conducted by the Government, but that was never interpreted to mean that it would be accomplished by the reduction of historic and vital services.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON POSTAL SERVICES
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would bring the subject up with the Minister responsible for postal services. Would he also advise the House of the Government's policy in respect to the further curtailment of postal services to the deserving people of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have already said that 1 would do that. I will observe at the same time that a corporation was created by the Government in order to resolve these issues. My hon. friend recognizes that this is not easy, in the sense that they have budgetary limitations. That is the kind of tough decision that all Crown corporations have to make. As usual, the Minister says that he will pass it on to the head of the Crown corporation.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Would Hon. Members not agree with the Chair that it is not altogether logical to have a supplementary question to a question that has been taken as notice? I would suggest that, in a case where a question is taken as notice, the supplementary question could be reserved to the time when the question is answered. If Hon. Members feel that is fair, that is what I will do in the future.


OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY-DEGREE OF CANADIAN OWNERSHIP
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Last Tuesday in the House, in response to a question by my colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West, about the
September 30, 1983

Canadian ownership account in his last sentence as reported at page 27497 of Hansard the Minister said:
-the degree of foreign ownership in the gas and oil field decreasing from the ninety per cent level to the sixty per cent level at which it is now.
In its 1982 report the Petroleum Monitoring Agency clearly states that the level of Canadian ownership prior to the introduction of the National Energy Program stood at 74 per cent; today it stands at 66 per cent. Those figures are a lot different from what was stated by the Minister on Tuesday. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would like to withdraw or correct that statement.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No,
Madam Speaker, I would not because 1 took those figures from a report of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources saying that in the early seventies-


Erik Nielsen: That was your first mistake.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -the level was at 90 per cent of foreign ownership and that at the moment it is 66 per cent or 63 per cent, 1 cannot recall. I was not giving the House bad information. These are figures i received from the Department of Energy Mines and Resources.


John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, the statement is grossly misleading. The report of the Petroleum Monitoring Agency on the level of Canadian ownership says that even in 1977 the level of Canadian ownership was 74 per cent.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
John William Thomson: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Minister has left a grossly misleading impression on the Canadian public by that statement. 1 would ask him to withdraw it or correct it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will just repeat it. My friend was talking about 1977 and 1 was talking about 1970. I said, in the early seventies.


An Hon. Member:: You did not.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 thought I did. If I did not, I will correct myself and repeat it. In the early seventies the level was at 90 per cent; now the level is at 60 per cent.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CHAIRMAN'S RESIGNATION-APPOINTMENT OF SUCCESSOR
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Communications.
Oral Questions

The question arises from yesterday's announced resignation of the distinguished Chairman of the Canadian Radio television and Communications Commission, Dr. Oliver Meisel. Since the Minister was given notice of Dr. Meisel's departure about seven weeks ago, can he say whether a working broadcaster is on the short list for his replacement, and how soon Dr. Meisel's successor may be announced?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I can very well understand the Hon. Member's interest in the CRTC. I know he is a former broadcaster. What he is suggesting, in the full light of Parliament, is that I add his name to the list. I am willing to do so. I can also understand the uncertainty in his mind with the approaching election.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I think I will pass up that appointment for another two, three or four terms.


ROLE OF COMMISSION
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: While the Minister is deliberating during this transition period, is he thinking of reconstituting the CRTC to speed up its agonizingly slow process? Is the Government rethinking the role of a CRTC now that the communications explosion has made that kind of regulatory agency almost an anachronism?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I think that in a country like Canada an organization such as the CRTC will always remain a necessity. While other countries may deregulate, 1 think the proper way of handling the question in Canada is by reregulation which will allow a body such as the CRTC to take into account the new technological environment in which we live and to handle the questions offered to them in a more efficient manner.

[DOT] (U50)


MEDICAL CARE
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in her absence I will address it to the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister knows, as does every Hon. Member in this House of Commons, that the number of senior citizens is steadily growing in Canada. This is a group which lives basically with fear and anxiety about the future, particularly senior women. In New Brunswick this past week there have been press conferences held by a group of senior citizens indicating the fear they have about the cutbacks to medicare and the hospital fee schedules which are being introduced. Would the Minister tell the House how the Government of

September 30, 1983
Oral Questions
Canada can justify not doing anything when senior citizens are suffering like this?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Government has indicated its position on the question of extra billing and user fees. That position was made public during the month of August. This is the position of the Government. We have indicated that the Government intends to introduce a health act which would take steps to ensure that extra billing and user fees will not be encouraged. The Government intends to introduce that legislation as soon as it is appropriate.
In the meantime 1 would like to remind my hon. friend that pressure should be brought upon the provincial Governments concerned by the senior citizens. Indeed, I would hope that the representations made by the senior citizens concerned would be enough to impress the responsible provincial authorities.


GOVERNMENT ACTION
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I will again address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. I believe the Government does have a plan right now and it is intentionally holding it back by calling for this health act which is not being brought forward. 1 believe the Government is going to use medicare as one of the main issues in fighting the next election. Would the Minister tell the House when the elderly people of Canada can expect the Government to act for them?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, this Government has been acting on behalf of and for senior citizens ever since it has been in office. The number of steps we have taken to support senior citizens compares favourably with that of any other country. Certainly it compares favourably with anything which any New Democratic Party Government has done provincially anywhere, let alone the Conservative Party, about which I need not speak in the particular regard, because of its lack of concern.
I would like to tell my hon. friend that he will not have to wait until the next election before seeing the new Canada Health Act.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY U.S. CONGRESS DECISION ON EXTENSION OF SEASON
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The Minister is no doubt aware that on August 3, without debate or public hearing, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Public Works approved a Bill authorizing the extension of the Seaway and the extension of winter navigation on the Seaway. The position of the Government of Canada previously had been that that was not a desirable option. Can the Minister tell us whether or not there were any consultations between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States with respect to positions on this Bill? And what is the policy of the Government of Canada today with respect to the extension of the St. Lawrence Seaway navigation season?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, in the United States system an act or initiative by Congress is not necessarily one which is adopted or put forward by the executive branch. It is something which they have to reconcile between themselves. Therefore it does not necessarily represent the position taken by the U.S. Government. We do, however, have a continuing line of discussion with the U.S. Government concerning the joint management of the Seaway. I would point out that at the present time, because of the reduction in traffic over the last few years, there is no immediate demand or requirement for extension of that capacity. It is a matter which we will continue to discuss. However, I would not say it is on the front burner of examination, simply because the Seaway is working very adequately now and servicing all the traffic requirements.


REQUEST FOR DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. CONGRESS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 am aware of the situation in the United States with respect to the separation of powers. There has been a movement now, however, on the part of the House of Representatives. I understand there is even stronger backing by the Senate of the United States with respect to the proposal. If the Government is continuing discussions with the administration, are there any initiatives being taken by the Government of Canada with respect to discussions with the Congress of the United States, or is this project being carried on much like the Garrison Project carried on, even though everyone said it was not going anywhere?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to Garrison which, of course, is a difficult issue for those of us from Manitoba. I would not want the same problem to arise, so I will seek the co-operation of External Affairs and our Ambassador in Washington in order to determine from the Congress what its particular position is. We will receive a report, and I will forward it to the Hon. Member.


FINANCE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Could the Minister tell the House how long the recommendation for tariff relief for Birdman Enterprises of Edmonton has been sitting in his office? When will that recommendation go forward to Cabinet for final decision? And when will Cabinet decide?
September 30, 1983


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to check and report back to the Hon. Member.


MONTANA ENTICEMENT
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, is the Minister aware of the fact that the State of Montana is making a concerted effort to take that industry with all those jobs and all that export potential and move it from Edmonton to Montana? The problem, Madam Speaker, is that the request for relief was made in May. The Civil Service was slow. The Minister's office is even slower. When a Minister's office is killing Canadian jobs-


An Hon. Member:: What is the question?


Madam Speaker:: Order. We have had the question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of State for External Relations. It concerns the tragic shooting down of the KAL 007. 1 am sure he will know and bear in mind that this is not just a case of responsibility and compensation. There is another more recent issue, one of diplomatic relations. 1 would like to ask the Minister, therefore, if the Government of Canada has communicated any message to the Soviet Union or to the Soviet Embassy indicating that we will not tolerate any refusal of a message sent by the Government of Canada or by the Parliament of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I believe we are getting into formalities here. I feel that the important thing to bear in mind is the question, has the Canadian Government communicated to the Government of the Soviet Union its displeasure, anger, and disapproval of what took place on August 31? 1 feel that this is clear. We have done that. The House of Commons has done that. We have sent messages. The Canadian Ambassador in the Soviet Union has paid a visit to the Secretary for External Affairs of the Soviet Union. We have protested in ICAO. We have protested in the Security Council also. I believe the message is pretty clear. I do not think there is any doubt as to what our position is. We established from the beginning a presumption of guilt. We said to the Soviet Union, "Now you prove us wrong. You give us the information. Otherwise, recognize your responsibilities and act accordingly".


USE OF EMBASSIES
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It seems
Committee Reports
to me that the important issue to Canadians in general is the question of what is an embassy if it is not an institution for the means of exchanging communications, whether or not communications are accepted. The question is that if you have an embassy on Canadian soil, surely the purpose of that embassy is to receive messages. 1 simply ask the Minister: is that priciple not going to be enforced, because at least the messages must be received? Otherwise, will he not address the question as to why we would have an embassy which simply exists here and will not accept Canadian messages? What is the definition for having an embassy?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, 1 believe we have used both the Soviet embassy in Ottawa and our embassy in Moscow. We have made full use of these embassies. I will leave it at that. I am sure the charge d'affaires of the Soviet Union reads Hansard every day, and 1 am sure he will take the Hon. Member for Crowfoot's condemnation of his behaviour personally, and may communicate it to his Government.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) on Thursday, September 29, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the tenth report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure in both official languages. As I do so, I would like the House to know that despite the stressful position of the House this was a Committee which arrived at its conclusions, all of them in all of the reports, by consensus rather than by vote.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

September 30, 1983
Order Paper Questions
{Translation]


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Madam Speaker, a mistake was made in the text of the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which was presented in the House on Thursday, September 29, 1983. On page 2 of the report, Schedule 1 should read as follows:
Clause 60 Is amended by substituting "Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion ' for "Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce".
-and renumber the subsequent items accordingly.
Madam Speaker, 1 ask the unanimous consent of the House to have the text corrected accordingly. Madam Speaker, the mistake is due to the fact that the amendment to Schedule I was laid on the Table but was not voted on, while the one I am proposing was. The other amendment that was not voted on must be presented at the report stage.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, this takes me by surprise. There have been no discussions held with me with respect to this request. 1 would ask the Hon. Member to be tolerant and not ask consent today but allow me the weekend to look at it and perhaps we will have consent on Monday.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Since we do not have unanimous consent, the Hon. Member will certainly approve of the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


PETITIONS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I am herewith presenting another petition containing 584 signatures, bringing the total to 8,927 Canadians who have requested the Government and this Parliament to pass Bill C-671, an Act respecting the execution of Clifford Robert Olson, in order that this man will never again be able to haunt the streets looking for more girls and boys to abuse and brutally murder.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,032, 4,824, 4,889, 4,956 and 4,960.


Mr. Herbert: Where is the Trade Facilitation Office of the Canadian International Development Agency located, how many persons are on staff and what is its annual budget?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Trade Facilitation Office is not part of the Canadian International Development Agency. It is an independent non-profit, non-governmental organization which receives Cl DA support.
The Trade Facilitation Office is located in Phase 4 of Place du Portage.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	In 1972, was a CBC television documentary on Nikita Krushchev prevented from being aired after being promoted until several days before the scheduled air time and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Did the U.S.S.R., through Moscow or its Embassy in Canada, have any contact with the Government regarding the program?
3.	At any time, did the U.S.S.R. government indicate that the airing of the program on the CBC would be considered an unfriendly act by Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. In the autumn of 1972 the CBC negotiated with Time Life Inc. for the right to a television documentary entitled "Krushchev Remembers". The CBC required editing privileges to fit the documentary into a one hour time slot. Late in the negotiations, these privileges were refused by Time Life Inc. and consequently the CBC withdrew from the contract.
2.	In advance of the anticipated airing of the documentary, a representative of the Soviet Embassy called on the Department of External Affairs.
3.	The Soviet Embassy representative expressed concern that the broadcast could have a negative impact on bilateral relations between Canada and the Soviet Union.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	On what date, under what authority, and in what circumstances was Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation incorporated?
2.	What are its terms of reference?
3.	(a) How is it financed (b) what is its capitalization (c) what is its budget and how is the budget approved (d) what are its borrowing powers?
4.	(a) Who are its officers (b) what amount are they paid (c) where do they meet?
5.	Is the Corporation under specific direction to contract Canadian enterprise and capital equipment in all circumstances for its operations?
6.	(a) How are its various activities undertaken, such as those in Jamaica, Tanzania, Senegal, and Barbados (b) are they undertaken by solicitation or by generation from within the Corporation itself and, in either event, what criteria are used in selecting the project to be initiated at one time or another?
7.	Does the Corporation report to Parliament or to Petro-Canada?
September 30, 1983


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation reports as follows:
1.	Petro-Canada International was initially incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act on January 20, 1981, pursuant to the Petro-Canada Act. PCI's mandate, which is to act as a delivery mechanism for Canadian official development assistance to oil-importing developing countries, was established by Order in Council P.C. 1981-2167, dated August 5, 1981. The Articles of Incorporation were subsequently amended on November 18, 1981 to reflect the directives of the Government and on April 22, 1982, through Order in Council P.C. 1982-1264, the Corporation's name was changed to Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation.
2.	Terms of reference: (a) Assist developing countries to reduce or eliminate their dependence on imported oil by using Canadian technology and expertise, where possible, for hydrocarbon exploration and related activities, and function as a direct-delivery mechanism for Canadian official development assistance and, as an executing agent for other development assistance institutions, to carry out the following activities in developing countries eligible to receive Canadian bilateral development assistance and which are dependent on imported oil:
(i)	to participate in exploration for hydrocarbon resources, particularly oil and gas, in developing countries;
(ii)	to conduct pre-exploration and related studies in developing countries; and
(iii)	to provide technical assistance and training to personnel from developing countries in hydrocarbon resource exploration development and production-related activities.
(b)	Operate as an instrument of Canadian official development assistance in a manner consistent with the government's foreign aid objectives and programs.
3.	(a) PCIAC is financed by funds appropriated by Parliament under the spending estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
(b)	PCAC's one share is held by its parent, Petro-Canada.
(c)	Under the Articles of Incorporation, prior to the commencement of PCIAC's financial year, the Corporation must submit a capital budget for the approval of the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Finance, and the President of the Treasury Board and an operating budget to the Government for the approval of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the President of the Treasury Board. However, at the present time, PCIAC provides assistance in the form of grants only and does not submit a capital budget. The 1982 operating budget for PCIAC was $21 million, and the 1983 budget has been set at $42 million.
(d)	The Articles of Incorporation stipulate that PCIAC cannot borrow money without the approval of the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy,
Order Paper Questions
Mines and Resources and the President of the Treasury Board. There is, however, a provision for an advance or loan from Petro-Canada which in the aggregate cannot exceed $50 million.
4.	(a) and (b) The Board of Directors of PCIAC is William J. Jenkins, Wilbert H. Hopper, Frederick G. Rayer, Peter M. Towe, George W. Tough. The Directors do not receive any remuneration.
The Officers of PCIAC are Frederick G. Rayer, President, Georges A. Leger, Vice-President, Peter M. Towe, Chairman, Robert McCaskill, Secretary. These officers are employees of Petro-Canada, which charges PCIAC monthly for their services on a non-profit, cost-recovery basis according to the time actually spent on the business of the Corporation.
(c)	To date, meetings of the Board of Directors have been held in Ottawa.
5.	PCIAC was instructed to utilize Canadian technology and expertise where possible in the development and implementation of projects that would assist developing countries to reduce or eliminate their dependency on imported oil. A major criterion for consideration of any project by PCIAC's Board of Directors is the potential for the use of Canadian goods and services.
6.	(a) and (b) Prospective recipient countries submit project proposals for consideration through official channels. In reviewing these project proposals, the following criteria are used: the eligibility of the country for Canadian aid; the potential for the use of Canadian goods and services; the geological potential; the energy needs of the recipient country; the domestic economics of the proposed project; the potential social and economic benefits of a reduced dependency on imported oil; and the level of private sector activity in the recipient country.
Through an operating services agreement, PCIAC has access to the expert services of Petro-Canada, which in turn uses Canadian consultants, contractors and suppliers, as needed, in providing assistance in oil and gas exploration activities in a developing country.
7.	PCIAC reports to Petro-Canada.


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


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so

September 30, 1983
Order Paper Questions
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	Yes there is a Forest Industries Advisory Committee.
(a)	See below.
(b)	(i) Background or expertise indicated by title and position. (ii) Members have been appointed on an indeterminate basis at the present time with length of each appointment yet to be decided.
(c)	Members are reimbursed according to Treasury Board guidelines for travel expenses incurred to attend the meetings. Travel expenses for the two meetings held in February and April, 1983 totalled $14,177.82-see individual expenditures below. No other forms of reimbursement or salary to members are involved.
C. Knudsen, Chairman MacMillan Bloedel Limited Vancouver, British Columbia
Labour Representatives
Georges Cantin, President	Jack Munro, President
Federation des travailleurs du	IWA Council No. 1
Papier et de la foret	Vancouver, British Columbia
Quebec, Quebec
R. Dancer, Executive Board Member United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Calgary, Alberta
Forest Industries Advisory Committee Terms of Reference
(d)	The Government is willing to provide up to $125,000 for outside consultant services to assist the Committee in preparing an interim report on forest industry opportunities and constraints. Also, the Forest Industry Advisory Committee's administrative requirements are provided by indeterminate employees of Industry, Trade and Commerce using existing accommodation and resources.
2.	(a) See below.
(b)	The matters discussed in the fiscal year 1982-83 were primarily of an organizational nature related to the composition, terms of reference and work program of the Committee.
(c)	Two meetings have been held to date and two meetings are scheduled for June, 1983. There are no formal requirements for meeting dates.
(d)	Nil.
Forest Industries Advisory Committee-List of Members
Co-Chairmen
Barclay, Chairman	James Buchanan, President
B.C. Forest Products Ltd.	Canadian Paperworkers Union
Vancouver, British Columbia	Montreal, Quebec
1.	To provide advice and guidance on a continuing basis to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion and through the Minister to the federal Government on any matters concerning the performance and well being of the forest industry and its employees.
2.	To assist the Minister in developing an in-depth analysis of the present and prospective performance of the forest industry in the domestic and international environment.
3.	To assist the Minister in identifying priorities and formulating appropriate strategies that assist the forest industry in increasing its contribution to national and regional industrial development.
4.	To assess the appropriateness of existing federal policies and programs and to make recommendations from time to time for new initiatives and/or policy changes.
Composition
1.	Senior executive officers of business and labour.
2.	The co-chairmen to represent business and labour.
3.	DREE/ITC to provide secretarial support and to be represented on an "ex-officio" basis.
Business Representatives
Paul Bienvenue, President Howard Bienvenue Inc.
Montreal, Quebec
Thomas A. Buell, President & CEO Weldwood of Canada Ltd. Vancouver, British Columbia
John Fisher, Chairman Fraser Companies Limited Edmunston, New Brunswick
C. S. Flenniken, President & CEO Canadian International Paper Co. Montreal, Quebec
R. C. Gimlin, President Abitibi-Price Inc.
Toronto, Ontario
R. C. Keef, General Manager Nova Scotia Forest Industries Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia
John C. Kerr, President Lignum Ltd.
Vancouver, British Columbia
L. Lockhart, President Lock-Wood Ltd.
Scoudouc, New Brunswick
J. Perron, President J. H. Normick Inc.
La Sarre, Quebec
R.	R. Pinard, Vice President Domtar Inc.
Montreal, Quebec
W. Sauder, President Sauder Industries Limited Vancouver, British Columbia
J. Scarth, President
The E.B. Eddy Company Limited
Ottawa, Ontario
S.	Spears, President Premium Forest Products Ltd. Scarborough, Ontario
A. Zimmerman, President Noranda Mines Limited Toronto, Ontario
Travel Expenditures
Name
February 23 Meeting April 11-12 Meeting
Len Lockhart	411.85
Paul Bienvenue	215.10
James Buchanan	322.70
Ralph C. Keef	538.48
Ian Barclay	898.88
A. G. Rumbold Gordon Minnes John P. Fisher Cyril D. Doucet R. R. Pinard John Kerr Howard Hart
Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association Paul Bienvenue G. A. Storey
K.	A. French
L.	H. Lockhart
Allan G. Sinclair-COFI Arden A. Rytz Ralph C. Keef Ronald J. Dancer James M. Buchanan lan Barclay
James Buchanan (Technical Staff)
411.75
312.73
523.15
618.00
453.95
1,129.50
148.50
226.90
302.80 1,098.90
838.50
439.90 1,062.00
766.25
451.00
837.78
389.40
1,198.00
581.80
September 30, 1983__________________________COMMONS


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was a study by Dr. Robin Ranger on the arms control and crisis management potential of the proposed International Satellite Monitoring Agency to be completed by January 31, 1983 and, if so, has it been completed and, if not, on what date will it be completed?
2.	What amount, if any, of the $9,000 allocated was paid?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: 1. Yes. The report was completed as scheduled but the scientific authority which reviewed the report concluded that it required further work to meet the terms of the contract. Consequently the report was returned to Dr. Ranger for re-working and it is anticipated that the finished product should be ready to go to print by the end of July, 1983.
2. Total paid was $3,450.


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


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


Mr. Forrestall:: Madam Speaker, during the war there was an old saying that when you have good literature, read it and pass it along. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to indicate when he might pay some particular attention to questions which have been left on the Order Paper following the resignation of the former distinguished Member for Central Nova. Very specifically, they were questions asked on July 6, November 5, December 3, 1982 and March 3, March 29, June 7, June 14 and June 22 of 1983.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I have noted the Hon. Member's passing with regret and certainly I will look into the questions that were put to me today and I will see if I can get the answers to those as quickly as possible.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, I have one further request of the Parliamentary Secretary. I have in place on the Order Paper a starred question dealing with the effects of the PIP grants. 1 wonder if I might have some indication now, some ten days or two weeks having gone by, if I can anticipate an early reply to that next week.


John Leslie Evans: I will certainly look into that immediately, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: It was the practice to answer those in 48 hours. [Translation]


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
DEBATES________________________________________27621
Western Grain Transportation Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 29, 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 Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 29 (Mr. Benjamin).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 understand the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) had the floor when this matter was last debated and 1 believe he has approximately four minutes remaining.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. When we reached six o'clock last night 1 was just trying to point out to the House that if the wording in the amendment as printed in Bill C-155 remains, this would constitute an attack on the co-operative spirit of the farmers of western Canada. 1 want to just underline the problem with the present wording as we have it in the amended and reprinted Bill.
The particular problem I want to highlight is that any of the farmers who are members of a local shipping committee or who are Wheat Pool delegates, those who might be officers of perhaps even a co-operative farm, farmers who are co-operating with other farmers, would be effectively excluded from eligibility for being elected as members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. Our suggested solution, Mr. Speaker, is that we strike out the reference to co-operatives, which would strike them off the excluded list, thus making them eligible to participate on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
By way of background, Mr. Speaker, if we were to let the present wording remain in the amended Bill we are really betraying a cultural bias, albeit an eastern cultural bias, and I suppose this would be a good time to introduce to Hon. Members the concept of ethnocentrism. That is something we teach at any elementary sociology course at the university level. Basically it means we judge other cultures, or even regional subcultures, on the basis of our own experience. I suggest that if we were to leave this wording in here, that is really what is happening in this particular case. There would be a failure on the part of this Parliament as drafters of this legislation to recognize and understand unique Prairie institutions which have developed over the years co-operatively and in a pioneer spirit. Therefore we are suggesting that it is all the more important that we strike out co-operatives from this list of individuals who are excluded.
I am a bit embarrassed to say that it was the original amendment of the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) which excluded people who are members of co-ops and local shipping committees. What 1 am suggesting is
27622	______________________________ COMMONS DEBATES
Western Grain Transportation Act
that our amendment gives a second chance to the Government and to the Conservatives to right a fault which may have been unintentional; I give them the benefit of the doubt. However, in any case it is giving them and the Government an opportunity to correct a fault that really should not have been there in the first place.
I would like to elaborate a little further on the other motion that has been grouped with Motion No. 24, and that is Motion No. 29. If one were to ask me what our amendment would do, its basic intention is to reduce the heavy hand of the CNR and the CPR and to lower their representation on this particular Committee. We do not really think it is necessary that the CPR have a member and the CNR have a member. I think that historically their concerns have been adequately met. There would be an opportunity for producers to ensure that they are not overlooked in the drafting of the Bill.
If Your Honour wants to know why I have expressed concern, it is because we have been through a series of rail line abandonment hearings, for example, in Manitoba. 1 know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is aware that there have been some 18 hearings dealing with rail line abandonment in Manitoba and all 18 have been in favour of the railways. The railways are adequately represented in the CTC, which has looked after the interest of the railways. Why is it that the last 18 hearings all went in favour of the railways?
1 see Your Honour is giving me the signal that my allotted time is about to expire. 1 am simply saying that if our amendments are accepted, there would be an opportunity for both the Government and the Conservative Party to right a historic wrong and ensure that the producers would be adequately represented. 1 just give those few suggestions to the House of Commons so that we could correct some of these obvious faults in the amended, reprinted wording of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 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.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, at the moment, my druthers are that it does not logically follow that it be withdrawn. 1 would like to suggest that this be held over until Madam Speaker makes rulings on many other motions on Monday. If Your Honour will notice, our Motion No. 25, while it covers the same areas as our Motions Nos. 26 and 27, calls for five members, not six. This is the problem with the groupings. We wanted to deal with our Motion No. 25 first. If it succeeded, we would have withdrawn Motion No 26. If it did not succeed in the House, then we would want to deal with Motion No. 26. However, Motion No. 26 has been accepted. Our first choice motion was Motion No. 25. That is why I
September 30, 1983
would like to ask if Your Honour could just leave this matter in abeyance until Monday and we could discuss it further.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 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. However, if the Hon. Member wants further time to consider the problem, then there is no difficulty. It will not interfere in any way with proceeding with debate on the other motions. Motions Nos. 24 and 29 are for debate now.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Motions Nos. 24 and 29, since I understand we will be pleading Motion No. 25 at a later time.
Briefly, I think the issue at stake here is chiefly whether those who pay are to have an adequate voice in what is done with the money they pay. The question under Motion No. 24 is whether the farmers who have taken the trouble to organize themselves into co-operatives will be penalized and restricted in being able to have representation on the Grain Board. It is apparently the preference of certain Hon. Members to the extreme right that co-operative members and officers should be so penalized, should be kept out of the action, if possible. This would, of course, reduce to some extent the actual grass roots representation of the producers as compared to the carriers. That is the reason for supporting Motion No. 29, which would reduce the railways to one representative.
The fact is that throughout the history of Canada the railroads have been overrepresented in decisions that concern the railroads and the users have been unrepresented. There was some shared of excuse for that when the users were scarcely there in the western Prairies a century ago. There is no excuse for it now.
To reduce the representation those users have had for many years through the co-operatives they have built would be extremely unjust and, in the long run, would turn out to be a mistake economically, because without any doubt the effect of that reduction would be to bias further the policy decisions in favour of the carriers, especially the Canadian Pacific Railway, and against the producing farmers. The bias has already gone farther than is healthy, but this kind of unfair redistribution of the powers of the board would increase it further so that decisions would be more unfair and more uneconomical.
If the farmers are unable to represent themselves adequately in the struggle over both freight rates and the application of the moneys that are spent on capital and operating of the railroad so far as grain is concerned, if their voices are muffled by the present proposal, then the farmers and the grain industry will suffer. The industry will decline as a result of the kind of action which our amendments seek to prevent.
What is at stake here is also a deeper principle which runs far beyond the Prairies. It is the principle of user-pay. We have heard this slogan, especially from certain government spokesmen over the last ten years, that the users should pay. It is usually focused on some particular area. At this point it is
September 30, 1983

being focused on the prairie farmers who constitute a minority within Canada. There is a big propaganda campaign to accuse the prairie farmers of being fat cats who want someone else to pay for transporting their grain so that they can receive unearned income by not paying a fair share of the cost of transportation. It has not been mentioned, however, that practically every other form of transportation in Canada is also subsidized. Airline, marine and road transportation particularly is lavishly subsidized. If user-pay were to be applied against everyone who uses our highways, rides our airlines or uses the St. Lawrence Seaway or the rest of our marine transportation, there would be a unanimous outcry against that policy. It would be quite uneconomical for the majority of users, whether they are passengers or freight consignors and consignees. Therefore the policy of applying the principle of user-pay is handled selectively.
Approximately five years ago this policy was implemented in metro Toronto as a justification for jacking up the fares on the transit system and establishing an almost annual fixed increase in the TTC fares. The slogan at that time was "user-pay". It was pointed out in that case that if no one used the TTC, the roads would be congested to the point where the automobile drivers would be unable to use the roads. Therefore it was in the interest of not only TTC riders but the public that TTC be able to operate with a fare that even poor people could pay.
The same dispute applies in the case of the grain growers and the grain carriers. We see here an attempt on the part of the Government, and certain movers of Conservative amendments in league with the Government, to stick it to those farmers who have had the courage and sense of social responsibility to organize the co-operatives. These co-operatives which handle approximately 60 per cent of the grain will be penalized. They are to be denied effective representation on this board and clearly, the import of that type of change is to hand over the decision-making more powerfully than ever to the Canadian Pacific Railroad, Canadian Pacific Investments and those associated with milking the farmers.
It is the farmers who are to be milked by this Bill. If this Bill passes, there will no doubt be other targets picked up very quickly. We know that the effect of the Government's policy which was stated two years ago is to undo all the aid arrangements on which Canada's transportation networks have been built. The argument in the back rooms is probably to the effect that, since farmers are now established in the Prairies and Canadian cities are filled with people, there is a captive market for the profiteering owners of the transportation industries. These industries include those who either profit from direct transportation or supply the expensive equipment for publicly-owned corporations such as the Toronto Transit Commission. In either case the aim is to use a captive market, whether it be the farmers in Saskatchewan or the transit riders in metro Toronto, who must use the established transportation system because there is no alternative. These systems have become a monopoly which they must use.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Since there is an established market with no chance of competition, the corporation owners, their friends across the aisle and to my extreme right have decided that now is the time to begin sticking it to the users and raising the price they will have to pay regardless of the fact that on the Prairies, for example, farmers' income has declined by over 40 per cent in the last six years while the income of Canadian Pacific has risen by some 250 per cent. Those facts are being studiously ignored in the propaganda we hear from the large Parties in this House and their friends in the media.
However, if they have their way, it will be a short ride even for those corporations because once they have starved the farmers out of business there will not be any grain to haul. They will not be able to play with the Crow rate any longer. It is a short-sighted policy even from their point of view but it is disastrous not only for the farmers but for the Canadian people. I urge Parliament to think very carefully about these amendments and particularly to support Motions Nos. 24 and 29.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words this afternoon in this very important debate. I am particularly pleased to speak to this particular amendment that has been put forward by my colleague for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
1 believe that the issue we are dealing with today touches the very basis of how we see a democratic society. I do not believe there are any Members in the House, and 1 would like to think that there are not many Canadians, who do not strongly and firmly believe in the principles of a democracy. One of those basic principles is that Canadians ought to have a voice in what is decided by those groups that have an opportunity to make a profound impact on their lives. That is essentially what we are talking about here today-whether 15,000 to 20,000 western Canadians should be denied representation on one of the most crucial boards that deals with western grain transportation.
Quite frankly, I find that perplexing, to say the least. It is dificult to understand why the Government would say that there are perhaps as many as 20,000 people in western Canada who ought not to participate in the democratic process over a matter that will have a profound influence on their lives and futures.
I know that some Members opposite and other Members of the House may question my assumption that 20,000 people will be affected. Let me say that 1 have a legal opinion-I emphasize "legal" opinion-which states that this is the case. It is that person's legal opinion that 15,000 to 20,000 western Canadian grain producers will not be able to take part in the appropriate elections to see them represented on a board that will be most influential on the lives of western Canadians.
I suggest this is a direct attack on the co-operative movement in western Canada. 1 do not want to suggest for a moment that the Government is doing this with some malicious intent or evil motivation. I would like to think that it is

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act simply an oversight on behalf of the Minister and the federal Government that the co-operatives ought not to have a voice, in terms of grain transportation, equal to that of others who are involved.
Those of us who come from western Canada and have lived on the Prairies of western Canada recognize the importance of the co-operative movement only too well. I would go so far as to say that it was the co-operative movement in western Canada that built a good deal of that part of the country. That co-operative movement has probably meant more to lifting the welfare of Canadians generally than any other movement in this country.
I believe the very essence of co-operatives has been overlooked over the years. I recall very distinctly that the federal Government realized not many months ago that most people from western Canada were involved in co-operatives. The co-operative movement, as part of the western tradition, has become an integral part of westerners' lives.
At the point when the federal Government recognized the integral relationship between the co-operatives and life in western Canada, it decided to make a direct appeal for the support of the co-operative movement. It did a number of things over the last number of months that would appeal to the co-operatives in western Canada and would appeal to co-operatives generally, although it did focus on gathering more support from that sector of western Canadian society. That is why I am perplexed today, Mr. Speaker.
I am somewhat confused about why the Government of Canada would bring forth such a notion in order to eliminate participation in some of the most critical decisions facing western Canadians made by people involved in a senior capacity or quasi-management role in the co-operatives. 1 must say that I will be voting against this amendment for no other reason than that it places 15,000 to 20,000 western Canadians in a second-class citizen status. I am not prepared to send a message to that group of people saying that we are not prepared to allow them the democratic right of expressing themselves by running for office in terms of what we are speaking of here today.
I do hope that the Government will come to its senses and realize that the particular amendment of which I am speaking is intended to assist the Government in providing a more democratic basis for its decision making and that it is not an attempt to scuttle the Government's efforts. In fact, it is an attempt to improve this piece of legislation by recognizing the role of co-operatives and encouraging people to participate on the appropriate board.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am rising to support the amendments put forward in the name of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), being Motions Nos. 24 and 29. I would argue, as some of my colleagues have argued, that the very idea that representatives of the Wheat Pools should not be nominees is
offensive to any Hon. Member of the House who has fought for some time to ensure that the people who have a great stake in the outcome-the producers or representatives of producers-should have some say in those major decisions that affect the operations of their farms and that affect their livelihoods, and I am certainly one of those Members. That the Government and the Official Opposition can argue that directors, agents or representatives of any co-operative should not be allowed to become a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee is mystifying, to say the least.
Members of many of the co-operatives concerned here have a very direct interest in the number of cars allocated to them and where those cars will be allocated. This is not because they have personal vested interests but because they are representatives or directors of co-operatives that broadly represent the interests of that whole group of producers. Those representatives are only to be some of the representatives on that committee, but surely it is not too much to suggest that they, above all, should have some major say, if not the determining say, in the allocation of grain cars. There have been shortages of cars for the Canadian grain industry in the past. I know that many of those cars are also allocated from time to time to the lumber industry in my own area. Surely the railway companies should not have a greater say in the allocation of those cars than the democratically elected representatives of those thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on the decisions made.
The attitude of members of the Official Opposition, particularly as so many of them represent the western grain growing Provinces, is absolutely astounding. As I was listening to yesterday's debate I could not help but recall a play called "Paper Wheat". Unfortunately I do not have the script of that play here today, but in recent years that play enjoyed some popularity and in fact drew crowds right across Canada, particularly in the smaller communities of the prairie Provinces.
The play dealt with the growth of the Wheat Pools and the history of the farmers' movement, particularly in western Canada when farmers attempted to have some determining say as to what would happen to their livelihoods. There was an interesting character in that play. The farmers and others in the farming communities were actively engaged in trying to build the co-ops and the Wheat Pools. They were trying to sign up a certain number of producers in the area in order to establish the Pool. 1 forget the exact target they were aiming for. Perhaps one of my colleagues could help me.


Mr. Althouse:: Fifty per cent.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: They were trying to sign up 50 per cent of the producers. The interesting character that 1 referred to was a grain elevator operator, and he said when asked to join: "You will never make it". When the farmers signed up 10 per cent of the producers, this fellow said: "No, I am not going to join; you will never make it". They signed up 20 per cent and he said: "No, you will never make it. It's an impossible dream; the railways will beat you and the grain exchange will beat
September 30, 1983

you." The farmers signed up 30 per cent and 40 per cent and this character took the same attitude. Finally the farmers only needed one more member in order to sign up the required 50 per cent of producers. Lo and behold, this fellow decided to join. His comment at that time was: "I always knew they'd do it!"
1 cannot help but think of that particular character in that play, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the position taken by Members of the Official Opposition in relation to this Bill. All of a sudden they have decided, perhaps, that they will vigorously oppose the Bill after having acted in a number of odd ways during the course of the last few months. Do we now hear them saying: "Gee, we always knew they would do it"? Do they want to jump aboard the bandwagon so they do not get left out and they are not seen in the light of their behaviour during the previous few months? They have not really seen the light, have they? They are now taking the position that we should put it off for three years so that they can do it.
Many farmers who are still on the Prairies and have participated in the building of these very co-ops and Wheat Pools will be denied their proper representation unless at least one of these amendments now being moved by members of the NDP or something very much like it is carried. If it is not carried, those farmers will be angry and they will remember. During the long winters on the Canadian Prairies, a lot of thinking gets done. Those farmers will chew over and ruminate on what has been going on during the spring, summer and fall.
One subject that often comes up is "What are those guys in Ottawa doing?" These people have a lot of time to think this over. They are not influenced by the hoopla imagery of the advertising game. They have a memory and they watch the performance of people over the long haul. Like a certain species of the crow, or jackdaw as it is known in some countries, they have a long developed memory. They do not have that instinctively but have gained it through long experience. The working and farming people of prairie Canada will remember who was playing games with their most vital interests.
I ask the Members of the Official Opposition in particular to recognize where they come from and to remember that the farmers of western Canada do not forget easily. I hope the Official Opposition will realize that their prime job is to represent the interests of those who sent them here and will support not only this amendment but a number of others being put forward by the NDP.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In accordance with Madam Speaker's ruling, for the purpose of voting 1 will be putting Motions Nos. 24 and 29 separately. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt motion No. 24?
Western Grain Transportation Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the vote stands deferred.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 29?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the vote stands deferred.
Pursuant to Madam Speaker's ruling earlier, Motions Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 are to be debated and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 30, 31 and 32 stand in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Accordingly, the debate will begin on Motion No. 30.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 4 the following:
"(/) nothing in paragraph (d) shall prevent elected local committee members and delegates of grain co-operatives and the officers of farming corporations and co-operatives from being eligible for election to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee".
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to say to those Members who were not participants in the Committee, in case they are not aware of it, that Clause 3 in Part I of the Bill is entirely a clause of the Conservative Party, supported in every paragraph by the Liberals. Not one line, not one word of the Liberal

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
clause was even debated. Members should have seen the original tory Clause 3. It certainly would have eliminated 20,000 to 30,000 grain producers from running for election, those who are of the Wheat Fool committees and UGG locals.
Our legal advice is that the way the clause now reads, it will still prohibit a member of a Wheat Pool committee, the chairman or secretary of a Wheat Pool committee, an elevator agent who holds land and has Wheat Board permit. It will also eliminate a co-operative farm with five or ten farm families on it. It will eliminate members of the board of directors of the co-operative farm, the Chairman of the board and the secretary-treasurer of farm co-operatives from running for election, even though they are otherwise eligible as active grain producers holding a Canadian Wheat Board permit.
My Motion No. 30 will add a new paragraph which reads:
(f) nothing in paragraph (d) shall prevent elected local committee members and delegates of grain co-operatives and the officers of farming corporations and co-operatives from being eligible for election to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
I have included farming corporations as well as farming co-operatives because many family farms have incorporated. One spouse may be the president or chairman and the other the secretary or vice-president. Sons and daughters are also part of the incorporation. Our legal advice is that the way the clause now reads, a private farm that is incorporated, whether it be one or more families, grain producers holding a Canadian Wheat Board permit book, would be prohibited from having its members run for election.
As my colleague for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) pointed out yesterday, there are over 800 Wheat Pool committees in Saskatchewan, each with ten or 20 members. I imagine there are 600 or 700 Wheat Pool committees in Manitoba and in Alberta combined. 1 do not know how many United Grain Growers locals there are. We are looking at between 15,000 and 25,000 grain producers who are eliminated from standing for election to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee the way the clause now reads.
An election under the Bill would now involve four representatives: one from Alberta, two from Saskatchewan and one from Manitoba. The election would be carried out in the same manner as elections for the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee and would probably be carried out at the same time.
In a democratic election, the eligible voters decide who will represent them. It is not up to Parliament. If the president of a grain co-operative who is also a permit book holder and an active grain farmer chooses to run, it will be up to the grain producers in that Province to decide whether they want him. They will decide whether they want somebody who is also on a board of directors, a delegate or a nominee.
This would also eliminate organizations that could hardly be called great friends of mine. They are nice fellows. It would eliminate the officers of the Palliser Wheat Growers from running as well as the flax growers, barley growers and all other associations. As the clause now stands, they are prohibited from running. Democratic elections should be kept as wide
as possible. There should be minimum requirements in terms of eligibility. This flies in the face of what 1 consider to be the democratic process.
In earlier debate we attempted to have various parts of the clause changed. We have others that will be coming up. The way the Committee is now structured under Clause 3, the Senior Grain Transportation Committee will have an inordinate representation of those who do not grow grain and do not hold a Canadian Wheat Board permit.
Each railroad has a representative. There is also one representative each from the Great Lakes carriers, elevator licensees, the Canadian Trucking Association and the Prairie Livestock Feed Board. There is also one for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba who are also feed grain users. We have only four grain farmers elected at large.


Mr. Mayer:: Where were you when we were in Committee?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, we have six elevator company representatives now. We are back to the Tory repentance of yesterday. It makes no difference; it still gives an inordinate representation to those who do not grow grain. We do not think either railroad should have members on the Committee helping, in effect, to regulate themselves with regard to the allocation of cars. The Senior Grain Transportation Committee can consult with the railway officers, the railway statisticians, the railway operating management on a day to day basis about where railway cars are located. They can get all the information they need.
It is incredible to me, Mr. Speaker, that Clause 3, as proposed by the Conservatives and supported by the Government, totally ignores the Government's clause. There they were, joined in an attack on the co-operative movement, and, in other parts of the Bill, in an attack on orderly marketing and the reduction of the authority and powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is unacceptable in western Canada, Mr. Speaker.
In their conversion on the road to the Crowsnest Pass the Conservatives have called not for a commutation of the death sentence on the Crow rate but merely a stay of execution. Even that is better than nothing. If it were to succeed it would at least give us three more years of the statutory rate for grain producers. But having done that, it seems to me they have no choice, if they want to have any credibility, particularly in western Canada, but to join us in either forcing the Government to withdraw the legislation or getting the Government to change it so that the statutory grain rates for the producers are kept in place.
The representation of the grain producers on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee has to be kept as wide as possible. That has to be taken care of. There is no reason to impinge upon the eligibility of an active grain producer who currently holds a Canadian Wheat Board permit book; there is no need to impinge upon their ability to run for the position, particularly when the motion moved by the Tories and sup-
September 30, 1983

ported by the Liberals contains the words "or co-operatives". That is why we would like to add subparagraph (0 in accordance with Motion No. 30.
Whether the amendments proposed by this Party are ruled in order or not, if they are all put together it will be seen that the legislation would then read the way a New Democratic Party Government would write it. All our amendments are designed to accomplish the fullest representation for grain producers and their organizations.
No one will convince me, and they will certainly not convince anyone out West, that the Wheat Pools are just a commercial interest and that they do not have the interests of producers at heart. If that were true, then why is there any representation on the Committee from the private grain companies? Is someone, like the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), trying to tell me that they are not there just to make a buck, that they are in business for the aid and comfort of the grain producers? Would people tell me that they are there to help the poor grain producers? That is hogwash, Mr. Speaker.
The private grain trade has become fat from living off the backs of grain farmers for too many years in this country. The Canadian Wheat Board put an end to some of that, and to a greater extent so did the co-operative movement. Thank God for that! It is totally improper and unacceptable for this Chamber to interfere with what the grain producers and farm organizations in western Canada can do themselves. Sometimes that requires aid and comfort from a national Government and the Parliament of Canada. To have legislation that niggles away at and undermines and seeks to destroy what our people have put together over 60 to 75 years is reprehensible and not acceptable.
I want to assure the House that that will be our intent throughout debate on the Bill. This motion and others subsequent to it contain that intent all the way through, in every clause of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have indicated by way of signal to he Hon. Member that his time has expired. In fact, 1 have allowed him some additional time because this is his motion. If he wants to continue his remarks, however, he would need the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you Mr. Speaker. 1 thank my colleagues also for their courtesy. I will not go past one o'clock.
This legislation should enhance the eligibility of grain producers for membership on the committee. Whether they be an officer, a delegate, a nominee, a Wheat Pool committee member, chairman of a committee, president of a family-owned incorporated farm, the president of the board of directors of a co-operative farm-none of those situations should bar them from eligibility to run for election as a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. The way the clause reads at the moment would prohibit that and my motion would correct it.
Western Grain Transportation Act
In Committee the Conservatives withdrew four lines from the clause when we were debating Clause 3. I believe the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) was sincere at that time when he said that it was not his objective to eliminate all these people. I want to submit to him and all other Hon. Members that the way the clause still reads it does in fact eliminate them. We should not do that.
1 want to plead with the House to accept this motion. It does not do violence to the intent of the legislation and does not exceed the royal recommendation. It has been ruled to be in order. If the legislation were to pass-1 hope not, but if it were to become the law of the land-it seems to me that the inclusion of this paragraph would keep grain producers and the people they elect to represent them in grain and farm co-operative organizations eligible to stand for election and to be voted for or against by their fellow grain producers. That is the democratic way. Let us keep things that way and not place all these ridiculous, unnecessary and undemocratic restrictions on those who seek to represent their colleagues in the grain growing and handling business. Surely that is nothing more than common sense and good democratic practice. I urge the acceptance of this motion upon the House.
I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will consider that the Hon. Member has completed his remarks. If any other Hon. Member wishes to be seen now by the Chair so that he and others will understand that that Hon. Member will take up debate at two o'clock, as a convenience to Members the Chair would recognize him. If no one is recognized, 1 will put the question.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: At two o'clock the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock 1 had indicated to the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) that he would have the floor at this time.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Hon. Members will know, we are on Motion No. 30 which attempts to clarify a part of Clause 3 of the Western Grain Transportation Act, Bill C-155, which we have been discussing since yesterday. The pertinent motion deals with a part of Clause 3 which allocates four members to the

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Senior Grain Transportation Committee. These members would be active grain growers holding Canadian Wheat Board permit books. The point which is at issue here, at this point in time, is a further provision in that clause which has created a space on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee for these four producers. It goes on to say that these four producers must not be from a category which they go on to spell out.
Clause 3(d) reads in part:
-at the time of their election, and for the duration of their service as members of the Committee-
These producers shall not be:
-nominees, officers, directors, agents or representatives of any corporation, board or cooperative, the business of which is the purchase, sale, storage, processing or transportation of grain-
The problem which has arisen since we dealt with this clause is that we have been receiving conflicting legal opinions as to whether that prohibition would apply to a farmer who is a member of his local Wheat Pool committee or his United Grain Growers local committee, or whether it would apply to and include people who have been delegates to the United Grain Growers annual meeting, or delegates to the various pool organizations in the three Provinces. There are conflicting opinions as to whether those delegates would or would not be eligible to serve on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
These delegates include a great number of farmers who are very interested in the transportation of grain and the good of their community. To make certain these people are not prohibited from seeking election to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee under that clause which allows one member from Alberta, one farmer from Manitoba and two farmers from Saskatchewan, we have proposed Motion No. 30, which says:
(0 nothing in paragraph (d) shall prevent elected local committee members and delegates of grain co-operatives and the officers of farming corporations and co-opcratives from being eligible for election to the Senior Grain Transportation Commitlcc.
This is to be inserted for greater clarity, Mr. Speaker, to make absolutely certain that at no time would there be a court ruling which would declare a farmer ineligible to be a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee simply because he was either a delegate to one of the three Prairie pools or to the annual meeting of the United Grain Growers. It would also clarify the position of farmers who are members of local seed cleaning co-operatives which are in the business of storage and processing of grain. It would make them eligible for the Senior Grain Transportation Committee without any argument as to the interpretation.
There is some doubt whether some members of co-operative farms, particularly if they have some seed cleaning as part of their operation, would be eligible now. The inclusion of this amendment would make it quite clear that the intention of the Bill is not to reduce the eligibility of farmers who are very active in their local communities and in the grain trade at the
local level. It would permit them to seek a post on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
We support this motion on the understanding that any elected position in a democracy should be as wide open as possible. There is a requirement that the people who seek this particular position must be active holders of a Canadian Wheat Board permit book, which means they are active farmers. That requirement rules out any full-time president of a grain company. It would make it very difficult for them to continue because most of them have been required, through the exigencies of their work with the grain co-operatives, to lease their land to someone else, which makes them no longer an active farmer. So I think the concern behind the Bill as it now stands may have been extended a little too far and instead has created a lot of doubt as to whether ordinary farmers who take part in their local community organizations, including the UGG and the pools, are eligible to seek election. It would broaden the base of those eligible to be part of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
I urge both sides of the House to reconsider the clause to broaden the base and allow for the widest democratic participation possible, and to support this motion as it now stands before us.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: 
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us, Motion No. 30, submitted by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), is a very important one, one on which I hope we can use reason in the House rather than just having the Government or, indeed, the Conservative Party sitting idly by on it. The reason I feel this way is that there is a real possibility that thousands of prairie farmers could be prevented from seeking office on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee if Clause 3, which, by the way, was moved by the Conservative Party and supported by the Liberal Party-


Charles James Mayer: How do you know? You weren't there.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -in the Committee this summer, carries. I would ask the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) to stand and tell the House his interpretation of this particular clause. I think, very seriously, that if the heckling could be kept down, Hon. Members would find this to be a very important part of our debate.
Clause 3 states that four members who are active producers can be elected to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It states that there might be one for Manitoba, two for Saskatchewan and one for Alberta. We should follow the next portion very carefully, particularly those Hon. Members in the House who are also lawyers, and Your Honour is included. It states:
-who, at the time of their election, and for the duration of their service as members of the Committee, are not nominees, officers, directors, agents or representatives of any corporation, board or co-operative, the business of which is the purchase, sale, storage, processing or the transportation of grain-

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
I understand the reason this clause was inserted concerning many of the people who will be sitting on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It is a conflict of interest clause. That means that if a representative of one of the elevator companies or the railways or anyone else who is to be on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee is represented in that way, then that same person should not be seeking office as a producer. In many cases this type of clause is obviously needed.
However, the problem with the clause is that when the word "co-operative" is inserted, it is dealing with the structure of the Wheat Pools on the Prairies. I think many Hon. Members do not understand that the Wheat Pools on the Prairies involve a very grass roots issue, a decentralized kind of structure. Every country elevator in my Province and across the Prairies has a Wheat Pool committee. Approximately 800 of those committees exist in the Province of Saskatchewan alone. Between 10 and 20 farmers are members of each committee.
We have heard at least one legal opinion that says it is possible, and 1 think one could so construe in a court of law, that a representative of a company could be a Wheat Pool committee man. These Wheat Pool committee men do not have a great deal of power, but they do have some power over what happens in local country elevators. They also meet every year. At their annual meetings they pass resolutions requesting the head office or the Wheat Pool to take certain positions on issues of great importance to the farmers. As I said, this involves hundreds of different Wheat Pool committees and thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of prairie farmers.
If lawyers were able to persuade the courts that a representative of any corporation, board or co-operative would mean the chairman, the secretary or an ordinary member of a Wheat Pool committee, then this clause in the Bill would disenfranchise thousands of prairie farmers.
In all seriousness, perhaps the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who is the Conservative Party spokesman, or another Conservative might give us the legal interpretation as to what Clause 3 really means.


Walter David Baker: Why don't you hire a lawyer?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why do I not hire a lawyer? The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is an excellent lawyer and 1 would invite him to look at Clause 3 and advise the House whether or not an officer could indeed be the secretary of a Wheat Pool committee, chairman of a Wheat Pool committee or an ordinary member of a Wheat Pool committee.


Walter David Baker: I will look at it next week.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He wants to charge us first before he gives us a legal opinion.


Walter David Baker: It will be a legal aid case for the NDP.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I invite Members of the Conservative Party to take a serious look at this.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Why don't you be serious?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am being very serious. Incidentally, not a single Member from the Conservative Party has spoken to this motion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is a nothing motion, that is why.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Then why do you not get up and say that? I would like to see a Member of the Conservative Party get up and tell us why he believes that a Wheat Pool secretary, president or committee member would not be disenfranchised from seeking office to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He is not excluded and you know it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have lawyers who say that it is not unreasonable to interpret that a representative of a co-operative could be a Wheat Pool committee man. If that is the case, we will then have a situation where thousands of people will be disenfranchised. This also refers directly to the word "agent". A Wheat Pool agent in a small town or village may not be able to seek office on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as well. If that is the case, I think it is very unfair that so many ordinary, hard working farmers are being excluded from being elected to the office of a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and Members on all sides of the House should take a very close look at this. The Wheat Pools are very decentralized. They practise a great degree of economic democracy in terms of having thousands of their members involved in running the local elevator and trying to run the Wheat Pool at a provincial and national level as well.
The same thing could perhaps apply to a co-op farm. There are a number of co-op farms in this country. Would someone who is a director of a co-op farm be excluded from seeking office because Clause 3 states that officers, directors and agents cannot seek office? Are directors of a co-op farm, which might indeed be an ordinary small farm, excluded from seeking office? What about a small family farm that has been incorporated? There are many such farms in my riding and I ask whether they would be excluded from seeking office. The Member for Vegreville is shaking his head; I can hear it from here. Please get up and tell us what you are saying. I can hear his head rattling but I cannot understand what he is saying.
This clause of the Bill could deny thousands of people on the Prairies the right to seek office. This also applies to the United Grain Growers, to a corporate farm, to a co-operative farm and, of course, to the Wheat Pools. I believe the Wheat Pools in this country are much too important to be left out of the scheme of things as far as this committee is concerned.
September 30, 1983

It is my understanding that a number of lawyers who have studied this issue have taken different positions. If there is any doubt, why do we not insert a clause in the Bill similar to that suggested by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) which makes it abolutely clear that the target here is not the ordinary farmer who has a permit book but the senior officer of a company, an agent of a company or a senior representative of a company. If that is the intent of Clause 3, which I believe it is, why do we not make that explicit rather than implicit, so that in the future a court, judge or lawyer will not make the opposite interpretation, which could be extremely harmful to agriculture in western Canada?
I suggest to the House that if it finds the wording in Clause 3 unacceptable, it should look for another set of words that would make it explicit that the Wheat Pool and co-op people and small incorporated farms would not be excluded from seeking office. I say that very seriously to Members of the Conservative Party because I come from a family that spent many years attempting to build a co-operative movement and Wheat Pools back in the 1930s and 1940s and also build a credit union in the belief that people had to work together in order to better themselves. I do not want to see people who believe in a co-operative way of life being discriminated against by this Bill which is before the House today.
I particularly do not want to see that when it comes from Members of the Convervative Party who are absolutely silent on this. I would like them at least to get up and say publicly that they are absolutely sure they can give us an ironclad guarantee that this clause will not exclude a chairman or a president of a Wheat Pool, the UGG or directors of a small corporate farm or members of a co-operative farm. Will old "ironclad" from Vegreville get up and give us that kind of guarantee? He and his colleagues are sitting there, perhaps because there is some uncertainty. Perhaps even some of them who are antico-operative hope that the courts will say that members of the co-op or Wheat Pool committees do not have a right to seek office for this particular committee.
1 invite Members of the Conservative Party to put that on the record. I invite Members of the Liberal Party to go back to the Department of Transport and the Department of Justice and get some legal opinions that will guarantee us on behalf of our constituents that our people will not be discriminated against.
[ Translation]
And 1 mention this to the Parliamentary Secretary, because it is very important to us, since in my riding, every year from 75 to 80 per cent of our producers sell all their wheat to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the UGG. It is very important to us, and I hope you will be able to do this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary . . . The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton Stan-stead (Mr. Tessier) has the floor.


Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, if you were the Prime Minister, I would say you were
Western Grain Transportation Act letting the cat out of the bag, but I had my turn, and I am quite happy to be just a Member of Parliament, and, I hope, a very effective one.
Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the New Democratic Party will be very pleased about what I will have to say at the beginning of my speech, but I want to make it clear that I do not intend to fall into their little trap and that I will not support their amendment.
Mr. Speaker, especially following my experience in the West when I heard people talk about their concerns, I have had some serious second thoughts about the consultations that have brought us to Bill C-155. I am prepared to agree with western producers that they should have been the first to be consulted and that consultations should have been thorough and complete. That is my view, but 1 do not think this particular mistake should prevent us from proceeding with consideration of Bill C-155.
Mr. Speaker, we agreed to reduce the number of members on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, as recommended by the Progressive Conservative Party, because we wanted to show our co-operation on a point that did not affect the basic principles and objectives of Bill C-155.
To go any further, and I want to make this quite clear to the members opposite, to go any further amounts to making false assumptions, and to take any other position would be misrepresenting the real situation.
People who say that Clause 3 of the Bill is a threat to the co-operative system in the West are, I am sorry to say, making false assumptions and saying things that are absolutely untrue. When they say we are letting in the railway companies, I think it is perfectly normal, within the framework of our transportation policy, to have partners that are involved in that policy. I would like to say to my friends opposite that especially as Quebecers, we wanted Bill C-155 to be a transportation measure, and as such, we support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. Speaker, the West seems to thrive on its divisions, and the host of associations representing producers will be their downfall. Here in the House, representatives of the New Democratic Party are sending us all kinds of messages, but they have no vision of the West. They are incapable of devising ways to serve the West's real interests. They want to make the Senior Grain Transportation Committee another hotbed of divisiveness, without vision and without the means to solve the problems of the West once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an attack against the co-operatives. We want a mechanism that will help us achieve the objectives of our transportation policy. Everyone is welcome on the Committee, provided they are prepared to share the objectives of a transportation policy that is to the West's advantage, and I challenge the Opposition on the Conservative and the New Democratic Party sides to prove otherwise.

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Laverne Lewycky: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 thank the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who has brought to my attention a possible misprint in Clause 10(3). I would indicate to the House that this is a minor matter and requires only a motion to delete a word. The matter is in the process and will be handled in the near future.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, 1 notice that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is not in the Chamber. He invited the Members of this Party to put their position with regard to co-operatives on record, and I want to do so. It is unfortunate that he is not here. He appears to be a hit and run kind of Member. He
September 30, 1983

attended one out of 66 meetings which the Transport Committee held this summer on Bill C-155. He speaks and then leaves the House.
I want categorically to put on record for the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville that I and my Party are not opposed to co-operatives. 1 will say it again: we are not opposed to co-operatives. There is nothing that we have done with regard to this Bill that would indicate otherwise. What the NDP is attempting to do with this amendment is not to defend cooperatives, but simply raise a political ruse. They are nothing but a bunch of political chameleons. 1 will get into that later.
1 belong to a local pool and the local UGG. The Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) belongs to a local pool, as does the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: And the UGG.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) belongs to a pool.


An Hon. Member:: Even Hazen Argue.


Charles James Mayer: It shows how open they are to membership when they take in Hazen Argue. 1 wonder how many Members to my far left can stand up and say that they belong to a pool or UGG, which is a co-operative. I had with me in the House yesterday a Canadian Wheat Board permit book which I have had since I was 18 years old. I do not think that great grain grower from Spadina (Mr. Heap), who spoke so eloquently about the grain producer, can talk about having a permit book.


John Leslie Evans: He produces fertilizer for the grain growers.


Charles James Mayer: That may be. He provides fertilizer in the spring and if we let him out there, he would provide some wind and our land would all blow away. Therefore we will keep him here.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what this NDP amendment is trying to do. If there is a legitimate concern, we are equally as concerned about what the amendment says. We voiced these kinds of things at the Committee. If the Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) had been there as well as the Member for Yorkton-Melville, they would understand what went on in Committee and would not be raising these political issues.
This is a bad Bill. In my opinion, there is no sense raising any more concern than there need be. There will be plenty of concern if and when this Bill is passed. 1 lament the day that it will be passed. If we are going to raise issues, let us at least be fair to the people we represent and only raise real issues.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville talked about his constituents possibly being denied the opportunity to be represented on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I submit that his constituents were denied an opportunity this summer to be represented at the Transport Committee when
Western Grain Transportation Act these vital issues were being discussed. If he is so concerned about representation on behalf of his constituents, he should have shown up at some of the Transport Committee meetings this summer.
Let me again put categorically on the record that this Party is not opposed to co-operatives. I will quote the words in Committee of the Hon. Member for Regina West with regard to the concerns he raised and which I hope were allayed at Committee. If there is any concern that what the motion says is not what was intended to be accomplished by the wording, then we in this Party are certainly not concerned about changing the wording. We do not want to see individual producers denied access to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
Our record on that is clean. We moved the amendment which resulted in an additional producer as well as the amendment which included the truckers. Where was the NDP? They voted against the truckers, the little people which the Member for Spadina talked about. If there were ever little people in the area of big giants, it is the little truckers which compete with CP and CN in the trucking business. I would like to have seen the Members from the NDP support our amendment to get the truckers included.
We also got an additional member of the feed users. That is a plus for western Canada. It amounts to another producer. It means that this Party was responsible for getting two additional producers on the Committee. Instead of three, we have five.
I do not hear anyone complaining about that. If we want to be consistent, let us talk about what went on in Committee. I wish to quote from the Transport Committee proceedings, page 125:28, September 1, 1983. 1 quote:


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, 1 have another question. What about a family farm that is incorporated, or a co-operative farm? Say you have a co-operative farm with ten or a dozen or you have a farm that is incorporated, a father, two sons, the wife and the daughter, that is a corporation ... I just want to make sure those people are not eliminated.
That was a legitimate concern that was raised in Committee. It was the proper place to do it. The chairman replied: "They are not". Mr. Lefebvre, the Department counsel, then said:
Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have looked at this and the previous wording was worded in a way similar to this one for the exact purpose of not eliminating farmers, even if they are co-operative farmers.
To our satisfaction, with the advice of counsel at the Committee, this amendment put in at Committee which the NDP is now so excited about did not cause the problems they are now raising. I submit that the reason they are concerned about this is that they attacked the pools very vigorously when we travelled to Winnipeg and Regina. They are now trying to get back some political hay which they threw away in Winnipeg and Regina.
Let me quote what the Hon. Member for Regina West said about the pools in Winnipeg when talking to the president of the Manitoba Wheat Pool:
Would you not agree if grain producers could get three or four or five times increases in their prices, there would be no problem about them paying more freight rates? Why would you hold still for your own members paying more

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
freight rates at the prices they are getting today, that are down from what they were two or three years ago.
When we were in Regina-if NDP Members other than the Member for Regina West would have travelled with the Committee they would know this-the Member for Regina West said to Mr. Turner, the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool:
If you are prepared to blindly accept the kinds of things that Mr. Snavely has put forward-and Gilson and Pepin are based on Snavely-then I submit, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Turner, that you are not really protecting the farmer's social and economic conditions, as you say on the first page of your summary.
The tone of the remarks was that the NDP was very unhappy with what the pools had said to this Committee with regard to eliminating the statutory rate for producers.
Now we have this great bleeding heart tirade from our left about how in favour they are of co-operatives and what great things the co-operatives are. They want to get back in the good graces of the co-operatives. I submit that the whole purpose of this amendment is not to look after the producers, which this Party saw fit to look after and did the best we could throughout the Committee proceedings, but simply to get themselves back in the good graces of the pools that they attacked quite vigorously in both Winnipeg and Regina.
When the Hon. Member for Regina West says that his motion will not do violence to the amendment, 1 agree with him totally. However when he gets up and speaks he does violence to this House. He misrepresents what transpired at committee. The Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) attended one meeting. I do not know where he was for the rest of them. If he had been concerned about the producers in his area he should have at least showed up at committee. He did not even see fit to attend when the committee travelled to his own Province.
I agree with the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). We see no reason to impinge on the eligibility of producers. This Party's amendment was specifically designed to allow individual producers to be appointed on their own behalf. I do not think anyone who understands how the Senior Grain Transportation Committee is supposed to work could think of eliminating the railways. I do not like the railways any more than anyone else does. I have many concerns about their monopoly and how we have to deal with them. In order for the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to function effectively, however, all the major players must be part of it, so that if there are problems to be sorted out the railways can be told by the other participants to get their act together.
If the NDP wants to pursue a philosophy to the effect that whenever we hear the CNR or the CPR mentioned we should have nothing to do with the railroads, I do not think that is in the best interests of the producer.
If there are some real concerns about the NDP amendment, we would like to see them addressed, Mr. Speaker. We are not in favour of excluding any producers from the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. The reasons the NDP have
advanced in support of the amendment and the problems that they have tried to blame on this Party are spurious, and I know that the producers of western Canada will recognize them as such. All they have to do is to check on the participation of the NDP in the committee proceedings during the summer.
If there is a legal opinion that is different from that which we heard from two lawyers at the committee which would exclude individual producers who happen to be directors of local pools, local UGGs, or members of a family farm that operates as a corporation or co-operative farm, we are not in favour of that either.
I hope I have put enough on record so that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) will not have to get up again to ask what our position is.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that we are finally hearing a spokesperson from the Official Opposition speak on the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
We are concerned about the makeup of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. We feel that it is a committee that can have an important role to play. There is still some debate about whether this will be a technical committee or an advisory committee. I wish to put on record the testimony given to the Transport Committee by Mr. Arthur Kroeger, Secretary, Ministry of State for Economic Development, as reported at page 125:44 of the proceedings of that committee as follows:
Mr. Chairman, I do not think the committee is intended as was suggested to this committee by Mr. Turner of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. I do not think it is intended that this committee would be limited to narrow technical functions. It is true that to deal with some of the major issues in the grain transportation system at present, you have to look at some of the specifics; you have to look at some technical matters. But the committee is intended to have broad advisory responsibilities, in the first instance to the administrator.
I think that illustrates that this can be more than just a technical committee.
We are concerned that as many producers as possible be eligible to sit on that committee. Out of this concern we are moving this amendment that clear up the ambiguity that exists in the amendment to Clause 3(d) of the proposed legislation.
We are concerned about this and I do not think it does the cause of the Official Opposition any good to belittle that concern. In fact, I think it raises the question of whether they share our concerns. Their attempt to belittle our position on this makes me wonder whether there is a double agenda involved. When the Conservatives moved the amendment that constitutes much of Clause 3(d), their intent was so obvious and blatant that they had to amend the original amendment. It was then accepted by the Liberals and Conservatives voting together.


Charles James Mayer: How would you know? You were not there.


Simon Leendert de Jong: In the original amendment the part that they deleted was "-or elected or appointed representives of any board or committee involved in an advisory or other capacity with respect to the grain trade."
September 30, 1983

That last wording in the original amendment to Clause 3(d) would have made it even more obvious that members of the Wheat Pool who sit on advisory committees would have been eliminated from being eligible to sit on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It was so obvious that they had to withdraw that last part of the paragraph. To dispute that there is some ambiguity in this subclause is nonsense; it is there. Different legal opinions have admitted that ambiguity. In the opinion of some lawyers a reasonable interpretation of the words in that subclause could prevent a nominee of a co-operative chosen to be a delegate at a subdistrict committee meeting of grain producers from being elected or continuing to serve as a member of the committee.
Furthermore, it is possible to construe Subclause (d) as preventing a member of a local Wheat Pool advisory committee who sits as a representative of a co-operative from being elected or from continuing to serve as a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. The proposed wording of Clause 3(d) does not go so far as to deny a member of a co-operative from being elected or from continuing to serve as a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. There is honest ambiguity and there is honest doubt here.
Why are Members of the Conservative Party so adamant in opposing a very reasonable and innocent subamendment? If they are so in favour of having Wheat Pool members and delegates participating in the election of members to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, why are they opposing this amendment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette rises on a point of order.


Charles James Mayer: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I said about eight times during my ten minute speech that we were not opposed to this amendment. I will say it again to the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong). We are not opposed to this amendment. If there is any doubt about what the Bill is going to do to individual members of co-operatives, of Wheat Pools, of wheat pool locals, of UGG locals, we are not opposed to the amendment. I do not know how many times I have to get up and say it, but 1 will say it again. We are not opposed to this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point. The Hon. Member for Regina East.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, while that was not really a valid point of order, I do welcome the intervention. It is marvellous to hear the statement being put that plainly, although the second time the Hon. Member repeated it he did include an "if", if there is reasonable doubt. Other speakers from the Conservative Party have mentioned that there does not exist such doubt in this legislation. The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that that doubt does exist. I hope the Official Opposition will recognize that a reasonable doubt does exist and that it will indeed support this subamendment.
Western Grain Transportation Act
The history of the co-operative movement in agriculture in western Canada is vital. It has played a very crucial role. The co-operative movement is the result of years of experience of farmers in Canada which led them to the conclusion that only through co-operative action can they defend their self-interest, that only through coming together, marketing their products together, are they able to prevent the exploitation which private grain dealers have been involved in for years and years. At one time, Mr. Speaker, the co-operative movement was totally opposed by the vested interests in this country, the people who operated the Grain Exchange out of Winnipeg and the private grain monopolies. And those grain monopolies had their interests represented in both the Liberal and Conservative Parties. These traditional Parties opposed the co-operative movement because it meant that their power over farmers would evaporate, that the farmers themselves would take control of their own destinies.
All progressive victories in the past have necessitated an ongoing struggle to maintain those victories. We see that with medicare, with social legislation, with all progressive legislation. Every progressive move brings forth a reaction. The fight against the co-operative movement, Mr. Speaker, is not over. That fight continues. We in this Party are determined to fight to protect the victories of the past. We are determined to fight to protect the pools and the co-operative efforts of farmers themselves. We will fight against any measure to erode the position of the farmers.
I can understand, perhaps, some of my Conservative friends being somewhat confused because a co-operative, like the Pools, Mr. Speaker, represents the producers. In the end it is a producers' organization. So producers involved in that organization, even though they might have various positions, are still first and foremost producers. They are not members of some corporation. They have created the Wheat Pool, which has many of the trappings of a corporation, but it is more than that. It is the product of the producers themselves. Ordinary producers, who are involved in advisory positions and in operating the Wheat Pools should not be labelled in the same way as one would label a manager of a private grain company or a private elevator.
I notice the Chair is indicating that my time is up. With the consent of the House I would request one more minute to conclude my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to conclude his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I wish to thank the House for this opportunity to conclude my remarks.
The point I was trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that members of the Wheat Pools, whether in Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, who hold delegate positions or advisory positions are not really just officers or agents of a company. They are still producers involved in a co-operative effort with other producers. Their position is quite different to that of an

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act officer of a private company. That is why I am dismayed that the words "or co-operative" is in here. To me it indicates that there is not a recognition that a producer who is active in his pool organization is not the same as a businessman who is involved in a private grain company. There is a very distinct difference, Mr. Speaker.
The other point I wish to make in summation, Mr. Speaker-and perhaps it is my major point-is that if there is agreement in the House that there is reasonable ambiguity in the subclause as it now exists, then I invite the House to give unanimous consent to the amendment, Motion No. 30, which has been introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West. I ask for unanimous consent that Motion No. 30 be accepted.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise again today to speak on what I consider to be a historic Bill. I believe everyone who has spoken on the motion today realizes that in later years someone will look back at the record to see who spoke and what they said today. Although my remarks may not be the most historic on record, I would like to add them to the debate.
1 have always had a great interest in historic law. If one had the opportunity to visit some of the ancient civilizations such as Egypt or Persia, one would find that the law was carved in stone. It was set up in such a way by the lawmakers that it would remain. There was a finality to the law. Good law which is made today has a permanence to it. Unfortunately, bad law has a permanence to it as well. This Bill, which will set up a way of handling grain in western Canada, if it passes, is very important. It is a Bill which will set down in a permanent way something which is extremely important to western Canadians.
Some of my colleagues to my right have indicated that not all the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party took part in the committee hearings. That is exactly correct. I did not take part in the hearings myself. Nevertheless, I still feel that Parliament is a place in which Members can relate to the work of the Members who took part in the committee hearings. I also feel it is very important, when we come to the House of Commons, that we relate from our point of view to the legislation which is being discussed. Each Hon. Member here brings a different point of view. It is true that because of my vocation in life I do not have a quota book, 1 do not own a farm, I do not farm every year. However, farming in my part of the world is extremely important. Even though I do not have a quota book, and even though I was not at the committee hearings-and we all have a right to speak on the Bill-I feel it is extremely important that when something is being set down in stone, something is being put into law, we must be very sure in making that law that we protect the little person, the person at the bottom. In moving Motion No. 30 my colleague is trying to spell out in a concrete way that the person at the bottom, the representative of someone who belongs to a local grain co-operative, will not be excluded, ever. The mood which seems to exist in the country today sometimes argues against the notion of co-operatives. It is a mood which says that it is better to look after oneself, after
one person, than to have a group looking after everyone. I can see that sometime down the road a person who belonged to a co-operative might be discarded simply because of the mood against co-ops. That is why 1 would like to see this amendment in the Bill. I hear that Hon. Members down there are willing to accept it. It must be clear in the future that the little person will always be protected.
Another point I would like to bring forward is that those who were not present at all the committee hearings have a special reason for reading the Bill now and bringing forward their viewpoint. They can see it from their perspective but they do not have all the history. I would like to see it clearly spelled out in this part of the Bill that a representative of one group cannot come in as a representative of another group and thereby take two places. The reason 1 say this is that in the grain growing and handling business we have a lot of people whom I would call joiners. In church, in school, in political Parties, in business you will have a certain number of people whom I call joiners. They are people who get into various organizations at the same time. We can look at the various representatives of the grain associations in western Canada and we will find that there are many people who belong to four or five different groups. As some of my colleagues pointed out, they belong to pools, the UGG and so on. They are joiners, and that is probably one of the reasons why they became active in politics. I would like it spelled out that if a person is appointed to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee under one heading, he cannot come in under another heading as well.
I would call upon my colleagues around here, Mr. Speaker, to be very cautious of the fact that we are putting something down which can be interpreted in a different way by our sons, grandsons and greatgrandsons, unless it is spelled out very clearly today. All the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) intended to do was to spell this out very clearly as it relates to people who are in co-operative associations. I was happy to hear the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) say that he-and I am sure he is representing his Party-would be willing to accept this if there is any doubt. I feel there is a doubt. Our legal opinion indicates there is a doubt, and so I hope Members on the Government side and on our side will agree that the motion should be included there and that the Bill will be like the old laws written in stone, that it will be clear and simple enough for all to understand, and the ordinary, little person will be the one who will be protected all the time.
I am going to bring my remarks to an end now, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that everyone in the House will take to heart these few thoughts I have brought to the matter and that the little person will be protected all the time through this motion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to support my colleague, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). Quite frankly, we are dealing with a motion which is really redundant, but in order that
September 30, 1983

there be no doubt we certainly will accept the spirit and thrust of what the NDP is proposing. In the course of the committee hearings, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) stated:
It is not the intention of the Members on this side to prevent Members of local pools or UGG organizations from being elected or being named to this Committee.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) knows that very well. He was there. Nonetheless, he continues to prompt his colleagues to distort the facts and mischievously to mislead Members of this House. The fact is that most of what we have heard today is nothing but clap-trap. What we on this side of the House tried to achieve was simply to ensure that producers, enfettered by any other biases, full-time producers who were in the business of farming and had no other biases or interests, were to be included in this very useful Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
Once again we witness the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party. During the course of the committee meetings at one point in time the Hon. Member for Regina West discarded the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as being meaningless or irrelevant. He said, and I quote from page 126:106:
I would prefer that this whole damn thing he deleted or else be put under the aegis of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Now we hear from Members over there that this committee is going to transform the whole policy making mechanism for the grain transportation industry, yet at the same time the Hon. Member said that as far as he was concerned the whole damn thing should be deleted. They cannot have it both ways.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Watch your language.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Well, I am only quoting the Hon. Member for Regina West who uses that word more than all other Members put together.
It seems that the NDP does not want producers sitting on this committee, Mr. Speaker. It wants producers to be aligned with either the UGG or the pools or Cargill or CN or CP. What we were trying to do was to ensure that, say, a director of CN or CP who was a farmer could not serve on this committee. There is a former Member of this House who is now a chairman of one of the railroads and he has a Wheat Board permit. If that restriction is not put in place he could conceivably sit as a farm representative. I guess the NDP really wanted that sort of thing, but we did not. We wanted to clarify and make absolutely sure that these were bona-fide, full-fledged producers who were in the business of producing grain.


Mr. Gustafson:: I hope the press hears that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we thought it was very important that these producers had the opportunity to square off with representatives from the railroads. The Members of the NDP do not want the railroads sitting at the same table as the farmers on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. How absurd! How ridiculous! The fact of the matter is that if there is going to be any cohesion or co-ordination, if there is any way that we can cut out the finger-point-
Western Grain Transportation Act ing, that can take place during the course of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee's sittings. I see the former Minister of Transport applauding in support. I think he knows, as I know, that the only way to get this very complex and complicated system working is to bring representatives of all components of this very diverse system together and seat them around a table, get them all pulling in the same direction, dedicating themselves to a common cause, the discharging of their responsibilities and obligations.
1 can think of no other way in which a lot of the difficulties and problems, either real or potential, can be overcome and reduced to a minimum than through the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. We certainly support the concept. It was never our intention to be overly restrictive as far as the producers were concerned. We believe that these various organizations involved in the system can have their representatives, but we also very firmly believe that producers are very important. We consider that to be the reason for the whole structure in the first place. If it were not for producers producing grain, we would not need a Senior Grain Transportation Committee or a Grain Transportation Agency Administrator. Therefore, it is only natural that producers should serve on the committee.
The same is true with regard to other parts of the Bill. I do not know whether it was an oversight or whether it was deliberate, but the word "producer" was conspicuous by its absence. Quite frankly, we as Members on this side tried to incorporate the word "producers" at every opportunity. We also incorporated that any decisions taken by the Senior Grain Transportation Committee or the Grain Transportation Administrator would be taken in the best interests of the producer, in other words, maximizing returns for the producer. That is what we set out to do and that is what we will continue to do as we debate the Bill.
I repeat that the New Democratic party has tried maliciously to exaggerate and to use a red herring. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette indicated, it is trying to get back into the good graces of the Wheat Pools. In so doing, it is trying to do irreparable damage to the producer body. No one went to bat for the producers, certainly the NDP did not. It voted against it. Of course, the Wheat Pools did not give their support, believing that they could best represent the producers. We saw fit, and the Government supported our amendment, to incorporate Wheat Pool membership, strengthening it. We certainly apologize to no one and we think the Bill will be better as a result.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if 1 could have the permission of the House to ask a question of the Hon. Member who just sat down?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member does have some time remaining. Does he wish to accept a question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Sure.
27638

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is perhaps technical, but it is with regard to Clause 3 of the Bill. It states that those who cannot be members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, those who cannot run for election, are "nominees, officers, directors, agents or representatives of any corporation, board or co-operative". I am wondering whether or not the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) can tell us why he is sure this would not exclude those who are on Wheat Pool committees, such as the chairmen of the local committees at Lintlaw, Assiniboia, or wherever. 1 do not have the material with me right now, but the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), who is to speak next, will read into the record a legal opinion which raises some doubt as to whether or not these ordinary producer-farmers may actually seek office if they happen to belong to a local Wheat Pool committee. If that is the case, it is very undemocratic.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for the question because my colleague, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette answered it. If the Hon. Member would want to familiarize himself with the evidence that was taken at the committee, I would refer him to the passage in Committee Proceedings No. 125, at pages 28 and 29. The general counsel for the Ministry of Transport clarified that point. Quite frankly, it was on the basis of the advice of legal counsel that the committee was given the assurance that delegates would not be excluded. As reported in Issue No. 125, at pages 87 and 88, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw very categorically stated: "it is not the intention of the Members on this side to prevent members of local pools or the UGG organizations from being elected or being named to this Committee". The Hon. Member for Regina West responded: "I agree that was not the intent of the movers of that edition".
While the Hon. Member for Regina West understood perfectly the intentions of the Members of the Conservative Party when they moved the amendment, he has obviously been influenced by other Members of his Party because he is now suggesting that there was a deliberate attempt to exclude the delegates, the locals of the Wheat Pools, and the UGG. That was never intended to be the case. However, as the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette pointed out, to remove any question of doubt we are certainly prepared to accept the thrust and the principle of the NDP motion. I understand that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) has considered it and is prepared to accept it in principle, except that he has perhaps found a better way of incorporating the thrust and the principle enshrined in the motion of the NDP so that it could be consistent with the other wording in the Bill.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the New Democratic Party, I am glad to accept the conversion of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: -and supposedly that of his colleagues. I seem to recall his saying just a few moments ago that our amendment was both redundant and unnecessary.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: In dealing with the subject, I would now like to read into the record, under the letterhead of the House of Commons, a letter to the Hon. Member for Regina West from Mr. R. Cosman, the Assistant Parliamentary Counsel to the House, dated September 29, 1983. It states:
In response to a request from Mr. Daryll Richards of your office, I have reviewed the amendment proposed with respect to paragraph (d) of Clause 3 of Bill C-155 as contained in the seventeenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport.
It is my opinion that a reasonable interpretation of the words of that paragraph could prevent a "nominee" of a co-operative chosen to be a delegate at a subdistrict committee meeting of grain producers from being elected or continuing to serve as a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
Furthermore, it is reasonably possible to construe paragraph (d) as preventing a member of a local wheat pool advisory committee who sits as a "representative" of a co-operative from being elected or continuing to serve as a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, as well.
The proposed wording of paragraph 3(d), however, does not go so far as to deny a member of a co-operative from being elected or continuing to serve as a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
In forming my opinion, I have taken the position that if I were advocating the non-eligibility of a "nominee" of a co-operative or the removal from membership of a "representative" of a co-operative with respect to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, could the words of paragraph 3(d) reasonably be interpreted to support my position, and I find that they do, notwithstanding that it may not have been the original intention of the drafters of this particular provision to have such an effect.
1 am gratified to know that we are on good grounds. We felt that we were from the beginning, even if my Party was not certain, even if the Conservative Party was not certain, and even if the Liberal Government was not certain.
Certainly the letter I just quoted gives more than enough grounds for reasonable doubt that we were right in our opinion that these people may have been excluded, albeit inadvertently. Surely it is incumbent upon the representatives of ordinary people, especially Members from the western grain producing Provinces, to resolve the question in such a way that the benefit of the doubt goes to the representatives of co-operatives and those other organizations. If that is not done, what right do Members from the prairie Provinces have to claim even that they try to represent the best interests of the people who sent them here?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Just to bring a little order, if I could, and to assist the Chair, there is one way of finding out how people feel about a certain amendment, that is, by way of a vote. If you check, Mr. Speaker, you will see that we allowed the NDP to continue to put their point. When we stood to speak on it, we agreed with their point and they continued to put it forward. There is a very simple way in this Hosue of deciding whether or not we support an amendment.
September 30, 1983


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, conversions are always welcome. Also, I personally thought we were always in good order in this place-at least recently.
I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) and the Hon. Member for Vegreville, both of whom may choose to answer or have another Conservative answer on their behalf. In their references back to the committee which held hearings this summer, they seem to make much about the fact that although the NDP was fully represented in that committee at every hearing, they wonder why we did not have more people present at every meeting than we were eligible for at that committee. I would suggest to them that if the Conservatives are really concerned that there are not more New Democrats participating in parliamentary committees of the House, they should suggest to their voters back in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba that they would be well advised to send more New Democrats at the next opportunity so they can be properly represented. In that way they can raise some of the questions that are so necessary and have representatives who do not constantly flip-flop, back-stab, jag, twist and turn-although we welcome their turning and conversion-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You certainly made the point yourself.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Now they shout loudly because they want the people in the Prairies to think that they have always been on their side. Then why do they flip-flap on their basic position on this Bill. After many of their amendments which they proposed to Government Members on that committee were accepted they then decided-perhaps because so many of their suggestions were accepted-that the Bill is no good and they would oppose it. However, they are not opposing it very strongly. In fact, it was not until they were virtually intimidated time and again by Members from this corner of the House that they even stood in their places to say what they thought.


Leonard J. Gustafson: A clear admission.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: There is some bird taking flight down in that corner. It is certainly not a crow, but I do not know what species it is.


Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 just want to correct the record, which is quite misleading if left to stand as it is. I wish to point out that the NDP in committee proposed 88 amendments, six of which were accepted, 51 of which were rejected, 28 of which were out of order and three which they saw fit to withdraw. Therefore, the point that the Hon. Member is making is quite misleading.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I know what they say about statistics where I come from.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Wait until you see the next vote count.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I do not know if that made it on to the record but I look forward to the next vote count. I want to say something else. We who do not happen to be members of Wheat Pools or come from the prairie Provinces have also had
Western Grain Transportation Act
our credentials challenged. 1 have been a British Columbian and a resident of the West Kootenays long enough to know that if you scratch an interior resident of British Columbia you will find a hayseed close beneath the surface. Most of us have fairly deep roots in the wheat and grain growing areas of the country. I am sure it is true of many of my colleagues who do not have the privilege of being members of Wheat Pools in the Prairie Provinces.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Any hayseeds in your riding, Lome?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I come from a family who came to the Beverley hills of Saskatchewan in 1902 and 1905, who were active in the growth and origins of the United Grain Growers, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Progressive Party and the Saskatchewan Farmer Labour Party. I have as much right as anyone who happens to be currently a resident and a member of a Wheat Pool in that area to speak on the subject.
Furthermore, quite apart from the background of Members, each of us, by virtue of our election to this place, is allowed to do more than, as stated in an old poem, "Sit in places and grow dumb". Not only are we allowed to do much more than that, it is incumbent upon us to do more. Moreover, as Members of a Party which has recognized for many years the very close bond that exists between working people, whether on farms, in factories, in mills or in the woods. I resent the insinuation, particularly from some Conservatives, that we do not have as much right to claim our place in debate with regard to the welfare of this nation and its various communities as they may claim. We have that degree of tolerance and have always shown it. I suggest, particularly to those in the Opposition who pretend to value traditions, that they show as much.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because, unlike the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap),
I do not pretend to be a great expert on the grain trade.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Speak for yourself.


Dave Nickerson: This afternoon, I listened intently to the speeches made by the Members of the NDP. I have to report that 1 still do not know very much about the grain trade, but I certainly learned a lot from them as to how one goes about it when one wants to twist words, distort phrases and give rise to unreasonable fears in the minds of western farmers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Shame on you fellows.


Dave Nickerson: About the most charitable thing one could say with respect to Motion No. 30 is that it is redundant.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Why do you support it?


Dave Nickerson: It is not necessary whatsoever. If one was a little less charitable, like my good friend, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), one might describe it as being spurious. It appears that the only reason it was introduced was once more to delay the proper consideration of the Bill that is before us.
COMMONS DEBATES_________________________________September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the Hon. Member indicate, with that type of rhetoric, why he will be supporting our amendment if it is redundant?


Dave Nickerson: If the Hon. Member would be kind enough to wait until I reach that point in my presentation, he will find out. The objective behind introducing motions such as the one before us was undoubtedly just to delay the matter and give an opportunity to the Hon. Member for Spadina to talk about rent controls in Toronto. I do not know what that has to do with the Bill before us.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: The same corporation.


Dave Nickerson: Perhaps it was so that the NDP Members could present themselves as the saviours of the co-op movement. I know and have the support of very many people in the co-op movement. I am aware that these are very reasonable and business-oriented people. They must be to be in that movement. For that reason, when it comes time to vote, I can assure you that they will vote 99 percent in favour of the Progressive Conservative Party rather than the NDP.
We have heard fears raised about what would happen if a farming family incorporated itself or if two or three families got together and formed a production co-operative. I will read the existing Clause 3(d), Mr. Speaker, from line 30. It reads:
-who, at the time of their election, and for the duration of their service as members of the committee are not nominees, officers, directors, agents or representatives of any corporation, board or co-operative, the business of which is the purchase, sale, storage, processing or transportation of grain;-
Members of the NDP would have us believe that because a farmer loads up his truck and drives it for eight miles to the elevator, he is in the business of the transportation of grain. They would have us believe that because he buys his seed grain, he is in the business of buying and selling grain. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is not a court in the land that would put that interpretation on the words contained in Clause 3(d).
I was very pleased with the way our position was presented in committee by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) and his many colleagues who put in so many hours of work on that committee. I was very pleased by the way they fought for the grain producers of Canada. I think they have achieved a considerable victory by having incorporated on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee four representatives of the primary producers of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: It is essential, Sir, that the representatives of these primary producers be free from any possible conflict of interest. They should be able to concentrate only from the point of view of the producers. For that reason, not just any permit book holder may be permitted to be the producer representative because, as the Hon. Member for Vegreville has quite rightly pointed out, the same permit book holder might also be the president of a railroad company. He might be the
president of a firm that trades in grain on the Winnipeg commodity exchange. That is not what we intended when we presented the amendments that have been accepted by the Government.
There does, however, appear to be one possible misinterpretation of these amendments, and that deals with the member of the local Wheat Pool committee. It was certainly not our intention, nor, I am sure, was it the intention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), that that person be excluded from the possibility of election. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to support the amendment that we believe the Minister of Transport intends to bring forward.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member who last spoke for the introduction to his speech. I too have certainly enjoyed the debate this afternoon. It has been educational, edifying and at times even enlightening, but I think it all comes down to the very simple point that all Parties in the House are anxious that two things be accomplished. The purpose of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) was to ensure that the member of the local co-op or pool be not excluded from membership on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I think that is a position that has been clearly endorsed by members of the Official Opposition and certainly by Members on the Government side.
At the same time, we have expressed the concern, as has the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on behalf of his Party, that we did not want a system that would result in double membership by the major organizations that are represented, because that in effect would throw the balance of the committee out of whack. That Grain Transportation Committee is composed of the major institutions. Through this part of the Bill, we are trying to ensure that in effect the grass roots membership would also have an opportunity to be represented on the Transportation Committee to bring to it the particular point of view that they represent.
I think it is possible, Mr. Speaker, to arrive at a solution to those two points of view without doing any injustice to any of the positions taken by Hon. Members. It would require a certain unanimous agreement on behalf of Members of the House. First, if the Hon. Member for Regina West were in agreement to withdraw his Motion No. 30 as it is stated in the orders of the House, I would then be prepared to offer for consideration an amendment that would read as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended at page 3 by deleting lines 34 to 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"or agents of any organization referred to in paragraph (e); and"-
That, in effect, Mr. Speaker, would ensure that anyone from the local level could be elected as part of that producer representation, but that person could not be a person who was going to be a member under the organizational representation as set out in paragraph (e). I think that therefore, guarantees the right that Members have been arguing for over the past two or three hours, and that is, that members of local co-ops, committees and others could in fact be elected without any hesitation. It would not mean, as feared by the Hon. Member,
September 30, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
that the president of a railroad who also held a permit book could be elected as well and therefore have an additional advantage.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this motion might elicit an acceptable agreement from Members of the House. If Hon. Members could indicate their agreement, then perhaps we could go forward and accept the proposed motion and withdraw Motion No. 30, with all due credit being given to all Hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. I do believe an important point has been made and we might as well accept that point and get on with the business.
["Mr. Speaker, I have the consent of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to table the note of September 8, 1983, from Canada to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. and the note of September 14, 1983, from the U.S.S.R. to the Department of External Affairs returning the Department's note of September 8, 1983."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this point, the Chair is of the understanding that if there is agremeent by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to withdraw Motion No. 30 which is before us, the Minister would then move the amendment that he has indicated. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Regina West to withdraw Motion No. 30?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am agreeable but I take it that once the Minister moves the motion that will replace mine, we will then be recognized for some brief debate on his motion. I am quite willing to withdraw mine and proceed with the Minister's motion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we would certainly be in agreement with that proposition and we will be supporting the motion that has been proposed by the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy).
Motion No. 30 (Mr. Benjamin) withdrawn.


Lloyd Axworthy: That Bill C-155 be amended at page 3 by deleting lines 34 to 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"or agents of any organization referred to in paragraph (e); and"-


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 do not intend to take part in the debate at this time, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to suggest to the Chair that if you would look around the House, perhaps you could obtain unanimous consent to revert to tabling of documents, since 1 would like to table a number of documents that I was asked for this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Minister to have leave of the House to return to tabling of documents in order that he may table a document?



Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have the consent of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to table the note of September 8, 1983, from Canada to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. and the note of September 14, 1983, from the U.S.S.R. to the Department of External Affairs returning the Department's note of September 8, 1983.



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.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we have an amendment which covers the ground that all of us are anxious to cover, although 1 must say that the Minister is worrying unnecessarily. However, if it satisfies everybody, fine. In the amendment it says "or agents of any organization referred to in paragraph (e) and". I would point out that under (e), if the President of United Grain Growers is appointed by the United Grain Growers as a representative under paragraph (e) and he chooses to stand for election as one of the four elected people under paragraph (d), obviously he would have to resign as the representative for the United Grain Growers under paragraph (e). He could not sit in both positions. Either the UGG or the grain producers would have one less representative. I do not think any grain company or organization would be that dumb. It was an unnecessary worry on the part of the Minister. It does not make any difference.
Similarly, if the President of the CPR had a grain farm and a Wheat Board permit and chose to run as one of the four representatives democratically elected, in the first place I doubt he would get more than one half of one per cent of the votes of the grain producers in western Canada, but he could not sit in both positions. If he were to win in one, he could not sit in the other.
The Minister is correct in the sense that, hopefully, it would obviate any over-representation by an elected officer. Someone there under paragraph (d) could not be there under (e), or if they were there under (e), they could not be there under (d). I


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act believe that is all that is trying to be accomplished. If that serves to head off any worries which the Minister has, that is fine with us.
I am more pleased that the amendment deletes lines 34 to 37, which should not have been there in the first place. The Conservative Party protests as to what great supporters and advocates they are of the co-operative movement. If that is the case, why did they have the word "co-operative" there in the first place? I tried in committee to persuade them not to have it in there. I will take their word that they are great supporters of the co-operatives and the Wheat Pools. I am pleased that they are prepared now as a further repentance-that is now three or four of them; they will be almost sinless by the time we get through this Bill-to accept the deletion of those four lines of their Conservative Clause, supported by the Liberals. Now the Liberals are prepared to move to delete the lines that they supported that had been moved by the Conservatives, in which case they have both repented, ye sinners.
I could not resist teasing my colleagues in the Liberal and Conservative Parties on that score. It is all on the record of the committee, and certainly on the record of the House. The main point is that Members on all sides of the House are trying to accomplish an objective that we all had, but we could not come up with a wording on which we could all agree. It appears we now have, so we can support the Minister's amendment.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Axworthy) agreed to.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 31
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".


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to be able to speak to this amendment. I have been a trade unionist for 28 years. I strongly hope that we can have agreement in the House that labour should be represented on this important national board. There may have been better ways of organizing grain transportation, but if there is going to be a board like this, it will have an important function. Therefore, it is quite important that there be labour representation on it, as this motion provides.
There will be a number of different major jurisdictions concerned. There are the grain cleaners, grain loaders, the various stages of handling, the elevator employees, the railway workers, the longshoremen, the seamen, that is if Canada ever goes back to having a merchant marine. All these people ought to have a voice on this Grain Transportation Committee.
The basic principle is occasionally recognized in our country, but is not recognized often enough. The principle is simply that the people who do this work could have a voice in the decisions. Whether it is in grain handling at the beginning, the transportation, the loading, the grain handling at the other end, these are the people who do the work that create the surplus out of which wages are paid and profits are found. It is to the benefit of the country as a whole that they should have a voice in directing the work that they are doing. They are on the spot, they see what is needed and what is necessary for their health and safety.
I have 18 years' experience working in a factory which made corrugated paper boxes. I worked as a labourer in all departments, but mainly in the press department. I was a member of what is now the Canadian Paperworkers' Union. I could see day by day the value to the workers, but ultimately to a much wider circle, of having workers listened to in management decisions.
This was just one of 50 plants in this large North American corporation. There was no system of labour representation on any board of directors. Instead, we had to make do with negotiations and consultations between the union in our plant or the unions in other plants and the general management that represented only the large shareholders. Nevertheless, when we got a manager who was prepared to listen to the union, it turned out that not only working conditions and health and safety conditions in the plant were improved, but the plant became more efficient and productive for the benefit of both the workers and the company.
In this situation, the same applies, but there is a further consideration. In this situation the principal shareholder is the people of Canada. Considering the amount of money that has been put into the transportation system and the grain handling system in all of its forms, the pricipal investor in that whole system or complex is the people of Canada. There is, therefore, a more special reason why this principle should be embodied in the structure of the committee, namely, there should be some representation of labour, the people who actually do the work. This is quite distinct from putting in the representation, already provided for, of some of the major corporations that employ the labour. When only they are represented it turns out that they do not do a very good job in the long run because they do not understand the necessity of considering the health, welfare and wisdom of those who actually do the work.
Where public money is involved it is very important that the people doing the cleaning and loading of grain, the grain handling, whether at the elevators or ports, the longshoring and, when Canada comes to its senses and has a merchant marine, the people handling the boats offshore and in the lakes-all these people should have at least one voice in the management of the grain handling industry. They constitute the brain and muscle of a national network without which the grain cannot move to the ports, let alone beyond the ports. They should not be treated as mere muscle; they are brain and
September 30, 1983

muscle and spirit as well. Without their participation we will not have orderly and productive movement of grain.
I therefore urge all Parties in the House to support the amendment to have the Minister appoint a person who represents labour in the handling and transportation of grain.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as we said in committee and on other occasions, we feel it is very important that all segments of the grain industry be represented, at least in an observer capacity. Some concern has been expressed by members of the grain producing community to the effect that they would like to find a way of bringing an action or communicating directly with the labour unions when they withdraw services and cause producers to lose money.
The amendment before us is much the same as that proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) in committee, although his was broader in scope. We supported that amendment.
When we look at the history of the grain handling sector of the economy, it is easy to see why it is important to have representation of some segment of the labour organizations involved in the movement of grain.
A strike began on May 16, 1982, which was settled on July 7, 1972, after 53 days. Ports in British Columbia were closed for 21 days in 1972. On July 26, 1973, a strike began which lasted 33 days. In 1974, grain handlers stopped work on October 10 and the strike lasted 44 days. At that time Mr. Vogel, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, said the strike was costing prairie farmers in western Canada $200 million in lost sales. In 1975, there was a 36-day walkout of grain weighers, a 24-day walkout by longshoremen and a one-day walkout by longshore-foremen. Dock workers at Montreal, Quebec City and Trois Rivieres went on strike for 25 days. In 1978, the strike on Canada's inland shipping fleet lasted for nine days. In 1981, a work stoppage at Thunder Bay lasted for 16 days. In November, 1982, there was another work stoppage.
By accepting the amendment we hope that the Parties involved in the movement of grain, including the unions- those in the grain terminals, the longshoremen and the railroading unions and all others-can be brought together with the four or five real grain producers in the Senior Grain Transportation Committee along with the management of those companies. This is why we think it would be effective for the grain producers to be unfettered and able to represent their fellow producers in discussions between the management of the terminal operators in Vancouver, the management of the railway companies, and the management of the line elevator companies, the people who are so important in the movement of grain.
We feel confident that if there is face to face discussion on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee among members of all segments of the industry, the movement of grain will go much more smoothly and no one will suffer. We therefore support the amendment.
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I was a little disappointed that the Member of the New Democratic Party who spoke in support of the amendment did not explain to the House who this representative would be. Would he belong to the port union, the railway union, the elevator union? There are a lot of workers involved in grain handling who do not belong to any union but they are labour and should be represented. 1 listened intently, hoping to get some guidance on who the labour representative should be.
I agree that the representative of labour should be included as an observer. Of course, the choice is being left to the Minister, and that is as it should be. In the Transport Committee we inserted Clause 10(3) as follows:
The Minister may appoint, and
(a)	a person as his representative
That was so that there will be an observer present representing the Minister, but one who is not allowed to vote or take part in discussions. We also provided for:
(b)	a person who in his opinion represents the producers of crops in the Western Division for the shipment of which a Canadian Wheat Board permit is not required.
Such person could also act as an observer on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
I see nothing wrong with adding a representative of labour as well. This would not make the committee too large, which was a consideration of the Transport Committee. It would allow labour to monitor the meetings and have some indirect input. Some may argue that an observer does not have much say in the proceedings. When the Transport Committee was travelling across Canada and was considering the Bill clause by clause, many observers attended its meetings. As the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) knows very well, some were from the railways, some from labour and some from the various producers. They talked to the committee members. They talked to us before the hearings and after the hearings. Members from all three Parties lobbied us. They played a very important role in the whole process. I see labour also playing a very important role by being given this observer status on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
I would also like to demonstrate to the New Democratic Party that if that Party brings in positive, constructive amendments to this Bill, we will support them. However, if that Party brings in frivolous amendments just to stall the debate and take the time of the House, then we will not support those amendments. The Government is prepared to support positive amendments such as this one. I am announcing to Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party that we, on this side of the House, are ready to support their amendment.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this type of amendment made to this Bill. I am a person who has had the good fortune to work within the labour ranks and from there to go into the role of management. In the

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Port of Vancouver I have had occasion to have many meetings, not only with the senior managers around the port activities but I have also had the pleasure of having hours of discussion with senior labour people. 1 can also remember some years back, when I was a new Member of this House, a group of us quietly going out to see what could be done to break one of the impasses between the longshormen's union, the Grain Workers Union and the railroad union. I made the observation that too often much of the trouble which develops in these confrontations is really created by people whose function it is to work at public relations or in the legal field, legal people and labour lawyers. It was our experience at that time that the impasse was broken only by getting the leaders on the labour side together with the senior people on the industrial side and bypassing the bureaucracy. That brought about a resolution to that particular impasse.
1 believe it is important that some of us who are management oriented realize that there is often more talent in managerial functions on the labour side than there is in the hierarchy of management.
In the Port of Vancouver we have had bottlenecks and unloading problems over the years. I had a conversation with Mr. Henry Kanes, the leader of the Grain Workers' Union, who gets absolutely frustrated with the inability of the industry to bring its parts together and to improve some of the inefficiencies. He feels that some of the inefficiencies caused by management is felt on the backs of the working men. 1 know the frustration which grain workers feel when they know there are simple arrangements which can increase the productivity of the port and the handling of the grain, and which would also increase the take-home pay packet of the grain worker. 1 speak, for instance, Mr. Speaker, of the simple act of the dispatching of grain cars for the elevators in the Port of Vancouver from Kamloops or to some other inland point where the assembly of the trains matches the delivery need of the elevators. I speak simply of enlarging the four-mile switching limit at the Port of Vancouver to 12 miles. These are suggestions which have come from labour. However, when you enlarge the switching limit from 4 miles to 12 miles you immediately run into the interests of the British Columbia railroad which probably has revenues which are dependent on the 4-mile switching limit. However, over-all, the Port of Vancouver could work to advantage on a 12-mile limit.
1 hope that if we put a labour observer into a committee that is as important as this one we can start to break down some of the artificial impediments to the improvements of the productivity of the whole movement system, because if we do not, the farmer is going to suffer along with the individual worker in the system. I feel it would do the attitude to this whole concept much good to bring labour more and more into this type of decision so that it can understand more and more of the problems of the farmer and of the manager. If we do not do this, we are going to have more and more people laid off and more and more labour strikes. We must work at explaining why decisions are made, and spread the knowledge and the reasons behind certain things which are being done. If we
could allow input from the working man into these decisions, I feel we would do much to improve the productivity which this country needs if it is to start creating more jobs and addressing our serious unemployment problem.
1 am very pleased to see all Parties in the House come together on the suggestion that labour should be involved. I feel this will go a long way toward creating a good working relationship for the future.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we tried initially, if I recall, to have this done by way of the Minister appointing a voting member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee from the trade union movement involved in the storage, handling, elevating, loading and unloading and transportation of grain. I do not recall whether I was ruled out of order or whether I was voted down. However, we would still prefer that. One of the major players in the whole system is the worker. However, if this is all we can get for now by way of agreement from the Government and from the Official Opposition, that is fine. It is a beginning. We in this Party are under no illusion that this is a giant step forward, but it is finally a recognition. In legislation which is already in place there is little or no attention paid to workers, nor is any opportunity provided for workers to have some input. The railway workers are represented by somewhere between 15 and 20 different unions. With the grain handlers, one major union and a smaller one are involved. There are two or three unions representing the Great Lakes seamen, the deck officers and the engineers. The Grain Services Union represents country elevator employees in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and some head office employees. There are the terminal elevator employees. There is the Electrical Workers Union. This adds up to about 30 or 35 unions which represent probably in the order of 100,000 workers.
It was interesting to see, Mr. Speaker, the input of individual trade union members and organizations prior to the hearings of the Transport Committee at the time we were holding the hearings, and following. I believe two different federations of labour and at least one city labour council presented briefs to the committee. The Grain Services Union representative appeared on behalf of many hundreds of country elevator agents. Surely that is a good indication, Mr. Speaker, in fact convincing evidence that the workers want to be included. They are in fact interested, they want to do a good job, and they want the opportunity. They have something to contribute. They know about the day-to-day operations in much greater detail and depth than a lot of their managers and foremen do.
The Parliamentary Secretary was wondering how the Minister would go about appointing that person. Well, it seems to me you will have to consult with the Canadian Labour Congress, the umbrella organization, which in turn would need to consult with all its member unions and probably strike a committee to get together and select from their number a person whom the Minister could appoint as an observer. It would not necessarily be the same person every year. Maybe
September 30, 1983

you could have two different people each year, one year someone from the grain handlers union, another year someone from the railway brotherhood, or some other organization. 1 would think the CLC would be the most convenient vehicle, or else the Minister himself could consult with the trade union organizations and the CLC and strike a committee of all unions involved in all aspects of grain handling and transportation. He could have them select from one of their number a person he can appoint as an observer.
I am assuming that this person who was there as an observer would at least have a voice but no vote. If all he can do is to sit there and observe, then you might as well mail him a copy of the minutes and he can stay home. But when there is a problem among the unions, or something like that, the union observer will be consulted and asked to participate in the meetings of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to offer solutions, ideas, suggestions and tell the committee what their problems are. But if he is not going to have a voice, then he can stay home, read the minutes and save the expense of going to the meetings.
Let me illustrate an area we heard about in committee, especially from the railroads and once in a while from a Government Member and some other organizations, this business of weekend loading of railway cars at country elevators. 1 can tell you that the grain service union representing country elevator agents, and the elevator companies, when they co-operated with the railroads to spot some cars Friday night, they loaded them Saturday and Sunday for pick up Sunday night or Monday morning, there were a number of instances where this was done. The railroads brought the cars in, the employees and the elevator company worked like dogs over the weekend, loaded the cars, and a week later they were still sitting there. But they are willing to co-operate.
There is some dispute between the elevator agents and some of the grain companies regarding the 40 hours a week. I believe they can work it out because it is very similar to the dispute at the time when the 40 hour week was adopted in 1950 in the railroads. They can work it out and I am sure they will. But on the whole matter of weekend loading, both the elevator companies and the elevator agents as well as the grain services' unions can be most helpful. It is just a case of not listening to the railroads only, as has been to damn the case over the years.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I can get confirmation from the Parliamentary Secretary that not only will the observer have a voice but also that it will be the intention of the Government at some early date to provide for a voting member, at least one, from the trade union movement involved in the transportation of grain. When I was on the railroad myself, heavily involved in the strike of 1950, which all of us hated, over the 40 hours a week, and in every episode since, much of the difficulty and problems which led or contributed to a breakdown and a strike or lock-out could have been avoided if there had been a lot more involvement from the unions in the day-to-day operations and year-to-year decision making, whether it is on technological change or on how to do something more efficiently. The
Western Grain Transportation Act
Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is perfectly correct; it is not only the grain handlers union in Vancouver. If you talk to railroaders in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay, the mess which passes for a distribution system in those three locations is incredible. In the name of competition you have two or three railroads running all over the darn city using up valuable land which could be used for houses, when they could all be running on the same set of three or four tracks instead of having a dozen tracks all over the city. The railway brotherhood unions have a contribution to make in this area.
If the Government were willing to reconsider and bring in an amendment of its own, I am certain we could have unanimous consent to increase the voting members of this committee by one or two. So what? Bring in an amendment, in which case I would be glad to withdraw my own. Add one or two more representatives selected by the trade union movement and appointed by the Minister. That would go a long way toward helping in this massive task which all the players have. It would help to head off in advance potential misunderstandings, breakdowns in communication, and confrontation. It would help to head off a lot of that. My own experience as both an employee and an employer is that when you had people working with you and not for you, you got a lot more work done, and done a lot better, and you had a much more loyal group of employees no matter what the size of the operation. But the present practices of management have brought about troubles of their own making, so I hope the Parliamentary Secretary, in response to my question, will be permitted to confirm that the observer will have a voice. I know he cannot have a vote. The Government should consider, during the course of report stage, bringing an amendment of its own to add one or two more people to the committee who would be appointed with a voice from the trade union movement.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I know 1 cannot speak twice but I would like to draw the Hon. Member's attention to Clause 11 which allows the committee to determine its own rules of conduct. He will find his answer in that clause.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the discussion very briefly at this point on, I am happy to say, a more peaceful tone perhaps than some of the previous incursions. First of all, I should like to give support to the amendment submitted in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), particularly as I am one who has had considerable direct experience in the involvement of employees in management decision-making, in fact in the company in which I am still on the seniority list. That was an experiment which produced healthy results in my own community. At least they were good results until the "BCRICing" of that company in British Columbia, an Act which terminated any local management, not to mention employee involvement in that management.
It was a worth-while experience, and 1 think it was generally recognized as such by Parties all around that table and in that given community. Because of that experience and my own

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
belief in the worth of such exercises, even if it is just representation in an observer capacity, as is mentioned in the amendment, I would particularly like to say how pleased I was to hear the comments of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) a few minutes ago, a Member with whom I often find myself in disagreement, even if we do not argue directly very often. My experience is much the same as his, that when representatives of working people and representatives of the management side of industry are able to work together over extended periods of time wearing a common hat, there is a greater understanding and non-conflict created during the long process of non-conflict situations which can be very useful in overcoming some of these instances which must of necessity occur from time to time in the adversary relationship that takes place around collective bargaining. There is a great deal to be said for the kind of common understanding that is built during such a period. That is an essential lesson in conflict management, one which this nation and its component parts really must learn if we are to continue to survive and grow as a nation and as a community in the way we should.
I would also like to say that I appreciate what seems to be the tone adopted so far by Members from all corners of the House in the debate on this particular amendment. In so doing, 1 would also like to pay tribute, which I think is appropriate, to one of my colleagues who succeeded, together with the stroke of rationality that struck both the Government and the Official Opposition, in having the thrust of his last amendment accepted. As one who studies more than just human behaviour from time to time, I would like to quote briefly from a text which 1 believe to be appropriate, particularly to the Hon. Member for Regina West but also to the process in which we are engaged. In a book entitled "On Aggression" by Konrad Lorenz, some time is spent discussing the habits of a species of bird called jackdaws, which is actually the second most common variety of crow, a species which seems rather appropriate to our discussion. It states:
In jackdaws, and in many other very social birds, ranking order leads directly to protection of the weaker ones.
It continues:
Since high-ranking jackdaws, particularly males, interfere in every quarrel between two inferiors, this graduation of social tension has the desirable effect that the higher-ranking birds always intervene in favour of the losing party.
In jackdaws, another form of "authority" is already linked with the ranking position which the individual has acquired by its aggressive drive. The expression movements of a high-ranking jackdaw, particularly of an old male, are given much more attention by the colony members than those of a lower-ranking, young bird. For example, if a young bird shows fright at some meaningless stimulus, the others, especially the older ones, pay almost no attention to his expressions of fear. But if the same sort of alarm proceeds from one of the old males, all the jackdaws within sight and earshot immediately take flight. Since, in jackdaws, recognition of predatory enemies is not innate but is learned by every individual from the behaviour of experienced old birds, it is probably of considerable importance that great store is set by the "opinion" of old, high-ranking, and experienced birds.
I believe many people in the farming communities of western Canada would join with me in giving credit to the Hon. Member for Regina West who is certainly, in my own caucus,
one of the oldest, highest-ranking and most experienced of old birds.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some bird.


John Leslie Evans: Also one of the ugliest.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, just briefly I want to rise and associate myself with the expression of support that emanated from the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). We certainly have no difficulty in supporting Motion No. 31, which provides for a person representing labour and the handling of the transportation of grain to attend all or any meetings of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as an observer, and that appointment would obviously be made by the Minister. As has been said by myself and other Hon. Members, the importance of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and the work that it will do centres around the hope that all components of the system will be represented at the table. It is fair to say that there are some perhaps who may well have wished that the unions, the labour movement, had been included as a system participant, because they are vitally and integrally involved in the transportation of grain.
As outlined in the interpretation section of the Bill, "system participant" means any corporation, partnership or organization engaged in the transportation of grain by rail or the shipping or handling of grain for transportation by rail as designated by the Governor in Council individually or by class. Because of the unique role that the labour movement plays in the orderly flow or movement of grain, I think a good argument could be made, because with that designation go some responsibilities as well.
I want to speak on the matter of reliability as an objective in our grain transportation system. Throughout the Bill, the original draft of the Bill, one sees the objective of the grain handling and transportation as being efficient and effective. We in our Party tried to incorporate the word "reliability" at every occasion possible. We felt that that was a clear objective and, that the Senior Grain Transportation Committee should cite it as an objective, because I think that if there is anything that has tarnished and damaged our reputation as a supplier of grain, it would probably not exceed the concept of reliability. In order for Canada to reap the kind of sales that it needs in the competitive marketplace and to receive the kind of premium prices that we hope to achieve, reliability becomes paramount.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydmin-ster outlined a number of labour disruptions that have occurred over the last ten year and which have certainly hurt Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier of grain, and that goes without saying. To the extent that we can reduce the kind of labour disruption that occurs which, in turn, would reduce the disruption of the smooth and orderly flow of grain to all ports and hence to our markets, anything we could do in the
September 30, 1983

Bill to achieve that goal would certainly be a step in the right direction.
I certainly welcome the motion that has been advanced. As the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster indicated, we did support the concept in committee and we will certainly support it now. I simply want to repeat that we have a grain transportation and handling system that is very complex. It depends upon the decisions of a great many people. It depends upon whether we face the challenges of geography. Naturally, we will be faced with strikes and labour disruptions, but we hope we can reduce those to a minimum and thereby increase the potential earnings of the producer. I think that the word "reliability", as a logical goal in achieving a worthwhile grain transportation and handling system, is something for which we should all strive. It ties in very closely with our other thrust, namely the need to maximize returns to the producers. That should be the bottom line objective of our efforts with this Bill in order to ensure that they receive top dollars for their grain and that they can move their grain rather than store it and have it become a very costly item in terms of storage and lost revenue.
Let me repeat the importance of having everyone at the table. Again I must say that it boggles my mind when the NDP suggests that representatives of the railways should not sit or the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It is incomprehensible and certainly illogical.
1 think there is sufficient latitude under Clause 10 for the Minister to appoint a person as his representative or a person who, in his opinion represents the producers of crops in the western division for the shipment of which a Canadian Wheat Board permit is not required. 1 think, to that extent, that we can allow the Senior Grain Transportation Commitee to have observers. If we include a union representitive, that will certainly be of assistance in having all components at the bargaining table. I also find it strange that the NDP, which dismissed the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as a non-entity, is now suggesting that it is a pretty important component of this legislation. I presume that by the process of osmosis they are either getting hooked or led into supporting this Bill, it seems they have come a long way from their original stance when debate on this Bill began. At that time they said they would do everything in their power to obstruct it and everything possible to ensure that the Bill did not move forward an inch in the House of Commons. We now see them proposing constructive amendments, as the Parliamentary Secretary alluded to earlier.
If there is any confusion in anyone's mind, it certainly must be in the minds of the supporters of the NDP because they are now making a strong case for having all components of the system, except the railways, represented on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I believe that they sense that this committee will have a great amount of influence over future policies of grain handling and transportation in Canada.
Western Grain Transportation Act
1 think it goes without saying that while it is important to have a representative on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, it is also important that he carries with it an obligation. When the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) makes his pitch to have labour represented, I hope he recognizes that the farmers of Canada will be looking to that labour representative for some leadership in ensuring that the rank and file workers, who can either allow the shipments to proceed or to stop, act responsibly. 1 hope it is taken for granted that the producers and all other representatives on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee will be expecting the labour movement to discharge its responsibility in a manner which will not impair the orderly movement of grain and that the labour representative will ensure that that happens.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak in support of this motion, particularly as it relates to the labour unions and workers being represented on the Grain Transportation Committee. One of the problems which farmers face is strikes. When there is even a rumour of a strike in the Prairies there is a great deal of concern on the part of the farmer. Usually those strikes come at a time when there is a maximum need for the movement of grain which is at the end of July or following road ban time or when there has been a glut of grain. As the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) noted, at that time the bins are bulging and storage is needed.
It is most important that there be a representative of labour on this committee so that dialogue can take place between all of the players. I think it is important to point out that this is the direction our Party has taken through the debate.
1 wrote down three words expressed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville which I believe exemplify the direction in which the committee has attempted to head. There are "fair and equitable representation of all segments".
Let me deal with the question of fairness. Certainly it would only be fair to have some representation from the labour to present its views as it is fair to have producers, grain companies, rail companies, commissioners and the Wheat Board. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the NDP has decided that it does not want representatives from the railroads, if one can believe that. How can problems be negotiated in the Senior Grain Transportation Committee if all of the players are not represented around the table?
The Hon. Member then referred to equality. Since I had the privilege of being the first to speak-other than a couple of words from the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)-I can go back to the basics that were laid out in Motion No. 27 which amended exactly the same thing that was introduced in Motion No. 26. We simply have a continuation of that in dealing with the members who relate very directly to the Grain Transportation Committee.
I am very happy to see the progress that is being achieved in the House. It is the direction that our Party believed we could achieve from the outset in the committee and at report stage as well. In our motion, we wanted equality for the grain compa-

September 30, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act nies; three representatives from each grain company, three from the line companies and three from the co-operatives. 1 believe that is fair and equitable. We have now reached that goal. We wanted representation from the primary producer, and the amendment put forward by my colleague for Kinders-iy-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) achieved that in committee with one producer from Alberta, two from Saskatchewan and one from Manitoba-none of which was directly related to the grain companies.
It is most important that we have someone from labour represented on the greater Grain Transportation Committee which can represent its problems about the bottlenecks that exist and also relate to the problems that farmers have in moving their grain.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I realize that five o'clock is coming close. I believe, however, that we have had a pretty good examination of this particular amendment. As my Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, again we share the sentiments of the other side of the House and we believe that this is a useful amendment and we are prepared to adop it. I would hope that we could call the question on this issue so that on Monday we could start fresh on a brand new set of ideas and issues.
Before doing that, however, I would like the agreement of the House to spend a short minute or two on something that I would like to express to the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would simply say that I agree with the spirit of the amendment but I want to qualify it to this extent:
1 think it is very important that, as the Minister making such an appointment, I have a way of doing so that would be acceptable to the union movement as well as make it easier for me to expedite my duties. I would want to offer a suggestion. 1 believe there is a transportation grain handlers' subcommittee of the CLC. I would suggest that I work with them or have them put forward nominations of that kind so that they would be able to choose a person who would best reflect the various union interests. I know there are several major unions of that kind involved and I would prefer to have them make the nomination, which I could in turn respond to. Perhaps 1 could be in contact with the President of the CLC to work out some arrangement of that kind to make sure there was a broad base of support.
With that qualification, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could have the agreement of the House to call the question on this particular amendment.


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I may have misunderstood the Minister, or perhaps he misunderstood me. I said that we were agreeable to allowing the Minister to take his minute or two. However, my colleague the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) would like to speak for four or five minutes and my colleague the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) would like to speak as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 3, 1983