1983-10-17

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 13, 1983 consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 35 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak on this important amendment introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to Clause 17 of Bill C-155. Since I am the first speaker this morning, perhaps I could clarify the purpose of this amendment.
Clause 17 sets out the duties and functions of the Administrator under the Act. He has a number of duties set out in Clause 1 through Clause 4 and Members of the House will recall that an amendment was introduced at committee stage introducing Subclause (4). Motion No. 35 would change Subclause (4). As it now stands. Subclause (4) gives the Administrator certain powers which we in this Party believe to be detrimental to the long-term interests of the farming community in Canada. It reads as follows:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
The purpose of our amendment is to ensure that where such agreements are entered into, they are not done so in a way which could lead to the abandonment of rail lines, particularly in rural parts of Canada such as the proposed abandonment of the E & N Railway on Vancouver Island. The amendment would permit this substitution to take place only in certain circumstances. My colleague's amendment would strike out line 25 at page 8 and substitute the following:
[DOT] (mo)
-the grain producers, but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission.
This amendment is of absolutely fundamental importance, Mr. Speaker. Were it not to be included in the provisions of the legislation, what would happen very quickly is that the rail shippers would argue that the shipment of grain by rail on certain branch lines had become unprofitable because their volumes had gone down. That would have happened because they would have substituted transportation by truck.
Among other things, we are concerned that the trucking companies in question are none other than those owned by the railway companies, whether it be CPR or CNR. They will use the device of transfer to trucking as a means of accelerating the abandonment of these branch lines which are so vital in so many rural communities.
Questions have been raised by some Members of the Official Opposition about the possibility that this could cause hardship in the event a branch line became unserviceable for a period of time through, for example, a bridge washout or if the line was soft and the producer would not have an opportunity to transport grain by rail. The Official Opposition has claimed that this amendment would somehow preclude the producer from shipping in the most efficient manner.
I believe my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West, answered that objection admirably in committee, but since the objection has been raised in the House, I think it is important to deal with it. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) said if there was a washout on the Medicine Hat line, for example, that under the circumstances of the amendment that is before the House it would block the Administrator from paying for that grain to go from the Cardston primary elevator. The Hon. Member for Regina West pointed out that in those circumstances the Canadian Wheat Board will make alternate arrangements and these arrangements will often be for trucking. It has done that on a number of occasions in the past, and certainly if this amendment were to be implemented-as I know the House will see fit to do-there would be no problem whatsoever with the Wheat Board picking up the slack in the event of a bridge washout on one of these lines. What we are attempting to do is to ensure that the branch lines are not abandoned by a mechanism which would accelerate its profit to go to CP.
Some people would ask in whose interest this is, and I will come to that in a moment in terms of the contributions made by CP and CN to the Government and the Official Opposition. I think it is relevant and important that, in examining the purpose of the amendment, we know precisely in whose interests we are dealing.
I should like to turn to another area now and examine the experience of the State of Iowa which I believe is most relevant. As Hon. Members will know, Iowa is an intensive
COMMONS DEBATES_________________October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act grain growing area and there has been a transfer from grain movement by rail to road to inland terminals similar to what would be implied by the provisions of Bill C-155 if our amendment were not adopted. The State of Iowa found that its highway system was being worn out by heavy trucks two or three times as fast as the government of Iowa could afford to repair or replace it. As a result, it went back to the old system of subsidizing existing railroad branch lines to keep the grain moving by rail. It found this to be much cheaper than looking after the additional costs of highway maintenance and upgrading.
The only interest which would be served by allowing Subclause (4) of Clause 17 to go through in its present form would be the interests of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. As is documented in the official records of political contributions in Canada, in 1982 the Liberal Party of Canada received some $50,000 from Canadian Pacific and the Conservative Party of Canada received $50,000 from Canadian Pacific. In the three previous years, 1981, 1980 and 1979, $128,000 was given to the Liberals by CP and its 12 affiliates and $134,000 was given to the Conservative Party by CP and its 12 affiliates. So we see in whose interests the proposed Subclause (4) of Clause 17 was written, and it is for that reason that we believe it has to be qualified in the manner suggested here.
I would also like to note that in a submission before the Transport Committee in Regina on August 8, 1983, a Mr. Charles Phelps, president of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, made this statement with respect to the amendment which is now before the House:
If the Crow rate is abolished the railways will have the flexibility to charge different rates on different lines by charing higher rates on lines that are less profitable, lower rates on lines that are profitable. The railways will have an economic level to persuade farmers to truck their grain to certain points and abandon others. This tactic, coupled with the presence of large inland terminals, will force the farmers to haul to inland terminals or pay higher freight rates to keep their local elevators open. If they are forced by this economic pressure to haul to inland terminals, the local elevator will close and, as recent studies have shown, the local community will decline very quickly after the local elevator has been shut down.
We know the vital importance of keeping the local elevators open in rural Saskatchewan communities.
This will have a serious negative impact on the nature and viability of rural life in small towns.
In terms of the substance of the amendment itself, it is very important to note that this amendment would insist that there be no alternate shipping of grain by truck unless the Canadian Transport Commission ordered the abandonment of the alternate rail line. The reason this provision is so important is to allow people in these rural communities the opportunity to make submissions to the CTC with respect to the importance of a particular rail line.
We are all aware of this Liberal Government's policy on rail line abandonment, including the Esquimalt and Northern rail line on Vancouver Island. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that those people in rural communities who are vitally
affected by the abandonment of a rail line would have an opportunity for input into that decision.
Were this amendment not to be accepted, there is a real possibility that CP Rail could proceed to enter into cozy little arrangements with the Administrator within the provisions of Clause 17(4) so it can move grain by trucks which are owned by a CP subsidiary. Following that, CP would then argue that the traffic on the rail line itself has declined in importance and ultimately suggest that that particular rail line has outlived its usefulness even though it may be the lifeblood of a particular community and the elevator in question may be vitally important to that community. CP would then appear before the CTC to make its appeal, as it has in the past. We know this Government s record and I do not think we can suggest that any other government headed by the Official Opposition would treat the matter any differently. Thus we would see an essential branch line abandoned without any input whatsoever from the citizens in that particular community.
Therefore I believe it is essential that this motion be adopted. I have mentioned the example of the State of Iowa and, in the context of other Provinces and States, the Iowa state transportation agency has given us a clear warning that we should not permit the mistake that was made in Iowa to be repeated in other grain growing jurisdictions.
This motion would prohibit the use of subsidized trucking to compete for traffic with existing branch lines. Certainly where a branch line has been formally abandoned by order of the CTC, we would want to ensure that the grain in question would be effectively and efficiently carried to the nearest rail line. However, when a branch line is still an essential element of a particular community, we certainly would not want to see a callous abandonment of that line as is possible under Clause 17(4) in its existing form. We would also note that Clause 17(4) as it exists could be used to facilitate other undesirable steps, such as making the abandonment of elevators and branch lines more palatable or the establishment of a system of inland terminals as a result of permitting the growth of trucking to them.
I will not go on at great length because I believe I have stated the essential points I wanted to make. I see you are rising, Mr. Speaker. Are you indicating that my time is up?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate which, as most Members of this House know, has a great bearing on my constituency because of the construction of the world-class grain elevator system in the Port of Prince Rupert.
Before us now is Motion No. 35, to amend Clause 17(4) which reads as follows:
October 17, 1983

The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
Our amendment adds the following words:
-the grain producers, but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), made it quite clear that simply in terms of process this is a very important route to take to ensure that those residents of small rural communities have an opportunity to appear before the CTC to make their views known in terms of what the impact on their community would be if grain that was traditionally and historically moving from a country elevator on a branch line was to be moved by a different mode of transport, primarily that of rubber.
A point made in committee, one which has been made by my colleagues in the House, that is the money to pay for the rubber hauling of grain as opposed to its movement by rail would not come from the Crow Bill as is proposed before this House. There is a bit of mythology being circulated in this country that the money that would subsidize the movement of grain by rubber would somehow come from the Crow Bill itself. That simply is not true, as is pointed out by Government officials who appeared before the Transport Committee. They pointed out the money would come from the branch line rehabilitation fund which we know is already short about $600 million. We have seen, certainly since the 1977 hearings held by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, that an awful lot of branch line funds that were supposedly going to be used by CN and CP to bring their branch lines into a reasonable state of quality simply were not used by the rail lines, and now Parliament has already had to introduce special funds in terms of another rehabilitation fund to ensure that those lines are picked up.
What we would see by leaving Clause 17(4) as it now stands is a self-fulfilling prophecy in many ways; for instance, the competition that would be coming from the rubber haul, 1 know Members of the Official Opposition have been saying, and certainly the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) was saying on Thursday, that what the NDP is trying to do is to stop any kind of subsidy payments going to those commercial haulers and producers who are hauling grain in areas where there are no branch lines. Far be it the position of this Party to say that where there are no branch lines there should not be some kind of compensatory payments to those individuals, farmers and producers who have to haul simply to get to the branch lines.
What we are saying in terms of this amendment specifically is that there should not be abuse of the branch line rehabilitation fund in areas where there is an existing branch line and country elevator to bring rubber hauling into a more competitive position.
My colleague from Burnaby made a very important point that I plead with Government Members to listen and pay some attention to. I refer to the information given to the Transport Committee regarding the difficulties which the State of Iowa
Western Grain Transportation Act
encountered when it made a very unfortunate move and allowed legislation very similar to the existing Clause 17(4) to come into existence, which was to make rubber movement of grain competitive to rail. The State of Iowa discovered that its highway system was being worn out by heavy commercial trucks hauling grain two to three times as fast as the government of Iowa could afford to repair and replace it with its existing system of financing roads. The State of Iowa moved to introduce a system of law similar, if not identical, to what is being proposed by the NDP and should be supported simply for economic and fiscal reasons, above and beyond some other points which I will be raising in a few minutes. What the State of Iowa found after bringing in legislation, similar to Motion No. 35 that we are proposing, was that it was cheaper by an enormous amount to move grain once again by rail. They had gone to rail, then they went to rubber, and now they are back to rail. The Iowa state transportation agency has warned other jurisdictions, in particular Canada, not to permit the mistake of transferring such movement from rail to road.
There has been an enormous abandonment of branch lines in Canada already, simply as a result of the legislation passed through the House. The Crow Bill would dramatically exacerbate the abandonment of rail lines because of the self-fulfilling design of Clause 17(4) which indicates that the Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements that are deemed to be in the best interests of grain producers. We are talking about a Bill which is making use of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars. We know already from evidence given by farmers that they are worried about losing 30,000 or 40,000 farms because of the impact of Crow changes above and beyond those we are talking about in Clause 17(4). We are talking about losing 30,000 or 40,000 farms in the Peace area and in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The impact of losing that number of farms will be felt by schools, those who pay municipal taxes and small enterprises, whether it be farm implement suppliers, fertilizer suppliers, local butcher stores or hardware stores. We are talking about a very dramatic shift in population on the Prairies as a result of the Crow Bill as a whole.
We are pleading for common sense in terms of economics and that we follow the warning signal of the State of Iowa and not allow a massive shifting over from rail to road. As I said in previous speeches, it might look good for a little while. CP and CN-CN has one of the largest trucking firms in Canada- say that we should look at all the jobs being created for truckers and commercial haulers, that we should look at the tires being sold, the new repair shops coming on line, and so on. It is a myth that those are real jobs. We can only talk about that kind of job creation out of one side of our mouths, because we know at the other end or in other areas of the system that we are losing farms and tens of thousands of jobs as a result of poorly thought out legislation.
As my colleagues and I have said before, the Government of Canada stands indicted for not having brought before the House the proper economic information on the number of
28054

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act farms which will be lost as a result of the Crow Bill as it now stands in comparison with the number of farms that will be lost as a result of the amendments of the New Democratic Party. We should know what will be the impact of going ahead with Clause 17(4) without the kind of process about which we are talking. It would mean a branch line must be abandoned by the Canadian Transport Commission. The butcher, the hardware store owner, the school teacher or persons living in rural Saskatchewan or the Peace area of British Columbia for their whole lives or three or four generations should have the opportunity of not only sending postcards to their Members of Parliament but of appearing before the CTC to indicate what they think the costs will be to their municipalities for moving grain by road and to say: "Sure, we are getting the subsidy from the branch line rehabilitation fund, but by not having money in that fund, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy". As we lose the branch lines by using the money to rubber haul, we lose communities and farmers, and the grain trade in Canada becomes less competitive and less in the interests of Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) introduced this motion. He is presumed to have spoken when he introduced it. Is he seeking to be recognized to speak?


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the rules. The motion is in my name but the lead-off speaker was my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). I have not made my ten-minute speech yet. However, if the Chair is to enforce the rule, I would be grateful if it would enforce it with the next series of motions. On Motions Nos. 31 and 32 this occurred. It occurred dozens of times in the committee. I am sure the Chair will appreciate that when you have to file motions in advance with the Chairman and the clerk of the committee, you do not know who will be available to speak one day, two days, or a week later. Similarly at report stage, when motions have to be filed within a certain deadline, you have no way of knowing what Members will be in the House days later. Therefore, you have no choice but to put motions in under one or two names.
I am not quarrelling with the rule. I am just asking if the Chair would be good enough to start applying the rule, if it chooses to do so, with the next series of motions. With the short notice on this one, I would be grateful for the indulgence of the Chair and the House to make my ten-minute speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rule and procedure of the House is clear. When a motion is introduced in a Member's name, he is presumed to have spoken. The Hon. Member would need the unanimous consent of the House to be recognized at this stage. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Regina West to'be recognized?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
According to the interpretation given by the Chair previously, Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 will be grouped for debate at this point.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 36
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 44 to 47 at page 8 and lines 1 to 41 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"should be met by any railway company
(d)	monitor the performance of the railway companies to ascertain whether or not they are meeting the performance objectives referred to in paragraph (c); and
(e)	develop, for possible implementation under section 21, a scheme of sanctions applicable to railway companies and make recommendations to the Minister on the advisability of implementing that scheme."
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 18 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"mented under section 21, but awards and sanctions for system participants other than the railway companies shall be non-pecuniary in nature;"
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 18 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"mented under section 21, but such awards and sanctions shall not involve the allocation of railway cars nor affect the quota system of the Canadian Wheat Board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, these three motions have to do with the part of the system having to do with awards and sanctions that can be applied by the Senior Grain Transportation Administrator. It is a one-man position, but the legislation calls for him to be an agency of the Crown. I do not know of any other one-man agency anywhere in government. There may be, I do not know, but I have never heard of it.
We have a ridiculous situation within the legislation as it now reads. One Crown agency can place sanctions on or make
October 17, 1983

awards to another Crown agency. If the Grain Transportation Administrator was mad at the Canadian Wheat Board, he could impose sanctions, monetary or otherwise, on the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is under the jurisdiction of the Minister in the other place and the Grain Transportation Administrator will be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy).
I have never heard of one Cabinet Minister relishing another Cabinet Minister's interfering with something that comes under his responsibility. The Administrator could issue sanctions against the Canadian Grain Commission. The Canadian Grain Commission is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The Administrator is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. I can see the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture in a boxing match out behind the Centre Block if that were to happen! It is ridiculous.
Second, if a sanction is awarded against the Canadian Wheat Board, it involves the grain producers' money. If the Chief Commissioner, any other Commissioner or the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board fouled up and made some good goofs, it is up to the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to fire him or do something about it. There should be no possibility of one Crown agency imposing sanctions on or making awards to another Crown agency, particularly when they come under different Departments.
Third, it allows the Administrator to make sanctions against and awards for elevator companies. The Canadian Wheat Board already has a system for sanctions against grain companies. If they ship the wrong grade, quality or kind of grain, there are sanctions provided and implemented by the Canadian Wheat Board against that grain company. It may lose a certain number of car allocations or there may be some other kind of penalty. Similarly, the Canadian Grain Commission has a method for penalties. If a grain company grades a grain wrongly, abuses a grain producer by way of the dockage that is permitted or the handling or elevation charges, the Canadian Grain Commission has the authority over that company.
We submit that the only place the Administrator should have the power to make sanctions is with regard to the railroads. This is a transportation Bill. It is not a farm Bill but an anti-farm Bill. If there are to be sanctions and awards made by anybody on the system participants, as they are called, it should be on the railroads or on some ports or the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, because they are part of the transportation system for grain as well as other commodities.
Motions Nos. 37 and 38 are designed to remove any possibility of weakening or removing the authority and scope of the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. Those authorities should remain with the Canadian Wheat Board. It should have the authority to ensure that there is an adequate supply of railway cars to move board grain which constitutes the overwhelming majority of grain shipments. It should have the authority to ensure that no grain company is treated unfairly in the allocation of railway cars. I am particularly concerned, as are all of us from the west, with the possibility of a lessening
Western Grain Transportation Act of the share of grain movement placed upon the three Wheat Pools and the United Grain Growers.
These motions are designed to prevent the private grain trade and particularly foreign-owned grain companies from moving in on a market to which they are not entitled. They are designed to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board quota system is not distorted through sanctions imposed which could cause car shortages, and to ensure that the block system, which is functioning extremely well under the aegis of the Canadian Wheat Board, is not disrupted. They are also designed to ensure that sanctions in themselves are not disruptive to the system as a whole.
I simply do not understand why we would need the capacity in the legislation to allow a one-man agency to have the authority to impose sanctions and awards on an organization such as the Canadian Wheat Board, which is recognized as the most efficient and competent grain marketing agency in the world. It does a better job than any other agency in any other exporting nation. It is recognized by its customers as being dependable and honest in its dealings with its customers. It is held in the highest regard by all people in western Canada and by all people who support the principle of the orderly marketing of grain.
Our Motion No. 37 would limit the capacity of the Senior Grain Transportation Administrator, an agency of the Crown, to applying sanctions and awards only to the railroads. The legislation now provides for him to apply sanctions and awards to all system participants. That could include the Canadian Transport Commission, the Railway Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board. It could provide for sanctions and awards to be applied to any grain company and, I suspect, even to producers.
It is inconceivable to me, Mr. Speaker, as it was to many of us on the committee, that we could see this spectable of several Crown agencies fighting and squabbling over the whole matter of an award or sanction, whether it was monetary or not. What could the Grain Transportation Administrator do by way of a sanction on the Canadian Grain Commission, for example? Can he fire any of its employees who may have made serious errors and caused harm to the movement, handling and transportation of grain? Can he levy fines? Can he fire members of the Canadian Grain Commission? What can he do, Mr. Speaker?
When we in committee asked these questions of the Deputy Minister, he said: "Everbody agrees that the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a good job and that the Canadian Grain Commission is doing a good job, but we thought it would be a good idea to have this in the legislation to see whether or not it would work or how it would work". If the bureaucrats want to experiment, Mr. Speaker, they can darn well experiment with something other than the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Grain Commission.

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
I hope, Sir, that we have the support of Hon. Members on all sides of the House. 1 think the Government itself must be questioning this nonsense of one Crown agency being able to levy a sanction or award on another. It simply is not practical, it will not work and can do nothing but cause more harm to the system of the handling, storage and transportation of grain.
I hope that these amendments will be supported, Mr. Speaker. I am asking for their support because of what occurred in the Transport Committee. I am confident that the amendments make sense, are practical and retain the powers and authorities of the Canadian Wheat Board, the mandate of which is to operate on behalf of the grain producers and no one else.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the intent of Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 is to limit the authority of the Grain Transportation Administrator over the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission. I really do not see how Members of the House could have any problem with that.
We all know, and it has been documented time and time again, that the problem with our grain delivery system when it does break down is not with the Wheat Board or the Grain Commission. The problem is with the railway companies. It is the railway companies that leave grain cars sitting for as long as 90 days at country elevators when the grain in those cars is needed for export sales. It is the representatives of the railway companies who tell the agent of a country elevator that they will pick up a car on Monday, making it necessary for the agent to work through the weekend filling that car, when in the end the car is left sitting for another two or three days.
The problem with our grain delivery system, Mr. Speaker, is not that producers cannot get the grain to the elevator in time to be marshalled for export. It is not that when the grain gets to the terminals in Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay, Vancouver or Churchill that it is needlessly held up. The problem is and has been for some time now that the railways cannot seem to meet their obligations to move grain from the elevators to port quickly and efficiently. The railways have been responsible for leaving millions of dollars worth of grain sitting in rail cars on sidings by country elevators when it should be at the terminals being loaded on to ships for export.
The first of this group of amendments, Mr. Speaker, is Motion No. 36. What does it do? This motion restricts the authority of the Grain Transportation Administrator to apply sanctions for failing to meet performance objectives only to the railways. It also removes the authority of the Administrator to grant awards to the railways for meeting their performance objectives. Motion No. 36 is the broadest of the three in this group and it is the one that I think the House should accept, Mr. Speaker. Since Motions Nos. 37 and 38 are consequential to Motion No. 36, I will focus my attention on Motion No. 36.
First, why do we want to restrict the authority of the Administrator to apply sanctions only to the railway companies? Would it not be valuable to have those sanctions applied
to the Wheat Board and to the Grain Commission as well? I think it is pretty evident that those sanctions should not apply to the Wheat Board and to the Grain Commission. I have already mentioned the documented fact that it is the railways that have been, and continue to be, the problem in the grain delivery system. It is the railways that leave grain cars sitting on the sidings by country elevators when those cars, as I have said, are needed in Thunder Bay, Churchill or one of the other terminals.
That is not the only reason for applying sanctions only to the railways. As my diligent colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), tried to explain time and again in committee, the Canadian Grain Commission is itself responsible for regulating the quality of grain and the allocation of grain cars. It is already responsible to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The Canadian Wheat Board is responsible for marshalling grain and selling it for export and is already responsible to the Wheat Board Minister. It seems to me that either of these agencies ball up the delivery of grain to port. Their respective Ministers already have the authority to do what has to be done to straighten the problem out. What is the need of another regulatory agency overseeing these regulatory agencies?
Without this amendment, Mr. Speaker, we will find ourselves in the ludicrous situation of having a system of awards and sanctions established by one regulatory agency, the Grain Transportation Administrator, to regulate another regulatory agency, the Canadian Wheat Board, itself responsible for regulating other system participants such as the elevator companies and the terminal elevators. We will have a situation where one regulatory agent, the Grain Transportation Administrator, is regulating another regulatory agency, the Canadian Grain Commission, itself responsible for regulating producer cars, grades and type and quality of grains. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we would have regulatory agencies or top of regulatory agencies.
The Liberals and the Tories, who have accepted this scheme in committee, have already given new meaning to bureaucratic overkill, and that is not all. There is a very real danger that in accepting this Tory and Liberal scheme of regulatory agencies regulating regulatory agencies, we could be doing a great deal of harm to farmers. If the Administrator of the Grain Transportation Committee is left with the ability to tamper with the allocation of rail cars or interfere with the quota system as part of the system of notional sanctions, it will be the farmers who will pay. If the Grain Commission is prevented by the Administrator from allocating producer cars, it will be grain producers who are left holding the bag. If the quota system is tampered with, it will not be the Wheat Board whichrkuffers, it will not be the elevator companies which suffer, it will be the farmers who suffer.
When the Transport Committee was dealing with this Bill, the Deputy Minister of Transport tried to explain why he wanted the Administrator to have the power to impose sane-
October 17, 1983

tions on the Wheat Board and the Grain Commission. I have read that exchange very carefully and this is how he summed it up, and I quote:
If you granted immunity to some of them from even the notional system of awards and sanctions, would that somehow weaken the idea that they are just as accountable as everybody else?
For the Deputy Minister, the answer is obviously yes. But I must disagree with him. The Wheat Board and the Grain Commission are already held responsible for meeting their performance objectives. They do not need the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to make sure they live up to their responsibilities. Railways, on the other hand, have shown time and again that they need this kind of regulation to ensure they live up to their responsibilities.
I would also like to deal with the proposal to grant the railways awards for meeting their performance objectives. 1 can hardly believe that the Government and the Tories would even consider that kind of scheme. We are already expected to hand over to the railway companies some $650 million annually in the form of a Crow subsidy. The Government is making much of its intention to invest billions of dollars in upgrading our grain delivery system. Added to that are the billions of dollars over the years in subsidies, the provision of hopper cars and deferred income tax. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the railways have already been rewarded handsomely for what could at best be described as a pretty spotty record in meeting their performance objectives. In fact, it seems to me the whole idea of scrapping the Crow rate is only another reward to the railways; only this time it is coming directly out of the farmers' pockets. We do not even have to consider giving awards to the railways for meeting their performance objectives; we have given them enough already. I believe the railways should be required to meet their performance objectives, pure and simple. If they fail to do that, the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee should level sanctions against them.
In closing, I must comment again, as I did at the beginning, that I cannot see how the House cannot accept these three amendments. I urge all Hon. Members of this House to do so in order to take one more step in the efficiency of our grain handling system on the Prairies.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of our amendments to Bill C-155 as proposed in Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38. These motions have the effect of amending some of the powers which have been given to the Administrator in Clause 18 of Bill C-155. This clause spells out in great detail the powers of the Administrator. It spells out when his report should be filed. There must be tonnage forecasts for the movement of grain in the next crop year filed on or before February 28 of each year. He must file a report forecasting the movement of grain in the current crop year and he must consult with the various participants in the system which have been alluded to in previous amendments as the Bill has progressed through the House. The Administrator must also monitor the performance of the railway companies and other system participants.
Western Grain Transportation Act
As well, the clause describes a requirement that the Administrator develop a notional scheme of sanctions applicable to the railway companies, and then goes on to work out a system of awards and sanctions applicable to such system participants, other than the railway companies, as the Administrator may consider appropriate. I believe it is at this point that these amendments come into play, because what we are proposing by our motions is to make the pecuniary penalties applicable only to the rail side.
Any time one is making a law, a good place to start is to review what now exists and what now works, and if we are going to improve the system, we should be focusing on the part of the system which is not now working. When you go through the various participants in the system, it is pretty clear that the part which is not now always working is in fact the railway part. A number of agencies are accountable and responsible for the movement of grain, as some of my colleagues have reported to the House. The Canadian Wheat Board markets the grain and sets out the process by which it will be forwarded by the farmers to the final buyer; and the Canadian Grain Commission monitors the system of grading the grain and sees that the proper grade and types of grain are matched up with the documentation. As well, the Canadian Grain Commission is responsible for issuing producer cards to those who wish to ship their grain directly to terminal elevators and avoid the country elevator. Then we have the Canadian Transport Commission which, through the branch line rehabilitation program, is responsible for keeping up some designated branch lines.
If this Bill passes the way it was introduced, we will have the Department of Transport involved in the operations of the Administrator who would be overseeing all of the other agencies which have been in place for many years. So ultimately, instead of the grain handling and marketing system being a joint effort between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board, we would leave all of the power of arbitration to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) who directs the Administrator. This was essentially why we proposed to put the Administrator under the Canadian Wheat Board where he traditionally carried on for many years.
The Wheat Board and the Grain Commission can impose sanctions in order to achieve compliance with their shipping orders. If the wrong grade of grain is loaded at the country elevator-wheat graded three is loaded to fill an order for number one grade-the railway company will lose the privilege of shipping two carloads of grain. That action affects the volume of business of that particular company and they would then instruct their agents to make certain they ship exactly the kind of grain they were supposed to ship. Similarly, the Canadian Grain Commission monitors the shipment of cars in the same way.
The office of Administrator, Mr. Speaker, has been filled for the last three or four years on a sort of voluntary or co-operative basis. The appointee took personnel and expertise

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
from various existing agencies in an attempt to find a more fair way of allocating boxcars to system participants. Ultimately, after three years of experience, they reverted to the kind of system the Wheat Board had been using when it had the administrative functions. 1 am a little concerned, as are members of my caucus, with the proposed growth in administration and administrators which would come about because this office is being written into law.
We have been told that the Administrator currently uses something like 17 to 19 members of his staff, but once this change is made that will double. Because this worries a lot of people, we think it would be much better if we put some restrictions and qualifications on the role the Administrator plays. Clearly the railways are not now responsible to the grain industry and we think this is a needed improvement which could be and should be applied. Therefore, we have proposed these amendments to bring that about.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and speak to Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38. It might be appropriate to review Clause 18, which Motion No. 36 addresses. Clause 18, Subclause (l)(c), provides that the Administrator shall:
-from time to time, in consultation with such system participants as the Administrator deems appropriate, establish, on the basis of tonnage and on any other basis found to be reasonable-
I might add, Mr. Speaker, it was our Party which incorporated the words "and on any other basis found to be reasonable", because we felt that to measure performance simply on the basis of tonnage, while it is a very valid benchmark, may not be far enough encompassing to take in all elements. The clause continues:
-the grain transportation, shipping and handling performance objectives that, in any period, can and should be met by any system participants that the Administrator considers appropriate;
The NDP amendment sets out to remove that phrase having to do with the performance objectives which should be met by system participants. The NDP are simply trying to make the point that it is only the railroads that should be monitored because they feel only they have the power to inhibit or accelerate the movement of grain.
We, Mr. Speaker, certainly do not agree with the thrust of Motion No. 36. We all recognize that the railways have a lot to do with the movement of grain, but they certainly do not have a monopoly on whether it will move or not. We know through the course of this debate and many others which have taken place in this Chamber and in committee with respect to grain handling and transportation that we have a very complex and interdependent system. It is big business, there are many players involved, and the railways certainly share a very major responsibility for the proper movement of grain on time. But I have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and other Members of this House that there are many other components to this system. The country elevator system consists of some 3,000 elevators and 1,200 to 1,500 delivery points. That in itself is a huge network. We have the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission, we have government involvement. We
have terminals, we have the Great Lakes shipping system. There are something like 25 to 30 unions involved who can tie up the movement of grain. We have the railroad unions, the people who grade and weigh the grain, the people who load the ships, the grain handlers and longshoremen, as well as the men who man the ships. They all play a very significant role. To suggest, as the NDP does in this motion, that only the railways' performance should be monitored and only they should have objectives set I say is simply ludicrous. It is not in accordance with the way things are.
There are other conditions which affect the movement of grain, such as weather, acts of God, a whole variety of things which all have a bearing. If we are to look at the whole operation, perhaps the House should be reminded that railways work seven days a week and the country elevator system works five days a week. Sometimes that is extended during a busy season or harvest season or when a quota is open. Terminals operate, basically, five days per week. I talked about the complexity of the system. Grain is weighed six different times and graded three times before it is loaded on the boat for final disposition. Any number of things can cause a breakdown or bottleneck, and to single out the railways as the only culprit that can allow grain to move or prevent it is irresponsible.
Canada has an outstanding record in terms of providing top quality grain and for guaranteeing the grade, but there are six different grades of wheat alone. When you take into consideration the possibility of those six grades being tough, or damp, then there are 18 potential grades. There are five grades of durum and with the potential all those five grades for being tough or damp, you have the potential of 15 grades. With oats you could have 18 grades; barley, 21 different grades; rye, 12 different grades; flaxseed, nine different grades and rapeseed, nine different grades. We could end up handling well in excess of 100 different grades of grain.
There is also the possibility that grain is rejected because it is too dirty or does not meet standards. All this illustrates that we have a very complex system and the chance of breakdown is very real. The chance for a mixup is also very real. It is quite possible to have the wrong grain, the wrong grade, in the wrong place at the wrong time. To suggest that the railways have a total monopoly on the situation is irresponsible and ludicrous.
We agree with the thrust of Motion No. 37 where it says:
-awards and sanctions for system participants other than the railway companies shall be non-pecuniary in nature;
There is no reason one agency of Government should assess a fine in the form of sanction against another agency, particularly when that agency represents the producers. In that case, the burden would fall back on the producer. We agree with that because we have a similar amendment in Motion No. 44 which was moved in committee by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) and was debated there. It reads as follows:
October 17, 1983

(ii) sanctions to be applied to system participants or any classes thereof, other than the railways, that do not meet the performance objectives referred to in paragraph (a), shall be non-pecuniary.
I think that is fairly clear. There should not be a system of sanctions levied against the producers or a government agency which acts on behalf of producers.
It is rather interesting to see what happened in committee. The NDP took quite a different approach when the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) moved a subamendment to the motion I just read to strike out the words "be non-pecuniary" and substitute the following:
-be limited to an assessment against storage, elevation and handling charges.
He was going to allow sanctions to be applied against elevator companies in the form of additional storage, elevation and handling charges. This would have the effect of increasing the burden on producers. But now another Hon. Member says how important it is to relieve producers from any form of sanctions. In this we see the hypocrisy of the NDP. They are not really supporting the producers. They did not want the railway companies on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and they did not want farmers on it either. They said that the Chairman of the advisory committee of the Canadian Wheat Board could represent the farmers' interests, but we said that we wanted at least five farmers on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. And we want the railways there as well so that the farmers can deal directly with the railroads. That is democracy and that is performance, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these three amendments to Clause 18 of the Bill. Regarding the comments of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), I can only say that if sanctions are put on such areas as handling charges and storage for elevator companies, it would reduce the amount that producers would have to pay. The sanction would be on the elevator company and it would release the total effect of-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Sanctions.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Those kinds of sanctions are not against the producer but are against the elevator company.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would say that would be an award.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: An award to the producer, yes, but sanctions against the elevators.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Nonsense. You are as bad as the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: As far as participants are concerned, I think it is necessary to go back and see what the clause said. On page 2 beginning at lines 47, Clause 2 reads as follows:
"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.
Western Grain Transportation Act
The point we have been trying to make here and which the Hon. Member for Vegreville has been trying to deny is that in the whole structure of the movement of grain, the agencies responsible for regulation of it are already regulated and there are sanctions which can be imposed upon them. This also applies to the railways. The Railway Act gives the Government authority to apply sanctions against the railways. It has neglected to do so, however, and that particular group of participants, the railways, has not fulfilled its duty. The sanctions on the other groups have worked and consequently we do not feel that it is necessary to increase the bureaucracy that the Bill would put in place which would only make it more difficult to ship the grain.
It is interesting also that the Party which says we should not regulate everything in this particular case wants to regulate everybody. Let us consider who are the participants in the movement of grain. That Party would put the producer under the single-man agency because the producer is responsible for the movement of grain to the elevator by rail. The way the clause stands now, the producer could be sanctioned in some peculiar way by the Administrator, the one-man agency. The trucker, whether he be a farmer moving his grain to the elevator or a commercial trucker, comes under the Administrator. The Hon. Member for Vegreville says that all of these people should be regulated by this one-man agency.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I did not say that at all.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: The elevator is already a part of this. He is suggesting that the elevator companies, which are already well regulated through their relationship with the Wheat Board and the Grain Commission, should also come under this one-man agency, the Grain Administrator. As well, the Hon. Member for Vegreville is suggesting that the rail companies and the terminals should come under the regulation of this one-man agency. It is his Party which prides itself on stating deregulation as a basic Government policy.
Let me talk about another type of regulation. We believe that the Government has established a great number of awards to the railways for the movement of grain over the years as a result of its close relationship with them. This includes Canadian National which almost operates as a private enterprise corporation apart from the Government. These awards include the provision of railway cars at no cost which the railway companies are paid to use. These companies have been given a great deal of money over the years for the rehabilitation of branch lines even though the railways own that property which was awarded to them. They have been awarded huge amounts of money to rehabilitate those branch lines despite the fact they may not have fulfilled their contracts.
The only reason for the introduction of this Bill is to award the railways a guaranteed income at 20 per cent above their investment in the movement of grain. Therefore 1 believe it is logical to establish sanctions to control that guaranteed income so that it can be removed if the railways do not perform their

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act duty. We know that over the years the provisions under the Railway Act to regulate and put sanctions on the railways have not been used. Since this has not been done and the Government is either incapable or unwilling to attack its friends financially since it may need the money, we believe that if these sanctions are to be provided under this legislation they should apply only to the railways.
Motions Nos. 37 and 38, in anticipation of the defeat of Motion No. 36, make two conditions. If Clause 18(1 )(c) through 18(1 )(g) remain as is, Motion No. 37 and Motion No. 38 put conditions on these sanctions. First, they require that if participants other than the railways are affected, sanctions should apply in such a way as not to hurt the other participants financially. Motion No. 38 states that if the sanctions are established-
-such awards and sanctions shall not involve the allocation of railway cars nor affect the quota system of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Even the quota system of the Canadian Wheat Board is largely dependent on its authority to assign cars.
It is interesting to note that during the committee hearings the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) strongly supported the idea of Motion No. 37 and Motion No. 38, which I hope the Conservatives will continue to support if they decide not to support Motion No. 36, saying that there is a real danger in this clause of the Administrator being able to change the allocation of cars and the quota system in a way which could partially destroy the grain transportation system.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on these amendments. First I wish to point out that at least Motion No. 37 is a belated attempt on the part of the NDP to cover up a faux pas which it had perpetuated in the committee stage. At that time the NDP had a completely different position in terms of the kinds of sanctions that were going to be imposed on producer-owned grain companies and pools in particular. They indicated that any sanctions that were to be imposed with respect to unsatisfactory performance would be pecuniary.
We now see the NDP attempting to cover their tracks in the House as a result of the very negative feedback it received from western producers when it brought in this amendment at committee stage. It is nice to see the NDP following the leadership displayed by my colleagues in our Party at the committee stage in order to have a proper perspective since it was the Conservatives who moved at committee stage that sanctions not be pecuniary as far as the pools and producer-owned grain companies were concerned.
That was a very important consideration because Members will understand that when we are dealing with sanctions against producer-owned companies, we are really penalizing the producers.
I wanted to deal with the general thrust of some of these amendments since this is our first opportunity to look at some of the provisions of Clause 18 which deal with the concept of sanctions against the railways, for failure, among other things,
to perform to the expectations placed upon them under legislation and by the Government of the day. This particular part of the legislation has been subject to very serious attack by almost everyone who is knowledgeable in this particular area. I suggest it is one of the greatest flaws in this legislation. Legislatively speaking, it is one of the most cockamamie set of provisions I have seem in attempting to bring some accountability in the future to any group. In terms of its legislative wording, it is almost unenforceable.
I want to bring to the attention of the House some of the evidence which we received in the course of the committee hearings. First, let me point out that Clause 18(l)(e) provides:
(e) develop a notional scheme of-
I underline the word notional.
(i)	sanctions applicable to the railway companies, and
(ii)	awards and sanctions applicable to such system participants, other than the railway companies, as the Administrator considers appropriate.
You may ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, as a student of legislation, what does this concept "notional" mean after all? I know that if you were thinking of this word, it means very little at law indeed. It is the most arbitrary term one can think of. The Deputy Minister on behalf of the Department of Transport was questioned with respect to the meaning of this particular subclause. At page 133 of the committee hearings held on September 8, 1983 Mr. Kroeger, in responding to questions put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), stated:
That is the analogy that underlies the concept of a system of awards and sanctions. First of all, you design a hypothetical or notional set of awards and sanctions and then you match those against the performance of system participants in ensuing weeks and months. Then at the end of six months you conclude that this would have involved withholding X millions from CN, or that it might have involved some type of penalty vis-a-vis Manitoba pool elevators. You look at those results and say, well, that really does not make any sense in relation to what actually happened and why, so we had better change our system of awards and sanctions in the following ways and let us see how that works against grain movements in the ensuing six months, and you would go on correcting the elements of your awards and sanction system until, if all went well, you would arrive at something that really did seem to make sense. But if all went badly, at the end of the three years you would probably report to the minister that this was unworkable.
I want you to ask the question rhetorically, Mr. Speaker. If this is the Government's view of the operation of that particular sub-provision of this Bill, God help the western producer with respect to his ability to expect any sort of accountability on the part of the railways for their operation.
This is the objection brought forward time after time after time. People in western Canada, the grain producers, are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. They are being asked to embrace enthusiastically some crazy concept of accountability to which the Deputy Minister gives what I would term an equivocal answer. He has not the foggiest idea of what these concepts and sanctions are going to be. The Deputy Minister is an intelligent man. He is a person who has spent his life in the Public Service and who has been thinking seriously about this matter night and day over the course of months and I would
October 17, 1983

venture to say years. Ele gives an answer with respect to what the sanctions are going to be with respect to the railways. If I may be permitted to paraphrase, he said it is "a hit and miss system".
Eventually we hope that, after the benefit of some years of experience, maybe we will come to some conclusions as to what we should do to hold the railways accountable. But Mr. Kroeger's last sentence was quite revealing. He said that maybe we will find that the whole thing is unworkable. That gives precious little hope to the people of western Canada who have been sold a bill of goods, if we pass this legislation, that we will have an improved railway system to deliver the goods, that we will have a system efficient in the highest degree, and second to none in the world in terms of the transportation of grain. Yet when we look at the actual reality, what is contained in the legislation, no one can make any sense out of it. Even the Deputy Minister is not sure how it is going to work and refers to the concept of "notional" as being a hit and miss proposition. I simply say that is not satisfactory.
This is one of the reasons those of us who are privileged to come from western Canada and represent agricultural areas cannot in conscience support this legislation. We can make attempts, as the NDP for whatever reason are making attempts, to amend this legislation to bring some reality to it, and I give the NDP credit for that attempt. But this is badly thought out in terms of having the railways and other components of the grain delivery area made accountable to the Administrator with respect to failing to live up to reasonable expectations.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is one of the fundamental reasons, if I may be permitted to say so, that it is impossible for us to support this legislation. In this case the NDP is attempting to limit accountability for all intents and purposes to the railways. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), has pointed out very well recently that we cannot limit this accountability to the railways because there are so many components in terms of delivery and the efficient delivery of grain in western Canada. All of these components must be accountable and all of these different areas must have accountability to the western producer and the people of Canada.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the grouping of motions relating to the work of the Administrator with regard to sanctions, there are two things that 1 would like to point out. First is the importance of the work of the Administrator as it refers to the actual movement of grain in the bottlenecks that may occur on the Prairies. It is interesting to note that the NDP have tried to be on both sides of this issue at the same time.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Leonard J. Gustafson: I hear someone say no. But if you go back and identify exactly who the Grain Administrator is, Mr. Speaker, you will see that the Conservatives under our administration introduced a grains co-ordinator, Mr. Hugh
Western Grain Transportation Act
Horner. He identified many of the problems and many of the bottlenecks that were in the system. Actually we have a grains administrator in place. At that time Members will remember the hue and cry from the NDP. The NDP did not want a grains co-ordinator at all. If Members of the NDP would go back over their records and statements in this House, they will find their statements were diametrically opposed to what is happening here.
I think we have a situation where we must take the best of both worlds and try to amend these areas so that things will work in the best interests of the producer. The Hon. Member for Vegreville pointed out that there is more to the movement of grain than just the component of the railroads. It is most important the railroads move grain efficiently and effectively. It is most important that a grain collecting system-the grain elevators on the Prairies-is able to co-ordinate with the railroads.
By way of example, I had a phone call this morning from Boyle, Alberta, where one of the grain elevators in Boyle is absolutely congested. As you know, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has increased the initial price for barley. He has done that in order to get some barley into the system. He told me that there were many carloads of barley in that little town in northern Alberta which were not being shipped into the system and had not arrived at Thunder Bay. At the same time the Canadian Wheat Board tells us that there have been major problems in meeting its barley obligations. This is what I would call a bit of a bottleneck. Hopefully that situation will be straightened out in a telephone call today.
An administrator could identify these bottlenecks and attempt to straighten them out. On one hand, the New Democratic Party is giving the Administrator some power to deal directly with the railroads but not with the terminals, grain elevators or areas which are faced with strikes that can be very detrimental to the whole business of grain transportation. When prairie farmers hear of strikes, they are very, very concerned. If there has been one area of bottleneck in the whole system, it has been the area of strikes. Practically without exception every fall at the ports in Vancouver and Thunder Bay, just before freeze-up, there are strike scares. There have been hold-ups in the movement of grain because of strikes which have cost farmers millions and millions of dollars. A grain Administrator, working in the capacity which was set by the example of Dr. Hugh Horner, could be of great benefit by bringing to the attention of the Government, producers and all those people involved in grain handling the situation that exists. It would work in the best interests of producers and the larger system.
We have some problems with the approach of the NDP. As pointed out by the Hon. Member for Vegreville, we are in agreement with Motion No. 37 which, of course, would not penalize primary producers in a financial manner by penalizing grain elevators on the local scene. That is important.

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
However, let us not find ourselves throwing out the baby with the bath water. We should come up with a system that works in the best interests of farmers and of the grain handling system, which could well turn out to be one of the best in the world. The Government has specifically keyed in on the expectations of the railways and their best interests. There has been an unfair balance in looking at the problems of primary producers in terms of sanctions and better grain movement.
That is about all I have to say on the motions before the House. However, I suggest it is most important to look at a balance so that grain elevators, terminals, ports, railways and producers can work together in the best interests of a better grain movement system.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the debate on the three motions before the House. I was glad the Chair ruled that Motion No. 36 was in order. I think it is important for a number of reasons. Particularly, it amends Clause 18 by striking out lines 44 to 47.
Clause 18 was described by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) as being the most cockamamie set of regulations he has ever seen. That does not seem to be born out by the voting record of the Tories in committee. On the Crow Bill they just happened to vote with the Liberals all the way through. Most grain producers in western Canada recognize that there is an alliance behind the scenes in committee and in private meetings between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and the Tory Party. However, when they are out on the Prairies or giving speeches in the House of Commons, they certainly attempt to show a different side than they demonstrate in their voting record.
Motion No. 36 reads:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 44 to 47 at page 8 and lines 1 to 41 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"should be met by any railway company
(d)	monitor the performance of the railway companies to ascertain whether or not they are meeting the performance objectives referred to in paragraph (c); and
(e)	develop, for possible implementation under section 21, a scheme of sanctions applicable to railway companies and make recommendations to the Minister on the advisability of implementing that scheme."
The reference to railway companies, of course, includes CN, CP or whoever happens to be moving grain. I concur with one of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, that western Canadians are really being asked to buy a pig in a poke. It is clear that the Government and its "experts" in the field have no idea what will be the real medium or long-term impact of the Crow Bill. Prairie farmers recognize that 30,000 or 40,000 farms will disappear, will simply go up in mortgage smoke as a result of the Crow Bill. At the same time there are certain real estate interests readying themselves to buy up all these farms because the information available from the Global 2000 Report and other reports is that one of the most valuable long-term assets in the world is Canadian farms and farm lands.
The last speaker proposed that we have two agencies to do one job. We recognize-certainly I do in Prince Rupert-that
something had to be done a long time ago. When the Tories were in office they brought someone in to say that there were bottlenecks. Every one on the Prairies knew where the bottlenecks were. They did not go away by having a grain Administrator observe them.
The powers being proposed by the Liberals through Clause 18 and other clauses in the Bill are ludicrous. The proposals would take sanctions against those one would think the Government of Canada would not take sanctions against. I will finish my remarks on Motion No. 36, then deal with Motions Nos. 37 and 38 and point out the serious problems with the Liberals and the Tories being together on Clause 18.
The intent of Motion No. 36 is to ensure that sanctions for failing to meet performance objectives apply only to the railroads. Other speakers from my Party have made it clear that there is not a great deal of sense in financial penalties against the Canadian Wheat Board, individual elevators or individual producers, whether they be a direct financial attack or holding back on the available number of boxcars. It is clear that the holding back of the available number of boxcars will penalize producers once again, either directly through pool funds or by simply backlogging elevators so that they cannot make deliveries. What happens is that the person holding the grain is supposed to be penalized by not getting the boxcars, but in fact he is obtaining funds for "storing" the grain in the interim period.
The powers which are proposed to be handed over are ludicrous. I wonder whether many of the powers are really required. The system under the Canadian Wheat Board seems to be working reasonably well. There is no doubt that there are bottlenecks, but to propose the powers in the legislation will not streamline the system; they will simply create more bottlenecks and more difficulties for Canadian farmers.
There are four key points in Motion No. 36. The first is that the legislation would give the Administrator the power to impose sanctions on the Canadian Wheat Board and the pools, if he so chose, and the ability of the Administrator to do so is removed by the amendment. In our view and in the view of most Canadian farmers, it is clear that to give the Administrator those powers over the Canadian Wheat Board and the Wheat Pools is unacceptable.
Second, there is no need to have a provision for imposing sanctions on anyone but the railroads. We recognize that the problems we have had, whether getting grain to Prince Rupert, Vancouver, the Lakehead or Churchill, have in almost every situation resulted from the railroads. If we go back a few years to 1977 and those years when Parliament was turning over huge barrels of money to the railroads to upgrade certain branch lines, we see that the money never made it to the branch lines. There was no new grade, no new ties, no new rails and no new crossings. CN and CP have demonstrated a near total disregard for the desire of Parliament. We say that if Clause 18 passes as it stands, there will be chaos in the system. Certain changes have to be obtained.
October 17, 1983

The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West and other Tory speakers have said that Motion No. 37 is an attempt to rectify a faux pas from the committee stage. We know what the Government and the Tories accepted and rejected while they were working out certain deals together behind the scene. We see what is now being brought before Parliament. We recognize in Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 that there are steps that we have to take to protect the farmers and the interests of the Canadian economy, which benefits from about $6 billion a year from the grain trade.
The third point on Motion No. 36 is that under Bill C-155 the railways will already be overpaid enormous sums for moving the grain. In our view and the view of most farmers, there is no justification to pay them even more for meeting performance objectives which are simply the bottom line. They are the minimum that the railways should be meeting.
The fourth point with regard to Motion No. 36 is that the Bill would place the Canadian Wheat Board in a position subordinate to the Minister. We do not believe that is appropriate. We have scrutinized, as I am sure most producers have, the ability to place the Administrator over and beyond the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. That does not strike us as sensible. Whether the Tories think it is a notional or national idea, there is no logic to it. We believe the track record of the Wheat Board is quite good. The bottlenecks have primarily been created by the railroads.
Motion No. 37 adds to Clause 18(e) on awards and sanctions to the rail system the words "but awards and sanctions for system participants other than the railway companies shall be non-pecuniary in nature".
A Tory Member said that strikes are the real problem. He did not go so far as to say that perhaps there should be an anti-strike clause written in, but that seemed to be the theme of his speech. We say it does not make a great deal of sense to take financial sanctions against the Wheat Board, the pools or the farmers in almost every situation imaginable for occurrences that are beyond their control. Once a boxcar is at the elevator and the grain is loaded, it is out of their hands. Their responsibility is to till the land under all weather conditions, such as drought. There may be a lack of money to buy fertilizer or pay road hauling costs outside the branch line system. The farmer has to meet those responsibilities first. To propose in legislation that someone other than the railroad be taken to task is completely illogical.
Motion No. 38 would add to Clause 18(e) which was described by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West as the most cockamamie set of regulations he has ever seen. We in this Party will be interested to see if the Tories vote as they did in committee, voting with the Liberals for this set of regulations, or voting with us to change the regulations in order to meet the interests of the farmers and the Canadian economy instead of the railroads.
I see you are rising to indicate my time is up, Mr. Speaker. Motion No. 38 adds the words "but such awards and sanctions shall not involve the allocation of railway cars nor affect the
Western Grain Transportation Act quota system of the Canadian Wheat Board." That motion
speaks for itself.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to re-emphasize some of what my colleagues have said about the importance of these amendments, particularly as they pertain to requiring performance from the railways and providing for sanctions in the event that the railways do not live up to performance expectations as far as grain hauling is concerned or, for that matter, anything else.
It is a historical fact in this country that the railways have not lived up to the expectations which they have often created as a way of getting from the Canadian people and the Government various subsidies and other moneys, whether in the form of money for branch line rehabilitation, hopper cars built by governments because the railways would not keep up their rolling stock fleet, or for passenger rail services, calculated by the railways in such a way as to get as much subsidy as possible from Government invested in trying to improve passenger service in this country. The list goes on and on of ways in which the railways of this country have milked the Government and thereby the Canadian people. It is abominable that Governments have lacked the courage to make the railways perform according to the expectations they have created in order to get these subsidies.
These amendments propose finally getting tough with the railways, putting a structure in the Bill which would make that possible. We do not have confidence in the existing rules and regulations pertaining to performance by the railways. We do not have confidence in the existing agencies. We note with regularity the way in which the railways escape harsh treatment while other Canadians and institutions have to meet difficult requirements. That is one reason we have introduced this amendment, finally to correct what we perceive to be a consistent and undesirable part of the relationship between the railways and the Government. They have received a variety of subsidies over the years but have not been required to perform up to the expectations created at the time the subsidies were made. In the past they have failed to meet performance objectives on a consistent and recurring basis. This is why we believe a penalty clause is needed for the railways. I just came into the Chamber, but 1 understand the Tories are supporting us on this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
COMMONS DEBATES________________ October 17, 1983


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Madam Speaker, The Toronto Star reports that the President of the Canadian Labour Congress has now added his voice to those of the growing number of people who are asking for speedy passage of Bill C-155, the Western Grain Transportation Act. Mr. McDermott is reported as having asked his allies in the NDP to end their attempts to delay the legislation, and as urging all Parties to get on with the job of enabling improvements to the Canadian rail system in a way that protects the interests of producers. This is exactly what Bill C-155 seeks to accomplish.
The Bill has now received extensive debate. At second reading, 97 speakers participated in the debate. The Standing Committee on Transport sat for 31 days, travelled across the country, heard 240 witnesses, and made 89 amendments which improved the Bill considerably.
Nine days have now been spent on the Bill at report stage during which time further amendments have been accepted, including a proposal by members of the NDP to add a representative of labour to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
The task of improving Canada's railway system must proceed. More important, Madam Speaker, this legislation will create thousands of badly needed jobs across the country. I therefore join Mr. McDermott and the Canadian Labour Congress in urging the Opposition to allow this Bill to proceed quickly so that many unemployed people can be put back to work.



ABORTION


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, a Toronto newspaper story reads in part: "Dr. Henry Morgental-er will defy the law and reopen his Toronto abortion clinic-",
I can see nothing noble about this man breaking and defying the laws of Canada. Abortions to protect the life of the mother are legal today, but Dr. Morgentaler wants abortion on demand. He wants abortion to be a birth control measure, and he thinks freedom of choice should be extended to allow for the murder of another human being-yes, even an unborn child.
World famous scientists like Professor A. W. Liley of Auckland, New Zealand, confirm that what is in the womb is "a person, a full human being that can cry, hiccup, dream, kick, suck a thumb, take 'food', regulate fluid volume, have heart beats and fingerprints-a totally separate individual who
stops his mother's periods and who decides when labour should begin".
Murder is murder, whether it occurs before birth or after birth. If we permit unborn and so-called unwanted babies to be killed, the next step may be to permit the killing of the crippled, the abnormal, and the aged. Freedom of choice was never meant to include the freedom to murder. Dr. Morgentaler has a responsibility to obey the laws of Canada just the same as do the rest of us.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the House the plight of Mr. Doug Wright, a Canadian born war veteran who cannot draw old age pension because he is 55 days short of the 20 years of required residency in Canada after age 18. At age 27 Mr. Wright joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and was posted overseas with the 401 Squadron. He was given a Spitfire, and for two years he saw active service.
Mr. Wright was shot down off the English coast in 1943. His right leg was crushed and he spent a year in British hospitals undergoing bone transplants to save the leg. His kneecap was removed. He then returned to his job in Canada. However, his leg could not function in the cold. He tried to start a new business, and his wife worked to supplement their income.
Finally, a Department of Veterans Affairs doctor told Mr. Wright that he could expect constant pain unless he moved to a warmer climate. He and his wife moved to California, and they returned to Canada annually from 1952 until 1979 to visit Mr. Wright's mother. Canada was their home. It was because of the war wounds Mr. Wright received fighting for Canada that they had to move. It was a painful experience for the Wrights to move away from family, jobs, and friends.
Can we not find 55 days for Mr. Wright? He should at least expect and receive an ex gratia payment to cover this amount from the Department of Veterans Affairs.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, this year is the thirty-fifth year since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and I think it bears stressing that a Mulroney Government would make human rights an important part of its foreign policy. I believe that most Canadians reject the view that rights in some parts of the world are more important than those in others. I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that what happens to a nun in the Philippines,
October 17, 1983___________________ COMMONS DEBATES
or to a follower of the Dalai Lama in Tibet, or to a Tamil in Sri Lanka, constitutes matters of equal importance.
Obviously Canada's ability to apply pressure is greater in some parts of the world than others, but unless our national concern about people everywhere is well understood around the world, expressed concern about conditions in some places can only be unconvincing.
Dealing with Central America, for example, it seems to me that Ottawa should not approve the requested $15 million aid package to Nicaragua unless and until the Sandinistas cease their systematic attacks on Jewish Nicaraguans. Our Government has refused to reinstate aid for El Salvador and Guatemala on human rights considerations, and the same considerations should apply to Managua as well. Basic rights, Madam Speaker, should not be divisible on the basis of geography.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, the New Democratic Party has long supported the principles of the co-operative movement. In fact the roots of our Party are the same as those of the co-operative movement in the West.
Over the last 20 years co-operatives have experienced a tremendous growth and now have about 10.5 million members and over $45 billion worth of assets. Co-ops market some 45 per cent of all Canadian agricultural products, including 80 per cent of the wheat crop and 60 per cent of dairy products. Canadian farmers buy 30 per cent of their farm supplies, including machinery, through co-operatives. Credit unions and caisses populaires provide from 25 per cent to 75 per cent of all retail financial services in the four western Provinces and Quebec. North America's largest consumer and financial co-ops are located in Calgary and Vancouver respectively.
In order to recognize the contribution of co-operatives to the economy, we call upon the Government to make them a permanent part of the economic structure by establishing a Department of Co-operatives, or at least a division, with the duty to co-ordinate co-operative involvement through the Government. Co-ops have more than proven the worth of their contribution to society, and it is high time that the Government officially recognized this contribution.
Robert Bourassa as its new leader. His brilliant and overwhelming victory is a clear demonstration of what Mr. Bourassa represents for the people of Quebec. His words are incisive and his attitude inspires confidence. There is no doubt he will be able to draw the people of Quebec to the Quebec Liberal Party, which, with him as leader, brings new hope to Quebecers who have had enough of a pequiste and separatist Government. Madam Speaker, Mr. Bourassa's victory is a first step that may put Quebec back on the road to economic recovery.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, as is the case in many Canadian towns and cities, Quesnel, British Columbia, has been long and well served by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The detachment has joint municipal and provincial policing responsibilities, and costs are divided accordingly.
The Quesnel RCMP detachment, with its 42 officers and staff, has been housed in a section of the local Post Office-Manpower building for a number of years. This accommodation is an absolute disgrace, a fact that is well known to the city, the Province, the force, and the Department of Public Works.
Of a total area of approximately 2,400 square feet, which includes the cell blocks, working areas are restricted to 29 square feet per employee. This space, which is approximately five feet by six feet, must accommodate desks, chairs, filing cabinets and the like.
Air conditioning is a wild dream and the heating system is so bad that moisture condenses on the office floor, and frost often develops on the walls of the cells. The electrical wiring has been condemned by municipal, provincial, and federal inspectors. The staff sergeant must vacate his office for every private interview and breathalyzer test conducted as his is the only office with a door.
The officers working under these unbearable conditions must suffer in silence, but the staff has registered grievances with their respective unions. The situation is critical and can no longer be tolerated. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) must move to correct it immediately.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, on Saturday, October 15, the Quebec Liberal Party elected



DISARMAMENT


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, we are now beginning Disarmament Week, an internationally recognized observance of the dangers of the

October 17, 1983
arms race and of the paramount need to take bold initiatives toward multilateral nuclear weapons disarmament. Two years ago the Liberal Government observed Disarmament Week by inviting foreign nuclear warships into the Port of Vancouver. This year the Government has invited the NATO nuclear weapons planning group to meet at Montebello, Quebec. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) began Disarmament Week in Canada last night by toasting the U.S. Secretary of State and accepting his praise for Canada's allowing the testing of Cruise missiles in this country. These are not the actions Canadians want or need from their Government in Disarmament Week, or at any other time.
The prospect of a major escalation of the nuclear arms race is now only weeks away. United States Pershing II and Cruise missiles will soon be deployed in Europe, gravely escalating the level of nuclear armament, the level of East-West tension and mistrust, and the risk of nuclear war. These missiles will be deployed because NATO strategists believe they are necessary as a response to Soviet SS-20 missiles in eastern Europe, and because NATO politicians appear convinced that the Geneva arms reduction talks have failed to produce progress.
We are caught now in a new escalation of the super power game of nuclear weapons chicken. Canada could help end this dangerous nuclear escalation and help derail the headlong rush of the super powers toward nuclear confrontation in Europe by proposing a postponement of new weapons deployment, and insisting on a continuation of the talks at Geneva. That could be our contribution to Disarmament Week.



SMOKING IN PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ROOMS

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, on May 24 I spoke under the provisions of Standing Order 21 and mentioned to the House the serious health effects of second-hand cigarette and cigar smoke. At that time I advised of the respiratory impairment suffered by smokers and non-smokers exposed to a chronically smoke-filled environment, and called upon the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services to regulate smoking in parliamentary committee rooms in order to improve the quality of our indoor air and thereby to set an example for the Canadian public to control smoking in public areas. That was approximately four months ago and, to my knowledge, the recommendations I made at that time, which were based on recently reported clinical studies, have not been implemented.
Because of the proven serious health effects of such secondhand smoke, it is of great concern to me that serious consideration has not been given to regulating smoking in public areas.
I can think of no better place to demonstrate this concern than in the parliamentary committee rooms.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, the increase of the initial price of barley, as announced by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, was welcomed by farmers. However, the question remains as to why the initial price of wheat and durum was not increased as well. The asking price for Red Spring Wheat in Thunder Bay is 98 cents per bushel higher today. The asking price for durum wheat at Thunder Bay is $1.50 higher today. In checking back on the asking price of wheat over the last few months it has been found that asking prices have been considerably higher than the price the farmer is receiving. I am, therefore, calling on the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to take the necessary steps to increase the initial price of wheat and durum so that farmers can meet the serious cash flow problems which they face at this time.
 * *



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, the astonishing sweep of technological advance seems to have brought us to the threshold of war in space and war from space. Already nations routinely rely on military satellites for surveillance and communications. Surveillance satellites are a vital component of both super powers' capacity to verify each other's adherence to arms limitation agreements, and to guard against a secret mobilization which would precede a preemptive war.
The leading edge of space technology has now moved toward killer satellites which can destroy the surveillance and communications satellites of other nations. There is even discussion of laser and particle beam weapons deployed from space stations.
The peaceful use of space as a place for industry, communications, and surveillance, is every bit as significant as the potential military uses. The incredible innovation of the Canada Space Arm has revealed to the world that Canada is among the world leaders in space age technology. Canada must maintain the capability to participate in the leading edges of high technology if Canada is to preserve or better her place in the world.
I, therefore, urge the Government to institute an incentive based strategy to expand Canada's role in research and development in the high frontier of aerospace technology and to expand its efforts in securing industrial agreements in international defence related industries. Canada should seek to secure larger portions of these expenditures as a condition or component of international, bilateral or multilateral agreements, thereby securing an important corner in a rapidly expanding present and futuristic field of employment and productivity.
October 17, 1983



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. I am sure the Minister is aware of the concerns expressed over the weekend by Mr. Phil Givens, the Chairman of the Toronto Metropolitan Police Commission, relating to the substantial increase in violent crime. Mr. Givens stated that the bitterness, anguish and suffering of unemployed youth are the number one reason for this sharp increase in violent crime. First, does the Minister agree with Mr. Given's comments? Second, what is the Government doing to address this problem?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I am not entirely clear why the question on violent crime in Toronto is addressed to me as Minister of State for Economic Development.


Mr. Epp:: He just gave you the reason.


Donald James Johnston: 1 have not considered the comments of that gentleman.
I would not at this point want to go through the numerous measures which the Government has taken to deal with the problem of youth unemployment, in particular, unless the House would wish me to do so. The former two Ministers of Employment and Immigration have addressed this problem, and we are continuing to address it. It remains a major priority of this Government, as the Hon. Member knows. However, it seems to me that there may be a lot of reasons why there are problems of violent crime in Toronto and other urban areas, not only in Canada but in the United States and elsewhere around the world, other than this particular issue of youth unemployment.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I addressed the question to the Minister because the Minister of Employment and Immigration was not in the House. I thought the Minister of State for Economic Development would have some interest in youth unemployment.


INTRODUCTION OF JOB-CREATION POLICIES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, all we have heard from the Minister of Employment and Immigration are his statements about some phantom policies which he is going to bring in with the Throne Speech. Would the Minister explain to this House why these policies cannot be brought into effect right now when the problem is so severe, rather than wait for some indefinite time in the future when a Speech from the Throne will be brought down?
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I believe that is a repetition of a question which was addressed last week to the responsible Minister. The Hon. Member is fully aware of the programs which are in effect. Never in the history of this country has so much money been devoted to job creation as has been devoted by this Government.


Mr. McDermid:: There have never been so many unemployed, either.


Donald James Johnston: We still recognize, and will continue to recognize, as the Minister said in this House last week, that youth unemployment is a major priority of this Government, and will continue to be so. This problem has been addressed, is being addressed, and will continue to be addressed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that the policies which have been set out apply to 31,000 youth, or 6 per cent of the unemployment problem. That is not action.


IMPACT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PREMIUMS ON YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Last week in the House, Madam Speaker, I made reference to a long term problem and to something which could create longer term jobs for our youth when I referred to what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was saying, to the effect that the unemployment insurance program is far broader than just an insurance program, that it is a social program. Yet it is still funded by a payroll tax which hits small business far harder than large business, and inhibits the creation of permanent youth jobs.


Mr. Rossi:: Question.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Does the Minister agree that a further increase in unemployment insurance premiums will aggravate this problem of youth unemployment?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am happy to take notice of questions which are being put by the Hon. Member and to address the questions which seem to be puzzling him. The whole issue of unemployment insurance has been under review for many years. It has been modified. The Act has been updated. It is obviously a program which has to be revised constantly, fine tuned, and designed to meet the circumstances of the day. However, surely everyone in this House, in fact everyone in Canada, will have to admit that the program has served this country very well indeed during one of the most difficult periods the country has ever faced, the worst depression since the 1930s.

October 17, 1983
Oral Questions
The Hon. Member talks about violence in Toronto, Madam Speaker. I suggest it is programs like unemployment insurance, cost-sharing work programs and the other safety nets established by Liberal Governments over the years which have provided for stability and, perhaps not eliminated, but certainly made the social stability in Canada the envy of many other countries in this world, including our neighbour to the south. That has been the effect of existing programs, but the Government has never been satisfied with the status quo. We are always looking forward. Indeed, if further modifications can be made that will help improve that situation, they will be made.


JOB-CREATION INITIATIVES-TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, it is because of this forward looking Government that I would like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Again on the weekend, and this is the third time now, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said in Saskatoon:
The country's unemployed will get some welcome news in the next Throne Speech. Roberts told an employment seminar the speech will outline new employment initiatives concentrating mostly on young people who need experience to get jobs.
When are we going to get these initiatives? Why can we not get them now? When we do get them, will these young people be hired now, or will we have to await commencement of the next fiscal year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's quotation indicated the announcement would be made in the Throne Speech. As the House knows, we have been hoping to start this new session, and we have been saying that for at least six months.


John Horton McDermid: Four years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As soon as the Opposition gets its act together and passes the Crow and the Government Organization Act-


John Horton McDermid: What a phony.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition that he talked about civility in this House and he was distressed not to see it on this side. Perhaps he could look at his own side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF INITIATIVES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, there are one in five young people unemployed today, a total of 566,000, who are told by this Government they have to wait for the Speech from the Throne. Given the fact that
youth unemployment has been hovering around 20 per cent for about six months, why can the Government not act for these young people, and act now? The Prime Minister knows this House is prepared to set aside its business to hear whatever new programs the Government has to put in place for young people, and to hear them now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is the trouble with the Hon. Member's Party. It wants to set aside the business, which is the Crow, business which will cause investment in Canada of some $33 billion over the next four years. This is a lot of jobs. Instead of setting aside the business, why does it not deal with the business at hand rather than hiding behind the curtains?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Over the course of the last two or three weeks he and I have been looking at the problem of people who are unemployed and are not eligible for unemployment insurance. Given that the federal Department of Employment and Immigration estimates that over 2,300 inshore fishermen and seasonal plant workers in Newfoundland will not be eligible for unemployment insurance this year because they have not worked a sufficient number of weeks to qualify, what does he suggest they should do?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, we have already had this question in the House, I think, twice. Perhaps the Hon. Member missed the response. I indicated I had been discussing with my officials special efforts which might be made to respond to this problem. There are a variety of things that could be done and we are examining them, as I indicated to the House a couple of weeks ago. It has been difficult for us to decide on a course of action until the fishing season was at an end so we could see what was the full extent of the problem.


PLIGHT OF PEOPLE WITHOUT BENEFITS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, if the Minister wants to answer for the Minister of Finance, that is fine.
When the Minister develops his program for dealing with the problems of these inshore fishermen and plant workers, will he offer the same kind of programs to all the other people in Canada who do not now qualify for unemployment insurance, who cannot find employment, and who are faced today with an inability to meet their basic financial commitments and requirements, and have been forced onto welfare by the Government's inaction?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, one of the possible approaches to take

October 17, 1983
to this problem is to change the regulations in connection with the number of weeks of fishing required in order to obtain benefits. Obviously, if we are talking about that kind of approach to the fishing situation, we could not apply that generally to a whole range of other occupations.
Oral Questions Mr. Lalonde: Get your figures right.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker, I think the formula is fair because it does focus the funds into those areas where there is the greatest need as defined by the labour surplus rate.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who will know that the city of Calgary has had an unemployment rate greater than the national average for several months in a row. In that context, Canada Works and the LEAD Program will be providing $500,000 for 40,000 unemployed people in that city. That is $12.50 a year per unemployed person. In the meantime, in Cape Breton, the Minister is providing $6,509,000 for 11,000 unemployed people, or $591.72 per person.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This enumeration of statistics, I suppose, is going to lead to a question, but it must do so immediately.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, is that the Minister's view of Liberal justice? Is that his view of Liberal fair pay? Does he think that candidates in western Canada will be proud to go on the hustings with that kind of information to convince western Canadians to stay in this country?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, as I have explained to the House, the allocations are based on a formula which has been communicated quite clearly to Members. That formula essentially reflects the labour surplus in each of the constituencies, either over a short-term period if we are discussing Canada Works, or over a four-year period if we are talking about the LEAD Program. The same formula is applied to all constituencies and produces results which are sometimes more favourable or less favourable to constituencies depending upon what the labour surplus has been.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, with those kinds of explanations I think youth unemployment will be higher than the Liberal standing in the Gallup fairly quickly.


Ian Deans: It is already higher.


RATIO OF GRANTS PROVIDED CALGARY AND CAPE BRETON
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister as clearly as I can whether or not he thinks it is fair to provide the people in Cape Breton with 47 times as much money per unemployed person as he provides in the city of Calgary? Is that the Liberals' idea of a just and fair formula for allocating employment funds?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. In June of this year the Senate Subcommittee on National Defence issued a report on Canada s Maritime Command, which used to be called the Navy, which was in effect a devastating critique of Canada's naval capabilities. The Minister has had this report for four months. Is his Department preparing a response? If so, when might it be made public? If not, why not?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member on his having been made official Opposition defence critic and his having been recognized to ask his first question.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, there has been a report tabled in the Senate and a response is being prepared. I have been urging that the response be brought forward as rapidly as possible, and of course, it would be dealt with in the Senate because that is where the initial report was tabled.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would just remind the Minister that he was not here one day and I asked a question of the Prime Minister.


STRENGTH OF NAVAL FORCES
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, after examining Canada's naval capabilities the Subcommittee reached the inescapable conclusion, which many other people have reached, that the Navy, in both current and projected manpower and equipment, simply cannot fulfil the country s defence objectives. Is it the Minister's intention to press for more resources for Maritime Command or the Navy? Alternatively, does he feel that the ten warships to which we will be reduced, basically, by 1992, are sufficient to defend 59,000 miles of coastline?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Madam Speaker, 1 do not accept the allegation made by the Hon. Member relating to the number of warships we will have in 1992. As he knows, we have met the time frame that we had identified relating to the replacement of the first six frigates, the St. Lawrence class; the contract has been let and the Government is seeing to its responsibilities relating to the capacity of the maritime forces. As well, we welcome the

Oral Questions
report from the Senate. I will be addressing the recommendations of the Senate within that particular Chamber.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and concerns a question that has been raised before with regard to safety and regulations on smoking, and the consideration of banning smoking on aircraft. It is not only a question of smoke and the health hazard of smoking on aircraft, but butane flames, matches and the lighting of that material which can be explosive.


An Hon. Member:: Do you smoke?


Maurice James Harquail: As a matter of fact I do not smoke.


Miss Campbell:: That is why you are asking.


Maurice James Harquail: I was just confirming that the Hon. Member was quite correct. I gave up that habit some time ago.
Is the Minister considering any action within his Ministry to have the Canadian Transport Commission investigate the danger to passengers inherent in allowing smoking on aircraft, and the measures that could be taken to avoid such danger, by considering the banning of smoking on aircraft?


Coline M. Campbell: With larger ashtrays.


Maurice James Harquail: Could the Minister inform the House if any steps are being considered within his Ministry, or within the Canadian Transport Commission, to protect all Canadians travelling in Canada, indeed including Members of this House, Madam Speaker.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a very serious question and it deserves a serious answer. We are carefully considering the whole question relating to fire safety. We are working very closely with the United States Federal Aviation Agency which has just put forward a new series of regulations on fire resistant materials. They have promulgated orders and we will be looking at the responses to see if they can also be applied in Canadian aircraft because of the close linkage and the shared air routes between the two countries.
At the same time, my colleague's Department of National Health and Welfare is also looking at questions relating to smoking generally, as a health hazard. I think the combination of those two investigations will ensure that we provide the most effective balance of measures to protect the Canadian public in their air travel.
October 17, 1983


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister or to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the continuing confusion over the status of the island of Grenada in the Caribbean. I wonder if the Prime Minister or the Acting Minister could indicate what the situation in Grenada is, not only for the edification of the House but as well for the literally thousands of Canadians of Grenadian heritage who are in Canada.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will be reassured to know that while the situation in relation to the form of the future government in Grenada is unclear, the situation today is calm. There is a representative of our mission in Barbados who is presently in Grenada to observe the situation. There appears to be no danger whatsoever to the 81 or so Canadians who are resident in that island for one reason or another, or to the few Canadian tourists who are there at the present time.


COMMUNICATIONS INQUIRY
J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the Minister for that answer, Madam Speaker. May I ask him whether he is in a position to indicate to the House if air flights and the normal means of communication, air and boat and as well telecommunications, telephones, are in working order with Grenada? Granada is a beautiful city, but it is in Spain.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I am unable to confirm to the Hon. Member the situation in relation to telecommunications at the moment, but they have been normalized, and flights have been arriving on and departing from the island.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment who, this past weekend, met in Halifax with American officials, including the U.S. Secretary of State and the head of the environmental Protection Agency. I should like to ask the Minister what, if any, representations he made with regard to the Garrison diversion issue, and what response he received from the Americans.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, in conjunction with our Secretary of State for External Affairs, we made representations on the Garrison proposal both on Phase One and Phase Two. We registered Canadian concerns very strongly and very firmly once again.
October 17, 1983

They were well received, and I think it was a worth-while exchange of views which might lead to an improvement in mutual understanding of what the proposal will lead to in the long term.


REPORTED USE OF FALSIFIED INFORMATION BY PROJECT SUPPORTERS
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister. Last week we learned that the United States Department of the Interior has used bogus information to justify claims that Garrison will not adversely affect wet lands and wildlife habitat in northern Dakota. Can the Minister tell us whether this item was discussed on the weekend, and can he tell us what the Canadian Government is doing to check whether any such falsified information has been used by Garrison supporters to justify portions of the project which may have possible adverse effects on the Manitoba ecology?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question I should like to add that yesterday we obtained agreement to a meeting to be held in Washington between Canadian and American officials in November. They will work out a number of irritants related to Phase One. If that takes place in a satisfactory manner, I hope that some of the concerns of the Hon. Member will be met.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of his commitment of last week, I wonder if he has had an opportunity to review the RCMP report on the Air Canada matter. If so, what action does he intend to take, separate and apart from anything that has been referred to the Attorney General of Quebec, in regard to criminal implications?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, surely the Hon. Member should know that when a matter is still being considered by an officer of the law, it is a matter on which I cannot comment. I have not had a chance to look at the report. As the Attorney General still has the report on the legal side under advisement, it is a matter on which I cannot comment in the House.


REQUEST THAT TRANSPORT COMMITTEE BE CONVENED
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Chairman of the Transport Committee. There has been some discussion, and a letter, separate and apart from any alleged criminal activities or implications with regard to the RCMP report. Could the Chairman take steps to convene the Transport
Oral Questions
Committee forthwith-which has not been sitting for two weeks and which is seized of the Air Canada matter so that other areas of interest which affect the administration of Air Canada and its operation could be properly examined by the Committee?


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member well knows, the Committee has not been sitting for two weeks, but it sat continuously for three months. There is a very important piece of legislation before the House in which members of the Committee are interested, and many Members feel they should be in the House for that debate.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the President of Air Canada is out of the country for this week and next. It seems to me it would be unfair to call that Committee when he is not available.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. He is undoubtedly aware of the recent sinking of the Jorge B, a fishing tug, in Lake Erie, with the resultant tragic loss of three lives. Since that accident concerns have been raised about the seaworthiness of the vessels used in that operation, the inadequacy of the safety equipment, and the lack of proper inspections and proper training for captains. In light of this tragic loss of life, may I ask the Minister if he has looked into the matter? What steps is he taking to improve the situation there in order to prevent further loss of life and further tragedies of this nature?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as in all cases of this kind the Coast Guard makes an immediate examination, and an investigation will take place. 1 think many of the judgments made by the Hon. Member will have to wait for a full accounting from that kind of an examination. If some of those in fact prove to be the case, we would take the appropriate action to correct them. But I would ask the Hon. Member to await the full examination and assessment that we can make and I will share that information with him.


ABSENCE OF LIFEBOATS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's answer. However, the Windsor Star surveyed the fleets in the Wheatley and Kingsville area and found that of 37 boats moored at Wheatley on one afternoon, six did not have lifeboats on deck, and of 20 boats which were moored in Kingsville, eight had no lifeboats. In view of that situation would the Minister not consider it urgent enough to

Oral Questions
take action immediately to ensure that immediate steps are taken, rather than waiting for the full fledged inquiry that is going on?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I will certainly take the Hon. Member's representations and speak with Coast Guard officials in that area to determine the accuracy of those reports. If they are accurate, we will take the proper action.


INDUSTRY
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I understand that the receiver of the White Farm Equipment Company is releasing parts to dealers. However, the parent company in the United States is giving delivery times of several months. It appears that it is holding up delivery of parts until the ownership of the Canadian firm is settled. Has the Minister been advised of this and, if so, what action has he or will he take to get these parts delivered to Canadian dealers immediately?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, this is the first time 1 have heard of that situation so I obviously cannot respond positively to the Hon. Member. I will look into the case.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In Sudbury recently the Solicitor General said that "there is a lot of Soviet espionage^ in Canada and I do not think most Canadians realize it". In order for the Minister to give Canadians and Members of the House a better idea of what he meant, would he state exactly how much Soviet espionage there is in Canada? Has he communicated and explained his views to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to comment on a report which attributed to me a certain quantification of the number of Soviet spies in Canada. I want to assure the House that I gave no such precise quantification. I indicated that there obviously is in this country-as Canadians know from the occasional Png-s, the expulsion of Soviet diplomats-a threat to our national security from agents of the Soviet government in this country. Of course the numbers that are png-ed are a
October 17, 1983
small proportion of the total amount of activity under surveillance in that respect by the Security Service.


REPORT OF MINISTER'S SPEECH
Chris Speyer: The Solicitor General, in his speech in Sudbury to the Canadian Bar Association, said that the KGB's role was continuing to expand. Will the Minister quantify his statement that "there is a lot of Soviet espionage in Canada, and I do not think Canadians realize how much there is"? Just how much is there?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I do not feel it is in the public interest to give precise figures about that, neither did my predecessor from the Hon. Member's Party when he was Solicitor General.
I would remind him that if we can move quickly to the establishment of the new Security Intelligence Service, something that I advocate to the House, we would be in a position to have an external review committee which would, for the first time, have the power to overrule, in effect, the Solicitor General and decide that it might be in the public interest to give out that type of concrete information. I am not prepared to do it, but I invite the Hon. Member to support a system in which he would have access to a review of a decision about national security by the Solicitor General.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It concerns structural problems in the National Arts Centre. Sidewalks are crumbling, and water penetration is being found in the recently renovated mechanical room. As well, there are such bizarre conditions as a faked expansion joint, continuous water leaks from unidentified sources, and drains solidly plugged with concrete. Who, and what, are responsible for these conditions?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I will obviously inquire into the accuracy of the details alleged by the Hon. Member and I will give him an answer.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER LAUNCH INQUIRY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, these repairs will cost the Canadian taxpayers some $300,000. Is the Minister prepared to launch an independent inquiry into the structural problems to determine why there has been no quality control and proper inspection of concrete work at the National Arts Centre?
October 17, 1983


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, if the problems alleged by the Hon. Member are more than normal problems of maintenance, I will obviously want to find out why.
Oral Questions
hyperbole on the part of the Hon. Member. The suggestion he makes is one of those which, I understand, is being considered by the Minister and the industry.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DANGEROUS PRODUCTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Four years ago the Government banned the use of 1.5 litre pop bottles after reports of widespread injuries, including several children who lost their eyes. Although the injury record of 750 mililitre bottles was just as bad, no similar action was taken whatsoever, with the result of some 300 injuries reported since then. Now that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has met with the industry, what action will the Government finally take to ban the use of these dangerous bottles or, at the very least, to impose the same standards on these bottles as it earlier imposed on the 1.5 litre bottles?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs met with representatives of the industry on Friday. While I have not yet had the opportunity to speak with her, 1 am sure he is also aware of press reports stating that the industry is prepared to conduct an advertising campaign to make consumers aware of the dangers of these bottles. Furthermore, I think he will understand that there was tremendous concern over the previous ban in that it imposed tremendous costs on the industry. Apparently studies have indicated that the costs of such a ban on the 750 mililitre bottle would be prohibitive. I think he should take these arguments into consideration.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Minister admits that the bottles are a hazard, yet all she is doing is sweet-talking the industry into some sort of PR campaign.


REQUEST THAT BOTTLES BE PLASTIC COATED
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the industry has a plastic bottle coating plant in Ontario which has been sitting idle since January of this year, why does the Government not use its power effectively to ban these bottles or, at the very least, require that they be coated as the 1.5 litre bottles were coated, and stop mimicking the industry in claiming it costs too much? What is the cost of an eye or arm to a family whose child is hurt by these bottles?


David Berger: Madam Speaker, I do not think it is correct to characterize the Minister's action as sweet-talking. However, we are accustomed to that kind of


PROMISE OF NEW STANDARDS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, three years ago the industry promised new standards for this bottle, yet it has done absolutely nothing. How many more children will have to lose their eyes or arms before these dangerous bottles, one of which I will-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member knows that he is not to exhibit any object in the House. I would urge him to do away with that object. The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I will certainly send a sample bottle to the Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat? The Hon. Member for York-Peel.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for External Relations. Would the Minister indicate whether the Government of Canada has warned France of the danger of furnishing advanced jet fighters to Iraq, as have the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the West German Republic, and many of the Gulf nations themselves?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, we are quite aware of the fact that the provision of those planes to Iraq may cause greater tension between Iraq and Iran, but we have made no formal representation, to my knowledge, to the French Government on this matter.


REQUEST THAT MIN ISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO FRANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of State for External Relations. Surely he will agree this is perhaps the most delicate region in the world today. Would the Minister at least

October 17, 1983
Oral Questions
consider making representations to France and explain the concern of the Canadian Government with respect to its action in furnishing these aircraft?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Government is very much aware of that, and that is one of the reasons why the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be travelling in the region very soon.


HUMAN RIGHTS
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for External Relations. The Minister will be aware that the Jewish community in Nicaragua has been reduced to 50 persons and the Sandinistas have waged a systematic campaign against them since 1977. Will the Minister tell us whether this factor and other human rights factors will play a significant role in deciding whether or not Nicaragua will get the $15 million aid package that has been asked for it by the NDP?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will recognize that the aid packages determined by CIDA are not based upon the findings of the New Democratic Party.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Since when?


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, the point is that human rights in El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua are equally important.


EXTERNAL AID
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, on the question of double standards, will either the Minister of State for International Trade or the Minister of State for External Relations tell me why Somalia got $2 million in development aid from Canada last year when it is one of the ten poorest countries? I remind the Minister it is one of strategic importance to the free world and it has been a country staunchly in favour of the free world for about seven years now.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise this House whether wholly-owned subsidiaries, American subsidiaries of Crown-owned corporations, are subject to the same conflict of interest guidelines as regular Crown corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member is talking about a Canadian Crown corporation which would own a subsidiary in the United States. I would think so, Madam Speaker.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last week in response to a question the Prime Minister left the impression that it is not his intention to replace a Minister of Mines to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of his only Minister from Newfoundland. The Prime Minister knows of the reaction of the mining industry to that statement. He left the impression that it might take months, if ever, before a new Minister is appointed. Would the Prime Minister be willing today to be more precise as to what his intentions are with respect to that, namely, will there be another Minister of Mines and a more precise date when the appointment will take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot make out what the Hon. Member is allegedly saying about the mining industry. Those who are in the mining industry and know their business know that they have a perfectly good mining Minister in the person of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


An Hon. Member:: Why do we need another Minister then?


PRICE OF GASOLINE
Gerald Augustine Regan: 
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I can reply to that question. The big difference in the prices in Canada is very often caused by the provincial taxes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In the case of Quebec, for example, the Province of Quebec takes much more money than any other Province. There is no provincial tax in Alberta. There is a substantial tax in Ontario and, if you compare the level of provincial tax in Ontario and the tax levied in most of the neighbouring States of the United States, the take by the American States is much less than that taken by the Ontario provincial Government or the Quebec provincial Government.


LIBERAL PARTY PROMISE ON PRICE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Minister will know that the federal Government is taking at least the largest portion out of every dollar of gasoline purchased at the pump.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources tell us where his promise and the Liberal promise that prices would not elevate beyond 75 per cent of world levels has gone? Where is that promise now? Does that mean Canadian voters, consumers, farmers, business men, and everyone who uses gas, should forget about any promise or commitment to 75 per cent of the world level?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is not too familiar with the last campaign. In the last campaign we said that there was not to be the 18-cent tax above normal prices.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to correct the Hon. Member when he says that the federal tax in Canada is much higher than in the United States. It is at about the same level as in the United States. The big difference in Canada is caused by provincial taxes which are much more in most Provinces than the taxes charged by the States in the United States. Of course the Province of Alberta, and Saskatchewan, have no sales tax and that is why the prices are competitive there.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is my
Oral Questions
understanding from the court proceedings in the fisheries products reorganization in Newfoundland that there is a secret agreement between the Government of Canada and the Bank of Nova Scotia relating to the restructuring of the fisheries. Is it the Government's intention to disclose the details of this agreement to Parliament? If not, why not?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I can say to my hon. friend that this agreement reached between the federal negotiator and the president of the Bank of Nova Scotia has been transmitted in confidence to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I think also to the Premier of Nova Scotia. As for making it public, I do not think, because of the sensitive commercial nature of that document, that I am at liberty to make it public at this moment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the Minister for that answer, Madam Speaker.


NATURE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S COMMITMENTS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Did this secret agreement involve the Government in making unusual or special commitments? If so, what are they? What are the amounts committed, and was Nova Scotia's restructuring agreement contingent upon access to the Gulf fishery in 1983 and beyond?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, there is absolutely nothing secret. The agreement that has been reached with the Bank of Nova Scotia and Premier Peckford has been made public by Premier Peckford and myself at a joint press conference. We gave all the figures.
As for fishing allocations, I can assure the Hon. Member that the federal Minister of Fisheries today or in the future will never allocate fish on a bilateral basis. All Provinces participate in that question. For instance, last week all the Deputy Ministers of Fisheries, including the one from Nova Scotia from where the Hon. Member comes, participated in a meeting in Ottawa precisely on that topic, among others. This is the only way we can keep the confidence of all the participants. If I start doing secret deals with one Government, at that point of course there will be a lot of skepticism.

Report of Special Committee



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lay upon the Table, in both official languages, a copy of the report and recommendations of the Commission on Judges' Salaries and Benefits; and I ask that this report be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

[ Translation]


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT (NO. 3) MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council) asked for leave to introduce Bill C-169, "An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (No. 3)".
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE On the Order: Motions:
October 3, 1983-Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (Vice-Chairman of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure):
That the Sixth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented to the House on Tuesday, March 29, 1983, be concurred in.
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) cannot be in the House today because he is attending the funeral of the police officer who was so tragically shot last Friday. On the weekend he asked me if I would move concurrence in the sixth report on his behalf.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to move this motion in the absence of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is no consent.
October 17, 1983


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit that consent is not required. I anticipated this kind of situation arising. I am prepared for it, and I want to make submissions to the Chair.
There has been a long standing practice in the House that, where there has been a specific request by an absent Member in whose name a motion stands on the Order Paper for another Member to move it, it has been done as a matter of routine. I wish to cite some precedents for consideration by the Chair. The first is Citation 402 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, wherein the following is set forth:
Merely formal motions for the adoption of reports or for certain papers, to which there is no objection, are usually permitted to be made in the absence of the Member who has placed the notice on the Order Paper.
I ask the Chair and its advisers to pay particular attention to the position of the commas in that sentence, because I propose referring to the Fourth Edition as well as to the French edition of Beauchesne for an elaboration on this submission.
Citation 402 at first glance would appear to preclude motions for the adoption of reports to be made in the absence of the Member who placed the notice on the Order Paper in cases where there has been an objection heard. However, reference to the Fourth Edition of Beauchesne shows that Citation 402 was drawn from previous Citation 188(4). The only change to the words of the citation from edition to edition was the inclusion of a comma after the word "papers". By placing the words "to which there is no objection" within commas, the effect has been to change the original intent of the citation.
In the original citation the matter of the raising of an objection referred only to motions for the production of papers. This interpretation is consistent with the French text of Citation 402 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition and with Bourinot's Fourth Edition from which the words are taken. I refer the Chair to the French text to be found at page 147 of Beauchesne. I do not wish to fracture the French language by reading the citation, but the Chair will notice immediately the validity of the comparison I draw, supporting the contention I make, which seems to be bolstered by a reading of the French text.
As well, Bourinot provides references to instances where motions have been moved in the absence of the Members who gave notice of these motions. Footnote (c) at the bottom of page 299 of Bourinot's Fourth Edition-and I will not burden the Chair by reading it-cites instances where motions were moved in the absence of the Member in whose name the motion was standing on the Order Paper. I have dug up the citations to which Bourinot referred that indicate the practice goes all the way back to 1878.
In this instance the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) informed the Chair that he was specifically requested by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to rise today to move the motion on behalf of the Hon. Member, who is unavoidably absent. It would be different if that specific request were not present. There would be some merit in the suggestion that a Member could not rise to move a motion
October 17, 1983

standing in the name of another Member if that specific request were not present. If that were to be the case, there could be chaos in this place.
However, here we have a specific request by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton in whose name the motion stands, a specific request made of the Hon. Member for St. John's East who is now attempting to exercise the right of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton to have the motion which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton heard.
Therefore I submit that inasmuch as the Hon. Member for St. John's East has been authorized to move concurrence in the sixth report of the Special Committee-


James Aloysius McGrath: And is a member of the Committee.


Erik Nielsen: -is also a member of that Committee and has been authorized by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton in whose name the notice of motion stands, the Hon. Member is within his rights to proceed with moving concurrence in that report and should be permitted to do so.
On the basis of those precedents, I submit that the Chair has no obligation to seek consent. Indeed, what is being sought by seeking unanimous consent is the right of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton himself to make that specific request of another Member and specifically to authorize that other Hon. Member to move the motion standing in his name.
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, there are three points I wish to make. First of all, the Chair asked the unanimous consent of the House, and we made it clear that we were not giving our consent. Consequently, the remarks made by the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) are somewhat belated, and if the Chair agrees to consider them, I submit this would be tantamount to allowing an appeal from a ruling made by the Chair, because asking for unanimous consent means the Chair had decided that such consent was necessary for the motion to be moved. In fact, the Chair was correct in saying that unanimous consent was required, because my second point refers to Citation 402 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, as interpreted by the Hon. Member for Yukon.
The Member for Yukon mentioned a difference between the texts of the Fifth and the Fourth Editions. He said that a comma in the Fourth Edition was deleted in the Fifth Edition. However, aside from the adjustment that may have been made, I think his interpretation-in the Fifth Edition a number of adjustments were made in texts that were erroneous in the Fourth Edition, and the purpose of the Fifth Edition was to adjust and modernize the Fourth Edition. However, upon reading Citation 402, we realize that taking the text in its entirety, no other conclusion is possible: the requirement that there should be no objection applies both to tabling documents
Report of Special Committee
and the adoption of a report. Practically speaking, which of the two is more likely to raise objections, tabling documents or presenting a report? As far as I know, there has never been any objection to tabling documents, while when a report is tabled, if there are no objections, requesting concurrence becomes a formality, since the Parties will have consulted beforehand, and if the chairman of a committee or anyone else who was to move a motion for concurrence is absent for some reason, since consultations have been held and no objections raised, there is agreement and unanimous consent is given, although according to Citation 402, it would not be necessary. However, sometimes there are objections to committee reports, and that is the case today. I therefore submit that Citation 402 does cover this case and that the Chair was correct in requesting unanimous consent before allowing the Hon. Member to move the motion on behalf of another Member. In the circumstances, Citation 402 seems quite clear: it does not allow another Member to move a motion or the adoption of a report if objections are anticipated. In this particular case, no one indicated to the Chair that consultations had taken place between the parties and that everyone was prepared to concur in the adoption of this report. On the contrary. Therefore, since the Chair has not been notified of the absence of any objections, the Chair must apply the general rule and, since this is a departure from our usual practice, request the unanimous consent of the House, which was denied. We did so for two very simple reasons, and I would like to put them on the record, because I do not wish to cast any doubts on the reasons that the Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) may have for being absent.
The first reason is that the House has before it a very controversial bill, and that obviously, debating the report today will prevent us from proceeding with the debate on Bill C-155. That is the first reason why we did not give our unanimous consent, and why we object to the report being tabled, which was ample justification for the Chair to request the unanimous consent of the House. This is a dilatory manoeuvre to prevent us from continuing debate on Bill C-155, as the Progressive Conservatives did last Friday. They are doing so now. They are wasting the time of the House of Commons by debating subjects other than those the Government wishes to introduce for debate under the Standing Orders as is its prerogative.
The second reason is that by moving the adoption of this report, as we said before during the debate last Friday the Chairman of the Committee on Procedure and Organization, that is of the Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform, stressed this in the House, as did Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) and other Members as well; it is all on the record the Progressive Conservative Members are reneging on an understanding that was reached in committee that no motion to concur would be moved for the time being, and since they are not respecting the understanding that was reached by committee members, there is no reason why we should agree to

October 17, 1983
Report of Special Committee
support their lack of ethics vis-a-vis their colleagues. In the circumstances, we definitely object to a debate on this report today, and the Chair was entirely correct in requesting the unanimous consent of the House, and allowing the Member for Yukon to proceed is tantamount to allowing an appeal from the Chair's ruling.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to deal with three points which are novel and new with respect to this issue. First, my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) did not in the course of standing on this motion ask for unanimous consent. It was not a question of his proceeding on that basis.
The second point which is relevant is that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) imputes motives with respect to moving a legitimate and quite proper motion in the course of Orders of the Day. Any Member imputing motives with respect to a legitimate motion regarding parliamentary reform is out of order. How preposterous that is. I will not comment further because I do not want to be in the same position as the President of the Privy Council when he enters into argument as to whether or not this motion should be supported.
Third, I want to talk in terms of analagous situations on which Your Honour has ruled on many occasions. When a Member has initiated proceedings on the Order Paper, we in this House have accepted the proposition that, notwithstanding the absence from the House of that Member, valid motions or petitions are dealt with and sustained.
The most obvious example I can give is that the former Member for Leeds, the late Mr. Cossitt, had a number of motions on the Order Paper, I dare say hundreds, with respect to the production of documents and Questions on the Order Paper. It was ruled and held that those questions remain extant and can be pursued by any Member of this House. The analogy is there with respect to a legitimate proceeding of the House.
We have here a situation where the Member in question, performing his responsibilities as a Member of Parliament, has specifically authorized and directed a Member of the House of Commons to move or proceed on a motion which is properly before the House. With the greatest deference, I do not see how any of the arguments made by the President of the Privy Council are relevant.
In my experience, unanimous consent is never asked for with respect to analogous situations in this House. There have been specific rulings with regard to Questions on the Order Paper and motions for the production of papers. I say, Madam Speaker, that you are quite justified in saying whether or not it meets the pleasure of the House. However, when we have a situation of this nature, it does not mean that that particular statement which is made by you is willy-nilly a ruling of the House. In other words, I do not think the President of the Privy Council can come forward and say that you have ruled for all time forward that this circumstance is barred from argument. I would hate to see the day when the House of
Commons, by virtue of your initial reaction to matters, would be barred from bringing forward a motion which is of the essence of the parliamentary system and our House of Commons procedure.
I simply urge you, Madam Speaker, to allow my colleague for St. John's East to proceed with this motion, which is on the Order Paper legitimately and has been properly brought forward by my colleague.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will be brief, Madam Speaker. When I rose to move concurrence on behalf of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I did not request unanimous consent because, with respect, I did not think it was necessary for me to do so. I say to the Chair, with the same respect, that the Chair inadvertently sought the consent of the House when it was not necessary.
The reason I did not seek unanimous consent to move concurrence in the sixth report on behalf of my absent colleague, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, whose absence today is for a very good and honourable reason, was because when your distinguished predecessor, Speaker Lamoureux, ruled that any Member could move concurrence, there were no restrictions placed on it. I was rising in my place today not only as a colleague of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, having been requested to act on his behalf, but as a member of the committee wanting to get along with the business of the House in moving concurrence in a report on which notice had been served by the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton.
I believe, Your Honour, with respect, that requiring unanimous consent was not at all necessary because the practices of the House since the ruling of Speaker Lamoureux are such that it is not unusual for an Hon. Member to nod to move concurrence or to move a motion on behalf of an absent Member. It is a frequent occurrence on all sides of the House. If we were to be restricted in that, you would not only be restricting Members of the House but also Members of the Treasury benches who could not in fact move motions on behalf of their absent colleagues. That would seriously hamstring the business of the House.


Madam Speaker:: I have listened to all of the arguments and I am certainly confirmed in my first move that it was necessary to ask for unanimous consent in this particular case. The fact that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) did not ask for unanimous consent does not apply, I feel, because the practice of the House is that if someone else but the one who has given notice of such a motion moves a motion, he must get the unanimous consent of the House.
I will read to the Hon. Member from the portion of Bouri-not which was quoted by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
A Member may not propose a motion in the absence of another who has placed it on the notice paper-
October 17, 1983

The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had placed it on the notice paper. The Hon. Member for St. John s East is moving in his place.
-except with the general consent of the House.
The argument made by the Hon. Member for Yukon in which he quoted Beauchesne is addressed here:
Merely formal motions for the adoption of reports or for certain papers to which there is no objection, are frequently permitted to be made, but all motions involving discussion-
That is the key word.
-must be proposed by the Member in whose name they appear on the paper.
This is confirmed in Citation 402 of Beauchesne in the French which the Hon. Member said was clear to him. It is also clear to me and I shall read it in French:
402. La motion de pure forme tendant a 1'adoption d'un rapport ou a la production de documents ne faisant I'objet d aucune contestation peut generale-ment etre presentee en I'absence du depute qui l'a inscrite au Feuillelon.
"De pure forme", or merely formal!
That is to say, a formal motion to adopt a report may be made by someone else but a motion as described by Bourinot which involves discussion must be proposed by the Member in whose name it appears on the Order Paper. The English version of Beauchesne is also quite clear. Therefore, I must maintain my decision that there was no unanimous consent, and therefore, 1 cannot accept that motion.

[Translation)


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. 4,972 and 4,991.


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


Hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: 1. The Board of Directors of Loto Canada Inc. consists of the following three people: Mrs. Dorothy Pratt, Ottawa, Ontario, (Homemaker); Miss Danielle Desbiens, Montreal, Quebec, (Assistant Dean of the University of Quebec); Mr. Gordon Kritsch, Gloucester, Ontario, (Public Servant).
2. Both Mrs. Pratt and Miss Desbiens receive the standard remuneration of $250 per diem for attendance at Board of Directors' meetings, which, on average, are held 12 times a
Order Paper Questions
year. Mr. Kritsch, because he is a public servant, does not receive any remuneration as a Director.
At their meetings, the Directors of Loto Canada rotate as chairperson. There is no president. The most senior executive is a senior vice-president on contract, at $550 per day, paid on average for 10 days a month. Other than expenses as provided in the by-laws of the Corporation, and the previously mentioned fees, there are no other benefits awarded to either the directors of Loto Canada Inc. or the senior vice-president.


Mr. Hawkes: 1.	What amount did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation receive from commercial advertising in the fiscal year 1982-83?
2.	What proportion of that amount came from Crown corporations?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. $ 154.2 million, 2. 1.6 per cent ($2.4 million).


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,886 and 4,928 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 4886 and 4928 be deemed to have been made orders for returns.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Waddell: 1.	For each fiscal year from March 31, 1968 to March 31, 1983, what were the losses in the coal division of the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
2.	In each of the fiscal years, what were the contributions made by social costs inherited from the previous owners, such as pension costs for employees and pre-retirement costs, to these annual losses?
3.	(a) What were the total direct and indirect costs, including coal cleaning, for each of the fiscal years (b) what was a breakdown of each category included in direct and indirect costs and their percentage of total costs for (i) 1968 (ti) 1973 (iii) 1978 (iv) 1983?
4.	For (a) 1968 (b) 1973 (c) 1978 (d) 1983, what were the numbers employed underground, surface and administrative in the coal division?
5.	For (a) 1968 (b) 1973 (c) 1978 (d) 1983, what was the total compensation paid to the category of (i) underground (ii) surface (iii) administrative workers?
6 (a) For each year since 1968, what were the total expenditures made on the development side of the Devco Corporation (b) how were the expenditures divided as between wages and salaries and other expenditures (c) how many new

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
jobs are estimated to have been maintained as to sector, industry and occupations as a result of the development division's expenditures since 1968?
Return tabled.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Advisory Committee on Fitness and Amateur Sport and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (li) 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?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, 1 ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, when speaking to Motion No. 36 moved by an Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party, I would particularly like to look at the proposal that the focus of attention of any performance obligations would rest singularly on the railways. While 1 understand the sentiments of Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party in putting forward such a motion, it seems to me that it is in the wisdom of the House to bear in mind that, when looking at the question of performance objectives, we must necessarily look at a systems analysis. It would be wrong, both academically and technically, to presume that to focus our attention on only one link of the chain would give us an appropriate analysis of the entire chain.
To suggest that all of the performance obligations within the authority of the Grain Transportation Administrator should
focus only on the railways would, I submit, leave void the question of what problems might exist within many other areas. These include the areas of trucking, loading at country elevators, the country elevators themselves, inland terminals, the terminals at port, the hopper car allocation system, the grain inspectors, the port facilities, tugboats and tugboat operators, the international shipping arrangements and the international shipping contracts, the Canadian Wheat Board as it applies to its capacity for international sales, labour organizations and a host of other dimensions, all of which need to be considered.
In essence, Sir, the New Democratic Party is suggesting that the concept of performance guarantees is important, and that is a position that does not differ from that of the Government or the Official Opposition. However, to focus singularly the concept of performance guarantees on only one element, that of the railways, implies to me more of a vindictive attack on a national organization than an intent to solve a problem.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Everybody else is regulated except them.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, you will again hear the Hon. Members of the NDP who have taken their morning steroids exercising their vocal cords at a much higher volume than is usual.
The truth of the matter is that the whole system, if it is to function, must function with all of its dimensions in place. Just moments ago when Madam Speaker rose, she asked if any Hon. Member wished to speak. The NDP did not put up any speakers then but now that I am up, their Members want to speak. That does not surprise me but perhaps they can rest for a while because I will be sitting down shortly. I would like to hear how they can possibly defend the position that the Grain Transportation Authority should be able to have all of its power focused only on the railways and on none of the other dimensions.
If we turn to those persons who are most affected by a slowdown in the movement of grain, the prairie farmers, and ask them what their concerns are with regard to the movement of grain, certainly very high on their list would be the question of strikes and physical breakdowns in the system, particularly through the Rocky Mountains. I commend to your attention. Sir, the period of time in 1974 when, out of the 52 weeks available for movement of grain in that crop year, only 13 weeks were trouble free and most of the problems were caused by strikes or rockslides through the Rocky Mountains. That means that when there are performance guarantees that must be met, we obviously cannot simply make sure that the railway is the only one that has to measure up. There is a great deal of room for the country elevators to simply not perform in a proper manner.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, the Board has sanctions.


Arnold John Malone: As I am being told by the people who sit beside me to my far left, there is also the question of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Wheat Board in itself may not allocate the cars appropriately. Surely there ought to be the right of
October 17, 1983

investigation into the Wheat Board. It could well be, Sir, that the terminals are not putting the grain through. We simply cannot make the presumption that once the grain gets to the port terminal, it will automatically be loaded. If that presumption could justifiably be made, then, of course, the grain transportation authority would not need to investigate. But surely we ought not to tread on such dangerous ground as to presume that the port authority would always automatically load grain efficiently, and that same fact holds true of the Canadian Wheat Board in the making of its contracts in the international marketplace. Surely it is prima facie evidence that if the Canadian Wheat Board did not act in the international markets to bring onstream viable sales for Canadian grain, no matter how efficient the transportation systems of CN and CP are, if the sales are not there, obviously the grain is not going to be moved. All that becomes a part of the dimension of the question of how we put together a system where the authority has the right to check every part of the system.
1 do not know what protection the New Democratic Party is trying to provide to which people, and for what motive it wants to pull out from a whole system of grain transportation one element and say it is only that element for which the authority has the right to investigate on the record of performance. It is nothing other than clear logic to say that if performance is your end result, all of the factors which lead to improved performance ought to be considered. Even the Wheat Board ought to be subject to questions.
I hear some coaching from behind me, from the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) who is trying to protect the Wheat Board from questions. The New Democratic Party would like to make the Canadian Wheat Board a Crown corporation like Petro-Canada, Air Canada and the CBC, and just give it taxpayers dollars and never have it accountable to anyone. The truth of the matter is, Sir, that we need to have a system which is viable and in which every dimension of the system is ready to be checked. Any program which is put forward which says that the fundamental basis of this program is the question of performance, and then only one dimension of performance is focused on, is naive at best, and I will not tell you what it would be at its worst, Sir. I conclude simply by saying that the amendment is naive and falls short of meeting its objectives. The original motion is a better one because in fact we have the capability of carrying out a full investigation of all sections of the system. It is that kind of investigation which is necessary if we are going to have as the ultimate result the high rate of performance which the authority can demand.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), and to listen once again to the oracles from that end of the House continue on in their efforts to attempt to downgrade the Canadian Wheat Board and other agencies. It is rather puzzling to listen to the Conservatives adopt what is
Western Grain Transportation Act almost the philosophy of one of the more famous Liberals in this country's history, William Lyon Mackenzie King, a former Prime Minister. To quote from a poem by Frank Scott entitled, "W.L.M.K."
The height of his ambition
Was to pile a Parliamentary Committee on a Royal Commission.
In this case we are not piling a parliamentary committee on a Royal commission, but what the Tories and the Liberals are asking for is an investigator to investigate the investigators to investigate the investigators. Joe McCarthy would have a field day in this place.
It is ridiculous for those who talk about bureaucracies and who attempt to lecture the Canadian public and the Members of the Canadian House of Commons about the evils of bureaucracy, to at the same time, want to pile another bureaucracy upon another bureaucracy, to police self-policing organizations, whether these be labour organizations or the Canadian Wheat Board for example, which already has a series of second looks built into its very structure involving both Ministers of the Crown and the Parliament of Canada. It is ridiculous to pile investigators upon investigators and bureaucracies upon bureaucracies and still claim we care about the public purse and that we care about having Government agencies which people can understand. It is indeed puzzling.
Hon. Members, of which the Hon. Member for Crowfoot was one, wanted to know why the New Democratic Party to paraphrase his words-wanted to single out the railways. We do not believe that is really what is happening. We believe, as many contributors to this debate have made clear up to this point, that the Canadian Wheat Board and the other agencies which the Tories may or may not want-it is very vague-to come under the purview of the new super czar, already have their own self-policing mechanisms or policing and investigative mechanisms set in place by the Government of Canada or one of its agencies. We do not believe it is necessary to extend overseeing powers further.
Why do we believe that the CPR is not one of those which can be totally counted upon to police itself in terms of the public welfare? We do not believe that the CPR or the other railways, have up to this point been sufficiently supervised, in terms of the public interest, since the initial railway agreements were signed with the Government of Canada shortly after the time of Confederation. One way of looking at Canadian history, Mr. Speaker, is that Canada was created because the CPR needed someone to pay for its railway. It needed taxpayers and it needed a government to pay the cost of building its railway and to ensure that its future position would be secure. Canada was developed because the CPR needed someone to build its railway, and the Hudson Bay Company needed someone to pay for the policing of its territories. And we have behaved that way ever since. All one has to do is to look at how free and easy it has been for that major railway to have its own way with governments, whether they be Liberal or Conservative, since Confederation. One begins to wonder who is policing whom in this country. I feel that we in the New Democratic Party, and that portion of the

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Canadian electorate which has continuously given its support to us, can be forgiven for believing that if any corporation or any institution in Canadian society needs a second look into its operations from time to time to ensure that it is behaving in such a way as not to come into major conflict with the public interest, surely that institution is the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the railways in general.
It is interesting to note that underlying the debate, not only on these amendments but the entire debate on the reform, if you will, of the Crow rate, is the question of the investment plans of the Canadian railway system. Considering the huge bonus they are going to get as the result of the Government's program-sometimes supported by the Progressive Conservative Party sometimes not-why is it that the investment plans of CN Rail for the first year in which the Government proposals are intended to come into effect are down by 22.9 per cent? Why is it that the investment plans of CP Rail are down by some 20.4 per cent just at the time that they will begin to reap the bonanza handed to them on a silver platter by that Government, and by the Official Opposition because of its shilly-shallying and indecision over whether it supports or does not support the proposals now before us? If that does not suggest that perhaps there ought to be some singling out, some special second look, some special supervision, then I do not know what does.
We have nothing against the argument that if these agencies or companies receive large influxes of taxpayers' money there should be some authority vested in the new commissioner or some other agency to ensure they are performing up to snuff. But, if we already have institutions with a built-in self-policing function, where either their membership or participants are able to exert from a multiplicity of disciplines some control over their behaviour in accordance with the broad interests of all of those in the industry or in Canada as a whole, then we in this Party believe, because it is part of our general philosophy, that they should be allowed to continue with that function. But if we have evidence that the major parties to all of this, the railways, particularly the CPR, the one agency which will receive billions of dollars over the next few years as a result of the generosity of the Government and of the Opposition-and we have a century of history to give us a lot of evidence which suggests they need watching carefully, then there are mechanisms by which we can ensure that they do follow through on the commitments they have made. It is quite proper that they should be "singled out", for special observation and control.
So we have no apologies to make for what some Conservative Members, I think the Hon. Member for Crowfoot among them, have at least inferred is the "discriminatory" attitude we have taken in this matter.
The railways are the ones getting the money, they are being given the authority. There is no structure built in to ensure they meet both their moral and financial commitments to the people of Canada. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendments and invite Members of good faith and good will
from both the Official Opposition and, hopefully, the Government to join with us in ensuring that those who need some supervision get it and that we allow those with self-discipline, as I indicated before, to continue to be free.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a brief intervention on this motion. As Members will know, I come from a city riding and it is sometimes difficult to keep all the details in mind given such a complex piece of legislation. But if one reads over at least a portion of the committee hearings, and tries to stay alert to the general intent of the proposed amendments, I think one should come to the position of having real doubt about supporting the NDP amendment in this particular case.
The NDP sometimes suffers perhaps from a lack of membership, therefore a lack of resources and people to do adequate research. Sometimes the left hand does not really know what the right hand is doing. I guess the classic example of that is the NDP's hasty decision on December 13, 1979, to defeat a budget which was good for the country and in particular good for western Canada. When they did that it became clear subsequently-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, I must call to his attention the fact that debate at report stage must be strictly relevant to the amendments before us.


Ian Deans: It is about time you brought them to order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I was simply trying to make the point that in this amendment I think we have a Party, the NDP, which has not done its homework on the implications. In 1979, Mr. Speaker, we put in place a Grain Commissioner. I bring to your attention the fact that he was empowered to deal with the entire system of grain movement. At the committee meeting held on Wednesday, August 31, 1983, the deputy minister had this to say about the Commissioner:
No, Mr. Chairman. That has not been the experience of the past four years. The general sense of most of the agricultural organizations in western Canada was that the existing entity was working well-
That entity, Mr. Speaker, was put in place by the Conservatives in 1979. He went on to say:
that, indeed, there was a potential to do more. That is why there was such broad agreement in both the Gilson process and in the Central Co-ordinating Agency Task Force among those organizations to set up the kind of organizations as provided for in this bill.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, to have a co-ordinator empowered to look at the entire grain system was a Conservative Government innovation in 1979. I suggest to the House that looking back over the last three and a half years we have seen it work and we must be alert to amendments which would remove from that administrative person the power, authority and responsibility to look at the entire system.
I bring to the attention of the House that the Conservative Party moved a motion in committee, which was supported by the NDP, and the chief spokesman on this matter for the NDP agreed with us that it really should be political people, Cabinet
October 17, 1983

Ministers, who should decide who the system participants are. The Cabinet should decide what aspects of the grain handling system need to be looked at to make it cost effective and efficient in order to meet our commitments to our customers from other nations. But, Mr. Speaker, the intent of the amendments before us today is to restrict the power and authority which the Administrator would have so as to ensure that the system meets those commitments and obligations. Even when one comes from the city, it is a bit of a puzzle why the New Democratic Party would support this Party in its basic thrust to deal with the entire system at one time and then today, move an amendment that would have the effect of restricting the degree to which we can work to make the entire grain handling system a better system. The only explanation is that the New Democratic Party has not done its homework. That was the case in 1979 as well when it brought down a government that was doing good things for the nation and for the West. It threw that Government out of office. Today there is that same lack of research and lack of understanding of the basic implications of the specific words in the motions being moved by the NDP.
1 should like to remind Members of the New Democratic Party that in committee they vacillated back and forth on this issue. I can well understand their desire to filibuster the Bill in the House. It has the potential to throw western Canadian farmers into bankruptcy in the same way the National Energy Program threw thousands and thousands of western Canadians out of work and put thousands and thousands of western Canadians into bankruptcy. The piece of legislation before us has that same kind of potential.
If we were to vote for this amendment and take away the powers of the Administrator to deal with the entire system, we would be inviting the system to be overly expensive and not meet the goals and the objectives set out for it. When that happens, all Canadian taxpayers pay for it in one form or another. It is something that is not said in the House often enough to the people in Montreal or Toronto-that what the Government is moving here is a piece of legislation the total impact of which will make the production of grain more expensive. It will result in the cost of a loaf of bread in Montreal or Toronto being greater than it is today.
That is what the Government is doing when it tries to throw this unknown burden on the backs of producers. That is what we would all be doing in this Chamber if we voted for any amendment that would hamstring the ability of the Administrator to make the system less costly. If we lower the cost of transportation we will lower the price of grain. In the retail markets of Toronto and Montreal we will have lowered the cost of meat, lowered the cost of bread, lowered the cost of flour. If we vote for amendments that have the potential to make the system more expensive and to waste money, we will have raised the cost of beef, raised the cost of bread and raised the cost of flour.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I urge Members on all sides of the House to reconsider the amendments and vote them down because they would have the effect of building inefficiencies into the system and, therefore, additional wasteful costs.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to follow the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


An Hon. Member:: And pretty difficult.


Ian Deans: It is easy to follow in the sense that I speak after him, but it is difficult to follow in the sense of understanding what he said.
I noticed with interest his comparison between our position taken in 1979 with regard to the budget of the then Conservative Government and the position we take today with regard to the amendments we have placed before the House.
I want to say something that I know you are well aware of, Mr. Speaker. The decision we took in 1979 was supported wholeheartedly by the people of Canada in February, 1980. The decision we are taking today will be supported wholeheartedly by the people of Canada for years to come. Unfortunately, because of the coalition that has developed between the Government and its Conservative allies, the chance that we will be able to implement what we consider to be a more rational approach to the administration and handling of grain, will not be allowed to occur. I am as positive today about the correctness of what we are doing in these particular amendments as I was about what we did in 1979 in our motion which spoke out clearly against what the Conservatives were trying to do to the country economically.
I want to reinforce that by saying that just as in February, 1980, the people of Canada expressed their opinion, which was exactly the same as ours, that the Conservatives should not be allowed to govern, today, given the opportunity to vote on these three amendments, they would rise en force and say to the Conservatives, "Get out of bed with the Liberals. This is an unholy alliance. You must stop this destruction of the West. We will vote against you on these matters."
I can think of nothing that makes more sense or is more logical than what we are proposing today. You know as I do, Mr. Speaker, that when you give one body authority over another self-regulating body, you just put a further impediment in the way of progress. It is clear to me that we have already established in law and in practice that when you have agencies that currently deal with the handling and disposition of wheat and other grains, but primarily the Wheat Board and the Grain Commission, when you have bodies which have operated as effectively and efficiently as they have over the years and which fully understand the complexities of the marketplace and have been able to develop procedures and processes to gain markets for the farmers of western Canada, the last thing you want is to superimpose another body to second guess them at every turn. But that is what the Government is proposing and that is why we are trying to stop it.

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act We have a history that goes back 100 years, more or less, of effective operations with regard to the Wheat Board for as long as it goes back and as far back as the old Canada Grain Act goes. Suddenly to come up with a program that would give one person the power to second guess this most efficient, effective group and give that person the right to decide whether it was doing its job in conformity with what is in the best interests of the Canadian farmer and of Canada as a whole as we continue to find markets for our products-to give that individual, whose primary purpose as set out in the Bill is to guarantee that there will be a grain transportation system, and his or her two or three employees the right to-


An Hon. Member:: Twenty-five or 30.


Ian Deans: My colleague says 25 or 30 employees-to give that person and those employees a mandate to begin the process of interfering in the extremely good work of the Grain Commission and the Wheat Board, makes no sense at all. I do not know what it is the Conservatives are talking about. For the life of me I cannot understand why they continuously rise and mumble into their beards about some sort of overseeing capacity that is necessary. Not a soul in western Canada believes that. Why they would align themselves with the scourge of the West, the Liberal Party, on this matter-why they would choose to creep into the still warm bed they just got out of last week in order to appease the Liberals in their squeeze for the destruction of the entire farming community, is beyond comprehension.
When I see what is going on here, I must ask why the Conservatives are doing this. The Conservatives almost gained respectability in the last three weeks by moving toward the position we have been putting forward ever since the Bill was introduced. The Conservatives have been sitting on the fence since the introduction of this Bill, never quite sure what position to adopt. Finally they decided that they would like to see the entire matter delayed for three years, which I quite frankly feel is not long enough. But at least it showed that they were moving in the right direction. When confronted with a most reasonable proposal, which we are now offering and which has been consistent with our view of this Bill from its introduction, they suddenly decide to jump ship and leap back into the sinking boat of the Liberal Party. That is beyond my understanding. The 62 per cent in the Gallup poll has clearly gone to their heads.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) always speaks to the topic and remains relevant. I am amazed that today he seems to be straying completely away from Motions No. 36, No. 37 and No. 38. 1 suggest he would be more in order if he could explain to the House why Dennis McDermott, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, has asked his Party to end their attempts to delay this legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to enter debate. That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for putting him in his place. It would be better if he listened rather than spoke. I have been carefully setting out what we have been attempting to achieve. I wish to say that you well know, Mr. Speaker, that the President of the Canadian Labour Congress is in full support of our actions. What he did not understand was why the Government would not listen to reason. I also know that the President of the Canadian Labour Congress supports these sets of amendments in particular which we put forward. He stands four square behind us on these particular amendments.
What he is questioning, as I am today, is why the Government is so reluctant to accept these useful suggestions. We would like to complete this debate by putting forward a practical solution, and I will complete my part of it in two seconds. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) that one small step toward finding that practical solution would certainly be the acceptance of these three amendments.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I believe Motions No. 36, No. 37 and No. 38 are very important in terms of curtailing the power of the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I would rather see more power given to the farmers, their organizations and the Wheat Pools of this country through the Canadian Wheat Board. These organizations are very important indeed.
The three motions before us today seek to amend Clause 18 of Bill C-155. That clause defines the duties and functions of the Administrator. The Government opposite is attempting through this legislation to give considerable power to the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. One of those powers will be the authority to impose sanctions on participants in the grain transportation and hauling system in this country. The clause goes into considerable detail about the type of power the Administrator would have. It also allows the Administrator to make forecasts in the movement of grain and to ensure that all the participants in that system act appropriately. The Administrator will monitor not only the railway system but the other participants in the grain handling system as well. It seems to me that giving the Administrator so much power means that we are setting up another level of bureaucracy that will compete with other Government institutions which already exist. Therefore, one must ask, which institution will have the final say in various matters?
According to Clause 18, the Senior Grain Trnasportation Committee and the Administrator come under the authority of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). However, the Administrator will have the power to impose sanctions on the Canadian Wheat Board for which there is a Minister responsible. Presently, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is Senator Hazen Argue, who does not sit in this House but in the Senate. Therefore the Administrator who is
October 17, 1983

answerable to the Minister of Transport will have the power to impose sanctions on the Wheat Board, which is represented by a different federal Minister. As well, there is the Canada Grain Commission, which is under the authority of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). According to this clause, the Administrator can impose sanctions and monitor the performance of the Canada Grain Commission. Therefore, we see another level of bureaucracy in which one Government agency will have the power to regulate two other Government agencies. In light of that, I am surprised that the Conservative Party does not support the motions moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
Since Canadian farmers are very supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board, I believe it is important that we do not permit the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to hold authority over the Wheat Board. I believe it is time for greater economic democracy in our country where ordinary farmers, in this case, can have more say over their work and the manner in which their grain is transported and sold. An example of this economic democracy is the Wheat Board Advisory Committee which is elected by the farmers and overwhelmingly supports the Canadian Wheat Board. Yet a majority of Members in the House support an agency that will have the power to impose sanctions on the Canadian Wheat Board. As a Member from a mixed farming area where the Wheat Board has much support, I do not want to give the Administrator, a bureaucrat who is not directly accountable to Members of Parliament, that kind of power.
While I wish the Conservatives would call for more economical democracy and freedom for the ordinary farmers of this land, the opposite is taking place as a result of this singular power being given to an Administrator.


Arnold John Malone: Like Jack Horner.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is like giving Jack Horner all that power in his new job as head of CN. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) is concerned about Jack Horner. That is why he should support Motions No. 36, No. 37 and No. 38.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), is suggesting that sanctions should only apply to the railway companies, the Jack Horners of the world in the CN and CP. If we are going to have the Grain Transportation Committee, then it should have the power to impose sanctions only on the rail line companies.


Arnold John Malone: On the line.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We do have a Wheat Board and we do have a Grain Commission and we have farmers who are involved in the Wheat Board and in the UGG. Therefore, it is for reasons such as these that I think my friends in the Conservative Party should be very enthusiastic to lend their support to this particular motion before the House. I do not think there are any farmers in my riding who would support a Bill that would place the Canadian Wheat Board in a position which is
Western Grain Transportation Act
subordinate to the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. We should be responding to the wishes of those farmers when we debate legislation in the House.
The three amendments before us-as I think everyone knows, but just to make it clear-would take away the ability of the Administrator to levy fines on any system participants, except for the two railway companies. I think that is very important. I have already mentioned the reasons that 1 think it is very important. The Administrator would not have the right, if we pass these motions before the House, to fine the Canadian Wheat Board, and it is the farmers' funds that are in the pool account in the Canadian Wheat Board. It is as if the Government through the Administrator imposed a fine on the farmers of this country, and I do not support that. I do not think the Conservative Party should be supporting that since many of their Members represent prairie ridings in Saskatchewan and elsewhere.


Arnold John Malone: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I see that we have now the conversion on the road to Damascus of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot. Perhaps he will convince his big city colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) to support this very reasonable and very democratic amendment which will give the farmers a little more freedom and more liberty in our economic system in Canada.


Arnold John Malone: Freedom to starve.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This is nonsense.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Conservative Party's Member from Toronto, who is an expert on the Prairies of course, says it is nonsense-


An Hon. Member:: He is as great an expert as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -to make sure that the farmers have more freedom and more clout in the marketplace. I am sure my farmers will be very interested to hear that a Conservative Member from the big city of Toronto thinks they have too much power and authority and wants to impose another bureaucrat on the farmers to police them, to impose sanctions on them, to take money from them. That, Mr. Speaker, is not at all what I stand for in this House.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You don't know what to stand for.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 think it is very important that this power be given to police the railways. In my riding we have all kinds of rail lines over which farmers have had trouble with the rail line companies. I think of a line that goes from Preeceville through Lintlaw, through Nut Mountain and on to Kelvington. I have met many times with farmers who live along that rail line and who have shown me how the rail line is not being kept up, how the tracks have been warped and how the trains when going down that line could go only at a few miles per hour. I can think of other rail lines in my constituency. I could name
28086

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
many, many examples of rail lines that have not been kept up properly by CN and CP. We all know that the two railways have immense power, in many ways they have absolute power over the future of some of these small communities. When a rail line goes, often the community goes as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-Labour Conditions- Unemployment in Bow River constituency-Allocation of funds. (b) Application of grant formula; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)-Penitentiaries-Decision to end Laval University educational program; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture-Beef stabilization plan- Meeting of provincial Ministers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport, and Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I might draw to the attention of the House that while Motions Nos. 36, 37 and 38 have been grouped for debate, they are to be voted on separately.
All those in favour of Motion No. 36, will please say yea?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. All those in favour of Motion No. 37, will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. All those in favour of Motion No. 38, will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 39 and 40 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Motion No. 39
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 10 the following:
"(2) The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make available the quantities and types of grain necessary to achieve sales commitments on behalf of, and in the interests of producers."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 40
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 27 to 32 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under section 21 (A;) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, or any Orders of the Governor in Council, to make available the quantities and types of grain needed to achieve sales commitments."


Leonard J. Gustafson: I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 39, which indeed was voted on in committee, opposed and defeated by the Liberals. I think any prairie boy who knows anything
October 17, 1983

about the Canadian Wheat Board would stand in his place and defend a strong Canadian Wheat Board. The NDP, on the other hand, has tried to indicate that somehow or other the Conservatives were out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have heard this kind of talk again and again in the House.
When I ran in the riding of Assiniboia, I recall very clearly that in local newspaper ads one of the first points was a strong Canadian Wheat Board. Anyone who knows the history of the Prairies in the dirty thirties can go back to the time before the inception of the Canadian Wheat Board when there were some very difficult periods for farmers. Certainly prairie farmers depend on the Canadian Wheat Board, a strong Canadian Wheat Board. This is not to suggest that the Canadian Wheat Board has made no mistake. At times there have been questions and certainly there must continue to be improvements. However, this motion deals with the ability of the Administrator to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. In part it reads:
-the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make available the quantities and types of grain necessary to achieve sales commitments on behalf of, and in the interests of producers.
The objectives of our Party are very clear. We have taken a balanced approach to the Bill and to the amendments we have put forward. We have made it clear in our amendments that we want a freeze, particularly relating to increased freight rates which farmers cannot afford. While we have made it clear that this is a bad Bill, at the same time we have tried to do everything possible and in the best interests of producers to have our amendments address problems faced by farmers and certainly serve in their best interests.
Motion No. 39 does exactly that. It speaks out and says that the Administrator does not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would be very surprised if in the next few minutes I do not see Members of the New Democratic Party standing in their places and saying exactly the opposite. I want it clearly on the record that Motion No. 39 standing in my name indicates the direction of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Another important factor alluded to in the last paragraph of the motion is, "to achieve sales commitments on behalf of, and in the interests of producers". One problem producers and farmers will face in the near future will be competition in the international marketplace. The motion clearly indicates that the Administrator would in no way interfere with the best interests of primary producers. We talked in committee and in the House particularly about the types of subsidies granted by different countries around the world. These will certainly have an impact upon sales commitments. Also we talked about the subsidies granted by the European common market, by the United States of America and by countries like Japan and the Pacific Rim countries, which will create a special challenge. We believe the Canadian Wheat Board is up to this challenge, but in no way do we want restrictions on the part of the Administrator.
Western Grain Transportation Act
The wording in Motion No. 39 reads, "on behalf of, and in the interest of producers". We in the Progressive Conservative Party have displayed in our amendments a keen awareness of the situation on the Prairies. First is the ability to pay. Today I raised in the House the fact that the Minister had increased the initial price of barley but failed to do what he should have done, that is, increase the initial price of wheat, hard red wheat which is selling at 90 cents per bushel more today at Thunder Bay and Durum which is selling at $1.60 per bushel more at Thunder Bay than what farmers are receiving. The Minister is not acting in the best interests of primary producers. Here we have $1 per bushel which farmers cannot get their hands on. While it might be safe to say there is some flexibility, the truth of the matter is that farmers, particularly young farmers, are paying very high interest rates on money borrowed from the banks. Farmers' money is being held by the Government for a period of time, money which could be a source of cash flow they desperately need.
Another example would be western grain stabilization. There is $860 million in a fund which could be paid out to farmers, if the Government and the Minister had the will to make some slight changes in the direction of their administration. Motion No. 39 deals exactly with that type of direction. It allows the Canadian Wheat Board to act in the best interests of producers. It is important that this be done. This is why I am pleased to rise in my place and put forward this motion. I hope the NDP will support it, not misinterpret it and try to go the full cycle and be on both sides of the fence. I hope Members of that Party do not try to create the contortion they have in the past.
I see Mr. Speaker is rising. Is my time up?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May the Hon. Member continue with unanimous consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 compliment the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) on his motion. I suspect it is not his fault that it is in the wrong place and is insufficiently worded. His motion and mine attempt, in a slightly different way, to accomplish the same objective.
I find it interesting that the Tories want a regulator regulating another regulator, namely the Canadian Wheat Board. They support the idea that the Administrator can put sanctions on the Canadian Wheat Board. In the next breath, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia comes up with his motion, all for motherhood and against sin, in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Hon. Member made the mistake of using the word "contortion". The Tories have exercised all of the proverbial

Western Grain Transportation Act positions. In the committee and in this House we have had a litany of Tory attacks on orderly marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board. We witnessed that until they got into trouble. As soon as they started getting static from the folks back home, they flopped. They made an attack on the co-operative movement. They are the birds who moved amendments, supported by Liberals. To do what? To reduce the representation of the Wheat Pools.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call the attention of the Hon. Member to the fact that debate at report stage should be strictly relevant to the debate before us.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I mentioned earlier how they flopped. Now with Motion No. 39 they have flipped. They flopped in the previous motions so that the Canadian Wheat Board could be sanctioned and have producers' money used up by some other agency of the Crown. Now they have flipped with one for the Canadian Wheat Board. They flipped and flopped in committee and earlier in this House on the Canadian Wheat Board and the co-operative movement.
Much has been said about accountability and authority. My motion asks that nothing interfere with the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under Section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act or any orders of the Governor in Council to make available the quantity and types of grain needed to achieve sales commitments. The words "and in the interests of producers" at the tail end of the motion of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia is fine because that is already the mandate of the Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The Board operates only in the interests of the grain producers and no one else. If the Member wants to add those words, I am agreeable.
Today I received some words of support for what we are trying to do. They came from the President of the Canadian Labour Congress. He supports the position we have taken. He supports the retention of the statutory grain rate for grain producers, the rebuilding of railways lines and the taking of equity ownership for any capital investment into railways upgrading. That person speaks on behalf of two million workers in this country. He is enunciating a policy resolution of the Canadian Labour Congress and the 100-odd unions which belong to it.
1 have been particularly saddened listening to the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I have always thought highly of him. I still do, but it bothers me and, I am sure, many other of his good friends to listen to him and his colleagues continually crying and whining about 1979. They are the guys who manufactured their own defeat. They are the dummies who, with a minority Government, said they were going to govern as if they had a majority. That has to be the dumbest thing that anybody in politics has said since Charles II lost his head. Now they are whining and crying. They have no class. They do not know how to win well, they do not know how to lose well-no class.
The Hon. Member for Assiniboia talked about their keen awareness. Their awareness was not so keen in committee
October 17, 1983
when they voted to weaken the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, when they supported the Liberals. They brought in amendments to weaken the powers of the Wheat Board. Now they are keenly aware. They have Motion No. 39 of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. The Progressive Conservative Party, like the Liberal Party, is in favour of killing the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rate. They still support that.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville is trying to cover their political backsides by saying "Let us not do it for three years because we may have an election out of the way by then". They have yet to come out opposed to the destruction of the statutory grain rates for our grain producers. They support that destruction. The architect of the legislation is a guy that the Hon. Member for Vegreville hired when he was Minister of Transport. He is the architect of the legislation. The Tories support the killing of the statutory grain rate.
We will vote for the Conservative Motion No. 39, but my Motion No. 40 does better. It contains the wording asked for by the Canadian Wheat Board when its officials appeared before the Committee on Transport. Mr. Esmond Jarvis, the Chief Commissioner, appeared before the committee and cited what should be in the Bill by way of an amendment. That is my motion, not this namby-pamby motherhood notion of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia, who is trying to cover his tracks in a riding where 90 per cent of the people support the orderly marketing principle of the Canadian Wheat Board. He is in favour of an Administrator being able to sanction the Wheat Board and being able to fine the Wheat Board, such fine to be paid with grain producers' money.
On one page of these motions the Tories want to undermine and weaken the Canadian Wheat Board; on the next page of these motions, they are keenly aware. Isn't that interesting. When it comes to contortions, they make the people of Asia look like amateurs. The most expert people in the world on stage and on screen when it comes to physical contortions are those from East Asia. However, when it comes to politial contortion, this Tory outfit puts everybody else to shame. This outfit is all over the lot. I wish they would quit crying and moaning about things of their own doing. They should quit trying to blame everybody else for their own errors of commission and omission. They should give up on this blatant, crass political opportunism in trying to save their neck in the Prairies. They are doing this because they attacked and continue to support the weakening of the Canadian Wheat Board. They attack, then frantically try to cover their tracks. They are busier than a cat on a tin roof. When they realize what kind of trouble they are in, they want to put the representation back on for the wheat pools. They have flopped and flipped and flipped and flopped repeatedly since this legislation was introduced in May. We will vote for Motion No. 39, but No. 40 is better. Motion No. 40 complies with what is needed by the Canadian Wheat Board in the best interests of grain producers. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we get to Motion No. 40 on a deferred vote, I will see the Conservative Members voting for a motion that is better located, better worded and will perhaps help them improve upon their flip-flopping. I
October 17, 1983

am all for helping them if they will help get more protection for the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather entertaining for me to see Hon. Members of the NDP on the run. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has stooped to the lowest of all lows. I suppose that if 1 were a Member of a Party that stood at 14 per cent in the polls, 1 would use every act of desperation as well.
The fact of the matter is that Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party continue to make fools of themselves. They have lost their credibility here in the Chamber and I suspect that they are losing it very quickly out there in the country as well. The NDP is the Party that was going to stonewall and obstruct and kill this Bill. What do we see now? We see this Party bringing forward 174 amendments to try to improve the Bill. They were not too successful because they stretched the point a little bit.
Only 46 of those 109 motions were found in order and 64 of them were simply frivolous motions that made no sense. As a matter of fact, a good portion of those motions were what 1 would refer to as musical clauses. All that the NDP Members were proposing to do was to move a clause from one section of the Bill to another section. They were playing the game of musical clauses and trying to convince the people that they were really digging in for an all-out fight. It was simply frivolous though, Mr. Speaker.
The fact is that this issue is one that is too important to be dealt with in the frivolous manner employed by Hon. Members of the NDP. This issue is too important simply to stonewall, block or propose frivolous amendments in order to engage in innocuous debate. The issue simply goes beyond the responsibility of all Members of the House.
Quite frankly, the Hon. Member suggested that we were prepared to accept sanctions as applied against the Canadian Wheat Board. The Hon. Member should know very well that our Party moved an amendment in committee which now stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster (Mr. McKnight) to remove sanctions as applied to system participants other than the railways. The Hon. Member for Regina West thought that it was a pretty good idea when it was brought up in committee and he supported it. He moved that amendment here and it will be dealt with. I could say to him that our Motion No. 44 is considerably better than his Motion No. 38. Quite frankly, we are glad to have him on board.
The other thing that the Hon. Member for Regina West has suggested is that we in committee were trying to take away and undermine the integrity and the power of the Wheat
Western Grain Transportation Act
Board, and that now here in the House we are trying to do something different. I only draw to the attention of the House and of the people who may be watching today the fact that it is clearly on record that the Hon. Member for Regina West agreed to support this very same amendment that we are dealing with right now. I will read from page 129:31 of the committee's Proceedings and Evidence where the Hon. Member for Regina West is reported to have said:
If Mr. Mcknight's amendment covers the ground that I am concerned about as well as any ground he is concerned about, I will be quite happy to withdraw mine and move his in. But I need more out of our legal counsel and our officials.
The legal counsel to the committee, Mr. Keith Thompson, said, as reported at page 129:36 of the committee's Proceedings and Evidence:
What is important to the farmers, of course, is the ultimate ability of the Wheat Board to sell. Without that, there would be no movement of the product.
So in my opinion, these final three lines of this particular proposal capture the essence for the existence of the Wheat Board and identify its principal functions.
That was said by the committee's legal counsel. We should not have to hear any namby-pamby suggestions from the Hon. Member for Regina West which would indicate that we were moving amendments deliberately to undermine the role of the Wheat Board. As a matter of fact, the thrust of the amendment is simply to do just the opposite.
There is absolutely no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Wheat Board is an institution that enjoys broad based support in western Canada. It enjoys the broad based support of the farmers who produce grain and who want to market their grain at a price that will give them a reasonable return for their investment and for their efforts. Very simply put, this motion seeks to reaffirm that fact.
As the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) pointed out, there are criticisms of the Canadian Wheat Board. There are some farmers who are not always happy with it, but fair, just and constructive criticism certainly has a place. Some farmers do not like the fact the commissioners are appointed at pleasure for a period of time until they reach the age of 70. We talk about accountability and there are some farmers who do not really like that. However, in the final analysis, the farmers line up in support of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party, like a herd of fox terriers, have always tried to make the case that any improvements that are advanced by anyone in an attempt to make the system more efficient, responsive and reliable are simply undermining the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Grain Commission. If we were to follow the NDP strategy, we would surely be moving grain with horse and buggy and we would have elevators every five or six miles.
Such has been the case with the Administrator. Members of the New Democratic Party, the membership of the pools and some other farm organizations used the same fear tactics, innuendo and hysteria when we talked about the introduction of the grain transport co-ordinator when that office was set up in 1979. My goodness gracious, we were going to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and the whole concept of orderly marketing. Everything was going to go out the window. What
October 17, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act
did happen, Mr. Speaker? The fact is that when the GTA was set up, it was the best thing that ever happened because it prevented the Canadian Wheat Board from getting involved in all of the little dog fights that occurred with respect to the allocation between Board and non-Board grains. As a matter of fact, if anything, Mr. Speaker, it enhanced the integrity of the Canadian Wheat Board. Members of the Canadian Wheat Board will say that privately and publicly.
This kind of a transportation agency must be a neutral body. It must act as sort of a referee bringing all parties together and ensuring that when there is a breakdown, the onus or blame is laid upon the right party. At the very least, that cuts out the finger-pointing and it gets people talking and working together rather than fighting through the issuance of statements in the press.
The role of the Administrator must be clear. He must have a clear mandate and he should have adequate resources to do the job. The Agency must be responsive to the needs of the grain handling and transportation industry and it must have accountability to that industry. There is no question about that. It must be equipped to deal effectively with the grain producers' concerns in order to ensure that the transportation system serves the interests of the producers effectively. It must also have the necessary stature to deal with the transportation system on an equal footing with all other participants. These are the kinds of things that are required. That is why, when we reviewed the development of this particular concept in the form of this legislation, it became quite clear that the agricultural organizations in western Canada felt that the concept of the grain transportation co-ordinator or, as it is now called, the GTA, was working well. There was broad agreement between all organizations in western Canada.
Members of the Canadian Wheat Board itself, in their presentation to the committee on August 18, 1983, said that the current system with the GTA making the initial splits in car allocations has not become too cumbersome, and they went on to say that it is working well. Hon. Members of the NDP say that there is no one in western Canada who supports the concept of the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator. Well, I shall read from page 14 of the brief presented by the pools:
The Pools accept the formal establishment of a Grain Transportation Agency Administrator with co-ordinating functions and powers.
There it is. That group speaks for a hundred and some thousand farmers. The United Grain Growers speaks for some 90,000 farmers. They all support the concept of the grain transportation agency co-ordinator. What are Hon. Members of the NDP harping about, Mr. Speaker? They are again simply trying to spread fear, innuendo and hysteria.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that when we as a Government set up the concept of the grain transportation co-ordinator, or Administrator as the position is now called, it was never our intention to undermine the integrity, the role or the power of the Canadian Wheat Board. That has not happened to date and, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, it will not happen in the future. In order to ensure that it does not happen in the future,
we have proposed this motion which will ensure that it does not happen so that there can be absolutely no doubt and no question about our intentions. There should be absolutely no question and no doubt as to where we stand and where the producers stand in so far as the Canadian Wheat Board is concerned. Let that be fundamentally clear. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that in spite of the flim-flammery which we have heard from it, the New Democratic Party will join forces with the Conservative Party to support the integrity and the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. We welcome its support.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for
Saskatoon East.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: West. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are sitting in your chair wondering-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Saskatoon West, of course.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Saskatoon West. East is east and west is west. I am from the West.
You may be asking yourself the question, Mr. Speaker, what is the essence of this debate in terms of this amendment and, indeed, almost every other amendment which has been brought forward, in terms of this legislation? It is extremely important legislation as far as all Canadians are concerned, but is of particular concern and interest to us in western Canada. I know you will be bemused, Mr. Speaker, over the fact that the debate is taking place on this side of the House. There are differences of opinion which are being expressed between the New democratic Party and the Conservative Party, and sometimes we agree. However, it is really distressing, when we have an important statement of principle put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), that this legislation shall not in any way have a negative impact upon the operations of the Wheat Board, having as it does such influence on western Canada, that Government benches are absolutely mute. Not a word is being said by those Hon. Members. They have no interest in this legislation. Any time anyone gets up and addresses this issue with respect to western Canada, the Government benches are absolutely quiet. Those Hon. Members sit there and watch. They listen. They attempt to suggest that if we speak on behalf of our constituents in western Canada about the importance of the Wheat Board, that somehow-to put it in the words of an Hon. Member on the Government benches-we are filibustering. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), that they will have precious little comfort when the people of western Canada discover the arrogant way in which the Liberals address this important legislation. That Party has not a thing to say. Where does it stand in connection with the Wheat Board? What is its position? I may disagree entirely with the New Democratic Party but I know where it stands-at least I know where it stands today.
October 17, 1983

1 suppose the position taken by the Liberal Government is simply this; it really does not have to participate because its allies are speaking on its behalf. In western Canada there is a question which is asked, "What do you get when you add 23 per cent to 14 per cent?" The answer in western Canada is that you get the old Liberal-NDP coalition. That is what one finds if one looks at the Gallup poll. When it comes to Wheat Board issues or matters pertaining to western Canada, the Liberals know they have their allies to support and sustain them in government on every important issue. It is understandable, I suppose, that Hon. Members opposite are not speaking.
I would like to deal with the essence of what has been said here. This matter came up in committee. It is a question of looking at the amendment which was put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. There were all sorts of legal advice which committee members received about the precise way in which this legislation should be put. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) makes reference to his motion No. 40, which states:
The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under Section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act-
The Hon Member says that is a superior protection for the Wheat Board. I know we had the benefit of legal counsel but, quite frankly, I like the unequivocal way in which it was put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. He has not limited the matter. He has said, "This legislation shall not impinge negatively on the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board." He does refer to one section. He does not refer to one subsection of the legislation. He says that we in this Party, unlike the New Democratic Party, are behind the Canadian Wheat Board 100 per cent. We are not behind them with respect to just Section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. We want every power, either those stated as law or those determined by the courts of this land, supported, if it comes down to a contest between this legislation and the powers of the Wheat Board. It is very simple. We believe in putting things in very simple form. The matter was raised in those very terms by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). These people have been working on that committee for very long hours. Much attention has been paid to give support to the Canadian Wheat Board. They attempted to deal with this legislation in a responsible manner and attempted to bring forward constructive suggestions. Hon. Members, such as the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), who were prominent with respect to this legislation, are Members of the Conservative Party. If it were not for the Hon. Member for Regina West, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), the New Democratic Party would have had no representation on that committee. Therefore there are no lectures needed in this House from the NDP as to whether our Members are flip-flopping. As far as we in this Party are concerned, we say what we mean to the western Canadian citizens and the farmers. They understand straight talk. They understand when we make an
Western Grain Transportation Act
unequivocal statement in support of the Canadian Wheat Board in this legislation. We do not have to couch it in equivocal terms. We do not have to refer to a section of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. We simply say that we support it absolutely, categorically and without equivocation. That, Mr. Speaker, is understood.
I would like to refer to some of the complaints made by the Hon. Member for Regina West with respect to this matter. The Hon. Member said that there was some concern in his Party with respect to the pools and how supportive the New Democratic Party has been for the Wheat Pools and the producer-owned grain companies in western Canada. I blanched, quite frankly, when I heard those statements, because I sat through the hearings in my native Province of Saskatchewan. We sat long hours, from 9 a.m. to midnight every day, and I was proud to be able to sit with my colleagues and try to come to terms with what people were telling us. Anyone who wants to read the transcripts of what transpired at those hearings in Regina will find an unadulterated tirade against the Wheat Pool movement by Hon. Members in the New Democratic Party. It was unceasing and consistent. That Party was up every day, with every one of the witnesses, attacking the Wheat Pools, attacking the whole purpose of the Wheat Pools in Saskatchewan, attacking the delegate system, attacking every fabric of the Wheat Pool movement in western Canada to the point where I could hardly believe it. The CCF Party, which was so supportive, now apparently has changed its tune because it is now apparently under the direction of the CLC and Mr. McDermott. The Hon. Member for Regina West was always talking about how proud he was to be able to reflect the position of the CLC with respect to this legislation.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that it is hard to believe that the NDP has sunk to the position it has now when one thinks back with a certain amount of pride, as a western Canadian, to the principles which were behind the evolution, the creation of the CCF Party. What has happened to that Party now? What has happened to the New Democratic Party? The fact is that it is prepared to support the Liberals as any cost. Any time the Government is in any trouble at all, it always has its western wing there ready to support it. This is of very serious concern, and when we hear the kind of attack which the Hon. Member for Regina West attempted to launch on this particular amendment, we see how desperate that Party is. It does not give us the exact truth. In fact, it makes statements with respect to the position of our Party which are contrary to the truth.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Motions Nos. 39 and 40. As has been pointed out before, they are somewhat the same although the wording is different. As I suppose is to be expected, the NDP motion is stronger and much more supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board. I guess we can say that the NDP has been consistent all the way through this Bill in its protection of the Board at every opportunity. I suppose we also could say that the Liberal-Conservative coalition has been consistent in

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
weakening both the Wheat Board and the Prairie Pools. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) heavily attacked the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) on subjects he never brought up in his speech or presentation at all. Methinks they protest too much.
These motions deal with the need to protect the Wheat Board, something we should not have had to discuss in this particular Bill. Unfortunately, orderly marketing is not a central belief of either the Conservative or Liberal Parties and they are quite willing to attack and weaken it whenever they possibly can.
The Canadian Wheat Board is probably one of the most accountable agencies in Canada. The money used to operate it comes entirely from the producers, not a cent from the Government of Canada. It produces an annual report which is delivered to the farmers in every community concerned. Members of the Board fan out and speak to farmers in communities in all parts of the prairie Provinces. As I said, these kinds of motions should not have been necessary, but they are because the other Parties have coalesced to weaken the Wheat Board and they decided that the Administrator will have more power than the Wheat Board.


John Horton McDermid: You know that is not true and you do not believe it.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: I hope the Conservative Party will vote against Motion No. 39 and vote for Motion No. 40 because it covers the area better than Motion No. 39.
In this area of grain transportation, Mr. Speaker, we have a combination of statutes, regulations and Orders in Council which are administered by different entities. Therefore, it is necessary to protect certain things in this Bill which we know are the responsibility of certain agencies. In this case we need to protect the Canadian Wheat Board and, in the same clause but not in these amendments, the Canadian Grain Commission. Right now the Governor in Council, under this Bill, can change the powers of the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board and the grain transportation coordinator. He can take powers from the Canadian Wheat Board and give them to the Administrator, take them from the Administrator and give them to the Grain Commission. Therefore, it is necessary to take an amendment like that presented by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), and put it in the Bill to protect the existing powers of these agencies. But as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West said, the wording of Motion No. 39 is so broad, it does not really protect those powers. We need to say that the powers are protected as they exist in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, not just broadly protected because that does not specifically say they are protected in the way we would like to see them protected.
The intent of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is basically, and I suppose inevitably, an attempt to allocate to the railways the right of return in the movement of cars, but it does not establish how those cars will be allocated. At present that is done by the Wheat Board with the assistance of the Grain
Transportation Administrator, who has the right to interfere or adjust to some extent. However, I think we should go back, as did the Hon. Member for Vegreville, to the presentation made by the Canadian Wheat Board Commissioner. Here we have a very good example of selective quotations by the Hon. Member for Vegreville because I am going to read the same quotation he read except I will read another line. Mr. Jarvis said:
"It is an economic fact in the grain industry... transportation and sales are inextricably linked; but transportation must effectively serve sales needs. The current system with the GTA making the initial splits in cars has not become too cumbersome. But a danger exists. Policy makers-and we say this to you- should be very careful in not separating further the vital link between transportation and sales.
The implication is that we cannot take the allocation of cars away from the Canadian Wheat Board. We must protect that power of the Wheat Board and do it in every way we can. The Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee also made a presentation to the Standing Committee on Transport and said exactly the same thing, if not in exactly the same words. Mr. Gibbings, who had just completed about 12 years or 15 years as a Wheat Board Commissioner and who was before that the President of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, also stated that:
It is imperative that grain sales and grain transportation not be separated. The Canadian Wheat Board must be able to arrange the transportation of its own product or it cannot fulfil its obligations to western grain producers or their customers overseas. The board's marketing success, meaning sales success, depends on its ability to make day-by-day or even hour-by-hour decisions on grain movement. Its flexibility must not be compromised.
These agencies, which know what is going on in the movement of grain across the country, and know that we have been the most successful country in the world in terms of moving grain considering our most difficult circumstances, all say that we must leave the power with the Canadian Wheat Board. It is therefore very important that the best of these two amendments be passed.
As I mentioned earlier, I hope the Conservative Party will look at the two motions and choose the best one to protect the producers of the West. There are no ifs and buts about it.
The legislation is designed to gather, under a new agency, the power and authority presented and exercised by the Canadian Wheat Board. What we must do is to make sure that the powers that make the Wheat Board successful are not undermined by this legislation.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the common effect of these two motions is to enshrine in Bill C-155 the current role of the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to car allocation. In Motion No. 39, proposed by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), there appears the following phrase:
-to make available the quantities and types of grain necessary to achieve sales commitments-
It is not clear whether such a responsibility is already defined in the Canadian Wheat Board Act, nor is it entirely clear what the legal intent of the phrase is. It may be an
October 17, 1983

attempt to preserve the Wheat Board's responsibilities with respect to the block shipping system. However, the block shipping system is not mentioned in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Motion No. 40, put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) would have the effect of preventing the Governor in Council from determining what agency of the Government should have the power to allocate cars.
1 should like to remind those Hon. Members who sat on the Transport Committee and the two movers of these motions that to Clause 19 we added subclause (3), which reads as follows:
The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act respecting the purchasing and selling of grain.
To an amendment proposed by the Opposition, the Government added a subamendement which resulted in subclause (3) of Clause 19. We feel that it is a great improvement to the Bill and pretty well covers the intent of Motion No. 39 and Motion No. 40. We therefore do not feel that those motions are necessary at this stage of the Bill and we will vote against them.
Subclause (3) of Clause 19 was drafted in parallel with subclause (2) of Clause 19, which reads as follows:
The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Grain Commission under the Canada Grain Act respecting the handling of grain in elevators.
Those two subclauses clearly cover the intent of Motion No. 39 and Motion No. 40, and therefore I do not feel those motions are required at this stage. If they were accepted they might cause confusion and might be interpreted as restricting the power of the Governor in Council under another Act to give the new grain transportation Administrator the responsibility for car allocation. I know the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) would not want this as I believe he and his Party created the position of the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator.
For these reasons we will vote against Motion No. 39 and Motion No. 40, but I thank Hon. Members for bringing them forward.
This afternoon I have listened very intently and I think it has been a very productive afternoon. We disposed of four amendments with very brief debate. This is the kind of cooperation that we had in committee. There was a spirit of co-operation and bargaining in good faith. Because of that spirit, we accepted 89 amendments in committee, including that to Clause 19(3) which pretty well covers the intent of Motion No. 39 and Motion No. 40.
Sensing this spirit of co-operation, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to sit extended hours in order to conclude debate of report stage of Bill C-155. We have had a very productive afternoon. This is the kind of productivity and co-operation that we saw in committee. If we could extend this kind of co-operation and debate in good spirit by extending the
Western Grain Transportation Act
hours, I think we could get a lot accomplished. The constituents who elected all of us would be very proud of this attempt to increase productivy. At a time when we are asking Canadians, farmers and industry to increase productivity, I think this would be a sign that we too are tightening our belts and want to increase productivity.
In that spirit of good faith-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, as a point of order, I do not know whether the Hon. Member has been in consultation with the Government House Leader; I have. 1 am here now waiting for our critic on agriculture. He has consulted me regarding the provisions of the Standing Order which would impose limitations on debate. We are going to consider the request of the Government House Leader with respect to the limitations that he has proposed.
I can say to the Hon. Member that those considerations and those discussions under the Standing Order providing for limitation of debate would be shot down in flames if he were to make any motion now with respect to extending hours. I have given my undertaking to the Government House Leader, and I will call him back this afternoon as soon as I have had the opportunity to speak to our critic, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, to see if we can meet the suggestion made by the Government House Leader. It would be totally self-defeating if any motion to extend hours were to occur in the middle of those negotiations.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker-


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker-


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who is in charge over there?


Mr. Friesen:: There are three of them.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Take one stooge at a time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I want to indicate that the House has a motion before it which is faulty in that I would require a seconder for it. In any event, the House has also heard a point of order from the Hon. Member for Yukon. 1 see that certain Hon. Members want to rise on the point of order and I think it is proper that I hear those Hon. Members. I will recognize next the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans).


Erik Nielsen: The Chair recognized me before the motion was moved.


John Leslie Evans: I believe I have the floor, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member was not trying to move a motion under Stand-

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
ing Order 30; he was simply saying that if there were unanimous consent perhaps it would be possible to extend the hours. But it was clear that the Eton. Member knew the provisions of Standing Order 30 and specifically did not move a motion under Standing Order 30.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I did not move any motion, nor did I intend to move any motion. 1 made it very clear that I sense the same kind of co-operation and spirit of good faith that 1 felt in committee and based on that, I simply asked for an extended sitting so that we can be as productive as we were this afternoon when we disposed of four amendments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am not sure what is happening. I will simply indicate that I thought I heard the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary move a motion indicating a desire for extended hours. I also recognized the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I would say that even though the Hon. Member for Yukon was speaking off the microphone, both he and I recognize that the motion by the Parliamentary Secretary had a certain fault in it, if it was a motion.
I think we are reaching a point where it may not be appropriate to continue. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary, who made certain comments just now, indicates that he was not moving a motion. In that case, there is no motion. Would the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary like to continue his remarks in debate but not on a point of order?


Jesse Philip Flis: Your ruling is correct. I was seeking unanimous consent of the House, not moving any motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If the Parliamentary Secretary was seeking unanimous consent, I can only presume he was doing so on a motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This seems to reflect what is really wrong with our country. The Government cannot gets its act together.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. We are having some difficulty with the House of Commons, let alone the country. Perhaps the Hon. Member would come to his point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I agree that the first statement was somewhat gratuitous but it was accurate. I would like to get clarification. My House Leader says that there are certain consultations going on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is a tradition, if I may call it that, that the House pays particular attention to those Hon. Members who may represent their Party on either side of the House, such as in the moments gone by, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) or the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen), as well as others.
I do not believe we should add to that. Unless certain of those Party spokesmen may wish to rise and claim the floor on
a point of order, I think I should recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) in debate. If I see Hon. Member who wishes to comment on a point of order with respect to his Party's position, of course I will hear that Hon. Member.


Yvon Pinard: I do not think we should complicate matters, Mr. Speaker. It is quite simple. I have been informed that the Parliamentary Secretary has merely asked unanimous consent for extending the sitting hours of the House beyond the normal time of adjournment so as to complete debate at the report stage.
I submit, with respect, that all the Chair has to do is ask whether there is unanimous consent. If there is not, that settles the matter. The Hon. Member said he did not want to move a motion.
When I came in 1 heard the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) say that I had asked him to discuss agreeing, under Standing Orders 80 and 81, to time allocation for debate. That has nothing to do with sitting beyond the normal time of adjournment. If Hon. Members object, they are free to do so, but I certainly do not deny the right of the Parliamentary Secretary to ask for the unanimous consent of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Nor do I wish to deny the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that right. If he wishes to seek unanimous consent, as far as I know, the best way he can do that is by a motion. He can either use his time on his feet to debate or to seek unanimous consent. It is his choice.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, that is all that I was seeking. I was not seeking permission to extend debate. I had finished debate.
I said that in conclusion I am seeking unanimous consent of the House to extend the sitting hours so that we can complete the report stage of this Bill. That is all I seek, unanimous consent to extend the sitting hours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case, I hear the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary seeking unanimous consent, seconded by Mr. Burghardt.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, surely you are putting a question which must be in the form of a motion in writing. If we are going to seek consent on whatever you might have, we would like to see it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I must answer the Hon. Member for Yukon. It is the tradition of the House that a motion should be put in writing and read by the Chair. If the Hon. Member for Yukon wants that formality, I will insist upon it.


Erik Nielsen: The Standing Orders require it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand that. However, normally the House proceeds day to day without the
October 17, 1983

absolute formality of a written notice. On the other hand, the Hon. Member for Yukon has asked that that formality be observed. Accordingly, I will require notice in writing of the motion proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to increase the productivity of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You have done a good job.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: What I now require from the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is a notice in writing. Unless the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary stands to withdraw the motion-then I get into other procedural difficulties as well.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, since it is very clear that the Opposition is there just to filibuster, 1 withdraw my request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Unfortunately, it is not a request, it is a motion. I do not have it either.
I might be inclined to suggest that to withdraw the motion unanimous consent is required, but since I never received the motion I do not think that I need unanimous consent to ask that it be withdrawn. May we continue in debate.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I, as a newcomer, confess that some of the proceedings in the last few moments have left me somewhat confused. I certainly would not expect Members to my left to be confused by events before the House.
I was working very diligently in my office while listening to the debate at the same time. I heard some comments from the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) with respect to the debate which has been taking place on this Bill in the last few months with respect to the Crow as well as on the history of the Canadian Wheat Board. I felt it was important to express my views on this issue, particularly bearing in mind that this issue was discussed to some degree during the recent byelection in Brandon-Souris last spring. At that time we had ample opportunity to discuss this very important issue before the electorate of western Canada. We also had an opportunity at that time to have the electorate of western Canada express their opiniion on the issue before them. Some Members of this House were present at that byelection and participated in the campaign. One of the points 1 want to make very clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Members of the House is that the Progressive Conservative Party since the very beginning of that byelection, which takes us back to the early months of this year, expressed sincere and severe doubts about the legislation presented by the Government of the day, particularly with respect to the farmers' ability to pay for the transportation costs, which were hopefully to be improved by the legislation, and that share of the cost passed on to the farmer. During the course of that byelection there was considerable discussion in which I and other Members who campaigned on my behalf took part about the need to protect the farmer from being held accountable for an undue proportion of the transportation
Western Grain Transportation Act costs. Even before the Government talked in terms of introducing an amendment, described as a safety net of some 10 per cent of the costs to be paid to the farmer, we were talking in that byelection about the need to protect the farmer and I was proposing a safety net of some 7 per cent. That figure of 7 per cent was selected because that has been the historic average which the farmer has paid in the last quarter century. Having considered the evidence presented to the committee during the course cf the summer months, we on this side of the House have come to the conclusion that the farmer is unable at this time to pay the kind of money the Government is asking for. We have decided, and it seems very appropriately so, that any increase in farmers' costs must be delayed for a certain period of time and for the very minimum of three years.
I think it is very important for Members of the House and for the public at large to understand that the Progressive Conservative Party has been very consistent in questioning the ability of farmers to pay the amount of money which the Liberal Government was asking of them. We have been very concerned that this historic right, which has been viewed by the farmers of western Canada as a historic right, must not be destroyed in any haphazard manner. It is material that this House go on record as recognizing the question of the ability of the farmer to pay and recognize the concern we have expressed for several months. It is also important that the House and the public at large understand those of us who were involved in any way in the western Canadian grain industry and that we in the Progressive Conservative Party recognize the importance of the Wheat Board as an ongoing part of the marketing system that must be preserved.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board was developed in Canada in a series of stages. It had its beginning during the period of World War I and then more recently, of course, in the depression of the 1930s. We in this Party are very proud of the part which the Government of the day, the R. B. Bennett Government, played in the development of the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1930s. At that time it was the central selling agency. Eventually, it became the Wheat Board as we know it. We have done everything we can throughout the years in which we have had some responsibility to preserve the importance of the Wheat Board and to guarantee that it will be an ongoing part of the western Canadian grain industry.
It would be fair to say that the activities of the Wheat Board and the powers of the Wheat Board were very much enhanced during the period of time in which the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) had the responsibility for administering the agricultural concerns of western Canada. I think it is important this is recognized, and we reaffirm it over and over again because there are those in this House who would attempt to take the opportunity to confuse the electorate and to suggest that we, as a Party, would do something to weaken the Wheat Board. I wish to say unequivocally that I and other Members of this Party recognize the importance of the Wheat Board, and even though we recognize that there are some deficiencies, it has played a very

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
important part in the history of western Canada and will continue to do so.
It is therefore most important that the amendment in Motion No. 39 be supported, because it indicates that the Wheat Board's authority will not in any way be impaired by the role of the Administrator. It is that point I wish to make at this time and it is with those remarks that I conclude.


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


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). The words of this motion are very important. I recall that when we were in Government we set up the office of co-ordinator. 1 was one of the members of the task force who set up the rules and regulations by which that co-ordinator should act. It was never the intention at that time or at this time that the co-ordinator-or the Administrator as the position is now called-would in any way inhibit the Canadian Wheat Board's powers. It was felt there was a need at that time for a person or an organization in place that would assist the Canadian Wheat Board in allocating powers.
We have a very complicated system that has developed in the delivery of grain in the West. We have the Wheat Board grains and we have off-Board grains. Some of the latter are delivered to agents of the Wheat Board and sold under its auspices. Others, such as oilseeds, are sold by farmers directly through producer cars or sold through agents of the Wheat Boards, the pools, the UGG and Pioneer to be delivered to ports by those agencies.
It seemed to us at that time that the Canadian Wheat Board would find itself in a dilemma as to whom to allocate cars. For example, if it had just sold a large quantity of grain to a customer and ships were arriving, would it allocate cars for that type of grain and at the same time jeopardize a much needed feeding requirement, say, in eastern Canada or B.C.? How would it make its decision at cross purposes with itself?
We felt at that time it would be in order to create a body or a person which we called a co-ordinator, now called the GTA, who would take into account all these various problems and make a decision as to which elevator, which line, would get the cars that were required.
A problem has also developed in certain areas. Perhaps the cars have been allocated on past experience of that line. For example, if the Alberta Wheat Pool on a specific branch line has been receiving so many cars per week over the last year, then it would be very easy to give them the same number of cars per week in the coming year. Perhaps a farm co-operative or another elevator company, a private company, has built an elevator on that line and farmers, concluding that that facility can provide better service to them, decided to make deliveries to the new elevator instead of the one on the line as in the past. This has been the problem in the past because one company is receiving cars based on tradition on that line and another
company which is new is not getting sufficient cars to meet the demand coming on that line.
It is very difficult, then, if we do not have a body set up that is in tune with the allocation of cars day by day, to get some redress to this problem. I remember very well the people at Weyburn, Saskatchewan, who built a high through-put elevator with the ability to provide cleaning services and had the spot of 25 cars capability on that line, and yet they were simply not receiving the cars requested to move the farmers' product. In fact, elevators that had been on the line in previous years were getting more cars in place than they had grain delivered to them. This was not fair to the elevator company. We felt that by putting the grain transport co-ordinator in place that that situation could be rectified.
We set in place a number of very important objectives which had to be followed. The first objective was that the authority had to be neutral. It could not in any way favour one company over another, one agency over another, or offboard over onboard delivery. This was very important, otherwise the agency would lose its credibility. We insisted that it had to be neutral.
Also it was very important that the co-ordinator had a set of rules by which that body had to live. This became difficult without legislation. Over time the role of that agency was more and more defined. As well, it was felt that the agency had to be responsive to the needs of producers. I just gave the example of the Weyburn terminal. I could prove in many situations that even today cars are not being allocated according to the deliveries of farmers to individual elevators. Some elevators are getting more cars than they should be getting based upon deliveries, other elevators are plugged. We have some way to go in making the agency responsive.
The agency needed to be equipped with some authority to do as it felt best for producers. This goes to the whole question of what tools it has, whether in fact it can impose penalties if its orders are not delivered by railway companies or agents of the Canadian Wheat Board. This area has to be dealt with to a great extent.
If we look back on what the agency was set up to do and how it has functioned very well on the Prairies in allocating cars and in the transportation of grain either for export or for domestic consumption, we will find very few individuals, companies or groups of people in western Canada who have had anything but praise for the agency. This amendment attempts to say that the Administrator has certain powers. These powers are being granted to him under the Act. There should be no question of an underlying current which takes away any of the legitimate powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. Its duty has always been to producers, to maximize their sales in international markets. It should continue to perform that duty, and the majority of farmers agree.
No one is questioning that the system can be improved. That is always at the backs of the minds of the representatives of western Canadian farmers and of Members of Parliament who
October 17, 1983

represent them. I will always stand in my place to support legitimate amendments to improve the efficiency of the system so that western Canadian producers obtain a better deal. That is what this amendment is attempting to do and why we as Members of Parliament ought to support it.
Before the Parliamentary Secretary became confused about whether he was making a motion or seeking unanimous consent, he rose in his place to say that there were certain amendments in committee which would have changed the clause. He indicated that they supported their amendment which they thought was sufficient. Amendments were put forward in committee by Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and of the New Democratic Party. We feel that the amendment before us today is necessary. It must be absolutely clear that the functions of one agency cannot interfere with those of another. That is all this section of the act is attempting to clarify. If we have an unclear Act, we can have a bureaucracy or agency that gets carried away with itself in the interpretation of the wording of a section.
I commend the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) for bringing forward the amendment. It is worthy of support. We ought to get on with doing just that.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure once again to have an opportunity to speak on a motion to amend the terrible piece of legislation we are debating, Bill C-155. It is as obvious to me as it is to others in the House that we are moving through amendments today at a rather rapid rate. This was pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) in his somewhat confusing contribution. 1 agree with the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) that many of us were confused by what was going on for a little while, notably by the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
I am sure the Government is happy about the rather rapid progress in dealing with the amendments today because the sooner the House finishes with these amendments, the sooner the Government will get down to scrapping the Crow. The sooner the amendments pass through the House, the sooner the Government can throw thousands of prairies farmers off the land by increasing transportation costs some 400 per cent.
Probably the Tories are also very happy about the rapid progress in dealing with the amendments today. Over the last few weeks we have heard them spilling crocodile tears about the dreadful impact of higher freight rates on prairie farmers. How serious are they about saving the Crow? Just a few weeks ago the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) came into the debate as a shining new convert to the "save the Crow" position. He said that farmers cannot afford to pay increased freight rates and that the Government should postpone its plan to kill the Crow for three years to let the income position of farmers improve. I read a while ago in the Western Producer that the Hon. Member has now scrapped in three-year moratorium notion. I suppose that can only mean he is back onside with the Government, supporting an end to the Crow rate. One can only guess.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Also a few days ago I read in The Globe and Mail a report on the Crow debate. I indicated that the hopes of some unnamed Tory insiders was that the Government would hurry up and bring in time allocation, to get their Tory friends off the hook, I suppose. Indeed, we may have some scheming going on now which will come up with yet another unholy alliance of Grits and Tories to screw prairie farmers.


John Horton McDermid: Shame.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Order.


J. Michael Forrestall: You will become just another pretty face from the Prairies.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I suppose we have to feel some sympathy for the Tories. The reported position of their Leader is only that he wants a united Tory position on the Crow. That does not give us too much to chew on. However, I think it is prairie Tory Members for whom we have to feel the most sympathy. When they went home this summer they discovered that indeed the Crow rate was very important to grain producers. More than that, it is very important to the whole prairie economy. Our prairie Tory colleagues found out that they had better be seen to be defending the Crow when they come back here.


An Hon. Member:: Not really defending it.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Exactly. They have made much of their new faith in the Crow rate. The Government has clearly come to believe, with reason, that the Tories are willing to deal the Crow away. That should not surprise any of us. It should not be a surprise, especially when we consider the rather poor record of the Tories in fielding speakers for this debate. They have about three times as many Members as us, which gives them the right to three times as many speakers. The best they can do so far is one for one with Members of this Party. Their defence of the Crow has been a paper tiger. I can only hope that farmers in their ridings will come to realize this before it is too late.
The amendments we are discussing at present, Motion No. 39 of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) and Motion No. 40 of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), are both important, although obviously one is better than the other. They both strive to protect the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board from the broad powers this Bill would give to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and its Administrator. Of the two, Motion No. 40 is clearly the better. It is most in keeping with the concerns raised by the Wheat Board Chief Commissioner, Esmond Jarvis, when he appeared before the Committee on Transport this summer. For that reason, it is Motion No. 40 that we should accept.
Why is that? The wording of the two motions is very similar. The difference is that the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), specifically mentions that the duties and functions of the

October 17, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Administrator shall not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under Section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, or any Order in Council, to make available the quantities and types of grain needed to achieve sales commitments.
The Canadian Wheat Board argued before the committee that the most efficient way to ensure future export sales is to ensure that the Board retains the ability to co-ordinate fully the grain transportation system. I think he is right.
Under Section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Board is allowed, subject only to Order in Council, to provide for the allocation of railway cars available for the shipment of grain at any delivery point to any elevator, loading platform or person at the delivery point.
That is a very important authority for the Wheat Board. Without control of the quota system and in the allocation of cars, the Wheat Board loses its capacity to complete its sales. We cannot arbitrarily separate the transportation of those grain sales from the sales themselves. As the Wheat Board told the committee:
Any further reduction in the Board's ability to co-ordinate transportation will be a very important step backward for the export sales program for western Canadian grains.
Clearly any transfer of authority to operate the bloc shipping system from the Wheat Board to the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee would result not only in major problems for the efficiency of the transportation system but also for the effectiveness of the Wheat Board's sales efforts. I am a little distressed that this Bill was not amended in committee to take account of this problem. 1 know my colleague from Regina West tried repeatedly to have the Bill amended to take account of the Wheat Board's concerns.
It seems odd that when the Bill was drafted that little effort was made to address the concern of the Wheat Board to prevent a future shift in authority from the Board to the Senior Grain Commission by Order in Council. Since the ability of the Board, subject to Order in Council, to co-ordinate transportation of its grain sales is so important to its export grain sales, why was provision not made for the protection of the authority in this Bill? When it was raised repeatedly, why did the Government Members on the committee shy away from making the necessary changes? What is the reason for their reluctance to protect the authority of the Wheat Board? It makes little sense to me.
This amendment is not a major change to the Government's legislation. It only seeks to limit the authority of the Grain Transportation Administrator in a way that is reasonable and,
I might add, fair. Without this amendment, only the elevator system and the actual buying and selling of grain would remain outside of the Administrator's control. Is it the intention of the Government to establish a czar over the transportation of western grain? I certainly hope not.
This amendment will ensure that the Wheat Board retains the power to order the direct grain cars in a way that allows it to fulfil its mandate and meet export sales. It would ensure the Wheat Board's ability to retain control over the bloc system of
shipping necessary for the export sales of western Canadian grains.
Let me close by saying that we should accept Motion No. 40. I do not say that because it is an NDP amendment. I say that because it does not confuse the Bill, as I must say Motion No. 39 does. As Motion No. 39 now reads, it will replace subclause 19(2) of the Bill. By doing that it would remove the protection written into this Bill now for the Canadian Grain Commission. I do not think that was the intent of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). However, whether that was the intent or not, that would be the result.
Motion No. 40 does not replace subclause (2) which deals with the Grain Commission. Rather, it replaces subclause (3) which attempts to deal with the Wheat Board. If we are trying to improve the protection for the Wheat Board, we should be amending the clause that deals with the Wheat Board.
While both Motions Nos. 39 and 40 set out to preserve the authority of the Wheat Board, it is evident that it is Motion No. 40 that we should put forth.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to add my support to Motion No. 39 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). I support it because it makes sense. It makes sense if one understands in any way what has happened in the Prairies in the movement of grain and what farmers have been doing in order that some cash flow will allow them to continue business. That is the reason for the motion.
It is just amazing to watch the NDP grasping with their fingernails in desperation, trying somehow to show that whatever they are doing, they are in favour of the status quo on the Prairies.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Status Crow.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Not only that, but time has passed them by. What about credibility? Where is it? At 14 per cent even they are not crowing any more.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They are the Titanic of western Canadian political Parties.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about the Parliamentary Secretary? Let us look at him, if we can bear the sight for a moment. Obviously the question has been very clearly established by the Government, namely, that it wants closure on this Bill. It does not want to study the Bill any more. It wants to impose high rates of transportation costs on the farmers of western Canada. That is what it wants to do.
The Government would almost have been able to do that today through a parliamentary manoeuvre had the Parliamentary Secretary only followed the script that he was given a little more closely, but I guess he missed it.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very clear that the Hon. Member never listens in this Chamber because I did not ask for any time allocation. I wanted to give
October 17, 1983

the Members more time. I was asking for extended hours of debate. Extended hours is not time allocation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There is a difficulty in that if the Elon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) provokes certain responses of that nature, then perhaps 1 have to recognize the Hon. Member to answer the provocation. I suggest that if the Hon. Member wants to get on with debate, that is the way to go.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As always, your judgments are accepted by me. 1 am just appreciative of the Parliamentary Secretary trying to explain the unexplainable because he wanted the Bill dealt with in one evening. He did not give any time allocation. He simply said "Let's continue". That being the case, I would like to continue tomorrow. I therefore call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: By far and away an excellent proposition.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate Friday of this week as an Opposition Day.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 11, I asked the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) why the constituency of Bow River was only receiving $100,000 from the Canada Works Program for 1983. I pointed out that in 1982, there were 685 people unemployed in the Bow River constituency and it received $200,000. This year, 1983, there are 1,893 people unemployed in the Bow River constituency, three times the number of unemployed in 1982, and it is receiving only half the amount of money, or $100,000.
I advised the Minister that it is an odd formula that provides that the higher the rate of unemployment, the lower the grant. The Minister then stated that the formula does bring forward, as he said, rather bizarre results. The Minister advised me that the formula was explained in a letter to me. All the letter said
Adjournment Debate
was that the total constituency allocation is now the sum of Canada Works grants and the Local Employment Assistance Development (LEAD) grants and that the basic allocation from Canada works is $100,000. The LEAD allocation is nil unless there were more than 4,360 persons unemployed in Bow River. In other words, the Canadian Government thinks that having 4,360 persons unemployed is all right. Nothing is provided for Bow River constituency under the LEAD Program. The Canada Works Program grant is a minimum amount which is given to any constituency.
That is not a formula at all. It is a sleazy way of granting larger amounts of money to favoured constituencies and/or providing a Liberal slush fund for the next election. It reminds me of the time I was navigating airplanes in World War II. We used a formula to ascertain the exact position of our aircraft by transcribing through trigonometric tables the shots we took of the moon, certain stars and the sun. Some lazy would-be navigators cooked their shots at navigation school by using their location on the ground and working backwards to get the position of the moon or the star. Most of those people were washed out by the RCAF as they would be useless when they did not know where they were in the air and would therefore endanger the lives of the entire crew.
That is exactly what the Minister is doing. He is cooking the amounts of public money in order to favour Liberal ridings. I suggest that by doing this dirty work behind the scenes, he is endangering the political lives of his comrades and betraying the unemployed, particularly the women, the natives and the disabled, that the program is designed to help. If the Minister disputes my statement, let him make public the amounts allocated under this program to all constituencies in Canada. 1 dare him to do so.
Let us look at what happened in 1982 when there were 685 people unemployed in the riding of Bow River and it received a grant of $200,000. Here are the results. There were 21 applications from Bow River which, if all had been approved, would have created 153 jobs at a cost of $1,500,000. This would have created 5,555 work weeks of employment. However, we only received $282,806 and so there were only five applications which, if all had been approved, would have created 25 jobs or 909 work weeks of employment. I should note that the amount of $82,806 was given to Bow River by a Calgary riding. If that money had not been received, the picture would have been different as only three applications would have been approved, creating some 13 jobs. The five applications approved included a Sarcee people's museum, a Shilo Wilderness Ranch at Priddis, the Drumheller Chamber of Commerce project, the East Coulee Community Association project and the Village of Beiseker project.
Equally good projects were submitted by Big Country Educational Consortium, the Sarcee Seven Chiefs Sportex, the Sarcee Band Administration, the Sarcee Old Agency Lodge, the Banff Library, the Banff Community Skills Bank, the Canmore Any-Space Theatre Company, the Blackfoot Band Housing Society, the Society for the Handicapped in Airdrie, Airdrie T.I.B.S., the Airdrie Campsite Development, Airdrie is
October 17, 1983

Adjournment Debate
Accessible and Airdrie Ecological Assessment. In other words, it was most frustrating last year for the 16 organizations that drew up proposals and went to the work and expense of presenting the proposals only to be told that there was not enough money to approve them.
What will the situation be this year? The Minister praises the program and builds up the hopes of the people who apply. Then they are frustrated and disillusioned. This year, with only $100,000, it means only about three projects will be approved, with about 12 to 15 new jobs being created. This leaves more than 1,800 people without work. This is certainly a "bizarre" result.
If we were to receive an amount comparable to that of last year, we would have $600,000 or at the very least $500,000. The bizarre way of figuring this out by the new Minister of Employment and Immigration is an insult to the unemployed and an insult to the communities which are going to make applications. This program is a hoax.
If the Minister cannot do any better than this in the Employment and Immigration portfolio, then he should resign. The Minister has never had to meet a payroll. He has never been in business. He does not understand the outside world at all. Perhaps he should leave us and go back behind the sheltered walls of the university and find out how to work out a sensible formula, one which will be fair and one which will raise the grant as the number of unemployed increase.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the first question put by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), I want to inform the Hon. Member that in 19821983, the funds allocated to Canada Community Development Projects, totalling $172.5 million, were distributed as follows: first, all ridings received a basic grant of $200,000. Second, ridings with a labour surplus rate of less than 12 per cent over four years received funding for job creation, and this was the case in 33 ridings. Third, ridings with an average monthly labour surplus rate of five per cent or more during the period from October 1981 to March 1982 received a share of the remaining funds calculated according to the difference between the average number of surplus workers during the six-month period ending in March 1981 and during the corresponding period in 1982.
Under the Canada Community Development Programs, Bow River received a basic grant of $200,000. The riding was not eligible for job creation funding, because the average labour surplus rate over four years was 1 per cent. Nor was it eligible for an additional share of the grant, because the average monthly labour surplus rate was 1.4 per cent. The difference in the number of surplus workers in Bow River was 236.
This year, funding for Canada Works and LEAD programs was distributed as follows: first, all ridings received a basic grant of $100,000. Second, ridings with an average labour surplus rate over four years of less than 12 per cent were eligible for LEAD program funding. This was the case in 37 ridings. Third, the remaining funds were distributed proportionally among the ridings where the labour surplus rate exceeded 8 per cent of the labour force. Under the Canada Works and LEAD programs, Bow River again received a basic grant of $100,000. It was not eligible for funding under LEAD, because its average labour surplus rate over four years was 1.7 per cent. Although the number of surplus workers was calculated at 1,893, the riding did not receive an additional share of the grant because its monthly average labour surplus rate was 3.5 per cent. The difference between the amounts allocated to Bow River is therefore due to the fact that the basic grant dropped from $200,000 to $100,000 this year. There are two reasons for the reduction: first, funding for the Canada Works Program was only $109.8 million. Second, since the labour surplus increased last year because of the economic situation, it was necessary to make more substantial funding available to all ridings. Thence the figure of $100,000 for the riding of Bow River. As to whether the same formula was applied to ridings represented by Liberal Members, the answer is that funding for all ridings is calculated in the same way, namely, basic grants of $100,000 for everyone, and depending on the labour surplus rate, certain amounts are allocated under other programs such as LEAD, and that is how funding for the riding of Bow River was allocated.


PENITENTIARIES-DECISION TO END LAVAL UNIVERSITY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM AT LAVAL PENAL INSTITUTE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I questioned the Solicitor General about the excellent education program offered by Laval University at the Laval Institution in Quebec City. In his reply, the Solicitor General mentioned that the BAGIL program directed by Mr. Mario Ferland, which was set up at Laval and offered to a number of inmates, had not been very successful during the three years of its operation.
Mr. Speaker, I find this conclusion very surprising, since the Minister wrote the following letter to Mr. Ferland on September 14 of this year, in which he said, and I quote:
I wish to thank you very much for your efforts in developing BAGIL at the Laval Institution. I am aware that, thanks to your efforts, it has become an excellent program that has been beneficial to inmate participants.
Mr. Speaker, there is clearly a considerable discrepancy between what the Solicitor General said in the House last Friday and what he wrote in his letter to Mr. Ferland a month ago, when he described the program as being an excellent one. The question arises why the Minister decided to terminate the
October 17, 1983

program offered by Laval University. 1 would now like to quote a letter written by Mr. Ferland to the Solicitor General:
His explanation is far from satisfactory; as for his suggestion to continue university programs in penitentiaries, this could only have an adverse effect on the development of education in the prison environment.
That is clear, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has apparently refused to listen to the universal advice he received from the Canadian education community, including the Canadian Association for Adult Education, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the National Union of Students, the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, the John Howard Society, and the Canadian Labour Congress, along with a host of individuals right across the country including Members of Parliament on all sides of the House.
These representations were to the effect that, first of all, specialized university programs developed in Canada in several penitentiaries should be continued. They should not be weakened by off-the-shelf courses, for example, or by distance education or correspondence courses. Their budgets should not be reduced.
Most importantly, the idea which the Minister is now proposing of fees for students will in effect kill post-secondary education programs not only in the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec, at Queen's University in Ontario, and Manitoba where the Minister refused to fund such programs, but it will also kill the very successful program in British Columbia which is being operated by the University of Victoria.
The Minister has suggested that there are not enough students involved in the program in Quebec, but I note that the programs in Quebec and Ontario, unlike the very successful program in British Columbia which I strongly support, are very new programs. There has never been a university program in the Atlantic region. Apparently there has not been much interest on the part of the CSC to begin such a program in that region even though St. Francis Xavier University expressed a willingness to consider the possibility a number of years ago. But in the case of the new programs in Quebec and Ontario, there has not been enough time to develop larger enrolments. 1 would suspect much larger enrolments could be developed, particularly if the programs were offered in penitentiaries closer to the university itself. Laval institution and Laval University are several hundred miles apart. 1 am quite confident that that is one of the reasons for the low initial enrolment in that program. But, to use that as an excuse for killing the program entirely is, in my view, a very serious mistake.
I would note as well, Mr. Speaker, that this particular program has been strongly supported by educators. In the Province of Quebec a petition has been signed by some 200 professors calling upon the Government to reconsider its decision and effectively keep this rehabilitative program. There are
Adjournment Debate
not many programs in the federal penitentiary system which seem to work in terms of rehabilitation. To kill a program in Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba which is getting under way and, admittedly, still does not have a large enrolment, and as a result will have a higher per student cost, is a tragic mistake in my view.
Laval University has just been the recipient of a grant from the Donner Foundation to implement a research and study program on post-secondary education in Canada. This is a recognition of the outstanding job done by Mr. Ferland and that university.
I hope the Minister will consider the conclusions of a study done this summer which showed that if inmates are required to make a significant financial contribution to the cost of their university education, the result will be a substantial decrease in first year enrolments and the eventual disappearance of this important rehabilitation program in its present form.
In view of those conclusions, and in view of the clear success of this program as acknowledged by the Minister as recently as last month in a letter to Mr. Ferland, I hope he will reconsider his decision and reinstate this very worth-while program, not only in the Province of Quebec but in Queen s University in Ontario and in Manitoba and, indeed, expand the existing program in the Province of British Columbia.
It is also essential that the Minister's proposal for contributions by students not be implemented as it would result in the death of the program across Canada. The program has been very successful both in terms of rehabilitation and the recognition it has received from many different groups involved in adult education.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, during oral question period on October 14 of this year, the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) asked the Solicitor General why he had decided to terminate the education program offered by Laval University at the Laval Institution. As he said himself in his reply to the Hon. Member the same day, the Minister strongly supports providing post-secondary education in federal prison institutions. However, the BAGIL program, set up at the Laval Institution and offered to inmates under federal jurisdiction in the Quebec region who were eligible for university level education, was somewhat limited throughout the three years of its existence. In fact, only 12 student inmates were enrolled at the time the program was suspended. The fact that the program attracted so few students made it very expensive to run, the cost being about $8,000 per student inmate per year. 1 may add that the low rate of enrolment in programs at Queen's University and the University of Manitoba was one of the factors leading to the suspension of these programs as well. However, the program at the University of Victoria has been expanded, since it has the highest enrolment: 140 full-time and 32 part-time

October 17, 1983
Adjournment Debate
students out of a total of about 190 full-time and 76 part-time students in Canada in 1982. The average cost per student is therefore substantially reduced. Eventually, more inmates may be taking part in programs, and participating universities will be asked to offer such programs in the various regions. Depending on their experience and the variety of programs available, universities will be able to offer certain services including conventional courses, televised courses and correspondence courses.


AGRICULTURE-BEEF STABILIZATION PLAN-MEETING OF PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on February 28, I raised a question with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) concerning the Government's plan to provide stabilization of the red meat industry, especially the beef industry. At that time the provincial ministers of agriculture were meeting. I asked the Minister if he was prepared to co-operate on a national tripartite stabilization program for the red meat industry. I asked a similar question on September 15. I would be interested to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if the Government is prepared to move ahead with this matter at this time.
1 understand that the Ministers and the deputy ministers of agriculture across the country have met several times throughout the summer, in July and I believe again later in August. In fact, of the ten provincial Ministers I understand that four of them representing the four largest beef-producing Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario have made some agreement to proceed with a tripartite method of agricultural stabilization for the beef industry. I understand that this also applies to the pork industry.
I ask these questions of the Minister because I believe the situation in the red meat industry is really critical at this time. Prices for red meat are approximately 20 per cent to 25 per cent less than they were four years ago. During that four-year period we have seen interest rates climb to as high as 20 per cent and 24 per cent. There have been farm bankruptcies and foreclosures on a scale we have not witnessed since the 1930s. An Hon. Member of this House introduced Bill C-653, a measure that is similar to the farm bankruptcy legislation which was used in the 1930s. There has been a lot of support from both sides of the House toward the implementation of that legislation.
While I understand that negotiations are proceeding to do something in this regard, this would be treating the symptom rather than the problem. The real problem is that the producers of red meat in this country are not receiving an adequate return for their commodity from the marketplace. Obviously that is the best place to obtain an adequate return, because the consumer would then know what the commodity costs what it is worth. The producer should get an adequate return for his investment and work. This does not happen often
enough in the red meat industry for these producers to survive. It seems to me that the best interim solution is a tripartite stabilization program.
If we look at the estimates from the Department of Agriculture we see that some $309 million is spent annually for the dairy producers; that the federal Government put up $145 million for crop insurance; that the Western Grain Stabilization contributions of the federal Government are $140 million; and that other stabilization programs for other commodities are only some $88 million a year, with a total of $682 million for stabilization.
Considering the impact the beef industry across the country has on the economy, it is important to the vitality and long term veil being of rural Canada that this industry receive stabilization similar to what is provided other commodities produced in our country. 1 hope the Minister will work with the provincial Ministers in arriving at an agreement in the next few weeks which will result in stabilization assistance for this hard pressed industry, and industrys that occasionally has a good year but too often and for too long has suffered from inadequate returns on its investment while its input costs have continued to rise. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate in his response that the Government is planning to move ahead during the next few weeks to establish a viable and equitable stabilization support system for the red meat industry.
[ Translation]


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture);: Mr. Speaker, the task force which had been appointed by the provincial Ministers of Agriculture to develop a tripartite stabilization program for the red meat industry tabled its report at the annual meeting of Ministers of Agriculture at Brudenell, Prince Edward Island, last July. It was unable to come up with a program acceptable to the ten provinces.
The Ministers of Agriculture of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta made a suggestion to the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), asking for the establishment of a tripartite program. The latter told them that he was prepared to consider their suggestion, but he requested additional information on the subject. He invited the Deputy Ministers of those four provinces to meet with the Deputy Minister of Agriculture Canada to prepare a detailed program at their earliest convenience.
The Deputy Ministers met three times, most recently here in Ottawa on October 6. They agreed on a feasible program and decided to submit the details to their respective ministers. Each participant is now reviewing the transcript of their proceedings and as soon as the Deputy Ministers confirm that the transcript faithfully reflects their agreement and consult their Ministers, the federal Minister of Agriculture will convene a federal-provincial meeting with his provincial counterparts so as to finalize the agreement.
October 17, 1983

For the time being, we cannot reveal the details of that agreement in principle among the Deputy Ministers. First. we must give each Minister enough time to become familiar with it and to share his views with his colleagues. Hopefully that will be done within a few days.
The details of the proposed program will not be made public before the Ministers meet and the spokesmen for the producers have been consulted.
Adjournment Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.28 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 18, 1983