1983-10-20

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
32 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 20, 1983

[DOT]	(H05)


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 18, 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 Motions Nos. 39 (Mr. Gustafson) and 40 (Mr. Benjamin).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the matter was last in debate, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) had the floor. In his absence the Chair will recognize any other Hon. Member on Motions Nos. 39 and 40.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, today as the Chair has indicated, we are resuming debate on Motions Nos. 39 and 40. The motions are very similar. One is in the name of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), my friend in the Conservative Party, and the other one is in the name of my seatmate, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Both of them are amendments that I would consider pro-producer, pro-farmer, which would strengthen things for the farmers of this country. Both motions would amend Clause 19.
[DOT]	(mo)
The motion of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) reads:
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.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) says a similar thing in his amendment, but according to our legal advice, Motion No. 40 would make it a bit more certain and stronger in terms of the wording on behalf of farmers. It is also the wording suggested by the Canadian Wheat Board. I know Mr. Speaker is a distinguished lawyer and understands the law very well. Motion No. 40 of the Hon. Member for Regina West is the better motion. It is the one preferred by the Wheat
Board. Of the two motions, it is the one that should be accepted.
If the House sees fit not to accept it, of course the fallback position could be Motion No. 39 moved by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. Since we are trying to protect the Canadian Wheat Board, I suggest that we accept the motion which the Wheat Board is recommending and that the Wheat Board would like to see implemented.
Clause 19 of Bill C-155 refers to the functions and duties of the Administrator. The Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee has considerable power over the future of grain handling and grain movement in our country. He has considerable power in terms of the movement of grain, the quality of grain, the purchasing of grain, the selling of grain and the like. We want to ensure that the powers of the Wheat Board are not restricted.
The argument is very basic. It is so basic that it is very well understood by prairie farmers. For a prairie farmer to struggle through the Wheat Board many years ago, it was a very important and long struggle. It was a struggle in which both my grandfathers were involved. Of course, they are no longer with us; that was many years ago. They were struggling for some bargaining and collective powers in the marketplace.
I will not deviate from the narrow strictures of the motions before us today to give a history of the Wheat Board, because Mr. Speaker would call me to order, in any event 1 believe that has already been done by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and by other Members of the House.


Mr. Malone:: 1 would call you to order, too.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps it was even done by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). The Wheat Board is vitally important, and perhaps a couple of analogies are relevant here in trying to persuade some of the urban Members of all Parties from central Canada, or indeed those from some of the western cities, that the Wheat Board for farmers is like a trade union for workers. It is something that will protect farmers. In fact, the Wheat Board for farmers is probably more important than a trade union for workers because unfortunately trade unions probably do not have as much power and influence over the income of workers as the Wheat Board has over the income of farmers. The Wheat Board has the power to sell grain and to obtain a really good price for it. The Wheat Board is financed by farmers and therefore is a very important institution.


Mr. Benjamin:: It is just like the unions.

October 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is very similar to a union. That is why 1 drew that analogy.
We could also draw an analogy with many other associations; for example, many professional associations such as the bar association, the medical association and, for the business community, the Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, associations for resource industries and the like. All those associations are considered to be very important by their member participants. In the same way the Wheat Board is very important for the farmers of Canada.
[DOT] (NI5)
When we establish the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and give awesome powers to the Administrator of that Committee, we must ensure that those powers do not in any way restrict the powers and authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. It must remain the supreme agency in terms of the purchasing and selling of wheat, the organization of grain sales by farmers and so on.
There is something else that you, Mr. Speaker, as a fair-minded person would be very much aware of and in agreement with. As I said before, the Canadian Wheat Board is supported by the farmers' money. There is a Wheat Board Advisory Committee which is elected by the farmers. They have considerable influence over what the Wheat Board does. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) was a member of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. Roy Atkinson, who has been well known for many years as a farm leader in this country, is now the Chairman of the Advisory Committee of the Canadian Wheat Board. He is from Saskatchewan. He is the former head of the National Farmers' Union and has been very active in farming causes throughout his farming life.
A young man in my constituency, Michael Halyk, has been elected for a second term as a member of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee. This young man who is barely 30, if yet 30, is making a contribution to protecting the farming interests of our community. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that it is a democratic organization in terms of having an advisory committee elected by the farmers.
Stack that up against the kind of Committee that is being created in this House today under Bill C-155. Under Bill C-155 we will have a Senior Grain Transportation Committee. A lot of power will be given to the Administrator. It will not be very democratic. There will be some producers and Wheat Pool members on it, but it will not have the same democratic structure as the Canadian Wheat Board.
For reasons that I have stated, I recommend Motion No. 40 to the House. We welcome the support of the Conservative Party on this Motion of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I appeal to the Liberal Members to listen to the voice of the western farmer, to listen to the voice of the people, and to stand up in this House and accept Motion No. 40. It is a motion that the Wheat Board wants. I can assure Members that it is not just the Wheat Board but the farmers, the farm pools, farm organizations, the UGG and other organizations which represent farmers which want Motion No. 40 to pass so as to ensure that the powers of the Wheat Board are protected.
The powers of the Wheat Board are very important to western farmers. Because of the powers of the corporations, multinationals and big grain companies like Continental Grain, Cargill Grain and the other big sisters of the grain trade, the Wheat Board could be gradually eroded over the next few years. Any kind of loophole left in the law could be the first step down the slippery slope of eroding the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. We cannot afford to let that happen because it would be very dangerous to farm incomes.
I grew up on a small farm in central Saskatchewan. I recall the old timers in my community talking time and again about the days before the Canadian Wheat Board. They would tell stories of how they would plant their grain in the spring, harvest it in the fall and have no idea what price they would get for the grain. It depended on the grain traders in Chicago and the Richardsons in Winnipeg and the private grain exchange. The farmer always gambled on what he would get for a bushel of grain, oats, barley or whatever he produced. It was as though you would gamble with dice in a casino in Nevada. That is not the proper way to work. It is not a proper situation in which to put any human being. People need to know what their income will be so that they can plan their lives for themselves and their families. They have to have that kind of security. We, the citizens of Canada who are engaged in many occupations, want that kind of security so we can plan our own lives and futures. I suggest that that is not too much to ask for on behalf of the farmers of prairie Canada.
The motions now before the House would offer that kind of protection to the farmers. As we have argued for a long, long time, we of course would like to see the Crow rate remain intact and would like to see the powers of the Wheat Board expanded. However, we are not dealing with the expansion of the Wheat Board's powers in this particular motion but with preserving the kinds of powers it presently has.
I would like to make a direct appeal to my friend, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. If his Motion No. 39 happens to fail, I would ask that he organize among his caucus unanimous support for Motion No. 40. I think I see him nodding his head in agreement. I hope that when the vote comes on Motion No. 40, all Conservative Members in the House will be present and will vote in support of Motion No. 40. Perhaps together we can persuade some of the more open-minded Liberal Members across the way such as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) to support this motion.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this motion is very important, and I would like to say to my colleagues from Quebec: We need your support for Motion No. 40. It is extremely important! As a member of the House for 15 years, I have often supported proposals by Quebec producers, by the Union des producteurs agricoles,
October 20, 1983

and I want to ask you now: Are you willing to do the same thing for us?

I hope that they will, Mr. Speaker, because if they do, then perhaps we can at least add a bit more protection for the prairie farmer from this horrible Bill that the Government across the way wants to force on prairie farmers through the use of closure.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to register in the strongest possible terms my objection to the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) failed to take his place in the speaking order today after having been recognized and causing a procedural wrangle on Tuesday.


An Hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: It is a point of view.


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


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments regarding the motions that are before us today and regarding some of the implications those motions have for the Canadian Wheat Board in particular. When any Member from the other side of the House who represents a riding from the prairie Provinces gets up to speak, we have heard him speak as if we have no comments to make that may be of any positive nature. However, 1 think there are some implications in this Bill in general, and specifically in these motions, that do apply to Hon. Members from ridings right across the country.
When thinking about this Bill, I think particularly of my own constituency of Nanaimo-Alberni. Constituents there are not happy with the way their particular railway system is functioning and they are not happy with the kind of say that they have in the process of scheduling passenger services and services for the export of commodities. The implications of Motions Nos. 39 and 40 correspond to some of the problems that Vancouver Island residents have with the E & N Railway, a railway that is under attack by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which wants to curtail the use of that railway system on Vancouver Island for passengers. People who live on Vancouver Island have the same need of that rail system as the prairie farmers do of theirs in terms not only of passenger service but more particularly as it applies to this Bill, the transportation of grain and the improvement of that system.
On Vancouver Island we have a company that is not very interested in scheduling rail transportation to meet the needs of the community but rather in scheduling rail transportation to meet their own specific needs. The railway company ignores to a large extent the promotion of the rail system on Vancouver Island. There is no attempt made to be innovative or to attract tourism despite the potential that exists.
We feel that Bill C-155 is an attempt by the Government to take the same position toward the grain farmers in the prairie Provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba in particular. We do not like what we see. We do not like the implica-
Western Grain Transportation Act
tions of Bill C-155 and I am sure that is why Motion No. 39 was moved by the Progressive Conservative Party and Motion No. 40 by this Party. I think the people on Vancouver Island relate to the demand of the Canadian Wheat Board that it have control over the direction and allocation of rail cars to move grain to port. We have the same kind of demand in that we want to have some say in how the rail system on Vancouver Island can be used to move commodities and passengers in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
In the testimony given before the committee a representative of the Canadian Wheat Board made some relevant points which have been enunciated very well in the debate in the House and in committee. I want to repeat the main goals of the Canadian Wheat Board within the context of Motion No. 39 and Motion No. 40. In committee the representative said:
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.
Basically, what the Canadian Wheat Board is afraid of is that the transfer of authority over grain cars to the grain transportation administration will weaken its ability to transport grain to and sell grain on the export market. I think it should be recognized that the Board has the greatest opportunity to know what the needs of the producers are for transporting grain to port and where the greatest need lies for the cars if grain exports and sales overseas are to be improved. It is important that through the Canadian Wheat Board we have the authority not only to determine the quotas of grain produced but the mechanism by which it can reach port and the overseas markets.
Our amendment would not weaken the Bill but, rather, would strengthen our ability to increase the production of grain, its movement and our export sales. It is not significantly different from Motion No. 39 moved by the Progressive Conservative Party but it would change the Bill to reflect the needs of the Canadian Wheat Board and, therefore, of grain producers. It would allow the Wheat Board to retain the power to direct grain car allocation and to meet the needs of producers interested in rail upgrading as well as increasing sales on the domestic and export markets.
This Party has indicated that it supports Motion No. 39 if it is not successful in having the Government accept Motion No. 40, which is what we hope the Government will do, knowing the opposition to the particular mechanism within the Bill itself and the opposition not only of the two Opposition Parties but of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is responsible for moving grain and has had a great deal of success in the past in moving grain and marketing that grain overseas.
This Party asks that the Government look at these amendments sincerely and also look at the lobbying of the Canadian Wheat Board for amendments to the Bill. We ask it to consider particularly the Canadian producer of grain, his attempts to improve his product and to improve sales and

October 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act marketing of that product through continued authority over elevators, production and grain transportation.
Motion No. 40, which our Party has moved, is certainly an amendment which should be acceptable to the Government. The Canadian Wheat Board has strongly lobbied to have this motion accepted. I urge the Government to consider very seriously accepting this amendment which will strengthen the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board so that it can better serve Canadian producers of grain.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to enter into the debate on both Motion No. 39, which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), and Motion No. 40, which was introduced by my colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). As Hon. Members have mentioned previously, the intent of the amendments is to strengthen the position of the Canadian Wheat Board, or at least to protect its historic role, a role which has evolved over years of experience and practice and has benefited and worked for the farmers and producers in western Canada.
The Bill as it stands without these amendments, Mr. Speaker, weakens the position of the Canadian Wheat Board in terms of allocating cars and organizing the transportation of grain to the ports. It opens the door to the Administrator so that he will be able to take on more and more of the responsibilities which have been handled by the Canadian Wheat Board. We stand opposed to this. Indications would show that Members of the Conservative Party, especially those who come from Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba, understand that the Canadian Wheat Board is an essential organization for western Canadian farmers. They understand that one should not muck around with it.
Bill C-155, and particularly this clause, is just another example of a Government with no representation from the agricultural west. We have a Department, Mr. Speaker, which has a tremendous record of major mistakes wading in and totally disrupting and destroying a system which has been developed in western Canada over the years. This Bill, and this clause as well, is presented to us by the Department which brought us Mirabel Airport and the proposed Pickering airport, billion dollar mistakes, billion dollar "Oops, sorry, folks, we just miscalculated!"
These are the people who have been in charge of transportation policies in Canada over the years, who have allowed the rail service in this country to deteriorate, who have overseen the gradual demise of passenger rail service in Canada. This has been done to a country like ours which is so dependent on the railways. That Department has allowed the gradual erosion of these essential services and now this same Department is wading in and mucking around with the Wheat Board. I do not trust it, Mr. Speaker. None of my constituents in Regina East, whether they be Conservative, New Democrat or Liberal, trust it. There is an intense feeling in western Canada, Mr. Speaker, that that Department, and the Government, do not know what they are doing.
Our constituents depend upon us, their representatives in the House of Commons, to speak forcefully and often of their positions and their fears. These are dark days, Mr. Speaker, for this institution and for this Government, because the Government is determined to go ahead without any experience or representation, nor any sensitivity to the needs of western Canada. In its own blind, bureaucratic way it is determined to push ahead. It has cloaked itself with a sense of self-righteousness, claiming what it is doing is progressive and forward-looking. This is just bureaucratic talk. It has been convinced it is right by its own bureaucrats. It has stopped listening to the people and is blindly going ahead and destroying a system which has taken years to organize and which is working well right now. On top of that, it is now attempting to still the voices from the west. It is going to introduce closure. It is going to prevent us from talking on all these amendments.
All of the amendments which have been introduced by the Hon. Member for Regina West and many amendments introduced by the Conservative Party are valid amendments which must be taken into consideration, because the original Bill is so flawed-even technically flawed-that it needs this careful consideration of each clause. We have a right to speak. We have a right to present the points of view of our constituents in western Canada. But the Government now does not want to hear this. It just wants to close its eyes and ears and shove this Bill through. It is tragic that one of the important fabrics of our society, particularly in western Canada, is being torn apart and the representatives of western Canada are not even allowed to give their points of view, their objections, thoughts and comments on this Bill.
The events which have occurred in the last few weeks here in the House, and those which will occur in the immediate future, are sad events, not only for this institution but for Canada as a whole. What is occurring, Mr. Speaker, is that something which has tied us together as a nation is now being destroyed by a mindless bureaucracy with the consent of a heartless and insensitive Government.
Many Hon. Members have already talked about the important role of the Canadian Wheat Board, how it has evolved and how essential it is. The Canadian Wheat Board has a major say, if not the ultimate say, in the allocation of grain cars in order to facilitate the movement of our products in the most efficient way possible. What this Bill does in effect, as pointed out by other Hon. Members, is to allow that role to be whittled away, to deteriorate over time.
I urge Government Members to look at the merits of the motions which have been proposed both by the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. I urge them to stand up and at least tell us where they stand on this issue. At least they should have the common decency to tell us why these amendments should not be included. But they sit there in silence, using their majority to ram this Bill through without even giving an intelligent reason for doing so. That is a further insult on insult on insult. I would urge Government Members
October 20, 1983

to stand up in this House and explain to us their reasoning for this particular clause. When they do not do so it just increases the fear which the people of western Canada have about this Bill.
Is it the Government's intention and secret agenda that the Wheat Board should in time be whittled down, that its role should be eroded? Is this the secret agenda? If it is not, then surely it is up to Government Members to stand up and say "No, it is not; this is the reason for it and we do not think you are right on this". Or they might stand up and say: "We think you have a valid point; it is certainly not our intention to erode the ability of the Wheat Board to allocate cars and we think you have some good arguments. Yes, we will accept your amendment." But at least they can stand up and say something if they have any guts at all, Mr. Speaker.
These two amendments, Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 39 and 40, are pretty similar. I prefer Motion No. 40 because it is a little bit more specific concerning other Acts and regulations which empower the Canadian Wheat Board to allocate cars. But essentially both motions try to accomplish the same thing, that is, to guarantee the Canadian Wheat Board has and retains the power to allocate grain cars.
I maintain that this Bill is an attack upon western Canadian agriculture as we have known it. It attacks the rate which farmers will have to pay for the movement of grain. It attacks the Wheat Board and the Wheat Pools. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), says, it attacks a way of life. The authors of this Bill have a different motion about what agriculture in western Canada should be. It is a motion which runs parallel to those who advocate the grain exchange and the break-up of the co-operative system, the collective method which has been developed both in pooling of resources and of marketing.
I see by your motions, Mr. Speaker, that my ten minutes on this particular motion have lapsed. I just wish to say that I hope at least one Government Member will stand up and address himself to this amendment. Give us the reasoning why they are either in favour of or opposed to this amendment. At least show some courtesy toward my constituents and others in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta and let them know why the Government is doing what it is doing in this particular clause.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would read the transcripts of committee hearings and previous debate on this motion, he will find his answer there. That is why we cannot prolong this kind of filibustering. It has all been said, Mr. Speaker.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I fail to see what the point of order was. I am asking him to stand up here in the House right now and address the Canadian public. Is it necessary for members of the public to go to committee hearings and read committee reports? Let us not be so devious. Stand up right now.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Jesse Philip Flis: You should have attended the committee hearings. Where were you?


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Motion No. 39. While we support this motion, we prefer Motion No. 40 which deals with the same topic only in a more detailed way. I wish to express my disappointment that the Minister is not in the House because this is an important piece of legislation.


Mr. Blais:: Then why don't you deal with it as being important?


Sidney James Parker: But he is not here.
I have worked for the railways for many years and have seen what they do regarding their commitments to the transportation of various types of grain. This is why I think these two motions are very pertinent to this legislation. The Government is going to change a major piece of legislation which deeply affects western Canada. I can remember in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s when railway workers waited day in and day out for wheat contracts to be signed with other countries so that their very jobs would be guaranteed. The fact is that this legislation could break down the authority of the Wheat Board. I refer to commitments made.
When the Conservatives were in Government, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) made agreements with the railways for upgrading of railway stock. I have seen some of that upgrading take place. Some of it was done with a stencil brush. They stencilled on the side of a car that this car has been upgraded, and I can say now that I did not see the actual work take place. Is that the kind of thing we want to see taking place, which the prairie farmers are going to have to pay for? Right now in my riding there are cars designated for upgrading of branch lines and it is stencilled right on the side. If this clause was in place they could see where these cars have been used. They are being used not only on the upgrading of branch lines but we see them out on western Canada on the main lines and in other areas. If that is what the Wheat Board wants and the administration works for it, it should be done through proper inspections and with proper authority.
Regarding the various types of wheat being shipped, 1 think it is imperative that the Wheat Board have some say in what grain is going to be shipped. I have seen grain sit for as long as two or three weeks on a siding because it was the wrong grain, the boats were not there to take the grain and the ports in Vancouver could not hold it. It is imperative that there be some kind of communication between the Wheat Board, the railways and the ports, and that must be through the Wheat Board. If this is not done, we are going to have the Cargills, the Richardsons and the Continental groups walking in and making a profit on the backs of the farmers. I know the Conservatives would support that kind of a process because they do not believe in orderly marketing. Well, we will not stand for that and this is why we feel it is so imperative that the administration have the authority to ensure that the equipment is being utilized properly.

October 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
As we on the Standing Committee on Transport travelled across Canada, we found there were many railways, such as the railway to Churchill, which can handle only certain types of cars. Again, it is imperative that the correct equipment is made available for areas such as this so grain can be moved when it should be. That must be done. It is imperative that the Administrator have a voice in how it is being done. It is a travesty to western grain producers that the Liberals and Conservatives sit in the House, remain quiet about this issue and do not participate by giving assurance that this kind of protection is there. We hear that they support the Wheat Board but they sit silent in the House.
During my travels with the Transport Committee the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) attended meetings where he bragged to the prairie farmers about how much he had done and how many cars he had supplied during his term in office. 1 want to tell the House that I worked in the mechanical department of the railway company for many years and a boxcar cannot be built-


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder what days the Hon. Member is referring to when speaking about his travels with the Transport Committee. I travelled on many days-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. The Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke has the floor.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, to begin with, that was not a legitimate point of order. If you look at the record, I said that 1 travelled across this country with the Transport Committee and the Member for Vegreville was there. If you check the record you will find that I was on that committee.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: On what dates?


Sidney James Parker: I have no obligation to the Member to tell him what dates I was on that Committee. It appears that some Conservative Members-


Arnold John Malone: The Member for Crowfoot.


Sidney James Parker: If the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) wants to check the records he will find that I travelled on the Transport Committee and met with grain growers in Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton. We also visited Prince Rupert.


Mr. Taylor:: You must have been under the table in Edmonton because I did not see you there.


Sidney James Parker: These Conservative Members seem to be so uptight about it, but there was more than one Transport Committee. There was one working with regard to the Crow Bill and there also was a Transport Committee that travelled throughout this country about two years ago. If they cannot remember that, they were not very interested in what was taking place in transportation in Canada.


Gordon Edward Taylor: There was one in 1917 as well. Were you on that one?


Sidney James Parker: We hear rumblings from the Conservatives and the Liberals but let us hear some constructive advice on how we should deal with this very important problem.
The only efficient way that we can handle our grain is to give the Canadian Wheat Board, which represents the farmers, manages the grain economy*and how our grain is sold to other countries, the authority and opportunity to demand that the companies operate efficiently and that the shipping of grain is achieved quickly. We should not continue a system in which the railway companies have told the prairie farmers that the railway workers are causing all the problems, when it is the railway companies that have put the cars on sidings and delayed the transportation of grain as a result of their poor management. If there was an administrator dealing with these problems, the farmers would know first hand who to blame and would ensure that it would not happen.
The Conservative Party is hoping and praying that Continental or Cargill can get involved and destroy one of the best marketing systems that Canada ever had. If these changes are going to be made we cannot allow Bill C-155 to pass without some protection of orderly marketing in Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 39 and on Motion No. 40.
All those in favour, please say yea?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motions stands deferred.
Motions Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 have been grouped for debate and are to be voted on separately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 41
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 12 and 13 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"during the period by railway companies; and".
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 14 to 24 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
October 20, 1983

'Yb) implement a scheme that provides for sanctions to be applied to railway companies that do not meet the performance objectives referred to in paragraph (a).''
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21
(a)	by striking out line 18 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor: "than the railway companies and the Canadian Wheat Board, that meet".
(b)	by striking out line 22 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor: "participants, other than the Canadian Wheat Board, or any classes thereof that"


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Motion No. 44
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 21 to 24 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(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."


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette) moved:: Motion No. 45
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 32 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"the commission, is equal to 20% of the"


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 46
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Commission, is equal to 20% of the volume-related variable costs of the
railway company plus 100% of the cost of capital portion of the line-related
variable costs for grain dependent branch lines."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 41 in my name seeks to remove any power the Bill gives the Grain Transportation Administrator over the Canadian Wheat Board or the elevators. I repeat what occurred during debate on the previous motions. This is a transportation Bill, not an agricultural Bill or farmers' Bill. It is an anti-farmer Bill. It should not give a transportation agency power over a non-transportation agency. In other words, the Grain Transportation Administrator, under the authority of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), should not have powers over the Canadian Wheat Board, which is under the authority of the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board who sits in the Senate. One Crown agency should not be in a position to exercise authority over another Crown agency, particularly when they are entirely different departments.
I want to quote Mr. Esmond Jarvis, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, from Issue No. 119 of the minutes of the Transport Committee at page 103. He said:
In addition to its detailed knowledge on supply and transportation, the board of course knows the exact requirements of the customer. Importer confidence in the Canadian system is very dependent upon the board maintaining a closely co-ordinated relationship between supplies, transportation and sales.
We were also told by the Wheat Board Advisory Committee, by Mr. Charlie Gibbings who is a former Wheat Board Commissioner and by farmers that the transportation of grain is inextricably linked to the purchase, marketing and sale of grain. You cannot separate transportation from those other operations. We want to remove any power that the Bill gives
Western Grain Transportation Act
the Administrator over the Canadian Wheat Board and the elevator companies.
I have already said why he should not have powers over another agency of Her Majesty, but we include elevator companies because the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canada Grain Commission already have all the powers they need over the elevator companies. In fact, the Canadian Wheat Board has in place a system of sanctions. If a grain company or elevator company ships the wrong grade, the wrong kind or in any other way breaks the requirement for the shipping of grain, the Canadian Wheat Board places penalties upon that grain company. Similarly, the Canada Grain Commission has powers over the grain elevator companies in the matter of dockage, elevation, storage, handling charges and grades. Where an elevator company violates any of these conditions the Canada Grain Commission has powers over them. We do not need the Senior Grain Transportation Administrator as a third party with powers over the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission and the elevator companies. It is just sheer administrative, bureaucratic nonsense. The clause as it now reads can only be construed as a blatant, direct attempt by the Government to reduce the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canada Grain Commission. That is unacceptable to western Canada.
Motion No. 42 limits the application of sanctions which the Senior Grain Transportation Administrator can apply to the railroads. As I said earlier, the Wheat Board and the Canada Grain Commission already have the power of sanction over the grain companies, but the Wheat Board and the Canada Grain Commission cannot place any sanctions on the railroads. They have no authority to do so. We do not object to the Administrator having those powers over the railroads. As mentioned in earlier debate, Mr. Speaker, just imagine the spectacle of an agency of the Minister of Transport's Department applying sanctions and penalties upon the Canadian Wheat Board which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board. What about the Minister of Transport through the Administrator applying sanctions on the Canada Grain Commission, which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan)? You have three Crown agencies, each one under a different Department, which tells you something of the stupidity of the Government's organization.
I do not have sufficient time to go through each one of the motions that have been grouped for debate. I am sure my colleagues in the Conservative Party and my own colleagues will want to cover each one of these motions at length and in detail. They are extremely important to the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canada Grain Commission and are designed to prevent any bureaucratic duplication in the application of this Bill should it ever become law-if and when it ever becomes law.
I admit that there are other elements of transportation involved in the handling and transportation of grain. One can

October 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
think of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the ports of Thunder Bay, Churchill, Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and here again, will the Grain Transportation Administrator have some authority to put on sanctions against the St. Lawrence Seaway? At least that comes under the same Department, as do the ports. Will the Minister have authority to provide for sanctions or awards on trucking companies under the jurisdiction of a provincial Government? Will sanctions and awards be applied equitably as between the railroads and the trucking companies, or as between any of the what are called system participants? Again, the clause indicates what kind of mess the Bill is. This Bill is poorly thought out, poorly drafted, and obviously little, if any, consideration has been given to the ramifications of the legislation. What it means down the road if it ever became the law of the land, the Lord forbid.
There is an excellent reason for the number of amendments placed on the Order Paper by the Official Opposition and ourselves. If nothing else, they point out what a poorly drafted, poorly thought out piece of legislation it is. The Government is, in its single-minded, knee-jerk attempt, destroying the statutory grain rate and is giving money to the railroads with minimal accountability and no chance for a return on capital investment to taxpayers.
In the Government's blind attempts to meet those two relatively narrow objectives, the Government has failed completely and miserably to take into account the ramifications of the legislation which affect other agencies of the Crown, that affect transportation from Halifax to Prince Rupert, that affect grain companies and grain producers, and will result in the abandonment of at least another 1,500 miles of branch lines in western Canada. Most of those miles will be rail lines that are in the basic network that were supposed to be guaranteed until the year 2000.
There is excellent reason, and we have the grounds, Mr. Speaker, for opposing this legislation with every means that we have at our disposal under the rules. That has been our intent since day one and it remains our intent. If this Bill is passed as is, I want the Government and any successive government to be aware of my warning. Even the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in a telex yesterday made it very plain that unless at least five significant changes are made in this legislation it should be withdrawn. The three Wheat Pools and the UGG have tried to negotiate and bargain with the Government. I think they got euchred and sucked in. Now they realize the stubbornness on the Government side. What they thought they could bargain and obtain in legislation, the Government is still refusing to give.
A couple of items the Government is prepared to move on, and one in particular is the safety net. There is nothing wrong with the principle of a safety net, but the way the Government wants to do it would be so unfair to grain producers in western Canada that it does not deserve the attention or support of this House unless the Government makes a substantial change to that safety net.
For those reasons we urge upon the House that it accept these amendments that keep the powers of the Canadian
Wheat Board and the Canada Grain Commission intact. We would allow the Grain Transportation Administrator to exercise his sanctions and awards over the railroads, which have been and still are the villains. These motions provide some good improvements to the legislation. 1 hate to be around helping the Government draft legislation, but it has done such an abysmal job that we are trying to be positive with amendments, even though our main objective is to persuade the Government to withdraw it or to persuade Members of the Official Opposition to join with us in stopping it. If they do, we can stop it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It has been brought to my attention that I neglected to mention the seconders to these motions, and I think I should do so now. In the case of Motion No. 41, it is moved by Mr. Benjamin and seconded by Mr. de Jong; Motion No. 42 is moved by Mr. Benjamin and seconded by Mr. de Jong; Motion No. 43 is moved by Mr. Benjamin and seconded by Mr. de Jong; Motion No. 44 is moved by Mr. McKnight and seconded by Mr. Mazankowksi; Motion No. 45 is moved by Mr. Mayer and seconded by Mr. Gustafson; and Motion No. 46 is moved by Mr. Benjamin and seconded by Mr. de Jong.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to state that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) when he said that this Bill is a mess. It is very complicated. It creates a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety. It is a Bill that should not be proceeded with unless there are substantial changes.
The Hon. Member referred to four or five changes that were advanced by members of the Wheat Pool organization. That has been our position all along. Unless these changes are incorporated, I submit that the Bill should not be proceeded with. It will not meet the objectives originally outlined by the previous Minister of Transport, nor will it meet the objectives of western Canadian agriculture. As it now stands, it enjoys literally no support in the western agricultural community. It does not enjoy the support of grain producers. It does not enjoy the support of cattle producers or livestock producers. It does not enjoy the support of the respective commodity groups. Certainly it does not enjoy the support of processors. The only group which supports the piece of legislation is indeed the railroads, because they have for themselves a sweetheart deal. By virtue of the fact that the whole Crow benefit will be paid directly to the railroads, it is even more of a sweetheart deal. All they are doing is perpetuating a cost-plus transportation system and a guaranteed annual income for the railroads, nothing more.
At the outset let me indicate that it is not always easy to speak to a group of amendments which involve different principles, but I will try to cover them in the order in which they appear. Motion No. 41 is an amendment to Clause 21 in which the Hon. Member for Regina West wishes to substitute "railway companies" for "system participants". Quite frankly,
October 20, 1983

Clause 21 outlines the method in which the Administrator can engage in establishing performance objectives and regulations for the various system participants. The Hon. Member for Regina West simply wants the Administrator, by virtue of his amendment, to establish objectives only for the railroads. We have contended all along that the grain handling and transportation system constitutes a much larger body than simply the railroads. It involves the elevators, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission, the terminals, the lakers, the St. Lawrence Seaway, the port operations and some 25 to 30 unions. Each and every one of these groups plays a very significant and unique role. Each and every one of these groups has a certain responsibility to fulfil.
I appreciate what the Hon. Member is attempting to do. He is attempting to attack the railroads. They are responsible to a large extent for whether or not grain moves, but to single them out in this case is totally wrong.
Turning to the original terms of reference or objectives of the Grain Transportation Co-ordinator, they read:
(1)	to increase the grain handling and transportation system's capacity to achieve a 20 per cent increase in exports in 1980 and a 50 per cent increase by 1985 (to 30 million tonnes);
Those objectives have in fact been achieved. They would not have been achieved by simply applying performance objectives to the railroads. They brought all parties together and said; "These are the objectives and these are achievable targets; let us put our shoulders to the wheel and do just that". They continue:
(2)	to ensure that prairie grain moves to domestic consumption and export positions in a prompt, efficient and orderly manner;
That was not an objective of the railroads; it was an objective of the total community. Further they read:
(3)	to secure the co-operation and participation of the industries concerned in providing the required transportation and handling services and facilities;
(4)	to carry out the required planning and implement the changes necessary to make the forwarding system operate more efficiently and effectively, and to increase its capacity to meet the 1985 target of a 50 per cent increase in exports;
Certainly the railroads played a very significant role. They had to have sufficient rolling stock and their house in order to move that quantity of grain. To single them out as the only component which had to meet that objective is very wrong. The last objective reads:
(5)	to keep all parties and the public fully informed about the system's operations and shortcomings.
This would mean that everyone knew what was going on. The producers and the community at large knew and understood the role of each significant component and their objectives. We as a Party cannot support the NDP proposal, which excludes the other players in this very important area.
Motion No. 42 really sets out to do the same thing. In part it reads:
-implement a scheme that provides for sanctions to be applied to railway companies-
Here again the Hon. Member has sought to substitute "system participants" for "railway companies". Again it suggests to the House that it is only the railways which make a
Western Grain Transportation Act
difference in terms of whether or not grain moves. We will not be supporting Motion No. 42.
The intention of the Hon. Member in Motion No. 43 is honourable, except he may want to reconsider Clause 21(b). Clause 21(b)(i) reads in part:
-awards to be applied to system participants or any classes thereof, other than the railway companies-
The Hon. Member is proposing to substitute that with the following:
"participants, other than the Canadian Wheat Board, or any classes thereof that".
He is putting in a provision that would exclude the Canadian Wheat Board from receiving awards. If the Canadian Wheat Board performs satisfactorily and achieves its objectives, it should be entitled to rewards. Those advantages would in fact accrue to producers. The Hon. Member wanted to ensure that sanctions would not be imposed against the Canadian Wheat Board. We can support that, because we find it very wrong and offensive that sanctions would be applied to the Canadian Wheat Board which would then be transferred to producers. In effect, they would penalize producers for something over which they really have no control. If the Canadian Wheat Board, acting on behalf of producers, does its job, performs well and meets its objectives so that some benefit accrues to the Canadian Wheat Board and thereby to producers, we think it should be supported.
Other Members of the New Democratic Party may want to comment on this, but as it now stands we would have difficulty supporting it. We covered that same provision in Motion No. 44 which was introduced by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). In part it reads:
-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.
That means that any sanctions applied to the Canadian Wheat Board would be of a non-pecuniary nature and the producer would not be penalized. The Member may want to reconsider that.
Amendment No. 44 ensures that sanctions relating to performance objectives would be applied to system participants other than the railways in a non-pecuniary fashion. We think that is realistic and logical. 1 urge that Members of the NDP support that provision rather than Motion No. 43, which really achieves the same thing. It does not restrict the Canadian Wheat Board from receiving awards for performance and the meeting of targets that may in fact be realized, all for the benefit of the producers.
I turn now to Motions Nos. 45 and 46 which have to do with the imposition of sanctions against the railroads. They relate to the maximum level of sanctions that could be applied against the railway companies under the performance awards and sanction scheme implemented under Section 21. In the original Bill this level was set at 40 per cent of the contribution to constant cost.

October 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Since we do not support the concept of a contribution to constant costs and we are calling for a three-year freeze or three-year deferral of any contribution to constant costs until such time as the CTC and the Government completes its study, we find it inappropriate to impose a sanction assessed upon a contribution which we do not believe to be satisfactory. We chose the 20 per cent of volume-related variable costs. That would be the total out-of-pocket costs or volume-related costs which would include the total cost of the movement of grain, including labour, fuel, depreciation on return and capital investment, all of those with the exception of a contribution to profit or constant costs.
We say that the sanction should be equal to 20 per cent of the volume-related variable costs. This would have the effect of providing some teeth. We believe that inasmuch as this Bill constitutes a sweetheart deal for the railways, the guarantees with respect to service, investment and performance objectives leaves much to be desired. In its amendment the Government reduced our 20 per cent. We moved this amendment in committee and chose the 20 per cent figure. The Government moved a subamendment reducing it to 10 per cent. This amendment seeks to restore the sanction to a level of 20 per cent of variable costs. We believe 10 per cent is far too low. It would mean a possible sanction of $65 million in 1983-84, $71 million for 1984-85 and $75 million for 1985-86. Given the level of payments that the farmers and the taxpayers of Canada are going to be paying, we think that is a very conservative sanction. We commend it to the House and ask that it be supported.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motions Nos. 41 to 46 now before the House. I will describe and comment on some of them as I go along. The motions make amendments to Clause 21 of the Bill which outlines the performance objectives, regulations and the sanctions that could be placed on participants in the grain handling and grain transportation system. The last part sets out a method of settling any disputes concerning those awards of sanctions.
What seems to be at issue in the debate on these motions, and most of them are beamed at pretty much the same thing, is the Administrator. We will not know it until after the vote whether that will be a separate agency or part of the Canadian Wheat Board, but because the Government supports the separate agency concept we assume that will probably result when the vote is completed. The next general area which these motions deal with is what participants should have additional sanctions imposed upon them and, lastly, what the limits of those sanctions should be in financial terms.
The Conservative Transport critic, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), talked about the sanctions in this Bill being something that should be so generalized that they apply to all participants in the system. That sounds fine from a general theory point of view. Unfortunately, it ignores the sanctions and the system that have been in place for many years.
There is a built-in system of awards and sanctions which applies to most of the system participants at the moment. They exist under the powers of the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The one shortfall and a very important aspect of the whole grain handling and transportation system is that there is not a place where sanctions can be imposed or an order forced on the railways.
I would like to recall some of my time with the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. I recall going to the fall meeting in 1977-78, one of the worst shipping years for farmers in recent times. We had a pretty good marketing program. The Board had plenty of sales contracts set up and ready to fulfil. The procedure followed in such a case is that once the sales commitments have been made, they approach the railways to see how many cars they will commit to the grain fleet, how many will be used in the next few months to haul grain. The railways give that commitment. The board uses that grain fleet, placing it at country elevator points to move the required grades and kinds of grain to water shipping.
That crop year started August 1. By the time we got to December 1, one railway company was almost 3,000 cars behind its commitment. It is rather silly to keep that many cars on the books as a negative balance, so it started over with new commitments. Within three or four months, that same railway company was between 3,000 and 4,000 cars behind its commitment. There was no way that that railway company could be forced to comply with its promise to supply cars for the shipment of grain. Therefore, the grain was not shipped.
Some Members of the House will recall that some farmers attempted to sue the Canadian Pacific Railway, the railway involved, for not supplying service. They were ruled out of order by the court because the court deemed that, though they had grown the grain, had delivered it to the elevators and had lost the markets as a result of the railway's actions, they were not deemed to have been shippers and could therefore not prosecute. I think that is probably what precipitated the actions that followed. Provincial Governments and the Wheat Board on behalf of farmers bought hopper cars and distributed them to the railways in order that there would be no excuse for not supplying rolling stock to producers.
Even with the user supplying the rolling stock, who in this case is the farmer assisted by the provincial Government, there is still no real clout anywhere in any Act to force the railway to put the three-man crew that is needed to move 110 cars on a railway locomotive in front of those cars. This Bill is the only Bill that has come before the House since that time that attempts to address the problem of how to apply sanctions to that very important system participant through legislation.
Elevator companies, farmers and terminal operators are now all subject to sanctions and penalties from the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canada Grain Commission. Those sanctions are already in place and I cannot understand why the former Minister, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), would say that we need to have those sanctions
October 20, 1983

spread broadly through this Bill, which, I suppose, would operate in competition with the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Wheat Board Act, in order to, as he says, allow the Canadian Wheat Board to receive rewards. From whom would they receive the rewards, Mr. Speaker?
The only source of funds for the Canadian Wheat Board are the funds that are extracted from the farmers in the process of moving grain from the farm to the final market. That is done at the highest possible price in order to extract the highest price from the market and return all of the surplus funds back to the producer. How can the Canadian Wheat Board receive a reward? From whom would it receive it? Surely only from the seller or the farmer himself, who ultimately receives it anyway. There is no real, practical need for rewards to be allocated to the Canadian Wheat Board.


Arnold John Malone: Give them a trophy.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) says that we could perhaps supply the Wheat Board with a trophy. I believe that that has already been done on occasion. 1 have seen the trophy room of the Canadian Wheat Board. Those trophies include such things as large, regular trophies right down to a bronzed pitchfork, all of which were presented to the Wheat Board at one point or another in recognition of the good job it has done.
I see that you have motioned that my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, I would like to deal with the maximum level of penalties that can be levied against the railways. We argue that the railways should be named in this Bill because the other participants are already covered under previous Acts. We would like to keep it clear as to which Act applies in which case.
There are two motions in this regard, Motions Nos. 44 and 45. Motion No. 44 has the effect of saying that the railways should not be allowed to collect 20 per cent over and above operational costs until such time as the railways have complied with the shipping requirements of the Wheat Board and the producers to get the product to market. We have added something else to that through Motion No. 46, which has the effect of saying that 100 per cent of the capital cost of rehabilitating the branch lines should be withheld each year until it has been made very clear that the work has been done on the branch lines and that the railways are continuing to deliver grain according to the shipping orders and at the rate that the railways have committed to.
Motion No. 46 is very important because we all know of many branch lines which have ultimately been abandoned. There is one such line in my riding which runs from Foam Lake to Wishart. Moneys were allocated each year to keep that line in repair. Five years after the railways had already received more than half a million dollars for keeping that line in good repair, it was reported to the CTC that the line was not fit to run a locomotive over. It was in the very same state of disrepair the line had been in five years previous when the railway had appeared before the CTC.
Western Grain Transportation Act
The pertinent question asked by farmer interveners at the CTC hearings was what the railways did with the $500,000. The records of the railway showed that it had not spent anything like that on repairs to the line, even if the wages of the repair crew were included. The answer to that question never came out in the hearings. The CTC ultimately closed the line in spite of there being great gaps in the process.
There was nothing that could be done to force the railways to provide service in 1977 and 1978, and I submit that unless it is clearly specified that there must be higher penalties built into this Bill, there will be nothing to force compliance with the needs of the western grain transportation system if these motions are not adopted and included in the Bill. We must do this now when the Bill is before us and we do have the opportunity to adopt these motions.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to apologize to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). I am sure we will be hearing from him later. I did not realize that he would rise at this time.
I rise to speak to Motions Nos. 41 through 46, Mr. Speaker. All motions grouped here are designed to protect the interests of the producers and the interests of the taxpayers who are contributing so much through this Bill to the movement of grain in western Canada. In turn, Mr. Speaker, we believe those taxpayers should have some protection from a repetition of the past history of the railways, which have not really fulfilled many obligations on behalf of the producers in Canada and have not fulfilled commitments that have been made to the Government at certain times.
I would like to deal with Motions Nos. 41 and 42. These motions basically remove from the authority of the Grain Transportation Administrator the power to establish schemes that could be applied as a sanction against all system participants, not only the railways. The motions that follow, including Motion No. 44 which stands in my name, go on to state that, in the case of other system participants, the sanctions applied should not be pecuniary sanctions.
It is very difficult quickly to deny that sanctions are provided for at this time. We know that there are sanctions provided for by other Acts but most of those sanctions reflect upon the income of the producers, whether they be sanctions applied to the elevator companies, to individual producers in the shipment of producer cars or indeed sanctions applied to companies that are shipping grain other than the normal line elevator companies.
As the grain transportation system stands today, a line elevator company may be penalized a car if it ships the wrong product or if it underships by weight. A penalty can be applied in the allocation of cars through the block system to those elevator companies. In most areas, that in turn reflects upon the producers and the producers are denied the ability to ship grain because of the denial of that car as a penalty. 1 would put to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is indeed a pecuniary sanction on producers of grain.

October 20, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Let us take a look at Motion No. 43, Mr. Speaker. I suggest to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) that he consider whether he would like to see the Canadian Wheat Board awarded. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) asked what awards we could have. As the Canadian Wheat Board is a Crown agency, I should think that the Government has the ability to award it for performance that has been met and I do not see anything wrong with putting that in the Bill. Even with the possibility that those awards would not be given in the future, it should be included to facilitate matters. Those awards could be made in several ways, such as by the Government purchasing cars and allowing the Canadian Wheat Board to control them. In turn, there would be a benefit to the farmers who use the Board.
Motion No. 45 was proposed by this Party in committee. We chose the figure of 20 per cent of the volume-related variable costs. That is really the full contribution to constant costs. We thought that because of the investment made by the taxpayers of Canada and because of the requirement in the Bill that producers pay additional funds for the movement of grain, the railroad companies should fulfil what is basically a verbal commitment. Everything we have as a commitment from the railroads is basically a verbal commitment that they "shall" expend funds given to them by the taxpayers of Canada and the producers to improve the rail system. There is nothing in the Bill that requires the railroads to invest in any special area.
We have statements from the presidents of the Canadian railroads to the effect that funds provided by the taxpayers of Canada for the upgrading of the rail system will be included in general revenue. If that general revenue will allow the railroad companies to diversify into oil companies and oil exploration or to establish larger hotel chains or enter the trucking business, as some Members of the NDP have suggested, then the Bill should provide for a sanction on the railroads that would require them to put that investment into structures designed to help them meet the commitment assigned to them by the Administrator.
At 20 per cent of variable costs, which is the full contribution to constant costs, in 1983-84 there could have been a sanction of $130 million out of $790 million; in 1984-85 a sanction of $142 million out of $893 million; and in 1985-86 a sanction of $150 million out of $987 million. Those figures relate to the removal of the contribution of constant costs that the railroads would receive. They are, in fact, guaranteed profits to the railroads. If they are to be given authority to allocate those funds at their discretion, we think the penalty for not doing so in a proper manner should be their profit. In effect, they would still be able to invest, but if they invested improperly, they would not have a profit.
Motion No. 46 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is basically the same as Motion No. 45, although it is a little more complicated. I suggest that if we want to simplify a Bill as complicated as Bill C-155, the best
way to express sanction would be by a straight percentage point of the fixed number. The motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) would simplify the Bill and impose sanctions on the railroads as required by taxpayers and producers.
I should like to return to Motion No. 44. The reason for non-pecuniary sanctions on all system participants other than the railroads is quite apparent. In committee the Hon. Member for Regina West presented an amendment and then, as has happened to all of us, when the ramifications of it became apparent, he did not vote for it. He had suggested that sanctions be applied to elevator companies through a certain percentage of handling charges, elevation charges or storage charges to be fixed by the Administrator. It is quite apparent that, in turn, that would be a pecuniary charge on producers as the elevator companies would have to go to the Canadian Grain Commission and ask for an increase in elevator an handling charges because of the fine. The extra charge would be handed on to the producer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They would not get it.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear the Hon. Member for Regina West saying that they would not get it. Then I ask him why he did not vote for his amendment in committee. It is apparent that pecuniary sanctions cannot be placed on producers but awards can be given to the Crown agency, the Canadian Wheat Board, which in turn would benefit producers.
We will support Motion No. 44 and Motion No. 45, Mr. Speaker, and we will consider supporting some of the other amendments. I hope that Members of the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister will explain what would be wrong with non-pecuniary sanctions being applied to all system participants other than the railroad companies.
In that vein, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the last time I was on my feet in the House the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) was rising to speak on another matter. I had hoped he was rising to enlighten the House on why the Government would not support Motions No. 39 and No. 40 which would protect the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary will tell us why the Bill should not include a clause specifying non-pecuniary sanctions to system participants other than the railroads.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak on Motions Nos. 41 through 45. I come from the Province of Alberta which sends 21 Members to Parliament. In the last election it sent 21 Members of the Progressive Conservative Party to Ottawa. In this Chamber today we have a Government Party with 21 Members from eight Provinces and two Territories. As well as the debate on the Constitution, which was originally an attack on the regions of Canada and not just on the West, there was the energy program which was an attack on the West, VIA Rail which damaged much of Canada but did a lot of damage to tourism in western Canada, and now there is the Crow rate. With these measures there
October 20, 1983

was an attack against the three most important economic sectors in my Province, energy, agriculture and tourism.
I submit that the Government does not have the mandate for such an attack on that region of the country. It does not want to listen to people who are sent here as representatives because its instinct is for closure on one of the three most important economic aspects of that region of the country.
Against that background, I rise to speak on this set of motions. The very fact that the Government has 21 Members from eight Provinces and two Territories means that all its other Members come from Quebec and Ontario. They are not regionally representative, not regionally sensitive, and ought to be duty bound to listen to the arguments we put in this House.
The question today is whether or not we should have performance guarantees for shipping grain. The first motion states that that performance guarantee should be limited to the railways. That, Sir, asks the fundamental question, for whom are we performing? I submit that performance is for no one other than the producer. It is not a performance guarantee for governments, so that more paperwork can be checked. It is not a performance guarantee for the international marketplace except as it relates to our economy. It is a performance guarantee for farmers.
If it is a performance guarantee for the farmer, then he must obviously have every link which relates to performance guaranteed to him. There can be no system of performance if you call for performance on only one part of the system. As well, performance ought not to be a question of whether or not we like one of the links of the system. It is the view of some- in this case, perhaps the NDP-that they do not like the railways, but you cannot simply limit performance guarantees to the railways because it will not guarantee performance. Performance must relate to the whole system and its judge and jury must be the producers. Performance guarantees are not a question of morals. Fundamentally, it is purely and simply a question of performance. The farmer ought to be the final judge, and it is for that reason that performance objectives must be established.
There are many aspects to the whole question. I draw to your attention the country elevators, the grain terminals, the shunting yards at the port, the port authorities, the tugboat operators and operating system, international shipping, the St. Lawrence Seaway and, while I mention it last it is certainly not least, organized labour. 1 can understand the instinct of the New Democratic Party not to have any system which might have some persuasive influence on organized labour. I believe it is the obligation upon us all to recognize that fair and equitable treatment of labour organizations is an imperative part of today's society. However, the fact of the matter is that it is an integral link in performance and you cannot have performance without looking at every aspect.
The New Democratic Party has made much ado about CN and CP buying up trucking fleets on the Prairies. At this point it would not be relevant to this part of the debate to comment
Western Grain Transportation Act
at length on that matter, except to say that we should not have performance guarantees which affect only the railways. If the trucking companies are as bad as the NDP allege, why would we not at least have a generalized performance guarantee system which could expand to the "evil" that Party claims is there? It seems to me it is obvious that we must have performance guarantees which do not apply to simply one unit, but rather to the whole system.
On that basis I would like to submit to you, Sir, the kind of country we would have if we took the present philosophy of the New Democratic Party and applied it to a number of systems governing Canada. In an NDP Bill 101 there would be a performance guarantee for only one link in a chain. In their Bill 102 there would be a performance guarantee for only one of the couplings on a train. In NDP Bill 103 there would be a performance guarantee that elevator doors would open and close at only one floor. NDP Bill 104 would have a performance guarantee that our medical services would keep only one of the organs viable in the human body. NDP Bill 105, a performance guarantee that only one of the sections of a scaffolding would meet safety standards. NDP Bill 106, a performance guarantee that the left side-that is the port side

of all boats must not leak. NDP Bill 107, a performance guarantee that one section of a rope for mountain climbing must be secured. NDP Bill 108, a performance guarantee that one child in each school gets immunization vaccinations. NDP Bill 109, a performance guarantee-and you will notice the NDP bias shows up here, Mr. Speaker-on all engines on the left side of all aircraft. NDP Bill 110, all automobiles and buses shall have performance guarantees on the brakes on the left-hand side.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Arnold John Malone: The New Democratic Party are now asking about relevance. The relevance is that if we are going to talk about the concept of performance guarantees-and the NDP are taking the view that is important, as well as my own Party-then surely on a question of getting grain to market one cannot say that performance guarantees should apply only to the railway system. We have trucks, country elevators, terminals, shunting yards, the St. Lawrence Seaway. If we are going to have a system of authority and we are going to have performance guarantees, those performance guarantees have to apply to all parts of the system. Certainly, if you ask prairie farmers who they suspect is holding back on their performance, they will be quick to finger the railways. They are not far behind in fingering organized labour. And whether or not that accusation by farmers is correct, if the authority is there for the purpose of giving performance guarantees, it should affect every section of the transportation of grain to port. If it does not, then the final objective of acquiring a system in which we can achieve performance objectives will not be met.
I would like to accept the challenge of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) who asked who will pay. Perhaps at this point it is not appropriate to say definitively who will pay for the rewards for improved transportation

October 20, 1983
when those objectives are met. However, let me submit to you, Sir, that there could be a system under which the farmers could both afford to pay and get richer at the same time. Today, under a system of inadequate transportation, farmers who combine in the fall of the year put their grain in their granaries and it may sit eight months to a year accumulating not one cent of interest. It is value stored. For their operating costs the farmers go to the bank and borrow at interest. If those farmers could move that volume of grain to market faster because there were performance guarantees, they would receive cash to meet their operating costs and be able to avoid interest charges. In that case they could afford to pay more if certain objectives were met, and both the railways and the producers would be better off. I submit that the New Democratic Party should do some rethinking of their motions.
Mr. Speaker, I will call it one o'clock, because it is now one o'clock.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think he has had about eight minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I believe we should proceed in that way, then, because I notice there are two Hon. Members seeking to be recognized. Accordingly, while the Hon. Member for Crowfoot has completed his remarks, when we reach Orders of the Day the Chair will look to whomever may want the floor at that time.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, it took a lot of courage, back in 1884, to launch the daily newspaper La Presse. Highly politicized at first, the paper became a reflection of society as it evolved over the years. La Presse is 100 years old today. For 100 years it has reported the news, but above all, it became an institution, so much so that even our legislators tried to protect it. Madam Speaker, today we wish to salute the men and women who have defended our right to be informed over the years, the journalists, who are important, although we must not forget the printing staff, delivery boys and girls, and so many others.
About La Presse it can be said that although time goes by and nothing remains the same, we can always rely on La Presse. We are indeed fortunate in this democratic society of ours that not only allows freedom of the press and freedom of information but actually promotes those freedoms.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, officials of the Government met yesterday with the receiver for White Farm Equipment Limited, which indicates a decision on the fate of the company is imminent. Nobody is more concerned about this decision than the approximately 120 White Farm Equipment dealers, their 1,000 employees, and the thousands of farmers who own White implements. The message many of these people have received from the Government is causing them great concern. For example, a White dealer in Warren, Manitoba, stated in a telegram to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) "The only solution is to keep W'hite Farm ongoing and this must be done immediately".
This particular dealer, and others who have signed petitions calling for the continuance of the company, expressed their perception that the Government is not necessarily concerned about keeping the company alive as a separate, viable entity. Yet the Receiver has been given offers which would keep the company going.
Farmers who own White implements want assurances that they will be able to get replacement parts. White dealers do not want to lose their businesses. Nor do they want to go into other equipment lines, which in many cases are already being carried by their competitors down the street. What these dealers do want is assurance that they will stay in business. Surely that is not too much to ask.



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Madam Speaker, on October 5 Karen Harrison, a young Toronto dancer, completed a 61-day-fast to focus attention on the links between military spending and world-wide hunger. In ending her fast she asked Canadians to support the various rallies for disarmament to take place on October 22, this Saturday, and to make a one-day fast on October 24, United Nations Day, in order to divert the money saved to international development.
While one-third of the world's people lack the basic needs of life, world military spending is now over $600 billion a year.
October 20, 1983
[Stage Direction]
The United Nations Centre for Disarmament has calculated that $18.5 billion yearly would provide adequate food, water, education, health and housing for the world poor. I plead with the Government and all Members of Parliament to take this message seriously. We now have enough nuclear armaments on both sides to destroy all life on this planet. We also have abject poverty, hunger, and suffering.
This Saturday Canadians are asked to show their support for disarmament by demonstrations, rallies, and other activities. On Monday several MPs in this House will fast for one day and send the money saved to OXFAM and other aid agencies. This action can be considered only one step in a continuing movement to make the world secure and reduce poverty.
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time is up.



NATIONAL GALLERY


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, Ottawa police and the National Gallery of Canada have confirmed that last Friday a man claiming to do research on our national treasures walked away with two Rembrandt etchings, replacing them with phonies. The man, using an alias, apparently had impressive enough credentials to be allowed to spend six hours in the Gallery's vault. In any event, the two etchings, whose estimated value is $100,000 each, are missing, along with the individual. This theft followed by a few months an incident at the Public Archives where another man, again with legitimate credentials, asked to study the calligraphy on the original Constitution proclamation. He defaced the document with red paint.
I urge the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to meet with the directors of the National Museums of Canada, the National Library and the Public Archives to ask for a review of their security procedures. The need for security, of course, must be balanced with that of the legitimate requirements of scholarly research. However, Canada's cultural heritage, whether original copies of our Constitution proclamations or valuable art works, is held by these agencies in trust for the people of Canada. The Minister must ensure that trust is upheld. I hope to question the Minister of Communications on the matter later this day, Madam Speaker.



INCOME TAX


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, over the past eight months Revenue Canada has systematically
focused its attentions on the tax status of participants in our cultural and artistic communities. Last week we had a situation where a prominent visual artist was forced by tax regulations to consider destroying his art. This week we have the case of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and its musicians, traditionally self-employed, who have been told they must consider themselves employees of the Symphony, despite the fact that they work for the Symphony less than 20 hours a week, are frequently engaged in other activities, and pay for and supply their own instruments. The effect on the musicians is a substantial reduction in their already modest income, forcing some musicians to leave the Symphony. This ruling comes after two similar rulings on Symphony orchestras in other cities have been overturned on appeal.
On the one hand Revenue Canada acts to restrict the production by visual artists, forces musicians out of orchestras, and actors out of theatre companies. On the other hand the Government spends millions of dollars on inquiring into the problems of culture in Canada. Is there not a contradiction there? Musicians, artists, actors, and writers, those who invest their lives in creating art and culture in this country, and who have very modest incomes, are harassed and denigrated. Yet in 1980 close to 5,000 Canadians making over $50,000 a year paid no tax at all as a result of tax loopholes and generous investment breaks. We say, let the cultural community create and perform, and let the taxman focus attention where it is needed.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time is up.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, when evaluating the costs of Canada's health care system I am concerned with the inadequate consideration given to two recent developments in the practice of medicine in this country. First, the Canadian Medical Protective Association is proposing to raise drastically its annual fees for malpractice insurance, now set at $500 for every member, to between $300 and $2,900 annually, depending on the degree of risk of being sued according to each specialty.
In the past the difference in malpractice insurance costs incurred by the various medical specialties was distributed amongst all members. With the increased complexity and sophistication of medical and surgical procedures, the risk of litigation is becoming greater, and therefore serious consideration is being given to the feasibility of identifying categories of medical practice in terms of hazards and costliness of the medical legal problems which arise. Secondly, longer consultation times between doctors and their patients are required so that patients will have a better awareness of the possible complications which may be expected from surgical and other procedures before treatment is undertaken.

October 20, 1983
We live in times of increasing numbers of lawsuits. It is necessary for the federal and provincial Governments to make financial allowances for compensation for increased medical legal litigation when deciding on adjustments to fee schedules under our medicare system and on the over-all health care budgets.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, today I would like to address a problem brought to my attention by my constituents, which is the increase in cost of services offered by Canada Post. The cost to use a post office box has increased over 150 per cent in some cases. One constituent of mine in the town of Kensington has reported that a post office box, which he paid $15 for in 1982, now costs $33.92. This is an increase of over 100 per cent. Another constituent has informed me that in 1981 his post office box cost $5, in 1982 the same box cost $6, and in 1983 the cost is estimated at $16.96, again an increase of over 150 per cent.
In view of these examples of the rising cost of services provided by Canada Post, could the Minister responsible explain how these figures square with the Government's six and five program? I urge that the Minister check into these rising costs to see if the situation can be corrected or reversed.



QUOTATION FROM 1956 &quot;HANSARD&quot;

Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, Hansard records that it was Monday, June 4, 1956, when the Leader of the Official Opposition said, as reported at page 4644:
The freedom that we have here to shape and guide legislation, no matter on which side of the house we may sit, is part of the very freedom which we cherish here in this country of ours.
The prior Thursday a Member had moved a motion found proper to the Chair. Mr. Drew, in his remarks, reminded the Members that the House:
-had become seized of the issue raised in that motion ... It was in the hands of the hon. members of this house-
Under those circumstances 1 submit it was not the Speaker's right to withdraw this matter from the house... It could only have been withdrawn properly by a decision of the house itself-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that statement is reflecting on a decision by the Speaker, and I cannot allow it.


Ian Deans: I am quoting from Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for South West Nova.


Ian Deans: On a point of order-



FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY


Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, on Saturday of last week the Premier of Nova Scotia, John Buchanan, told a party gathering that the Foreign Investment Review Agency was blocking investment in his Province by Japanese businessmen. Mr. Buchanan is not telling the truth and is using FIRA as a scapegoat for the failure of his own Government to attract new investment to Nova Scotia.
The facts are that no Japanese applications to invest in Nova Scotia have been disallowed by FIRA over the past two years. In all of Canada, 40 proposals by Japanese interests to invest in Canada have been allowed, and only one has been disallowed. The Japanese Ambassador to Canada, Kiyohisa Mikanagi, has stated that FIRA's review procedures are no longer a barrier, if they ever were, to Japanese investment in Canada. Similar statements have been made by the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Robinson.
It is understandable that the Premier of Nova Scotia should be distressed about the lack of investment in his Province. Perhaps if he looked to the deficiencies in his own policies instead of trying to blame others like the federal Government and the Japanese, in this case, wrongfully, the problem will correct itself.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my statement is in reference to the Maislin Company bail out and, now, bankruptcy. I would like to say that this is the most blatant, disgusting give-away of taxpayers' dollars ever, but given the record of the Government and the fact that only $34 million is involved, I suppose it ranks pretty low on any list of revolting excesses by those clowns.
The then Minister of Industry, Trade and Consumer waffled, sidestepped, and in other ways refused to deal with the matter in a forthright way. Knowing the problem, the Government then authorized, at an incredible salary, the hiring of a new manager who had just bankrupted another trucking company in the United States.
Even over the objection of the Canadian Trucking Association, the Government, with great glee, tossed over $30 million of taxpayers' money to its personal friends. That cost people in my riding over $100,000. Now the Government will ensure that ordinary creditors, many of them small businesses, will get absolutely nothing; workers will get 50 cents on the dollar
October 20, 1983

for back wages if they are lucky, and certainly no guarantee of future employment, but the poor banks will get nearly all their money.
In addition, the licences are now to be sold to another U.S. firm for a pittance, while no Canadian companies were given an opportunity to bid. The whole deal smells to high Heaven, and I, for one, will object to any FIRA application to allow these licences to leave Canada.



THE SENATE


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, it was encouraging to read that the new Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney) recognizes that Canada has become a country of regions and has long since ceased to be a simplistic community of communities.
Permit me to quote my own words of March 10, 1981, on this matter:
This nation, Canada, will increasingly evolve, and its interdependence will increasingly grow as a co-operative quasi economic and social federation of five national regions. Within these regions, Provinces shall co-operate and compete, shall integrate transportation and energy and other systems and shall evolve somewhat different and unique social and cultural systems. And over all, all these regions shall form the umbrella of a reorganized national Parliament.
The relationship of the national umbrella and the regional well-being, aspirations and growth will be dynamic, changing and challenging. This then is, and will continue to be, the essence of Canada.
The patriation of the Constitution and the entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a giant leap, and a mandatory one, toward this vision of Canada. Structural reform of the Senate on the basis of the five regions of Canada is also mandatory. Our nation shall endure and prosper.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. What is the position of the Government of Canada in regard to the reported Marxist takeover in Grenada which was accomplished by murdering the Prime Minister, a number of his colleagues, and leading trade unionists on the island?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the events in Grenada have been very unfortunate. That type of violence cannot be condoned.
Oral Questions
The Government has made a statement, which I actually made earlier this morning, to express our distress as a Government at the events, as well as my own personal sorrow because, although Maurice Bishop had an ideology which is not ours, he was in the Commonwealth and engaged in dialogue with us. 1 dare say he was a friend. Therefore I am very sorry at the turn of events.
We have expressed our dismay. 1 believe the Minister of State may have further up to date details, but this was my response as of earlier this morning.


CANADIAN AID PROGRAMS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, we share the thrust of the Prime Minister's statement of regret, of course, but in view of the brutality and murder involved, does this impact in any way on the thinking of the Government in regard to aid programs directed to that particular country in which, in this situation, the beneficiaries would become people, as the Prime Minister has indicated, with whom he would not like to do business?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I doubt whether that has been envisaged in the Department yet. I would only indulge in a bit of hindsight here.
This Government had given some modest assistance to Grenada. We did it in spite of cries-some of which I am afraid came from the other side-to the effect that that Government was left leaning. It is now apparent that there are more left leaners than Maurice Bishop was, and that it is wise not to cut off relations with Governments with which we may disagree if they are following policies which seem correct to them in their particular part of the world.
In other words, I have never been an advocate of cutting off countries because I disagreed with their ideology. I believe, and I have previously stated this precisely about the Grenada case, that when a country tries to export its revolution, then we indeed should show very great displeasure and take action. But I do not think we should try to influence the choice of independent peoples by using our aid programs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Nor do I hold the view that one must necessarily reflect the political philosophy of the donor nation so as to benefit from foreign aid-not by a long shot.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the instigator of the murder and revolution on the island was a member of the Government to which the Prime Minister refers. The takeover has been absolute and murderous. Since there are limits to the exercise of the philosophy to which the Prime Minister refers, and in light of the brutality and murderous nature of the takeover in Grenada, would the Prime Minister agree that it would be prudent to review diplomatic relations and aid programs of any kind that might

October 20, 1983
Oral Questions
be construed as giving the blessing of the people of Canada, however inadvertently, to this kind of regime which, though in its infancy, is well on its way to exporting violent ideals inimical to the interests and philosophy of Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when a Government is overthrown by force, we would do that as a matter of course. There is a practice in this Government to review diplomatic relations, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition, i am glad that in the first part of his question the Leader of the Opposition agreed with me that we should not make aid conditional upon compatability of government views in countries we purport to aid. I hope this, too, is a new departure that his colleagues and his Party will both accept.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, might 1 direct a further supplementary to the Prime Minister and ask whether he could indicate to the House and to Canadians, who are watching with interest the events in Grenada, what the condition is with respect to the safety and capacity to move and to communicate of Canadian families who are resident on the island, and of Canadians who may be travelling on the island on vacation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, I might indicate that a four-day 24-hour curfew has been established on the island. As my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, said yesterday, there are about 80 to 85 Canadians registered there, but some of them go there only in the winter. Therefore there is no way of finding out who, among the registered people, is there. I understand they are in touch with each other, and I understand from External Affairs that they are generally in good spirits. They are being advised to stay put, not to move, not to try to get out because attempts to leave might be dangerous.
By way of further information, there are 12 CIDA co-operants, 5 CUSO, one CBC reporter, and one officer of the Department of External Affairs who is from the Canadian High Commission in Barbados and was the gentleman who carried the message of the Canadian Government which the Prime Minister sent expressing the hope that violence would not be used.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister with regard to Cana-dair, whose survival is so important to all of us. The Prime Minister yesterday indicated, and I quote, "We do not want
it", he meant Canadair, "to be dealt with by a parliamentary committee as is suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. We want it to be dealt with by this government-owned, this management company called CDIC."
How can the House and Canadians have faith in the Prime Minister's solution to the problem, management by CDIC, given the following two decisions taken by CDIC? First was the decision to reappoint the board of directors in its entirety last summer, in secret, notwithstanding the internal report prepared for Treasury Board which suggested or questioned the competence of the board. Second was the decision this week to reward effectively Mr. James Taylor, the President of the subsidiary in the United States, for his involvement in aircraft leasing to Canadair, by making him chairman of the board of the subsidiary corporation?
Can the Prime Minister tell us how we can possibly at the moment have any faith in his solution, and will he now reconsider and recognize the need, for the sake of Canadair, for a full inquiry by a committee of Parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is repeating the very same questions I answered yesterday. I will answer them in the same way. The CDIC, which is the management company of Canadair, is a Crown corporation. It answers to Parliament through a Minister. That Minister will be appearing before a parliamentary committee. I would think it better, more conducive to the kind of co-operation which the Hon. Member's Leader was indicating would be forthcoming yesterday, if we heard from Senator Austin, if we heard what his objectives are, and if we heard the reasons for the actions about which the Hon. Member is now complaining.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER IN SENATE
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question relates directly to the Prime Minister's answer. In this case is the Prime Minister aware that the other day in the Senate when Senator Austin was asked about the CDIC, his answer about the press release this week was:
-I had authorized the making of a statement-
Senator Austin also said:
I do not propose to make it my own statement, in any parliamentary sense.
Can the Prime Minister now tell us how we can continue to have faith in a structure that appears to be making decisions contrary to Canadair's interest, and to the public's interest, when the Minister refuses to take any responsibility for the actions of the corporation? Can he now tell us whether he will not finally recognize that the future of Canadair is best dealt with by clearing the air through a parliamentary committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is misconstruing not only the thoughts, but the words of Senator Austin. Senator Austin has indicated he would appear before a committee, he would be answering questions and he would be stating the Government's
October 20, 1983

medium and long-term policy. This will be done soon. 1 repeat, if the Hon. Member is suggesting some kind of co-operative approach to a difficult problem, then let this take place. If he is trying once again to put the spikes in Canadair-


Mr. Stevens:: You have done that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -as has been the effective use of the debates by some of his colleagues-


Mr. Andre:: Jack Austin, Maurice Strong, are playing with billions of our dollars.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -then I suggest that he is doing it in the right way, but then he is contradicting the spirit of co-operation that his very Leader indicated to this House yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Nonsense.


FISHERIES
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In view of the bankruptcy of Maislin and the treatment which the employees of that company received yesterday, in view of the same kind of treatment of employees in the fishing industry in British Columbia through Cassiar fishery where fishermen are only going to receive about 20 per cent of their income this year as a result of the Royal Bank foreclosing, and in view of the fact the Minister has had six weeks to review this situation, what attempts has he made up until now to see that fishermen are adequately compensated for their year's work?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the company and the receivers are considering a number of options to maintain operations. The fleet and the plants will continue to operate for the remainder of the salmon fishing season. I do not think it would be advisable for me, in an industry that is over-capitalized, as my friend knows, and as Dr. Pearse noted in his report on the Pacific fishery which shows that it is a very over-capitalized fishery, to intervene at this moment in this specific case.


GILLNET LICENCES
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister may be aware that one of the suggestions for a bail-out is that Cassiar's gillnet fleet may be sold to the Government. In view of the fact that the Minister has already rejected a buy-back program for individual fishermen, and in view of the fact that he has bailed out Pacific Packers and its gillnet fleet, would the Minister guarantee to this House that there will be no sale of licences for the gillnet fleet
Oral Questions
until there has been a thorough review of the implications of the closure of that plant, and until he decides on a buy-back program for individual fishermen in British Columbia?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I will certainly give the commitment to my hon. friend that I will study his request.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition made our generous offer, and it has been repeated again today, to take this whole matter of Canadair out of politics and put it in a special committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Prime Minister will know that there have been a number of studies made by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and by CDIC itself with respect to the viability of Canadair. Will the Prime Minister, in view of his co-operation and co-operative attitude, table those studies so they could be referred to a committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is suggesting that by putting this matter in the hands of a committee it will be taken out of politics. I cannot believe he is serious. I think we practise politics in this place. The last days have shown that they are particularly divisive when they have to do with the kinds of economic questions we are trying to solve with the Crow and with Canadair. They denote two different approaches by two Parties with different approaches to politics. That is precisely the case, Madam Speaker. Everybody knows it is the case and that it would be a mistake to throw the management, the surveillance, the report on operations of a Crown corporation, into a parliamentary committee. Crown corporations were created to remove them from politics.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The suggestions we have been hearing, and the guffaw that we still hear today from Members of the Tory Party, are intended precisely to reintroduce politics into the management of Crown corporations. That is contrary to 100 years of tradition, not only in Canada but in most parliamentary systems.


CONTENTS OF STUDIES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. He has had before him a report on Canadair dated January, 1982. There was a further report dated November, 1982. Both

October 20, 1983
Oral Questions
of those reports have been kept secret. The Prime Minister now has before him another report which was completed by CD1C, with respect to how the company should go and how the technology should be preserved. Will the Prime Minister, to show some faith in the House of Commons, table those reports before the House today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me to comment on reports that I have not seen, of which I have no knowledge, and he is asking me to do it by the end of the day today. I suggest, if the Hon. Member were not playing politics with this, he at least would have given me notice of his question so that I would know what the heck he is talking about. Obviously he prefers to politicize this issue, once again showing that he is divided from his own Leader on this very subject.


REAPPOINTMENT OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to point out to him that we are not trying to politicize the issue. We are trying to get to the heart of the problem of accountability for this $1.4 billion loss.
My question relates to the accountability of the Prime Minister in this case. In view of the fact that we have had this loss and it is the largest in Canadian corporate history, and in view of the fact that the entire board was reappointed in secret, in spite of a government report which condemned the board and the management of the company, did the Prime Minister ask Senator Austin to explain to him why the entire board was reappointed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Opposition keeps making much of the fact that Canadair has been losing money. It obviously has. The Government had to go before the House in order to get money to keep the company operating. The point is that it was losing money when it was in the private sector.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The point is that this company was going belly up, that its owners no longer wanted to operate it, that they were trying to get rid of it. The result would have been that it would have closed down in Canada. Because the Government does not share the reactionary philosophy of the Hon. Member, we stepped in and thought that it was important to save the company, to keep the jobs here, and to ensure that the technology still existed in Canada. That is the difference between the Hon. Member's Party and this Party. We made that difference clear last spring when we were debating this subject. When the Members over there basically want to see Canadair shut down, I know the Leader of the Opposition does not, because he knows a little more about it than his Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I wish the Prime Minister knew a little more about it. Then he would take some interest in the fact that $1.4 billion of taxpayers' moneys have been blown because there has been inaction and a lack of interest in what is going on in Canadair. We are in no way trying to see this company shut down. If anything will cause it to be shut down, it is the inaction and the lack of interest of the Prime Minister.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, since the Prime Minister evaded my question and gave no clear answer, I presume he did not speak to Senator Austin in that way. Because the Prime Minister is the most senior member of the Government of Canada, would he explain to the House why, in view of his lack of interest in this case, we as Members of Parliament should have any confidence in the actions taken by the Government to avoid similar losses in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the CDIC management and Senator Austin had not been forthcoming last spring, if they had not put the financial statements in front of the House, if we had not put the matter before two parliamentary committees, if these committees were not going to report within a few days, if Senator Austin did not agree to appear before it, then I could understand the concern of the Hon. Member. He does not want this corporation to be operated on a management-run basis. He wants to stick his political nose into it, and that is what they are trying to do.
Once again, I made it quite clear yesterday, and I repeat it today, that there will be a statement by Senator Austin in front of the committee when the report is made and that he will answer the questions. If the question is asked by the Hon. Member or one of his colleagues and Senator Austin does not answer it, indeed I will find out what the answer is. I think it is normal to give the Minister a chance to answer the question when it is asked of him in the proper way-and stop pointing your finger; that is not polite.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO AVOID WASTAGE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I have the impression that our questions are somewhat irritating to the Prime Minister, but considering the fact that Canadians know perfectly well that the Government has already poured $1.4 billion into this corporation, that the Minister responsible is recommending that the Government provide new funding of as much $400 million, while 1,300 jobs were lost in the past year, can the Prime Minister today, before the eyes of the Canadian people, inform the House about any guarantees he has to offer that there will be no further wastage of public funds in the future, as he said yesterday, while ignoring the past?
October 20, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member is referring to the answers I gave yesterday and today, he will have to admit that the company suffered losses when it was still a private enterprise. It had closed down, so it was losing money. It wanted to stop operations. That is why it wanted to close down, why it wanted to get rid of Canadair. Madam Speaker, financial losses are not due to the fact that it is a Crown corporation. The same occurred when it was owned by the private sector. What the Hon. Member should decide is whether we should try and save the jobs in Montreal and the advanced technology, or whether we should say: Well, a private enterprise could not run Canadair so let us not try to run it either? If the Hon. Member is in favour of closing down the Corporation, let him say so outright. However, if he prefers to keep the technology and the jobs in Quebec, he should support us and check whether there is any improvement, but he should not evade the issue as his colleagues seem to be doing, in order to close down Canadair, because the people in his party are against Crown corporations. They prefer to privatize.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister did not really answer my question. He is aware of this company's poor management. The Prime Minister is aware that public funds are involved. My question is: In the circumstances, since the Prime Minister is refusing to offer Canadians a minimum of guarantees, is the Prime Minister at least preppared to acknowledge that our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, was right in asking for more control over the expenditures of Crown corporations? And in this connection, I would ask the Prime Minister to at least give this House the authority to verify the expenditures of Crown corporations that are manifestly unco-operative.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as far as increased control by the Government and this House is concerned, the Hon. Member is aware that a bill on Crown corporations is before Parliament, specifically for the purpose of increasing control. We do not disagree on this point.
However, I am sure the Hon. Member will recall that all or almost all aerospace companies in the world have been in tremendous financial difficulty in the past few years, and that in all major countries, this industry is now highly subsidized, either through direct Government funding or through Government purchasing of military or other aircraft. These companies are not making a profit, that is understood. This is true in Canada and among all our competitors as well. Bearing this in mind, the Hon. Member will realize that the trouble is not that there were financial losses, whatever the figure. The trouble is that the Hon. Member, because we are losing money, fails to realize that it is in the nature of this industry at the present time to lose money. Therefore, his party will have to decide. Either governments do not help the aerospace industry, and it will collapse, or we do help this industry, and then we have to
Oral Questions
make sure that we help in the most effective way possible. Those are options open to the Hon. Member.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. On May 30 the Minister announced Cabinet approval of a new financial package which he had negotiated with the National Association of Friendship Centres. However, as of yesterday Treasury Board had not approved any money. Considering that Friendship Centres across Canada are in difficulty and that some have closed, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government will keep its commitment? Will he ensure the flow of funds to Friendship Centres so that they can meet the needs of native people in urban areas?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, as announced last May, the Government has renewed its assistance program for Native Friendship Centres across Canada. The problems remaining to be settled with Treasury Board are now being examined, and we hope they will be cleared up by the end of this month, so that the program can continue to develop on the basis of the proposals we made last May.


INTEREST COSTS INCURRED BY CENTRES
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, on September 22 the Minister assured Friendship Centres that there would be no difficulty in having those funds released. Will the Minister now assure the House that the entire package will be delivered to Friendship Centres, and will he fight to get additional funds available to cover the heavy interest costs resulting from the delay in funding?
[ Translation]


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, as I said before, during the past few weeks we have made representations to Treasury Board to ensure that problems that have arisen, especially in connection with the Government's guidelines on budget increases, can be resolved. Furthermore, I can assure the Hon. Member that we are in touch daily with the various departments concerned, to ensure that the program will be able to proceed as announced last May.

October 20, 1983

Oral Questions CROWN CORPORATIONS
CANADA!R-MANAGEMENT EXPERTISE


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, the House will recall, stated yesterday that departmental officials, referring to Canadair, do not have the expertise to deal with all of the businesses in which the Government is involved. Will the Prime Minister indicate where the management expertise is to run Canadair, a diversified aerospace company? Is it in Gil Bennett, the lawyer from Toronto who has been brought in on a part-time basis to be the chief executive officer? Is it Senator Austin, in the company described as the management company of Canadair? Is it Maurice Strong? Is it Joel Bell? Where is the expertise management which the Prime Minister referred to yesterday, to run Canadair at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, obviously if I say that it is in that collective management, the Hon. Member will say that they are not good enough experts for him. I will ask him a question in turn, although it may be a bit irregular. We have had suggestions in this House that they would like to run it by a joint parliamentary committee. Maybe the Hon. Member can tell me the greater experts on his side than the ones he just named. Judging by what they did with Canadair in the nine months they were in Government, I do not think they have great experts on that side.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As all can recognize, Madam Speaker, that is a terrible distortion of the suggestion made yesterday. We simply ask that a select all-Party committee review the Government's plans, and take a look at whom is the expertise management in whom we can all have confidence to run Canadair.


APPOINTMENT OF JEAN-PIERRE GOYER
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Prime Minister has indicated that we must leave Crown corporations out of politics which, according to him, is a one hundred year tradition, and that the running of Crown corporations must not have any political influence. In view of that statement, will the Prime Minister indicate why he and the present Minister of Finance pressed so hard to have Jean-Pierre Goyer made Chairman of Canadair, something that was resented and resisted to the end by the old management of Canadair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure about the Hon. Member's facts, but he and his Party have been complaining about the old management as being incompetent. Now he seems to think that they were competent enough to judge that they were good and that they should not be replaced by, as he alleges, Jean-Pierre Goyer. The Hon. Member has to make up his mind. Maybe Mr. Goyer is better in our mind than the old management and in that-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is that right?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is right if I follow the Hon. Member's thinking, because the Hon. Member wanted to get rid of the old management. What is his position? Does he want the old management or does he want new management?


INDUSTRY
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Now that it is evident that yet another questionable deal by the Government has helped out its friends at Maislin, and particularly the banks, can the Minister tell me why the loan guarantees to Maislin were structured so as to give suppliers, mainly small businesses, no money, give employees only half of their back salaries, vacation pay and severance pay, and yet allow the banks to recoup nearly all of their money?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Conservative Party does not think that 2,000 jobs in Canada are very important or that it was important to try to save those 2,000 jobs. Second, the allegation by the Hon. Member of what is contained in that loan agreement with respect to salaries is not accurate. When the Hon. Member has some accurate information, I will be happy to respond to him.


REPORTED SALE OF COMPANY'S LICENCES TO UNITED STATES FIRM
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, there are only half that many employees, and they would have been working today had this been handled properly. The licences owned by Maislin were, I understand, sold to Consolidated Freightways of California for a pittance, on the agreement of the bank. Can the Minister tell me why no Canadian companies were allowed to bid on these licences, when a single Montreal-Toronto licence is worth $1 million on the free market today? Also, will he take steps to stop that sale and open it up to Canadian bidders?


Edward C. Lumley: Again, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member's information is not accurate. Perhaps he would like to ask the responsible trustee. The Government of Canada did not negotiate that sale. In fact we were just advised of the sale a couple of days ago, and now we have to look and see if it is reviewable under the FIR Act. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to write a letter to the chairman of the board of the bank. Maybe he can advise him on what happened during that transaction.
October 20, 1983


ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE INCREASE-HYDROGEN ADVOCATED AS ALTERNATIVE FUEL
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The United States Environmental Protection Agency in a recent official report warns about the greenhouse effect, saying the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere will lead to a disastrous warming of the earth, the effects to be felt as early as the 1990s. We have the technology to start correcting the problem. Hydrogen is the only fuel that burns clean. The parliamentary Committee on Alternate Energy reported and recommended that Canada move toward a hydrogen-based economy. Will the Minister make the same grants and subsidies available for the development of hydrogen that he now makes available for frontier gas and oil exploration?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I think there are two problems that are entirely different in scope. I read with great interest the Committee's report on alternative energy sources, and the use of hydrogen is an interesting proposal, but I do not think we have reached the point where we should consider changing our policy on developing oil resources in Canada.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, very often those involved with fossil fuels acquire fossil minds. My next question is directed to the Minister of Finance.


FUNDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGEN
Simon Leendert de Jong: My next question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance knows that hydrogen is an available fuel. In fact, on November 4, 1981, we rode together in a hydrogen fueled car, and he stated at that time that it was a very interesting technology that needs to be developed.
As well, the Minister knows that the National Research Council, through Mr. Brian Taylor, has stated that the technology for hydrogen exists and it is only political timing that is preventing its development. In fact, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: In fact, does the Hon. Member have a question? It is incredible.


Simon Leendert de Jong: My question, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Minister. Will the Minister recommend that in his next budget, grants and subsidies that are now provided to frontier oil and gas development should also be made available to individuals and companies attempting to develop hydrogen into an economical fuel for Canada in order that we can create some jobs and export some-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I shall consider the Hon. Member's question as a proposal to be examined in preparing the Budget.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my qeustion is directed to the Minister of State for External Relations. The Minister is aware that the funding for the Service universitaire canadien outre-mer, known as SUCO and a partner of CUSO, has had its funds cut back and seems to have been totally eliminated. Could the Minister explain to the House why this was done, and does he have any program to see that funds will be reinstated?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, this was done with great regret. It became pretty obvious to most people that SUCO, notwithstanding increased budget support from CIDA and consulting services paid by CIDA to the group, was incapable of putting together a reasonably good accounting service. In this instance the Government tried to minimize the damage and we have ensured the co-operants that they would be properly subsidized by CIDA until March 31. In the meantime we hope that the co-operants will find association with other groups so that they can continue to serve the countries to which they have been assigned in the best possible way. Again, this is a regrettable action. It is an action that is not often taken by CIDA, but which had to be taken in this particular instance.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated in a speech to the Liberal campaign college in Toronto on January 12, 1980: "First we must get the nation's finances in order. Our commitment is this. We will hold the line on government expenditure growth to under the rate of growth of the GNP". As the Prime Minister has said this and as, during the following three years between then and now, government expenditures expressed as a percentage of GNP have increased from 19 per cent to 22 per cent and are still going up, would the Prime Minister advise the House how this performance squares with the rousing rhetoric with which he wound up his speech on that day by saying: "There's a prior commitment I want to make clear. Liberals will do what we say we will do. And if we can't do it, we won't say it"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the only thing wrong with the question asked by the

October 20, 1983
Oral Questions
Hon. Member is that his facts are wrong. That is quite fundamental. The trend line has been down for a government share of public expenditures. He simply has to look at the
facts.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question to set the record straight.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre.


EXPORT PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question would be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if I could have his attention. On October 7 I asked the Minister if he was planning to reduce the export price for natural gas since the border price set by the Minister is too expensive for our American customers. In his answer the Minister said that there is no need to move at this time.
Since top U.S. energy officials in Washington are insisting that Canada will announce more cuts in natural gas export prices by the end of the month, and since these comments follow discussions with government officials here in Ottawa, is the Minister misleading the House, or is he too busy campaigning for the Liberal leadership to be able to be on top of the affairs of his Department?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think that the Hon. Member will see by the end of the month if the price is going down or not. Next week will be the end of the month, so she will know by that time.


Pat Carney: We shall certainly watch for the date at the end of the month.


EXPORTATION OF ELECTRICITY
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the same Minister. It has been reported that the Minister is willing to take steps to increase electricity exports to the United States. How can the Government justify promoting hydro exports when it is refusing to take similar steps to help the natural gas industry which is operating at about 40 per cent of its export capacity? How can the Minister justify helping one energy industry when it refuses to respond to the very real concerns of another, the oil and gas industry?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): First, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong. We have taken two steps since the Spring to help the situation regarding the export of natural gas. We have reduced the price to $4.40 from $4.94, and we have given an incentive
price to added quantities of gas that were to be taken by the market.
Regarding the export of electricity to the Americans, I, of course, am very much interested in exporting it because there is a surplus. The hydro companies in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick are trying to sell electricity. I told the people in New York that they should perhaps think a little bit about ceasing to burn the coal that creates acid rain, and should buy clean electricity from Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I would like to compliment him and his predecessor, and his predecessor's predecessor, on their long and arduous struggle with the acid rain question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: The Minister will know that on this issue he has the strongest support from this Party for his representations to his American colleagues. Since the recent meeting with Secretary Schultz and EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus, is the Minister prepared to make a commitment on behalf of this country that, whether the U.S. administration goes ahead now or later, this country will begin immediately aiming for a 50 per cent reduction of sulphur emissions?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, dealing with the Hon. Member's preamble, I would like to congratulate him for his touch of modesty. As to the commitment he is asking for, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that Canada has already taken steps, as was explained yesterday to another Hon. Member, toward achieving reduction of emissions by 25 per cent. That is now being achieved in two of the major Provinces of the country. As to the balance, in order to achieve emissions of 20 kilograms per hectare per year, we know that we cannot achieve that alone. That is corroborated by a statement made yesterday in Washington by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, James Medas, who said that Canada cannot begin solving its own acid rain problems without a joint policy with the U.S.A.


REQUEST FOR CANADIAN COMMITMENT
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, as Hon. Members on this side have said before, the problem cannot be solved by Canada alone. In view of the fact that the problem will only be solved in the United States if the Americans, who are allied with us in this campaign, are given sufficient support by this country, is the Minister prepared to make a commitment to the American government, and to Congress and the various public interest and citizens' groups
October 20, 1983

that are supporting the battle against acid rain in the United States, that we will proceed now to a 50 per cent reduction?
1 ask this question, Madam Speaker, because on September 8 of this year Representative Dingell of the House of Representatives wrote a letter to the EPA Administrator, Mr. Ruck-elshaus. In that letter he asks questions about what Canada is prepared to do, what our base line data is, and what the costs will be. In other words, here is a member who is involved-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is raising a very important question. My answer to him is that we have in Canada, as a result of an effort in joint federal-provincial co-operation, achieved a plan in Fredericton last month among environmental Ministers, provincial and federal. We have a plan, we are ready to move, and we want to move with the Americans in order to achieve our targets.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) on Wednesday, October 19, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, during Statements by Members I was ruled out of order. I wonder if you would be kind enough to tell me which Speaker's ruling I was reflecting upon?


Madam Speaker:: It seemed to me by what the Hon. Member was saying that he was indirectly reflecting on a ruling that I had made some days ago. However, if the Hon. Member feels that I have not been fair with him I will look at the blues. He has now sent me his complete statement. I shall look at it and if I have not been fair or if I have jumped to conclusions a little bit too soon, I will be only too glad to give the Hon. Member another chance to make that statement.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I rise to ask the customary Thursday question of the Government House Leader, what he expects in the way of business for the remainder of this week and what he has in mind for next week.
While he is answering that question, would he also take the House into his confidence, if he can do so at this time, with respect to the contemplated date for prorogation and the contemplated date for a new session and Throne Speech?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, on the latter part of the question, I will be in a better position to answer once Bill C-155 and Bill C-152 have received Royal Assent. Meanwhile, we are talking about a reasonable package and we hope that we will be able to get those two Bills through within the next few days so we can contemplate prorogation before the November break. We hope we will have the Speech from the Throne by mid-November. We must get Royal Assent on Bill C-155 and Bill C-152 first, and therefore the door is open for a Speech from the Throne, if need be, a bit later.

Madam Speaker, as far as the business of the House for the next few days is concerned, today we intend to propose a motion to limit debate under Standing Order 82. Assuming that the motion is voted on today, Monday will be the first day of debate allocated for the report stage of Bill C-155. Tuesday will be the second day of debate on the same matter, while next Wednesday will be for private members' business and next Thursday we shall have third reading of Bill C-155.
If for some reason we are unable to dispose of the motion under Standing Order 82 today, and in any case if debate had started today, the order of the day for Monday morning shall be to resume debate on the motion under Standing Order 82, at 11 a.m. As far as the business of the House for tomorrow is concerned, I think the Hon. Member has changed his mind- he would not want it to be an Opposition day, I suppose, but I would like him to be clear about that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order on House business. I wonder if I might be allowed to ask the Government House Leader, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, if the Government might be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 43 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 24 the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the rate a railway company may
charge a shipper for the movement of grain for the period January 1, 1984 to
July 31, 1986 shall not exceed the existing rates in effect on August 1, 1983".
This motion would preserve the existing statutory freight rate until such time as the Government has concluded its studies and the full impact assessment upon producers is fully analysed.

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
In any event, I should like to ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the Elouse that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that any reasonable proposals for amendments at the report stage of Bill C-155 will be considered. But 1 also wish to make it quite clear I am not implying that we agree with the specific amendment for which he is requesting the unanimous consent of the House. However, although we do not directly agree with what he is proposing today, it does not preclude our entertaining other amendments and in some cases even agreeing with the unanimous consent of the House to having them put on the Order Paper before we consider amendments at the report stage next Tuesday evening. In the circumstances, we can not agree with the Hon. Member's request today. However, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and myself are prepared to negotiate in good faith on any reasonable amendment, until we are asked to vote on the report stage of Bill C-155.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, this is a very genuine and sincere amendment that has been advanced. I understand that the Minister of Transport will be standing in his place at some point in time requesting that same unanimous consent to have one or two of his own motions, which were ruled out of order by Your Honour, put before the House.
I am pleased to hear that the Government House Leader has said that he is prepared seriously to entertain some of the amendments and proposals that we have to offer. This is one of those proposals that we have to offer which we believe could facilitate the debate and, indeed, improve the Bill.
1 ask that you seek unanimous consent, Madam Speaker. If the Government House Leader and the Minister of Transport are serious in their contention that these very realistic, sincere and genuine proposals are going to be considered, it is going to be very difficult, Your Honour, if the Government is now going to proceed with its motion to move closure. Perhaps it might want to reconsider that in light of the comments of the Honourable House Leader.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair is really embarrassed by what is taking place. This is a most unusual time to propose that amendments be introduced in the process of studying a Bill. Of course, if the House wants to do it and gives unanimous consent, all of this can happen, but I must say that it is a most exceptional use of the time that is allotted to discuss Government business.
There seem to be other interventions on this point. 1 would ask Hon. Members to be very brief because any kind of
negotiation of this nature that might go on between Parties should, of course, not take place in the House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall be very brief. I do not want to repeat what I just said. The request for unanimous consent has been denied. However, we are prepared to negotiate as soon as we have proposed our motion for time allocation this afternoon.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I want to speak to the emerging point of order which the Chair has raised here, namely, the use of this period for asking the question the nature of which the Hon. Member for Vegreville raised.
I believe I heard you correctly when you said it was an unusual time to entertain questions on Government business. I heard the words "Government business" and, of course, it is House business which we are-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. No, I said it was a most unusual time to discuss possible modifications to a Bill which the House was presently studying. This kind of negotiation, I reminded Hon. Members, should take place somewhere else, but certainly not on the floor of the House. I did not rule out the Hon. Member. 1 was tolerant with the House and allowed the House to hear what the Hon. Member for Vegreville had to say. I allowed the President of the Privy Council to reply.
My impression is that the Hon. Member for Vegreville does not have the unanimous consent of the House. As I indicated, if the House wanted to do this, despite the fact that I find it a bit unusual to be doing it at this particular time, I could ask the House if it gives its unanimous consent and I would be in the hands of the House. Obviously, the Hon. Member did not receive unanimous consent so I suppose he will seek other means of accomplishing what he wishes to do.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, again you have said that you found it unusual to be discussing a matter such as the nature of the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. It is to that point that I wish to address my submissions before the Chair comes to any firm conclusions.
In my submission, this is a most appropriate and proper time for this kind of discussion. I see you nodding your head in the negative. Perhaps after I have presented my submissions I might be successful in having you nod your head the other way.


Madam Speaker:: No, really, the Hon. Member is raising a point of order when there is no point of order. I did not make a ruling on this. I just expressed surprise that such negotiations were taking place on the floor of the House, as I have done many times.
It is good politics, I suppose, good policy, for the Chair to be tolerant sometimes when the Chair senses that some kind of agreement might be reached, despite the fact that the proce-
October 20, 1983

dure is somewhat unusual. The Chair simply looks the other way and allows Hon. Members to discuss this. That is all I said, not more than that and not less. I do not feel there is a point of order. I do not feel I should be hearing argument on that. There is no point of order there.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there are two points I would like to make, again arising out of what you have said. The first is that they are not negotiations, as I perceive what the Hon. Member for Vegreville has done. It is a submission to the Chair asking her to seek unanimous consent of the House. I will say no more about that.
I want again to disagree with the Chair, with respect, that this is an unusual procedure or time for this kind of thing to be taking place. I am prepared to speak to that point of order should we reach that stage. I would hope that the Chair would call for submissions before making any firm ruling as to the propriety of what the Hon. Member for Vegreville is going now, or any other Hon. Member, should he choose to do so.


Madam Speaker:: I can assure the Hon. Member that I am not going to rule on this. 1 just expressed surprise. I said that I was willing to hear what Hon. Members had to say. Does the House give its unanimous consent? If there is not consent, I do not feel there is any point in adding any argument. Does the House give its unanimous consent to the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Hargrave:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order dealing with House business. It relates to the fact that the livestock sector, and the value added industries in this piece of legislation, Bill C-155, have been very poorly served throughout this entire debate. My point of order is addressed to the Government House Leader. I would ask him if he would consider giving consent to a motion which I would like to read now being placed on the Order Paper:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 58 by immediately adding after line 13 at page 34 the following therefor:
"58.(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, based upon the recommendations of the committee established under section 59(2) to examine the method of payment, the Governor in Council may, subject to approval by Parliament, make regulations prescribing the manner in which, and the parties to whom, payment of the government contribution, including the Crow benefit, shall be made."
I would appreciate, Madam Speaker, if you would ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the motion I have just read to be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of the report stage of Bill C-155.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Business of the House


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Gustafson:: Madam Speaker, on House business I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate on Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended by striking out the heading "Part IV" preceding Clause 59 at Page 34 and substituting the following therefor:


&quot;PART IV
[Stage Direction]
59.	In this Part,
"freight to price ratio", in respect of any calendar year, means an amount equal to the quotient, expressed as a percentage obtained by dividing the average cost to the shipper of moving one tonne of grain in that calendar year by the weighted average price for that calendar year;
"shipper share limitation adjustment", in respect of any calendar year, means an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the number of percentage points by which the freight to price ratio in that calendar year exceeds 7 per cent,
by
(b)	the product obtained by multiplying the weighted average price for that calendar year by the total number of tonnes of grain moved in that calendar year;
"six grains" means wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed;
"weighted average price", in respect of any calendar year, means the weighted average determined under paragraph 60(1 )(b) in respect of that calendar year.
60.	(1) The Commission shall, on or before March 1st of each year, using the information that it deems appropriate, determine, in respect of the preceding calendar year,
(a)	the average price per tonne at which each of the six grains, in storage, was available for sale on each trading day at the port that handled the largest volume of that grain in the calendar year;
(b)	the average of the average prices referred to in paragraph (a), weighted on the basis of the number of tonnes of each of the six grains moved in the calendar year;
(c)	the average cost to the shipper of moving one tonne of grain in the calendar year; and
(d)	the freight to price ratio.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1 )(a), the average price per tonne at which each of the six grains was available for sale shall be determined on the basis of the price per tonne of the grade of each of those grains the largest volume of which was moved in the calendar year.

[Stage Direction]
and by renumbering the subsequent Parts and Clauses and amending all references accordingly.
The importance of this motion to the producer, Madam Speaker, is the 7 per cent safety net, the same as the Minister proposed, and which has not been debated in the House. The protection of the producer is the important factor which is presented in this amendment against unreasonable, should I say, freight rates which would give a safety protection to the primary producer.
In any event, Madam Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration at
[Stage Direction]
October 20, 1983
Business of the House
report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
Mr. Axworthy:: Madam Speaker, I would hope we might be able to respond to this intervention by the Official Opposition and try to facilitate the time of the Elouse. Obviously we are very serious about our willingness to receive relevant and pertinent amendments after the decision has been made by the House according to the rules on allocation of time. What we obviously have to do, particularly on the question of the safety net, is find the proper means by which we can negotiate that time. I am quite prepared to meet with Members of the Opposition to work out how that might be done during the two days of report stage so that the amendments they are proposing as well as those we have in mind might get their fair share of attention, which they were not allowed to have because of the filibustering during the previous 11 days of report stage.
If Members of the Opposition are as serious as they are asking us to be, we are prepared to consider their amendments, but in light of a decision, once it is taken, on the application at report stage. Therefore I suggest we proceed with the Orders of the Day and discussion of that motion.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Madam Speaker, I appreciate what the Minister has said with respect to the consideration the Government will give to these very legitimate suggestions for amendments to be placed on the Order Paper. We are asking for unanimous consent to have these matters brought forward as proposed amendments to the legislation. The Government will then have the opportunity of responding to the proposals put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia and the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat. That is precisely the reason we now put these matters forward, not that the Government will accept them without debate, but rather that they simply be put on the Order Paper for consideration. They are new and novel propositions.
The Minister knows that he is going to bring forward suggestions with respect to safety net and other matters he thinks should be included in the legislation. Clearly this is an opportunity for him to allow these legitimate suggestions-he will understand how important they are in western Canada and across this crountry-to be put forward for consideration by the House at report stage. There is nothing offensive with respect to this proposition. In fact, it is precisely what the Minister has asked for. We are now giving formal notice in these instances of some amendments we think should be given serious consideration by the Minister.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I call this a clear abuse of parliamentary procedure and a waste of the time of the House. The Hon. Member who just spoke said that the amendments in question were new amendments, and the House is aware that according to our procedure, amendments that cannot be considered at the report stage are not those for which notice has been given 24 hours before starting consideration of the report
stage. The Hon. Member said that he thought the Minister intended to try and obtain the unanimous consent of the House, at some point, regarding an amendment about the security net, but I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that notice was given of these amendments, they had appeared on the Order Paper and were judged to be inadmissible. There is a difference. In any event, Madam Speaker, I can inform the Chair that we intend to refuse unanimous consent for any amendment to Bill C-155 proposed at this time, and as I explained earlier-

If you do not want to listen to the translation I will say it in English.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: It is offensive in either language.


Yvon Pinard: I said earlier we are willing to negotiate in good faith outside this House, but certainly not to co-operate with the Opposition in filibustering our own Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is your story. You think any debate on this is a filibuster.


Yvon Pinard: We are saying we should move the motion to limit debate today. We will have until Tuesday evening to negotiate. We will make proposals to the Opposition and we will be willing to listen to their proposals. But today it is out of order. We are wasting time and we are not willing to give unanimous consent to any amendment to Bill C-155 at this time. We are willing to negotiate in good faith before we come to a final vote on report stage of the Bill. That is very clear.
I submit as an additional point that they are not allowed to refer to the substance of a Bill under discussion in the House. That is what they are doing by seeking unanimous consent to deal with the substance of the Bill.
For all those reasons, Madam Speaker, we ask you to stop this obvious filibuster and waste of time. We want to proceed with our motion and I give notice to the Opposition that we are willing to negotiate in good faith all the time about Bill C-155 until it is voted on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I sense a bit of a conflict between the two Ministers. One suggests they are prepared to negotiate in good faith-


Lloyd Axworthy: After the vote.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and the Minister of Transport says he is serious. I ask you, Madam Speaker, how can either one of those hon. gentlemen be serious in advancing any realistic negotiations under the threat of closure? If the Minister of Transport is genuine and serious about his attempt to reach some satisfactory solutions, and he says "I am", then he should recommend to the Government House Leader withdrawal of the threat of closure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 20, 1983


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Then and only then can there be genuine and realistic negotiations.


Lloyd Axworthy: Good try, Don.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister of Transport, in committee and in the House, has talked about his willingness to co-operate and to accommodate new ideas. The Government House Leader has now suggested they will rule every proposal out of order before they have even heard it. We have some very unique propositions and we have responded to the invitation of the Minister of Transport. We are presenting them now because the Government, being so paranoid about its legislation being examined and debated in a vigorous way, wants to move closure and put the slammer on. It is not really interested in the real proposals we have.
I say in all sincerity, Madam Speaker, unlike the other Opposition Party, that we have tried to seek realistic and workable solutions. That has been our approach from day one. We have done it in committee.


Ian Deans: That is the sound of one hand clapping.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have done it on second reading. I remind you, Madam Speaker, that this Government, attempted to move closure on second reading after two days. It imposed an artificial time frame during the course of the committee hearings. A 70-clause Bill resulted in 85 amendments, plus about 20 or so subamendments. The Bill is still not complete but the Government is taking the position that we are not even going to have an opportunity to debate the amendments it is proposing. I have never seen anything so ridiculous in my life.
We want to present our alternatives and debate them. If the Government is serious about negotiating, lift the veil of closure and we can get down to some serious discussions.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, this Bill has been debated for months. At committee stage we accepted over 80 or so amendments. We have been debating report stage for the last 11 sitting days and over 170 speakers have participated in that unusually long debate. Last Friday we were willing to negotiate the amendments suggested by the Hon. Member but his Party saw fit to waste a day by forcing the House to debate a subject matter other than Bill C-155 which the Government intended to call. That is publicly known. They tried again to waste the time of the House on Monday, but failed. They succeeded yesterday in letting the bells ring for over an hour and a half, time during which we would have negotiated in good faith.
I can understand the Hon. Member being a bit obfuscated by the fact that we are attempting to limit debate at this time, but it is our duty to do so after having agreed to such a long time for debate on Bill C-155. I can understand that he does not like the idea. He says that he saw nothing more ridiculous in the past, but he will agree it is very ridiculous for him to show so much indignation in light of the fact that his own Party, he being part of the whole scheme, prevented debate
Business of the House
from going on last Friday and for an hour and a half or so yesterday. So if he is in good faith as he says, he will allow the Government to proceed under the Standing Orders, and he will negotiate.
Certainly he is dead wrong when he says that the Government has not been reasonable in that debate. That debate has lasted for months. He had ample opportunity to propose his amendments. We have accepted some 80 of them.
While we are still prepared to negotiate, we are certainly not stupid. We will move on that Bill and get it through. In the meantime, until we vote we will negotiate if the Hon. Member wants that. But he should not complain about our attempting to limit debate at this point, because he and his Party are the ones who have prevented debate from occurring during the last days on Bill C-155.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my proposal to the Government House Leader because I want to facilitate the debate and do what I can to improve the Bill, as suggested by the Minister of Transport. Once they hear the proposal which I put forward, I ask Government Members to allow the following motion to be put to the House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I see that the Hon. Member is again asking for unanimous consent on another amendment. I believe that he must have heard the Hon. President of the Privy Council tell the House that his Party would not give unanimous consent to any amendment at this particular time. What they would do at other times is their business, but it was quite clear to the Chair, as it should be to Hon. Members, that they will not get unanimous consent for the inclusion of these amendments at this time.
I am afraid that what I saw as an unusual procedure is becoming apparent. It seemed to me a bit awkward that the time allocated for questions on House business was being used to introduce modifications to a Bill, which modifications, if introduced, would not be easy to make at this particular stage. Now it is quite clear to the Chair that this is what is being sought.
Of course, amendments can be proposed, but Members must follow the usual procedure, unless the House gives its unanimous consent. As I see it, it is not prepared to give its unanimous consent. As well, they require notice following a procedure which is well known to all Members in the House. It is obvious to everyone, even to anyone watching us on television, that we are debating and not at all dealing with questions on House business. Members have entered into the debate and are suggesting alternatives which, legitimate though they may be, should be suggested at another time. The time of the House might be used for this if the House consents, but not at this particular time.
Another reason that it is difficult for me to allow these kinds of proposals to take place at this time is that Members are obviously anticipating the Orders of the Day and are not really asking questions about the business of the House.
28172

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
Therefore, for all these reasons and since it is obvious to the Chair and everyone else that no unanimous consent will be given, and because this is not the proper time-


Erik Nielsen: 1 would like to be heard, Madam Speaker. 1 would like to be heard before the Chair makes any firm ruling.


Madam Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member because 1 have no interest whatsoever in not allowing the House to come to some kind of agreement if it can. If I can stretch the rules at some point when everyone agrees that perhaps we should have more discussion, I will do so. But I am warning Hon. Member that they are using a procedure that is not to be used at this time. That is not a ruling but a comment on what is usual under this particular item of business.


An Hon. Member:: They are the rules of the House.


Madam Speaker:: They are the rules of the House as well. However, perhaps Hon. Members could seek another time to propose these matters, which are very promising if I understand what Hon. Members are saying. Some of the amendments which I have declared out of order are being resuscitated, but if they can be worded in such a way as to make them admissible, and if Hon. Members on both sides of the House want those amendments, 1 see no reason why they should not have them.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, in a preliminary way I suppose, you have made observations from the Chair with respect to the rule against anticipation which I submit has no application in the process that is going on here, notwithstanding the usually brilliant arguments of the President of the Privy Council. 1 submit to you that he was wrong on that.
We are not proposing amendments. The Members who have risen so far and the Member who was on his feet-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I see the Speaker smiling again. She obviously believes that I am not serious in making that statement. Well, Madam Speaker, we are not proposing amendments. The process that is before us is the seeking of unanimous consent to amendments so that they might be placed on the Order Paper for discussion. Failing that unanimous consent they will not be placed on the Order Paper for discussion, contrary to what they are saying on the Government side. The place in our proceedings for discussing House business is the proper and appropriate place for this process.
1 have several citations, including some of your own, which I would like to cite in support of that proposition. It is a well established fact that the House is master of its own rules. The Standing Orders outline the ordinary methods or rules of procedure, but they in no way restrain the House from deciding by way of unanimous consent to alter the manner in which it will proceed with respect to a given matter that is to be considered by the House.
You might give great weight to the statement of the Government House Leader that they intend to refuse consent to
anything proposed by this side of the House. We are used to that kind of arrogance coming from the Government side. However, let us stretch the imagination, and not the rules, by asking if the Government House Leader would take that position if one of our Members stood up and moved that we adopt passage of all remaining stages in the next hour? I suggest to you that he would not. I suggest to you that the Government would consent to that rapidly enough.
Therefore, I believe that a global approach to consent is wrong. During my time in this place we have always approached items seriatim. These Members who are rising to seek consent of the Chair must be dealt with seriatim, and consent must be asked and either granted or denied on each occasion. For who is to predetermine whether some Member will rise to make a proposal that will find acceptance on the Government side?
My understanding of the authority of the House to proceed as it choosed is contained in Citation 13 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition where the following words may be found at page 6 under the heading "Unanimous Consent". Citation 13 reads:
13. (1) Within the ambit of its own rules, The House itself may proceed as it chooses; it is a common practice for the House to ignore its own rules by unanimous consent. Thus, bills may be passed through all their stages in one day, or the House may decide to alter its normal order of business or its adjournment hour as it sees fit.
(2)	The House is perfectly able to give consent to set aside its Standing Orders and to give its unanimous consent to waive procedural requirements and precedents concerning notice and things of that sort.
As authority, the Debates for June 28, 1977, at page 7154, are cited.
If, as practice and Beauchesne indicate, it is within the authority of the House to waive its rules through unanimous consent, it follows that Members have the right to seek unanimous consent to waive procedural requirements and precedents. The only means by which a Member can seek unanimous consent is to ask, through the Chair, for the consent of the House to waive the ordinary rules.
I submit that the Chair is bound to seek unanimous consent when that consent is sought by any Hon. Member. Citation
411	of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition describes the process of debate. Citation 411(1) reads as follows:
Every matter is determined in the House of Commons upon a question put by the Speaker, on a proposition submitted by a Member, and resolved either in the affirmative or negative as the case may be. This proposition, called a motion, is a proposal moved by one Member, in accordance with certain well-established rules, that the House do something or order something to be done or express an opinion with regard to some matter.
As Citation 411(1) clearly states, every matter is determined in the House of Commons upon a question put by the Speaker on a proposition submitted by a Member. Citation
412	considers the definition of a question. It states at page 150:
The question is the subject matter of the motion, and on the merits of that subject matter the House has to give a decision either unanimously or by the majority of the members present. Every question when agreed to assumes the form either of an order or a resolution of the House. By its orders the House
October 20, 1983

directs its committees, its members, its officers, the order of its own proceedings and the acts of all persons they concern; by its resolutions the House declares its own opinions and purposes.
(2) When a motion is adopted, it becomes the resolution or order of the House. Therefore, its form must consequently be so framed, and its language so expressed that, if it meets the approbation of the House, it may at once become the resolution or order of the House which it purports to be.
On the basis of the citations to which I have referred, Madam Speaker, it would seem that the House may, by unanimous consent, set aside its usual rules and practices and that within that authority the House may consider motions that could not otherwise be moved. Because unanimous consent may be granted to set aside rules that would otherwise block a motion from being moved, the seeking of unanimous consent from being moved, the seeking of unanimous consent cannot be said to be out of order, in my submission.
As well, the seeking of unanimous consent to move a motion is a separate proposition submitted by a Member to the Speaker who must, according to the ordinary practices of the House, put the question, that is: Is there or is there not unanimous consent? The question, in this case, requires the unanimous decision of the House and should meet the other requirements set forth in Citation 412, such that if it is agreed to it may at once become the resolution of the House that it purports to be.
In this case, the question, the seeking of unanimous consent, if agreed to becomes a resolution of the House to permit the Member to move his or her motion. Thus, the motion is completely regular within the terms of Citation 412.
The next issue that has to be considered, Madam Speaker, is whether or not the House business question is the appropriate occasion for Members to rise on points of order to seek unanimous consent to move motions dealing with business that is now, or will soon be, before the House. I can think of no more appropriate time to seek the consent of the House to move a motion that would facilitate the business of the House than during the House business question. Indeed, this is a practice often followed by the House Leaders for all Parties in the House. Citation 158 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition refers to the House business question in the following manner in paragraph 4, found at page 50:
(4) As a matter of practice, since 1968, each Thursday following the Question Period, the Government House Leader states, in reply to a question put by the House Leader of the Official Opposition, the projected business of the House for the forthcoming week.
The practice with respect to the House business question has evolved somewhat further since the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's was published. It is now quite common for Members to seek unanimous consent for motions during the business question, while still retaining the understanding that matters should not be debated in the course of the question. In fact, this practice is evident in a ruling that you made in the course of a House business question, as reported at page 21845 of Hansard for December 22, 1982, found under the heading Business of the House. There was quite a discussion that day. At page 21845 you are recorded as having said:
Business of the House
Order, please. I am just asking Hon. Members to please not debate the Bill now. It has not been put to the House. I can allow a few questions back and forth on what the order of business might be in the House, but I cannot allow Hon. Members to debate this matter.
It is becoming obvious to me that there is no unanimous consent as to the manner in which this Bill could be passed through the House today. Unless some other Members have something specific to say on the manner in which we could proceed to put the Bill through the House today and try to seek unanimous consent on a particular proposal, 1 will not allow any debating of the question.
Further on, at page 21846, you are reported as having said:
Order, please. Members at this point are obviously debating. It is clear to the Chair that there is no unanimous consent over the manner in which this Bill can be put through the House.
Clearly, Madam Speaker, while you felt that it would not be permissible to debate the matter of the passage of a Bill that was before the House that day, you indicated that it would be permissible to bring forward various proposals to expedite the passage of the Bill and that it was in order to seek unanimous consent to deal with those matters.
The situation that faces the House today is identical to that which faced the House on December 22 of last year. Members on this side of the House are attempting to find a means of facilitating debate on a Bill that will be before the House this afternoon and are rising to seek an indication of the Government's intent and to seek the unanimous consent of the House to be allowed to put their motions, which certainly cannot be the subject of any valued judgment of any Member until they are heard. If this was in order on December 22, 1982, then, I submit, Madam Speaker, that it should be in order today.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to return to my contention that you are obliged to put the question to the House when Hon. Members rise to seek unanimous consent.
I have a further reference from Hansard that I think will firmly establish the existence of this obligation. I take delight in citing as authority for my arguments the well-reasoned and sound judgments of the Chair which have been rendered from time to time, and this is the finest I have seen in your tenure in the chair. It is to be found at page 27997 of Hansard. It arose again under Business of the House, Weekly Statement. There was a fairly long discussion involving myself, the Government House Leader, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the Hon. Member for St. John's East and a few others. You had this to say at the page quoted:
At any rate, perhaps that is a good suggestion. I leave it to Hon. Members, but I do have an obligation to ask the House if it will give its unanimous consent to move acceptance of the seven reports on parliamentary reform.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on the basis of those most excellent authorities I submit that any Hon. Member can rise in his or her place and ask you to seek unanimous consent of the House on the specific proposal on which the Member rising seeks to obtain unanimous consent. There is no other decision you can come to, Madam Speaker, and I would respectfully submit that you allow the process to conclude in its normal, healthy fashion.

October 20, 1983
Business of the House


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, a fascinating process indeed; so much for the tyranny of the minority. Elowever, let me say two things about this. First of all, I think the arguments of the Opposition House Leader are sound. More important, on behalf of my colleagues, we would be prepared to consider the matters the Members have put on the floor, at least to this point, and for which they are seeking unanimous consent. However, in order that we do not take up all day on it, which of course is my normal, reasonable approach to everything, I would like to suggest that if the Government would agree not to proceed at this point in time with its motion for closure or time allocation, as it chooses to call it-


Erik Nielsen: We want our ideas to be heard.


Ian Deans: The Hon. Member for Yukon says that he wants his ideas to be heard.


Erik Nielsen: I said, "Our ideas".


Ian Deans: 1 am sorry, he wants "our ideas" to be heard.


An Hon. Member:: Their ideas.


Ian Deans: What he is saying is that in fact he wants to get the views of his Members on the record. If the Government would like to adjourn for the rest of the day, I would be prepared, on behalf of my learned colleagues, to agree to have our Members sit down with whoever is appropriate on the Government side-perhaps the Minister of Transport, if he knows anything about the Bill-and the appropriate Members from the Conservative Party, to look at the various amendments, attempt to achieve a consensus and come back on another day to discuss how the matter could then be proceeded with.
It would seem to me, looking at the question before us, that the Hon. Member for Yukon is correct that a Member ought to be able to seek unanimous consent for a motion. It would also seem to me that there are other important matters of which we could be determining the outcome this afternoon, tomorrow or next week, such questions as unemployment and how the Government proposes to deal with it. If the Government House Leader or his surrogate would be prepared to agree either to call another order in order that meetings could be held or to adjourn until six o'clock, coming back tomorrow to go on with tomorrow's normal business, we could sit and discuss this matter and in fact come to some satisfactory, rational and sensible conclusion.


Mr. Evans:: Tomorrow is an Opposition day.


Madam Speaker:: In reply to those interventions, I want to remind the House of a few things. I do not think I ever said that unanimous consent was not allowed at this time. I just said that Hon. Members had heard the President of the Privy Council say that he would not give unanimous consent to any of the requests to waive notice for certain of their amendments. I never said that to seek unanimous consent was out of order. Of course it is not out of order. The Chair is always in
the hands of the House if, by unanimous consent, it wants to set aside certain rules. Of course the Chair will do that.
I am afraid the Hon. Member for Yukon in his usual way of arguing was quoting me at times like these, when the House is a bit nervous and is trying to reach some kind of agreement and when the Chair is lenient with the rules. These periods should not be invoked as precedents. When the Chair decides to go along with the mood of the House and to allow the House to discuss a certain number of things, even if some of the rules are being stretched a bit, that is normal procedure and practice in our House. What the Chair has to do once an occurrence like that has taken place is quickly to return the House to the very strict observance of the rules. I think the House has generally accepted that. It is the duty of the Chair once that period is over to remind the House that the rules are there and that they will be adhered to as strictly as possible.
In the course of his argumentation, I think the Hon. Member for Yukon has persuaded me of one thing. I had told the House that obviously the Hon. President of the Privy Council would not give his consent to any of the requests that were being made by the Opposition. The Hon. Member for Yukon suggested that the Chair should ask for consent seriatim on all the suggestions that were made by the House. I think I am convinced that unanimous consent or refusal of unanimous consent cannot be a sweeping thing because obviously there might be one or two that could be agreed to-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: -and, therefore, it is the duty of the Chair to put every possible proposal before the House so that the House can agree to it or refuse it according to its own will.
This being said, I will allow Hon. Members to seek consent for the different proposals they have to make to the House.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, taking into account the ruling you have just made based upon the rules and precedents of the House, I think it is important, if we are to take at face value the protestations of the House Leader and of other Members of the Official Opposition that their entire purpose is simply to facilitate the operation of the House, to suggest that they are going about it the wrong way. What I have said quite clearly is that if they are serious in trying to present amendments over and above the some 70 or 80 amendments that are already on the Order Paper, I would be quite prepared, once we have decided on the time allocation, in the next two days to sit with them and work out those amendments which would be appropriate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are not serious.


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member for Vegreville is becoming a little agitated again.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Because you are not serious.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am perfectly serious, and we have proven it because we have already accepted amendments from the Opposition. It is the Hon. Members opposite whose sincerity
October 20, 1983

must be questioned. All we see happening is their intent to delay further the Bill, which means that for every further hour's delay, we lose a hopper car in Trenton or a new construction job in British Columbia. If that is their intention and purpose, then it should be clearly stated.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: If Opposition Members want to facilitate debate, when report stage is reached after time allocation, we can consider the amendments. However, all we have here is a clear, unequivocal, blatant case of delay of important economic development and job creation initiatives, and the people of Canada should know it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I do not propose, as did the Minister of Transport, to challenge your ruling. I propose to follow it and to propose an amendment with respect to this particular legislation, Bill C-155. Before doing so, Madam Speaker, may I remind you that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia, made a proposal with respect to the so-called safety-net provision of the legislation now before us. It was responded to by the Minister of Transport who said he was very receptive to that particular proposal. In fact, it is identical to the proposal that the Minister will make, except for the percentage. I do not think you ever did ask if there was unanimous consent on whether that particular matter was going to be allowed by the House. If I am correct, Madam Speaker, you may want to put that matter before the House with respect to my colleague for Assiniboia, and I will then proceed with my brief intervention.


Madam Speaker:: My recollection is that I did ask for unanimous consent in the case of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. I did not in the case of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West because I interrupted him before he was finished. Does the House have any recollection? My feeling is that I did. At any rate, does the House give its unanimous consent to the proposal made by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I make this proposal to facilitate the debate on this legislation and in order to improve the Bill. In view of the fact that the Government is intending to invoke closure on the legislation, I want to have this brought forward as a reasonable Bill which, I am sure, will receive the unanimous consent of the House. I therefore propose:
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after Line 43 at Page 16 the following:
"ACCOMMODATION FOR GRAIN TRAFFIC 34.(1) The railway companies shall,
Business of the House
(a)	furnish, at the place of starting, and at the junction of the railway with other railways, and at all stopping places established for such purpose, adequate and suitable accommodation for the receiving and loading of grain offered for carriage upon the railway;
(b)	furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying, unloading and delivering of grain;
(c)	without delay, and with due care and diligence, receive, carry and deliver all such grain;
(d)	furnish and use all proper appliances, accommodation and means necessary for receiving, loading, carrying, unloading and delivering such grain; and
(e)	furnish such other service incidental to transportation as is customary or usual in connection with the business of a railway company, as may be ordered by the Commission.
(2)	Such adequate and suitable accommodation shall include reasonable facilities for the junction of private sidings or private branch railways with any railway belonging to or worked by the company, and reasonable facilities for receiving, forwarding and delivering grain upon and from those sidings or private branch railways, together with the placing of cars and moving them upon and from such private sidings and private branch railways.
(3)	If in any case such accommodation is not, in the opinion of the Commission, furnished by the company, the Commission may order the company to furnish the same within such time or during such period as the Commission deems expedient, having regard to all proper interests; or may prohibit or limit the use, either generally or upon any specified railway or part thereof, of any engines, locomotives, cars, rolling stock, apparatus, machinery, or devices, or any class or kind thereof, not equipped as required by this Act, or by any orders or regulations of the Commission made within its jurisdiction under the provisions of this Act.
(4)	Such grain shall be taken, carried to and from, and delivered at the places aforesaid on the due payment of the toll lawfully imposed by this Act.
(5)	For the purposes of this section the Commission may order that specific works be constructed or carried out, or that property be acquired, or that cars, motive power or other equipment be allotted, distributed, used or moved as specified by the Commission, or that any specified steps, systems or methods be taken or followed by any particular company or companies, or by railway companies generally, and the Commission may in any such order specify the maximum charges that may be made by the company or companies in respect of any matter so ordered by the Commission.
(6)	Every person aggrieved by any neglect or refusal of the company to comply with the requirements of this section has, subject to this Act, an action therefor against the company, from which action the company is not relieved by any notice, condition or declaration, if the damage arises from any negligence or omission of the company or of its servant.
(7)	The Commission may make regulations, applying generally or to any particular railway or any portion thereof, or may make an order in any case where it sees fit, imposing charges for default or delay by any company in furnishing accommodation, appliances, or means as aforesaid, or in receiving, loading, carrying, unloading or delivering grain, and may enforce payment of such charges by companies to any person injuriously affected by the default or delay; and any amount so received by any person shall be deducted from the damages recoverable or recovered by such person for the default or delay; and the Commission may, by order or regulation, determine what circumstances shall exempt any company from payment of any such charges.
(8)	The railway companies shall afford to the carriage of grain a level of accomodation equal to that afforded to the carriage of other traffic and failure to provide such a level shall be remedied by such orders as the Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
(9)	(a) Where the Administrator is of the opinion that reciprocal and other arrangements between railway companies are required to facilitate the efficient, adequate and reliable movement of grain on behalf of, and in the interests of grain producers, the Administrator shall apply to the Commission for such order or orders as may be required to achieve the necessary reciprocal and other arrangements between railway companies, and the Commission may make an order granting in whole or in part the Application of the Administrator.
(b)	If the special circumstances of any case so require, the Commission may exercise any of the powers given to it by Sections 59 and 71 of the National

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
Transportation Act and may thereby make an interim ex parte order or
orders.


Mr. Tobin:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order, for clarification. The Hon. Member is reading a motion which he has not yet received unanimous consent to present to the House. Technically, it may take one or two hours to present the motion before my consent as a Member or the consent of any Member of this House is received to even read the motion. It is clearly out of order for the Member to be reading a motion to the House which this House has not yet given its consent for him to present in the House.


Madam Speaker:: I fail to see how Members could give their consent or refuse their consent if they have not heard what the motion is all about. I believe what the Hon. Member is referring to is that if consent is given, then of course the Speaker will have to put the motion to the House. However, we are now just hearing the Hon. Member tell us what the motion is all about so that the House can pronounce itself on whatever he is proposing.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member could clarify something for the House. I know that he is an excellent reader. I have been following very closely and it seems to me that he is reading Motion No. 58, which is already on the Order Paper. Can he clarify for the House why he is re-reading an amendment which is on the Order Paper as Motion No. 58?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, first of all, I agree wholeheartedly with the point made by the Hon. Member who spoke before the previous speaker. As I said earlier, it is clear that we are not consenting to any request at this time for amendments to Bill C-155. Obviously this is a waste of time and a clear case of filibustering, and I may refer the Chair to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, Citation 238, which allows the Chair to interrupt these silly games, since, and I quote:
Points of order are justified when there is some flagrant misuse of the rules, but they are unfortunate necessities which should not be regarded as usual phases of procedure and ought not to develop into long arguments with the Speaker who, being in a quasi-judicial position, should not be drawn into controversial discussions.
Furthermore, Citation 234(2) prescribes, and 1 quote:
(2) A Member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion.
So when they ask for unanimous consent, they are proposing a motion. That is clear. It is common knowledge. It seems we have wasted one hour and ten minutes. The Progressive Conservatives did not want a vote today. There will be none on the time allocation motion. We are going to propose the motion to limit debate just the same, but it seems to me that for the sake of order in this House, the Chair should not allow members to abuse the authority of the House and the Standing Orders in this fashion.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is simply asking whether the House could waive the usual notice for proposing an amendment. I am very sorry, but I fail to see how I could agree with the arguments of the Hon. Minister. I think I have no choice but to ask the House whether ... I cannot allow the House to refuse unanimous consent outright without knowing what for. I think that goes beyond the duties of the Speaker. I think the House may dispose of the matter, but it cannot do so unless it knows what that matter is.
That is why I am allowing Hon. Members, notwithstanding all the time this is taking ... I agree with the Hon. Minister, it is taking a lot of time, but I am not in the Chair to decide whether the business of the House should be accelerated or slowed down. I am in the Chair to apply the Standing Orders of the House. According to my best judgment, it seems to me quite legitimate at this time to allow Hon. Members to ask the House that notice of motion for their amendments be waived.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I may refer you to Hansard for Monday afternoon. The Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) himself maintained, and he is on record as saying so, that asking for unanimous consent is in itself a motion, which should be submitted in writing if requested, and in fact, Monday afternoon a Government Member was asked to make a written request for unanimous consent, seconded by another Member. I am referring to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, who decided to withdraw his request. Thus, to get back to the point made by the Member for Yukon, a request for unanimous consent is a motion in itself. We are asking that it be submitted in writing today, and since it is a motion, the citation from Beauchesne to which I referred earlier forbids a Member to use a point of order to propose a motion. That was Citation 234(2).
The Clerk was in the House Monday afternoon. He can tell the Chair what happened. It is the same point that was made by my Hon. Colleague for Yukon who said: Asking for unanimous consent is a motion. If a Member demands that a request for unanimous consent be made in writing, it then becomes a motion and that is what we are doing now. We are demanding that the request for unanimous consent be made in writing, duly seconded, thereby becoming a motion and consequently inadmissible on a point of order, in accordance with Citation 234(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid the Hon. Minister is confusing a request for proposing a motion, a request for unanimous consent for proposing a motion and a request for waiving the notice required to propose a motion. I must therefore allow the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to proceed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, in order to save time, I will not begin again. I have lost the drift of the motions. The
October 20, 1983

Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park had a question on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I think I will have to seek clarification from the Hon. Member. Is he asking for unanimous consent to waive the notice on a motion which is already on the Order Paper? It is not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will deal with that now.


Madam Speaker:: Of course, if Hon. Members are reading texts that are too long, the Speaker at some point may say that it might be sufficient to seek unanimous consent for waiving the notice and that the Hon. Member shall just give the House the gist of the proposal. I trust that the Hon. Member will read as fast as he has been reading since he began his intervention.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I can assure you that if there was ever an important issue that came before the House in my political career, this is the most important one. I do not take it frivolously and I am-


Madam Speaker:: There is no debate. The Hon. Member will just read the motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I meant what I said. The fact of the matter is that the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park asked whether this motion varied from the motion that is on the Order Paper. Of course, if he had been following closely, he would know that it is not the same. It changed "the company" to "railway companies". Clause 4 that I have added is a new proposition with respect to the matter of the appropriate toll that will be the Crow rate as opposed to the new rate proposed by the Government. He will understand that Clause 10, which I am about to read, is quite different. The provisions of this proposal which are designed to protect the producers of the country are much stronger than the Government's proposals, and that is what I want to include in the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I shall just carry on and read the balance of this motion, if I may, Madam Speaker. It goes on to read:
(c)	Any railway company or person directly affected by an interim ex parte order made pursuant to paragraph 9(b) may at any time within ten days after becoming aware of such order, apply to the Commission to vary, amend or rescind such order and the Commission shall thereupon, on such notice to other parties interested as it may in its discretion think desirable, hear such application, and either amend, alter or rescind such order, or dismiss the application, as may seem to it just and right.
(d)	Any interim order made pursuant to paragraph 9(b) shall apply for a period not to exceed one hundred and eighty days but any such order may, within the said period, be converted by the Commission to a permanent order.
(e)	If railway companies affected by any order requiring them to provide reciprocal and other arrangements are unable to agree as to compensation each should receive or pay, the Commission may, by order, fix the amount of such compensation but in no instance shall such compensation exceed the variable costs associated with the provision of such reciprocal and other arrangements.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 have been following the Hon. Member and he read subclause (c),
Business of the House
(d) and (e) which are identical to the words of Motion No. 58 on pages LXXVIII and LXXIX of the Order Paper. I have just followed the wording of three subclauses and the Hon. Member used identical words, Madam Speaker.
I would like a ruling on this, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member said that he had new amendments. If those amendments are new, we are prepared to hear them out and either give them unanimous consent or not. However, if they are a repeat of motions on the Order Paper, simply to change one or two words does not change the intent of the motions.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You're wasting time.


Madam Speaker:: To begin with, it is very difficult for the Chair to determine whether or not it is exactly the same text. The Hon. Member said that it was not exactly the same text. He did say that there were a few words changed, but I do believe that the change of even a few words within the clauses of a Bill can be quite important. According to the Hon. Member's own admission, it is not exactly the same text. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West to continue.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, thank you very much. The fact is, of course-


Madam Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please read the motion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Would you like me to begin again, Madam Speaker? No, 1 will not.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. All of that fuss made me lose track of the gist of what the Hon. Member was saying. May he go back and start from the beginning so that I will know what he is talking about?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot allow that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to satisfy your mind, Madam Speaker, and the mind of the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park, the motion that he is referring to on the Order Paper stands in my name. I can assure the Hon. Member that the motion that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West is seeking consent to move is different from the motion that stands in my name. It has a different meaning, Madam Speaker, from that of the motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper.


Madam Speaker:: That clears up the matter. It is not the same text. The Hon. Member will please continue to read.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The motion continues as follows:
(10)(a) For the purposes of this section, the Administrator may, on behalf of any grain shipper or group of grain shippers, commence any proceedings

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
before the Commission or the Courts to secure any of the remedies herein provided.
(b)	Where any remedy, against a railway company, other than the remedies provided herein, is available to shippers pursuant to this Act, the Railway Act, or the National Transportation Act, the Administrator is deemed to be a shipper and he may pursue such a remedy or remedies and any remedy or remedies he obtains, shall to the fullest possible degree, apply to all grain shippers."
and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
You will understand that there is no provision which is similar, Madam Speaker. There is a motion on the Order Paper in similar but not identical terms. This is a stronger provision, a provision out of the Railway Act, which will allow the railways to provide adequate equipment to move grain across the country. While there is a similar provision in the motion on the Bill, this is much stronger in that it allows the Senior Grain Transportation Administrator to be given power to act as the shipper on behalf of producers and to go to court and pursue legal proceedings.
Accordingly, because I think this is a matter of very serious interest, I would ask you to seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for waiving of notice for the amendments proposed by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Oberle:: Madam Speaker, it will be immediately apparent that the Government might have made a grave error had it not permitted, or indeed, had you not permitted, the reading of some of these motions, because the motion that I am seeking consent for-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I ask Hon. Members not to debate. They should use the simple formula, "Could the House give me unanimous consent for so and so". That is all I will allow.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, of course I respect your ruling. I will ask the House Leader of the Government, through you, whether it would not be in the interests of the Government to give unanimous consent to the following motion:
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 16 the following:
"Agreement with railway companies other than railway companies subject to the jurisdiction of Parliament
34.(1) The Minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty, enter into agreements with railway companies in Section 2, where he finds that such railway companies carry grain from any point on their lines of railway west of
Thunder Bay or Armstrong to Thunder Bay, Armstrong, Churchill or a port in British Columbia for export.
(2) Any agreement entered into by the parties pursuant to subsection (I) shall impose obligations and grant rights which are in no substantive way any different from the obligations and rights contained in this Act, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, such agreement shall
(a)	not result in any enlargement of the Crow Benefit as defined in Section 34(1);
(b)	impose on the railway company a requirement that it be subject to the same obligations which are imposed by this Act on railway companies as defined in Section 2;
(c)	be subject to revision whenever any review of costing or other issues is performed pursuant to any provision of this Act; and,
(d)	be subject to any regulations made pursuant to Section 69." and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
Naturally, Madam Speaker, 1 would also ask consent that any subsequent clauses be accordingly renumbered. I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House for this motion since Bill C-155 explicitly deletes one of our major railways in the country. Naturally-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is beyond reading his amendment. Has he finished reading his amendment to the House?


Frank Oberle: The amendment is read. Madam Speaker, and 1 ask that you put the motion.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: 
Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am following Motion No. 1 and so far the words are identical. Would the Hon. Member please indicate to the House how his new amendment differs from Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I do not want to embarrass the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
October 20, 1983

but if he had been following the debate on this Bill he would have realized that the motion I am reading was ruled out of order by the Chair. I am now asking the unanimous consent of the House to put this motion forward, as is the right of any Member on any side, and the Government will be rising to do the same thing. With that, Madam Speaker, I should like to continue.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I seek your ruling. If you, together with all your Table officers, made a ruling that Motion No. 1 was out of order, and the Hon. Member now, via the back door, wants to introduce it again, he is really challenging your ruling.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid that 1 cannot allow the Hon. Member to continue reading his motion since that is one I had declared out of order. If the Hon. Member wants to resuscitate that motion, he can do it at another time when the item is called before the House. He cannot do it at this point because we are asking now to waive notice, so the Hon. Member would have to correct the beginning of his intervention. We are not asking the House to give unanimous consent to a motion. Since that motion was declared out of order I am afraid 1 cannot continue to hear the Hon. Member.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, as a point of clarification, can you tell me, would that mean that in asking for consent to waive the notice, the motion would have to be put forward at another time? If, in reading this motion, it is found to be different, as it is, to try and assure us that the Government and the Speaker would find it in order, then in my opinion it would be in order to continue to read it, only not in the way that I would be asking the waiving of consent. We would do that at another time if unanimous consent is not allowed for the presentation of this motion.
The point is, Madam Speaker, that until I come to the part in the statement of purpose of this motion that is different from the main part that was ruled out of order, I do not know whether you can say if it was out of order or if Members of the Government would be able to say it was acceptable to them.


Madam Speaker:: That motion was ruled out of order, therefore the Hon. Member cannot resuscitate it at this time. If the Hon. Member wants to resuscitate his motion with some changes, first of all the Chair would have to find it admissible, then the Hon. Member could ask anything he wants by unanimous consent. However, in this particular case, I am afraid 1 cannot continue to hear the Hon. Member.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the point I am making is that the basis of this was ruled out or order. The last paragraph has been changed from that which was ruled on by the Table. If the Parliamentary Secretary would like me to read the last paragraph, as he is looking at the original, then I could do so and both he and you would know, and so would all Hon. Members of the House, that there has been a change in the intention of this motion.
Business of the House


Madam Speaker:: If we are going to go through all the amendments which I declared out of order, it is going to take some time. If the Hon. Member is telling me now that he is asking to waive notice for a new amendment-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: This is new.


Madam Speaker:: It is new? The first paragraphs which were read indicate to the Chair that it is the one which I had declared out of order. If I must hear it until the end in order to realize it is a new motion, I suppose I must hear it. However, you understand that I was reluctant to allow Hon. Members to bring back amendments which I had declared out of order. If it is a new one, of course, I have to hear the Hon. Member.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I will read you the last part of the amendment so you are assured, as well as Hon. Members of the House. Paragraph (h) reads:
All these being a statement of purpose proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party and has been consistent with the five principles put forth in the initial debating of Bill C-155.
That is the difference, Madam Speaker. Therefore, I contend it is a new motion.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to waiving the notice on this particular motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Cooper:: Madam Speaker, I have one motion to which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader will be quite happy to give unanimous consent. 1 am sure he will understand the importance of it. It is:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by immediately adding after line 25 at page 8 the following:
"17.(5) The Administrator shall examine the feasibility of the utilization of off line elevators on grain-dependent branch lines designated as abandoned by the Commission, or where no grain-designated branch line exists, where, in his opinion, such utilization of off line elevators would be in the best interests of producers."
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary can see the importance of this motion to one of the unique regions of this country, namely, the Peace country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Schellenberger:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to put a new amendment before this House, as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by adding immediately after line 25 the following:

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
"(5) The Administrator shall, in consultation with the Senior Grain Transportation Committee representatives, allow representatives of the livestock producers, feed grain users, the Minister and anyone else the Administrator deems appropriate, develop for implementation a program to utilize an agricultural adjustment fund to reduce the economic distortions existing within the western agricultural sector, with particular reference to the livestock industry."
I ask for unanimous consent to put this very important amendment to the House as the Minister said that that money is in the envelope and should be used.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid I have to correct the Hon. Member. He is asking, of course, for unanimous consent to waive notice.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I also wish to rise on House business. 1 would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Clause 62 of Bill C-155-


Madam Speaker:: Could I correct the Hon. Member? Hon. Members are not asking for unanimous consent to put a motion to the House but, rather, to waive notice. That has to be very clear because we are not putting motions to the House nor asking unanimous consent for that.


Donald W. Munro: i would like unanimous consent to waive the notice, Madam Speaker. The amendment I have is:
That Clause 62 of Bill C-155 be amended by deleting lines 19 to 23-
And I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport will not find this particular wording in the Order Paper.
-at page 35, and substituting the following therefor: "thereto, the Government of Canada shall, so as to be in conformity with the terms of Section 92A(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, return to the Government of British Columbia all lands and any mineral, coal or other rights on those lands it acquired pursuant to paragraph 1 (i) of the Crow's Nest Pass Act, and the Government of British Columbia may hold, dispose of, or otherwise deal with such lands in any manner and on any conditions it thinks fit."
An explanation of that particular-


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Madam Speaker:: There is no explanation allowed. If the Hon. Member has finished reading the amendment, I will ask the House, is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Towers:: Madam Speaker, by your ruling today you certainly have made a lot of friends in western Canada, allowing a prairie boy to be heard. I would like to-


Madam Speaker:: I must, I would think, ask the Hon. Member not to refer to any decision of the Speaker in those terms. The Speaker does not seek to have friends. As a matter of fact, I think the Speaker does not have very many friends.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Government House Leader, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, if the Government would be prepared to waive notice and grant unanimous consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 42 by immediately adding after line 20 at page 24 the following:
"(a) The Commission may, on its own motion or on receiving information by complaint or otherwise conduct an investigation with respect to any condition of carriage contained in the tariff.
(b)	Should the Commission find, as a result of such investigation that the condition of carriage is not in conformity with the provisions of this Act or the purposes and objectives thereof, it may disallow such condition of carriage or order that it be amended so as to comply with the provisions of this Act or the purposes and objectives thereof."
I ask, Madam Speaker, that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of the report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Huntington:: Madam Speaker, on House business I would like to ask the Government House Leader if, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive notice and consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out Lines 40 to 42 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"(1) Notwithstanding Section 55, the Governor in Council may, subject to subsection (2), make regulations prescribing"
"(a) the manner in which and the parties to whom payment of the government contribution under this Part shall be made;"
I ask, Madam Speaker, that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?
October 20, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive notice and consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House. This motion may well save the cattle industry, the hog industry and the processing industry of western Canada. The motion is as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 6 at page 35 the following:
"60(1) Following the completion of any review or study carried out under section 59, the Minister, within 120 days, shall prepare a detailed and comprehensive response to such review or study, including the Minister's acceptance or rejection of each conclusion and recommendation contained in any review or study and the reasons therefore.
60(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of his response referred to in subsection (1) to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament sits after the preparation of that response and such response shall stand permanently referred to any Committee of Parliament established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to transportation."


Madam Speaker:: Order. Has the Hon. Member finished reading the amendment?


Gordon Edward Taylor: In any event, Madam Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to waive notice that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to waive notice of this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to waive notice of a motion to amend Bill C-155. The motion is very important and it reads as follows:

That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 14 to 18 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
Grain means Alfalfa meal, pellets or cubes; dehydrated, Barley. Buckwheat. Canary seeds. Corn. Faba beans. Field beans. Field peas. Flaxseed. Forage seeds. Lentils. Mustard seed. Oats. Pulse. Rapeseed or Canola-

-Rye. Seed grain in sacks. Sunflower seeds. Wheat. Barley, crushed. Barley, pearl. Barley, pot. Barley sprouts. Bran.
Adjournment Motion

-and also, Madam Speaker-
-Breakfast Foods or Cereals (uncooked) in bags, barrels or cases. Manufactured from commodities only as listed in this Schedule.

-Corn, cracked. Feed, animal and/or poultry (not medicated or condimental), containing not more than thirty-five per cent (35 per cent) of ingredients other than commodities as specified in this Schedule, in bags or barrels or in bulk. Flour, made from grain or malt only in bags or barrels or bulk flour, pea. Grain, feed, in sacks. Hulls, oat. Malt (made from grain only). Meal, barley. Meal, corn. Meal, linseed. Meal, oat. Meal, pea. Meal, rye. Meal, wheat.

-Meal, Oil Cake, Linseed. Meal, Oil Cake, Rapeseed or Canola. Meal, Oil Cake, Sunflower Seed-

-Middlings. Oats, crushed. Oats, rolled. Oil, linseed. Oil, rapeseed or canola. Oil, sunflower. Oil cake, linseed. Oil cake, rapeseed or canola. Oil cake, sunflower seed. Screenings (applicable only on screenings from grains specified herein). Wheat germ. Wheat, rolled.
Many of these things are what the Government wants as well, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to waive notice.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam 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 Burlington (Mr. Kempling)-Trust companies (a) Refusal to rewrite mortgages at lower rates, (b) Protection requested for home owners; the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-Air Canada-Gimli accident (a) Request for public inquiry into safety procedures, (b) Disciplining of employees- Request for postponement; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Medical care (a) Development of preventive health care systems, (b) Health care funding.

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
[English]	Madam Speaker: It is an explanation, I was right. I am
listening. The Hon. Member has finished reading his BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE	amendment?


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, if the Government would be prepared to waive notice and consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out deleting Lines 27 to 37 at Page 37 and Lines 1 to 14 at Page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"70(1) For the purpose of applying this Act in respect of the period beginning on January 1, 1984 and ending on July 31, 1986, notwithstanding anything in this Act,
(a)	the rate a railway company may charge to a shipper for the movement of grain shall not exceed the rate scale provided in Schedule II;
(b)	the contribution to constant costs referred to in the definition "estimated eligible costs" in section 34(1) shall be zero percent of the volume related variable costs; and
(c)	the Commission within thirty days after the coming into force of this Act, shall designate and in the manner it determines publish a list of the railway branch lines or segments thereof in the Western Division that shall be deemed to be grain-dependent branch lines for the 1983-84 crop year."


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. King:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive notice and consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 55 by adding immediately after Line 29 at Page 32 the following:
"(5) The Commission shall undertake to develop a costing system, for possible application after the 1985-1986 crop year, which will allow the railway companies a contribution to constant costs for the movement of grain based on and reflective of new railway investment required to accommodate the movement of grain."
This amendment would leave with the CTC the responsibility to approve the principle of contribution to constant costs based on an assessment of the performance of the railways in fulfilling their obligation to producers in the movement of grain over the period 1984 to 1986. It would further permit the railways sufficient-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is giving explanations, I believe.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: He is still reading the amendment?


Frederick John King: It is an explanation.


Frederick John King: I am finished with the amendment. I thought the House would benefit from the explanation.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure they were great words of wisdom, but I am afraid that I cannot allow the Hon. Member to continue. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I also rise on a point of order concerning House business. I would ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to waive the usual notice and allow the following motion to be put to the House.

(a)	by striking out line 14 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:

"59. (I) The Minister shall, during the 1985-
(b)	by adding immediately after line 6 at page 35 the following:
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the results of any review or study carried out under this section to be laid before Parliament on any of the first twenty days that either House of Parliament sits after the completion of such review or study and such copy shall stand permanently referred to any committee of Parliament established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to transportation."
I do so, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of parliamentary democracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The proposal has been read. No explanation is needed. Does the House grant its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 3 at page 1 the following:
1. It is hereby declared that an economic, efficient and reliable grain transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest, reasonable total cost is essential to protect the interests of the grain producers and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of western Canada, and that these objectives are most likely to be achieved under conditions ensuring that:
(a) grain producers retain the benefit of a statutory freight rate and are protected from freight rate cost increases disproportionate to international grain prices;
October 20, 1983

(b)	the railway companies and the Government of Canada accept a continuing obligation to provide producers with a special transportation rate for the movement of grain;
(c)	the Government of Canada makes an annual financial contribution to the grain transportation system to ensure fair compensation for the movement of grain;
(d)	the railway companies provide adequate equipment and plant capacity to move grain efficiently and reliably;
(e)	the natural advantages of western agriculture are recognized and strengthened;
(f)	the economic distortions within the western Canadian agricultural sector-


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just previously it was ruled that a motion that had been ruled out of order by the Speaker cannot be raised here again today. Just changing a few words but not the intent of the motion does not change the amendment. I suggest that you rule this amendment out of order. The Hon. Member is strictly out of order. He is repeating Motion No. 1 which the Speaker ruled out of order at report stage.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The submission has been made that a change of a word or two may not make a significant difference. 1 bring to your attention that the expression "execute, not wait till I come" as changed by the expression "execute not, wait till I come" is different only by a comma. I submit that the Hon. Member opposite would not like to make his choice of those two.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you are asking me to proceed. The motion goes on to read:
(f)	the economic distortions within the western Canadian agricultural sector stemming from a statutory rate are reduced livestock products and processed agricultural products;
(g)	grain producers receive adequate guarantees of system performance and service,
and this Act is enacted in accordance with and for the attainment of so many
of these objectives as fall within the purview of subject matters under the
jurisdiction of Parliament relating to grain transportation, and by renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport is also helping us in this endeavour. Therefore, I ask, in view of the support from the Parliamentary Secretary and others, that you seek unanimous consent that the matter be put before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on House business. I ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the
Business of the House
following motion to be put to the House. This is the notice of motion:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 44 at page 26 the following:
(5)(a) Ancillary charges are charges for services performed by a railway company in addition to the line-haul movement of grain.
(b) The Commission may, by order, prescribe the level of ancillary charges but in no case shall that amount exceed the level that in the opinion of the Commission is necessary to meet the variable cost of an ancillary service.
In any event, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House for the motion as read to be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member explain how the amendment she read differs from Motion No. 49 on the Order Paper?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre wish to respond?


Pat Carney: I will read the motion referred to.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I am not sure which motion the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is looking at. Motion No. 94 stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West. It reads as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 10 to 17 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor: debated and on the conclusion of the debate the Speaker shall forthwith put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion


Jesse Philip Flis: I asked for the difference between the amendment read and Motion No. 94.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The House heard the proposal put by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre. Does it grant its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because, as a Member of the House, I am quite confused at this particular moment. I will ask you to clarify the rules of the House for me.
It seems to me that we have reintroduced a form of Standing Order 43 in our rules today. We have reintroduced a selective and extended form of Standing Order 43 in a substantive way.
I want a ruling from the Chair before tomorrow as to whether or not I, as an independent Member of the House, can use exactly the same procedure being used here today to request unanimous consent to certain motions that I would like to put to the House as I used to move under Standing Order 43. I suggest to you very strongly that that is exactly what we have done here today. I want a ruling from the Chair at the

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
earliest opportunity as to whether or not we can use this type of procedure tomorrow, the day after and the day after that, even though it may be related to other Bills on the Order Paper or to matters before the House. 1 would like some direction from the Chair with regard to this ruling at the earliest opportunity. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I hoped to have asked Madam Speaker this very question but I could not get recognized. 1 hope the Chair will provide some guidance in this regard at the earliest opportunity because, in my view, we have reintroduced Standing Order 43 in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. I think the Hon. Member for Edmonton East appears to misunderstand the process that is under way at the present time. Under House business, Members are merely asking that the normal notice period be waived and that the Government give consideration to certain proposed amendments to the legislation. This is quite different from the old practice of presenting motions under Standing Order 43 for the immediate consideration of the House which required unanimous consent in order that they be introduced and debated immediately.
I submit that the present process is quite different and consistent with the rulings of the Speaker earlier and is well justified by the case made by the House Leader for the Official Opposition and the critic for transport on this side.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta. Many of the points he made were similar to the ones I was going to make. But let me just point out that what we are dealing with here is House business and is different from Standing Order 43 which, in fact, has the full range of questions. The other significant difference which should be brought to the Chair's attention is that Standing Order 43 traditionally was used any day the House sat. House business is a process that takes place only on Thursdays. The point which the Hon. Member for Edmonton East is attempting to make that this is a situation that can carry on in the same way as Standing Order 43 simply is not an understanding of what Members are doing here today.
1 would submit that the Chair has no way in which it would be able to say, as the Hon. Member for Edmonton East is implying, that there is a connection between what we are doing today and Standing Order 43.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. 1 am sure that when the Hon. Member for Edmonton East reads the full record of today's proceedings he will find ample explanation of what is presently going on. I advise him to check that record in print tomorrow.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, as we are dealing with House business at this time, 1 would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate
and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive the normal notice requirement and consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House at some future date. The proposed motion reads as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 59 by striking out lines 22 to 34 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the appointment of cost increases between the Government of Canada and the shippers of grain in respect of the period beyond the 1985-1986 crop year, having due regard to the producers' ability to pay, having regard to trends in the incomes of producers, the relationship between transportation costs borne by the producers and the price of grain and the economic position of the producers relative to other major sectors of the national economy and to any other factors that the Minister considers relevant;"
I emphasize the words "having due regard to the producers' ability to pay". In any event, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.
May I ask that the question be put?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on House business. I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive the normal notice requirement and to allow the following motion to be put to the House. I wish the Government House Leader were here to hear the amendment. It reads:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out lines 43 to 44 at page 24 and by striking out lines 1 to 6 at page 25 substituting the following therefor:
"44. (2) In establishing rates, the distance from any point on any line of railway of the Canadian National Railway Company west of Edmonton to any port in British Columbia shall be deemed to be equal to the distance from that point to Vancouver on the line of railway of the Canadian National Railway Company."
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion, as read, be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
October 20, 1983


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on House business. I, too, would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, and Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow notices of motion to be waived and the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page 15 which reads as follows:
"(5) The members of the Committee shall treat in a confidential manner any information submitted under this section that is identified and treated as confidential by the railway company that submitted the information."
In any event, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the Hon. Member's request. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on House business. I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive notice and consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 8 to 17, at page 13, and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (1) shall be debated for not more than five sitting days and at the expiration of the five sitting days the Speaker shall forthwith without further debate or amendment put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion."
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal of the Hon. Member for Bow River. Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on House business. I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by adding after line 5 at page 18 the following therefor:
Business of the House
" "line-related costs" means the costs associated with branch line operations consisting principally of maintenance and the cost of capital and depreciation of assets used in the branch line;"
That is a new definition of a phrase which the Government uses over and over in the Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the proposal. Does it grant its unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, a Bill which is important not only to western Canada but vital to the longterm interests of Ontario and other parts of central Canada, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow a notice of motion to be waived for the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 44 by striking out lines 35 to 42 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"44.(1) In establishing rates, the distance from Edmonton or Calgary to any port in British Columbia on any line of railway shall be deemed to be equal to the distance from Edmonton to Vancouver on the line of railway of the Canadian National Railway Company."
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the Hon. Member's proposal. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to give unanimous consent to waive notice

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
so that a motion could be put which would allow the continuance of the canola crushing industry in western Canada, without which that industry would die. Surely that is not something the Government would like to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please read his motion.


Harvie Andre: 1 was just going to do that, Mr. Speaker. The motion is:
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding "(1)" after "41" on line 15 at page 24 and by adding a new subsection 41(2) immediately after line 17:
"41(2) Rates for that part of domestic and grain movements east of Thunder Bay or Armstrong, Ontario on canola oil and canola meal crushed in the Western Division shall be established by order annually by the Commission at minimum compensatory levels."
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


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


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to ask the Government House Leader, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, if the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 25 to 34 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The sanctions referred to in subparagraph (l)(b)(ii) shall, in respect of any railway company, consist of a reduction in the government payment to the railway company under Part III, as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, not exceeding an amount that, in the opinion of the Commission, is equal to 25 per cent of the volume-related variable costs of the railway company."
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to request an explanation. 1 understand that when you call for unanimous consent the one Member of the House who is saying "no" and
therefore is not granting unanimous consent is the Hon. Member for St. Boniface. I have noticed that he has been saying "no"-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. The Chair asked if there was unanimous consent, and the Chair distinctly heard a voice saying "no".


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to ask the Government for unanimous consent to waive notice for a motion that will improve Bill C-155-

-and the motion is as follows, Mr. Speaker:
That Bill C-155 be amended by striking out the heading "Part IV" preceding Clause 59 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:


&quot;PART IV
[Stage Direction]
59.	In this Part,
"freight to price ratio", in respect of any calendar year, means an amount equal to the quotient, expressed as a percentage obtained by dividing the average cost to the shipper of moving one tonne of grain in that calendar year by the weighted average price for that calendar year;
"shipper share limitation adjustment", in respect of any calendar year, means an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
Mr. Speaker-
(a)	the number of percentage points by which the freight to price ratio in that calendar year exceeds 3 per cent,
by
(b)	the product obtained by multiplying the weighted average price for that calendar year by the total number of tonnes of grain moved in that calendar year;
"six grains" means wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed;
"weighted average price", in respect of any calendar year, means the weighted average determined under paragraph 60(1 )(6) in respect of that calendar year.
60.	(1) The Commission shall, on or before March 1st of each year, using the information that it deems appropriate, determine, in respect of the preceding calendar year,
(a)	the average price per tonne at which each of the six grains, in storage, was available for sale on each trading day at the port that handled the largest volume of that grain in the calendar year;
(b)	the average of the average prices referred to in paragraph (a), weighted on the basis of the number of tonnes of each of the six grains moved in the calendar year;
(c)	the average cost to the shipper of moving one tonne of grain in the calendar year; and
{d) the freight to price ratio.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (l)(tf), the average price per tonne at which each of the six grains was available for sale shall be determined on the basis of the price per tonne of the grade of each of those grains the largest volume of which was moved in the calendar year.
And finally-

[Stage Direction]
and by renumbering the subsequent Parts and Clauses and amending all references accordingly.-The Minister of Transport.
October 20, 1983
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, do I have unanimous consent to move this motion which is very important for the producers of Western Canada?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to the following motion which, if agreeable by unanimous consent, I would like to put to the House. If I may first mention that this is one motion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I invite the Hon. Member to read the proposed motion only. Is the Hon. Member asking for unanimous consent for the motion he has read?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have not read it yet, Mr. Speaker. My motion is:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 55 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 32 the following:
"55.(4) No payment shall be made to any company which is one of the railway companies until such time as that company has
(a)	obtained a certificate of continuance under the Canada Business Corporations Act; and
I note, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is writing it as I read it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please read his motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: (b)	legally committed itself to pay interest at a rate of not less than 11 per cent on any of its bonds, notes, mortgages, debentures or debenture stock which had been issued prior to 1897 and each of its subsidiaries has made a legal commitment to pay interest at a rate of not less than 11 per cent on any of its bonds, notes, mortgages, debentures or debenture stock which have been issued prior to 1897 and in each case payable in the same currency and at the same times as previously payable."
In short, this is to help the widows and orphans-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has finished reading his motion. Is he asking for the unanimous consent of the House?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Govern-
Business of the House
ment would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House. This is the motion:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by adding after line 7 at page 18 the following thereto:
" "minimum compensatory rate" means a rate which only marginally exceeds the variable costs;"
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there consent for the Hon. Member to present the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to ask the Government House Leader, or in his absence the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, if he would be prepared, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, to waive notice and to allow for unanimous consent for the following motion to be put to the House. This is the motion:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by deleting lines 20 to 40 at page 17 and lines 1 to 3 at page 18 which read as follows:
"estimated eligible costs", in respect of any crop year, means an amount equal to the aggregate of
(a)	the volume-related variable costs of the railway companies for the movement of grain and their line-related variable costs for grain dependent branch lines, as estimated by the Commission pursuant to section 39, and
(b)	the following phased-in contribution to the constant costs of the railway companies, namely,
(i)	in respect of the 1983-84 crop year, 5% of the volume-related variable costs,
(ii)	in respect of the 1984-85 crop year, 10% of the volume-related variable costs,
(iii)	in respect of the 1985-86 crop year, 15% of the volume-related variable costs, and
(iv)	in respect of the 1986-87 and subsequent crop years, 20% of the volume-related variable costs;
and substituting the following therefor:
" "estimated eligible costs" in respect of any crop year means an amount equal to the aggregate of the volume-related variable costs of the railway companies for the movement of grain and their line-related variable costs for grain-dependent branch lines."
In any event, I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to waive notice so that the motion that I just read can be placed on the Order Paper for debate and consideration at report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?

October 20, 1983
Business of the House


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive notice and to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 31 to 36 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) compute the cost of capital in accordance with such principles as the Commission deems appropriate and adjust that cost by any amount it deems justified in light of any risk associated with the movement of grain as determined by the Commission;"
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
[ Translation]


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to move the next motion in English.

I would like to ask the Government House Leader, who has just come into the Chamber, whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, he would be prepared to waive notice and allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 14 the following:
"(3) The Government of Canada shall provide sufficient funds to rehabilitate those railway branch lines, protected by order in council against abandonment to the year 2000, to a level of utility allowing reliable train service year-round in reasonable circumstances and such rehabilitation shall be disbursed by August 1, 1990."
1 ask you, Mr. Speaker, of course to seek the unanimous consent of the House for this motion as read to be placed on the Order Paper, as requested by the Minister of Transport, for debate during consideration of the report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 6 at page 35 the following:
"60.(1) Following the completion of any review or study carried out under section 59, the Minister within 90 days, shall prepare a detailed and comprehensive response to such review or study, including the Minister's acceptance or rejection of each conclusion and recommendation contained in any review or study and the reasons therefor.
(2)	The Minister shall cause a copy of his response referred to in subsection
(1)	to be laid before Parliament on any of the first 20 days that either House of Parliament sits after the preparation of that response and such response shall stand permanently referred to any Committee of Parliament established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to transportation."
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House on that motion as read and that it be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, on House business, 1 would like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive notice and to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 46 by striking out lines 41 to 46 at page 25 and by striking out lines 1 to 2 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"46(1) Notwithstanding Section 45, but subject to subsection (2), a railway company may, in respect of any crop year, include in its tariff a rate that is lower than that provided by Schedule II in respect of any point of origin that was treated as a competitive or contiguous point in the tariff of rates applicable to the 1981-1982 crop year or which are subsequently declared to be competitive or continguous points by the Commission; thus ensuring that producers receive the benefit of any economics affected by railways or as a result of changing national circumstances."
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
October 20, 1983


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a somewhat different matter I wish to raise on House business, if I may. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council will recall that last week and the week before, I raised on one occasion with him and on another occasion with the Government House Leader the question of the disposition of Bill C-653. He will also recall that it has been a matter of considerable concern to this Party for quite some time.
1 wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader is in a position today to respond to my inquiries in regard to that particular piece of legislation, whether it is the intention of the Government to facilitate its being brought forward and whether we might expect it to be considered along with the business that the Government House Leader indicated earlier today would be considered prior to the projected date of prorogation.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that there have been ongoing discussions between the various Parties with regard to the disposition of Bill C-653 and Bill C-12. I cannot tell the Hon. Member at this time precisely what the disposition of those discussions will be, but I would certainly speak to the Minister about the Hon. Member's question and representation.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, to pursue this issue for a moment, 1 get the impression that there may be other opportunities for the Parliamentary Secretary to respond to this question. I wonder if he might be able, given that I understand we do not have a great deal of time before prorogation, to check it out and report to me, even though it is out of turn, so to speak. I wonder if he might find it possible to respond to me tomorrow or on Monday at the latest, even though it will not be Thursday.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will do my best to do that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a proposal forward on House business to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council in the capacity of House Leader. In the interests of facilitating the debate and improving Bill C-155, I wonder if the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put before the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 13 at page 34 the following new Clause:
"59.(1) Where pursuant to Sections 55 and 58, the Governor in Council authorizes payments other than payments to the railway companies, or has authorized part of the payments to the railway companies and part to a party or parties other than the railway companies, the Governor in Council, nothwithstanding any other provision in this Act, shall prescribe by regulation such measures as will be required to ensure that the aggregate rate per tonne to be paid to the railway companies shall be equal to the aggregate rate per tonne as if all payments were made to the railway companies.
(2)	Where regulations have been prescribed pursuant to sections 58(1 )(a) and section 59, sections 22 to 28 inclusive apply mutatis mutandis." and by renumbering the subsequent cLauses accordingly.
I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, particularly in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's keen interest in this matter, whether you could inquire of the House and the Government if they
Business of the House
would agree to giving unanimous consent to placing this motion on the Order Paper for the report stage of Bill C-155 for purposes of debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on House business and I would like to ask the Acting House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and the improvement of Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Schedule I at page 39 by adding the following: Beet pulp. Brewers' dried grain. Canary seed. Chopped feed. Dehydrated alfalfa meal or pellets or cubes, round or square. Distillers' dried grain. Faba beans. Field beans. Field peas. Flour in bulk. Flour, pea. Forage seeds. Lentils. Meal, pea. Meal, feed. Mustard seed. Pulse.
Pulse refers to all those crops described as pulse crops which, Mr. Speaker, are an innovation and very important in western Canada.
Shorts. Sunflowerseed. Sunflowerseed oil. Triticale. Barley. Barley, crushed. Meal. Oil Cake Linseed. Oil Cake, Rapeseed, Canola. Oil Cake, Sunflower Seed. Meal, Rye. Meal, Wheat. Middlings. Oats. Oats, Crushed. Oats, Rolled. Oatcake, Linseed. Oatcake, Rapeseed or Canola. Oilcake, Sunflower Seed. Peas, including splits and screenings. Pea. Pea derivatives (flower, protein, isolates, fibre). Rapeseed or Canola. Rye. Screening or Screenings pellets (applicable only on Screenings from grains specified herein). Seed Grain in Sacks. Wheat. Wheat Germ. Wheat, Rolled. Sunflowers in Bags, paper or jute. Barley, Pearl. Barley, Pot. Barley, Sprouts. Beans, Split. Screenings. Bean derivatives (flour, protein, isolates, fibre). Bran. Breakfast Foods of Cereals (uncooked) in bags, barrels or cases. Manufactured from commodities only as listed in this Schedule or such commodities that may be added by Governor in Council. Corn, Cracked. Corn (not popped). Feed, Animal or Poultry (not medicated or condimental), containing not more than 35 per cent (35%) of ingredients other than commodities as specified in this Schedule, in bags, or barrels or in bulk. Flax Seed. Flour, made from grain or malt in bags or barrel or in bulk. Grain, Feed, in sacks. Groats. Hulls, Oat. Malt, (made from grain only). Meal, Barley. Meal, Corn. Meal, Linseed. Meal, Oat. Meal, Rapeseed or Canola. Beet pulp. Brewers' Dried Grain. Dehydrated Alfalfa, Pellets or Cubes. Distillers' Dried Grain. Faba Beans. Field Peas. Flour in bulk. Flour, pea. Forage seeds. Barley, Crushed. Barley. Triticale. Sunflower Oil. Sunflower Seed. Pulse. Mustard Seed Pulse. Millfeed. Meal, Pea. Lentils. Forage Seeds. Sprouts. Barley. Pearl Barley. Pot Barley. Split Beans. Screenings and derivatives of Beans, derivatives of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member sure he is not repeating one of the pages of his notes?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I may be. Mr. Speaker. I started reading from the bottom the last time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have been following this with great fascination and I can attest to the fact that the Hon. Member has not repeated one item on that list.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has listened with great attention and there certainly is repetition. Would the Hon. Member please read his motion.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I should like to do that, Mr. Speaker. It goes on:

October 20, 1983
Business of the House
Durum. Durum derivatives. Durum Flour. Durum, processed. Durum milled. Durum, consumed. Durum packaged commercially. Thatcher. Thatcher Wheat. Marquis. Marquis Wheat. Wheat, No. 1 CWRS, No. 2 CWRS, No. 3 CWRS, No. 1 utility, No. 2 utility. Durum. Durum, Red Amber. Amber Durum No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 Durum.
Unless someone has anything else to add, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member finish reading his motion, please.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would ask that "commodities may be added by Governor in Council but not removed by Governor in Council unless so authorized by Parliament".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.
The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, while we are on House business I wonder if I might direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. 1 would not want to add fiddleheads to the distinguished Member's list.
The Government having given a lot of attention in the early part of this session to Bill C-163, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he might not now be in a position to give me the right to seek waiver of consent so that we might bring on, at some point before Christmas, Bill C-163, an Act to establish the Canadian Aviation Safety Board, an Act to amend certains Acts and certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is asking for unanimous consent from the House-


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: -or is the Hon. Member seeking information?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, had you been paying attention, you would know 1 was seeking information.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair was paying as close attention as possible. He put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary, but at one point it appeared to imply that unanimous consent to bring in a certain measure was in his mind. Would the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East make clear what it is he wants.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, had you been listening to me, you would know that I asked if the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to consent to give us some indication this afternoon when the Government, having indicated to us the urgency of the Canadian aviation safety Bill, intends to
deal with this very important matter and the amendments that would be laid down with respect to certain clauses in that Bill that need extensive amendment.
The other purpose was to add fiddleheads to my hon. friend's list. I was not being disrespectful, Mr. Speaker, I was just asking that you pay some attention.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair pays careful attention to everything the Hon. Member says but sometimes has difficulty.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 am confident that the President of the Privy Council would give very careful consideration to the Hon. Member's representation as soon as we finish with Bill C-155 and Bill C-162.


Ian Deans: On the same matter, Mr. Speaker, I want to offer speedy passage should the Government decide to bring the Bill forward.


John William Bosley: On Government business, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Government House Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, it would be prepared to consent to the following motion being put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 6 at page 35 the following:
"60. (1) Following the completion of any review or study carried out under section 59, the Minister, within 100 days, shall prepare a detailed and comprehensive response to such review or study, including the Minister's acceptance or rejection of each conclusion and recommendation contained in any review or study and the reasons therefor.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of his response referred to in subsection (1) to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament sits after the preparation of that response and such response shall stand permanently referred to any Committee of Parliament established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to transportation."
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion, as read, be placed on the Order Paper for debate during the consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 8(4) I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre:
That the House continue to sit this day until 11 a.m., October 21, 1983, in order to consider Bill C-155.
I move this, Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the Opposition Members have many more suggested amendments to make to Bill C-155.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!
October 20, 1983


Jesse Philip Flis: We would like to hear those amendments. If they are really serious, Mr. Speaker, we are ready to hear those amendments.


Erik Nielsen: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must call to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary that for such a motion to be in order there must be business before the House. There is no specified business before the House at this point.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on House business. I would like to ask the Government House Leader, and in his absence his Parliamentary Secretary, whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, the Government would be prepared to waive notice and consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 59
(a)	by renumbering Clause 59 as subclause 59(1);
(b)	by striking out lines 1 to 3 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor: "(d) the appropriateness of the provisions of sections 41 to 53 respecting rates and tariff of rates;
(?) the operation and effect of Part IV; and
(/) the need for future comprehensive reviews of the operation and effects of this Act."
(?) by adding after line 6 at page 35 the following:
"(2) The Governor in Council shall, on or before March 31, 1984, appoint a committee consisting of not less than three and not more than five persons who have expertise in matters affected by this Act and represent various regional interests.
(3)	The committee shall examine all matters that, in its opinion, pertain to the method of payment in respect of grain transportation that would be the most conducive to agricultural development in Canada.
(4)	The committee has, for the purposes of carrying out its duties, the powers of a commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act and may, for those purposes, engage the services of such experts, professionals and other staff as it deems necessary or advisable at such rates of remuneration as the Treasury Board approves.
(5)	The committee shall, on or before March 30, 1985, make a report to the Minister containing its recommendations pertaining to the method referred to in subsection (3) and the Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament sits after the report has been made to the Minister."
In any event, I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to waive notice so that the motion I have just read can be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, there is not.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, again on House business, I would like to ask the Government House
Business of the House
Leader whether, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to waive notice and consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34, by striking out lines 15 to 21 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
[ Translation]
(2)	To avoid any uncertainty and remove any doubts, all sections of the Railways Act, with the exception of paragraphs 276 and 278, and of the National Transportation Act, shall apply to the transportation, shipping and handling of grain under the provisions of the present Act, unless such is not feasible.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, there is not.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on House business to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader if the Government would consider the following motion to be included for discussion on Bill C-155 in order to facilitate debate and to improve Bill C-155. I seek the unanimous consent of the House that the following motion be presented for debate:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 37 by striking out lines 32 to 46 at page 19 and lines 1 to 7 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the percentage of a rate to be borne by the shippers of grain is equal to the quotient, expressed as a percentage, obtained by dividing
(a)	the rate that was in effect on June 16, 1983, by
(b)	the rate prescribed by the Commission, pursuant to section 35.
(3)	For the purposes of subsection (1), the percentage of a rate to be borne by the Government of Canada is equal to the difference between 100 per cent and the percentage to be borne by the shippers of grain, as calculated in subsection (2)."
I request that the House give unanimous consent to waive notice so that the motion can be placed on the Order Paper for debate during report stage of Bill C-155.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on House business. I would like to ask the Parliament Secretary to the Government House Leader, in the interests of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, if the Government would be prepared to consent and allow notice to be waived so that the following motion might be put to the House:

October 20, 1983
Adjournment Debate
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 20 to 40 at page 17 and lines 1 to 3 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor: "estimated eligible costs" in respect of any crop year means an amount equal to the aggregate of the volume-related variable costs of the railway companies for grain movement and their line-related variable costs for grain-dependent branch lines as determined by the Commission.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of report stage of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, on House business, 1 would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader whether, in the interest of facilitating debate and improving Bill C-155, the Government would be prepared to consent to allow the following motion to be put to the House:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by adding after line 14 at page 18 the following thereto:
"variable costs" means the sum of the line-related and volume-related costs, including the allowances in each case for the cost of capital"
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that the motion as read be placed on the Order Paper for debate during consideration of report state of Bill C-155, an act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain, and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.



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

Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is in the House. I am sure he will want to stay long enough to respond to my
concerns about the Gimli accident. We are going to discuss a glider plane known as a 767. Captain Robert Pearson and First Officer Morris Quintal probably saved the Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by safely landing that aircraft at Gimli, Manitoba, not to mention the 69 lives aboard that plane.
It appears very likely to me as a Member of Parliament that the President of Air Canada, Claude Taylor, has, with the assistance of the Minister of Transport, committed a blatant cover-up of the Gimli accident by having a behind closed doors hearing-not one but two-on this accident and then trying to cover up, intentionally or otherwise, the information given at those two hearings. We have conflicting information. First we have a statement on October 6 in The Toronto Sun reporting the Minister of Transport as saying:
Meanwhile, Transport Minister Lloyd Axworthy rejected demands for a public inquiry into the controversial landing.
Then we go to the Air Canada report. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that that report was brought in by seven members of a commission, five of whom were employees of the Boeing Company, manufacturer of the aircraft in question. If that does not indicate a direct conflict of interest, then I do not know what would. However, after a couple of behind closed doors investigations, we then had the statement, as reported in The Globe and Mail on September 30, by Mr. Taylor, the President of Air Canada, who said on September 29:
-the report shows that Air Canada's operations are "still of the highest order.
It is reassuring to know from recognized independent experts that the series of incidents during 1983 do not reflect a deterioration in Air Canada's technical and operating proficiency."
Mr. Taylor also said:
At the outset it should be clarified that the independent audit was initiated by Air Canada-
He goes on to say:
-as to whether there were any fundamental or substantive flaws in our technical and operating procedures.
I am pleased to state that the audit team confirmed that these were still of the highest standard.
Having reviewed his comments, I would like to move now to the comments of the Chairman of that Commission. These comments will give an entirely different picture. First, as reported in the Montreal Gazette on October 18:
The checks of the Edmonton-bound jet with 69 people aboard at Montreal and Ottawa failed to discover a malfunctioning fuel-indicating system and the problem was further compounded by a failure to convert from metric volume to metric weight, the report says.
The accident investigation report concludes the maintenance and flight crews acted "in contravention of the Minimum Equipment List", and transport officials in Canada and the United States agree that would mean the aircraft was not airworthy.
If we go one step further in this report which was never released to the public, we find that he told The Gazette that the 767 pilot had never received any training in the refueling procedures for the 767. According to this accident report which has never been made public:
October 20, 1983

-the flight crew maintain the calculations made by them were to cross check figures provided by maintenance" while the maintenance technician "insists that he did not .. . supply the flight crew with fuel figures in kilograms."
Remember that these are the only flights in Canada, North America and the world, except Russia, that use the metric system. The report says that this was the first time they were asked to perform a drip check manual measurement of fuel on the Boeing 767 and had not received any formal training on the procedure.
My concern is that if they have not received any training as ground crew or technicians, why are the pilot and co-pilot reprimanded, demoted or dismissed for an error that was caused by the lack of procedural guidelines laid out by Air Canada?
Let us proceed to Mr. Robert Buck, who is the Chairman of the Commission that investigated this accident. He said, "You cannot have a bastard group of metric planes flying in an Imperial fleet." He also said that this special behind closed door hearing never reviewed the Gimli accident. We have the President of Air Canada saying "We are 100 per cent safe", and the Chairman of the Commission appointed by the President of Air Canada saying, "We never even discussed the Gimli accident", and "You cannot have bastard planes flying around."
The Minister has left the House since I started to speak and does not wish to respond as Minister responsible. He has now determined that we need a public inquiry. There is one county court judge from Gimli, Manitoba, who will be able to call witnesses. I wonder if he will call Mr. Buck? I wonder if he will call the Air Line Pilots Association of Canada? I wonder if he will call in the air traffic controllers?
1 am only concerned that we are getting another ramrod job by the Minister of Transport trying to whitewash, using a pilot and co-pilot as scapegoats to take the fall for the errors of Air Canada.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am going to check Hansard tomorrow morning to see exactly what the Hon. Member said. If I heard him correctly, he accused Mr. Taylor, President of Air Canada, of blatant cover-up. How low can a Member get, to use the protection of the House to discredit a person such as Mr. Taylor who put Air Canada on its feet. It takes Canadians and others to appreciate and recognize that Air Canada is the best airline in the world, but the Hon. Member would not appreciate that.
The Hon. Member might also speak to his leader because such an occurrence would be investigated by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board under Bill C-163. However, we saw in the House the despictable behaviour of the Official Opposition filibustering Bill C-155. Therefore we cannot bring in Bill C-163. We have an all-Party agreement to put it through the House quickly.
The Minister told the Hon. Member in the House last week of his intentions to hold a public inquiry into the events
Adjournment Debate
surrounding the July 23 occurrence when an Air Canada aircraft ran out of fuel and made an emergency landing at Gimli, Manitoba. George H. Lockwood, a county court judge in Manitoba, has been appointed to lead the inquiry and report to the Minister within two months. The inquiry will examine the circumstances of the accident, including Air Canada practices, procedures and maintenance standards; whether or not there had been a breach of regulations by personnel and any steps that can be taken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
I think the Hon. Member will agree that this inquiry provides a suitable forum for public discussion of all events relating to this incident and, as such, will dispel any public apprehension as to the circumstances surrounding this incident.


TRUST COMPANIES-REFUSAL TO REWRITE MORTGAGES AT LOWER RATES. (B) PROTECTION REQUESTED FOR HOME OWNERS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, on September 28, as reported at page 27534 of Hansard, I raised a question in the House with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) regarding the plight of approximately 750,000 Canadians who have mortgages with high interest rates. This matter has been raised a number of times in the House. In fact, it goes back as far as April, 1980, when the Government, in its Throne Speech starting this Session of Parliament, mentioned the difficulty being faced by home owners in securing mortgages for their homes. Many times since then, Ministers have expressed concern and indicated they would do something about the difficulty in which 750,000 Canadians find themselves.
Briefly, the situation is as follows. Mortgages have been acquired by a large number of people from a handful of trust companies on the clear understanding that they could prepay the mortgages upon the payment of a three-month interest penalty. We have established in writing that three months interest penalty was a standard policy in the industry. When the home owners tried to prepay their mortgages they were told that the policy had been changed, and it was now required that an interest differential charge be paid in addition to the three-month interest penalty.
This move by the trust companies was clearly to dissuade mortgagors from prepaying their mortgages. The reality is that a few trust companies stand to make enormous profits if they can discourage mortgagors from prepayment and thus carry their mortgages to full term. Look at it this way, some of the mortgages the trust companies hold have interest rates at more than double today's rates. I am not against anyone making a profit. But if they make that profit at the expense of the mortgagor, by changing the rules in the middle of the game, then I must stand against them, and I will try to assist the mortgagor.

October 20, 1983
Adjournment Debate
It is like playing with a double-headed coin. If you are a home owner with a 19.5 per cent mortgage, and a trust company can force you through the interest differential charge to keep your mortgage to full term, then the trust company is the winner.
If, however, you decide to prepay the mortgage and you agree to the interest differential charge demanded, the trust company is again the winner. Not only do they get the 19.5 per cent interest to full term of the mortgage but they demand an additional three month's interest penalty. Do you know of any parallel situation when you pay the full interest charged in a contract plus an additional three months' interest, plus other costs associated with the discharge of a debt?
The Minister, in her reply, said she was seeking a solution under the Canada Interest Act. Any action she may take under that statute may assist some home owner in the future but would not help those who are presently trapped.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should use the leverage she has with trust companies and require them to fulfil their verbal contractual agreements and adhere to the standard industry policy. They baited mortgagors to sign a multiple year mortgage on the understanding that they could prepay the mortgage upon the payment of three months' interest penalty, then they switched their policy.
Let me say that not all trust companies have used these devious plans to strip the home owner of his right to exercise an option that was standard in industry at the time the mortgage was written. Not all trust companies have engaged in this devious practice. But a handful of trust companies are holding at ransom 750,000 Canadians, and this should not happen.


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred earlier to the clear understanding that has existed, or the tradition in the industry that home owners can prepay mortgages on the payment of three months' penalty. He asks the Minister to use the leverage she has. Unfortunately, while Members on all sides of the House sympathize with the predicament in which home owners may find themselves, a contract, as we all know, is a contract, and it is not for the Minister or any other Party to open a contract which has been signed between two parties. If there has been misrepresentation, however, this is a matter which a home owner can take up in a court of law. There are civil law remedies to settle disputes over contractual agreements. These cases of alleged oral misrepresentation have been referred to the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigations Act.
In this regard, the Director has examined and is still in the process of examining the complaints received within the Department on this subject. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has always strongly supported and promoted full disclosure of all terms, conditions and obligations to borrowers.
The chief concern regarding those citizens unfortunate enough to be locked into high interest mortgages is that they may not have been fully aware of their current agreements. Unfortunately many did not realize that they had no legal right to prepay their mortgages prior to maturity with a maximum prepayment charge set at three months' interest. While a prepayment penalty of three months' interest has been a longstanding tradition, it is not rooted in law and lenders are under no statutory obligation to adhere to that practice.
However, officials in the Department have been asked to review the Canada Interest Act in order to determine means to ensure that borrowers in the future are fully informed of all rights and conditions at the time of signing.
In conclusion I would add that the allegations concerning oral misrepresentations are not solely against the Canada Trust Company. Other trust companies, life insurance companies, banks and investment firms have to date been implicated by complainants. These are the matters which are being looked into by the Director of Investigation and Research.


MEDICAL CARE-DEVELOPMENT OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS. (B) HEALTH CARE FUNDING
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pursue a question I asked of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) on October 12. Before doing that, I remind the House of how we have repeatedly urged the Minister to stop playing politics with the health care needs of Canadians and to proceed without delay to the introduction of a new Canada Health Act which would reaffirm, clarify, strengthen and make enforceable the five basic principles of medicare from coast to coast, namely, universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and non-profit administration.
Such things as rising premiums, the spread of user fees to five out of ten Provinces, increasing levels of extra billing in certain areas of Canada and Government cutbacks are slowly but surely destroying medicare. We do not really know just when we will arrive at the point of no return. We do know that Conservative provincial Governments are definitely permitting new erosions of the principles of medicare.
Despite plenty of rhetoric from the Minister of National Health and Welfare about her concern for medicare, the Minister has still not put any concrete legislation before the House which would address these serious problems. She continues to dangle the idea of a new Canada Health Act before those Canadians who are concerned about medicare. And I have to admit she has been successful, at the political level at least, of appearing to be a great defender of medicare. However the moment of truth is near. For every day that goes by that we do not see a concrete proposal, cynicism grows among Canadians concerned about medicare as to whether or not the Minister is actually concerned about preserving medicare or whether the Liberal Party is concerned about preserving medicare not in itself but as an issue for the next election.
October 20, 1983

Unfortunately the Minister is also unwilling to address the very real need in our country for alternatives to the present health care model with which medicare must co-exist. The Minister has recognized that the greatest strides to be made in health care today are in the area of preventive medicine and health promotion. By improving the over-all health of the Canadian population we can reduce the need for Canada's current curative, doctor-dominated, high-tech and expensive health care system. Not only would Canadians be healthier but their health care system would be more cost-efficient, although in the final analysis that is not a good enough reason to do something. We want to do these things because they improve over-all health; that must be the real reason.
On October 12, I asked the Minister whether she intended to provide federal leadership in the development of such a health-oriented, broad-based and popular health care system for Canada. She resorted to the tired old cop-out that health was a provincial matter. Who is the Minister trying to kid? The federal Government has always played an important role in the evolution of medicare in this country. National medicare would not even be here today, sick as it is, if it were not for federal initiative. It would not be here at all if it were not for the initiative of the CCF-NDP in Saskatchewan, both in terms of hospital insurance and medicare. My constituents know that. They know the history of it, as do many Canadians. That is appropriate.
The Minister is at the very least being inconsistent. On the one hand she claims to be providing federal leadership by threatening sanctions against those Provinces which allow extra billing and impose user-fees. On the other hand, she claims she is constitutionally helpless when it comes to initiating the development of novel health care alternatives that would make Canada a healthier place in which to live, and which would take some of the pressure off the increasing costs that people are wrongly blaming on medicare when they should be blaming it on the health care model with which medicare has to co-exist.
The people of this country are sick and tired of political games such as the Minister is playing. They want the Minister to stop beating around the bush and to enact legislation that would address all the financial and structural problems plaguing medicare.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Canadians must realize that in the final analysis health is not just related to a particular health care system, but to the social, economic and environmental dimension of our lives. The best principles of medicare imaginable, enforced to the limit, will not overcome the consequences of malnutrition caused by inner city poverty. They will not overcome exposure to hazards in the workplace. They will not overcome the fact of carcinogens in our food, water and environment. For in the final analysis, we are not just fighting for our health care system, but for that total health that will only come as we achieve greater social, economic and environmental justice.
Adjournment Debate


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, it is very amusing to hear the Hon. Member talk about how the Government has been playing politics with medicare. It is a common cry that we hear from the other side, as if it is beyond them to play politics or that they never do it. I suggest to them that the Minister is not playing politics. It would be much better if he and his Party would stop playing politics with the Crow and a number of other matters and allow Parliament to proceed with the business of the country.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Get to the prepared answer.


David Berger: The Hon. Member asks me to proceed to the prepared answer. If he wants us to deal with the matter at hand, he could try the same game when putting the question. He was three-quarters of the way into his statement before getting into the issue of preventive medicine.
The Hon. Member is anxious that we develop alternatives to the way in which health care services are currently delivered. However, he says we should forget the constitutional realities of this country.
Under our Constitution, each Province is responsible in its own right for determining the practice privileges of different types of health professionals, organizational arrangements with respect to their health services and payment arrangements. In this connection, it may be of interest to note that the federal Government from 1968 until 1977 recognized the costs of alternative payment arrangements for the insured services of medical practitioners for cost-sharing purposes under the Medical Care Act and these costs have been included in the base-year costs that are used for determining the amount of block funding under the current EPF arrangements.
It also may be of interest to you, Mr. Speaker, that under EPF, the federal Government does make a per capita grant yearly to each Province in respect of the extended health care services program.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Extended care is not preventive care.


David Berger: Again, it is up to each Province to determine the extent to which it will implement services which the extended health care services program grant is intended to support, namely, nursing home intermediate care, adult residential care, home care services and the ambulatory health care services that I have described. This federal contribution will be continued.
With regard to preventive care, this is covered to some extent under the existing legislation and will be continued in the proposed Canada Health Act. Health promotion programs involving Government are funded by and large outside the health insurance programs per se.
The Hon. Member has been talking about cutbacks and arguing that the Government has cut back its share.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You have.

October 20, 1983
Adjournment Debate


David Berger: The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the federal share of hospital and medical care insurance was about 50 per cent in the cost-sharing period prior to 1977 and is now about 50 per cent. If we take a wider view of provincial health spending including programs which were never cost shared, then federal contributions were about 40 per cent in 1977 and are now about 40 per cent.
Moreover, transfers for health were exempted from the federal Government's six and five restraint program. The record, Mr. Speaker, contrary to the words of the Hon.
Member, reveals a strong commitment to medicare on the part of the Government. I would again suggest to him that if he would stop playing politics, we could reach the stage when the Minister would be able to find time in the House to introduce the Canada Health Act.


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

Friday, October 21, 1983