1983-09-29

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the 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.
Madam Speaker:: Hon. Members are aware, of course, that there are a great many report stage motions on the Notice Paper relating to Bill C-155. I have had an opportunity to examine a number of the motions and I am ready this morning to make what I will call a preliminary ruling. The Chair must say that the Table officers have worked through the night in order to examine these motions and to do some of the groupings which allow us to enter into debate today. Hon. Members will understand, however, that it was not possible to go through the totality of these motions, and 1 would be prepared to rule on the others later.
DS)
The Chair is concerned about the procedural acceptability of Motion No. 1 since it seeks to introduce a disguised preamble and it is extremely difficult to amend the Bill in such a way as to include a preamble. As far as the Chair is concerned, this motion does not meet the very stringent conditions imposed on such amendments.
I hope the House Leaders have a copy of this ruling. I asked that it be distributed because I think it is easier for Members to follow if they have a copy. Does the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) have a copy of this?


Mr. Deans:: Yes, 1 have.


Madam Speaker:: The Minister has a copy.
Motions Nos. 2 and 59, Motions Nos. 3 and 4 and Motions Nos. 5 and 61 cause the Chair some misgiving as they appear to go beyond the scope of the Bill, and Motions Nos. 5 and 61 appear to be substantive amendments being introduced into an interpretation clause which, as Hon. Members know, is not procedurally acceptable.
Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 66 and 67, which appear to be related, are also of concern to the Chair as they appear to be contrary to the intent and purpose of the Bill as it was read a second time. Certainly some of them appear to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown.
Motions Nos. 13 and 14 appear to be substantive amendments to the interpretation clause and beyond the scope of the Bill. Thus the Chair has serious reservations about allowing them to be put to the House. Motions Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 134 give the Chair similar problems.
Motion No. 18 also gives the Chair misgivings as the Hon. Member appears to be attempting to enlarge the interpretation clause. Further, it would seem that the motion is substantive in relation to the interpretation clause and is beyond the scope of the Bill.
Motions Nos. 19 and 70 appear to be beyond the scope of the Bill and, in effect, seek to destroy the purpose of the Bill which the House has already approved in principle.
Motion No. 20 also appears to be beyond the scope of the Bill as read a second time, and the same reasoning applies to Motion No. 21 and to Motions Nos. 22 and 23, as it does to Motions Nos. 36 and 41.
Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 29 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and Motion No. 27 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) appear acceptable to the Chair and should all be grouped for debate. Motion No. 24 should be voted on separately and an affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 would also dispose of Motions Nos. 26 and 27; however, a negative vote on Motion No. 25 would require further voting on Motions Nos. 26 and 27. Motion No. 29 will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 28 appears to the Chair to be beyond the scope of the Bill and thus should not be proceeded with.
Motions Nos. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 should each be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 37 and 38 will be debated together but will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 39 and 40 should be grouped for debate and an affirmative vote on Motion No. 39 will dispose of Motion No. 40.
Motions Nos. 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46 will be grouped for debate but ought to be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 will be grouped for debate and Motion No. 47 will be voted on separately. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 48 will dispose of Motion No. 49; however, a

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
negative vote on Motion No. 48 will require the question being put on Motion No. 49.
Motion No. 51 appears to the Chair to be beyond the scope of the Bill as voted at second reading; and further, it appears to infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and thus should not be proceeded with.
Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53 should be grouped for debate. Motion No. 50 should be voted on separately and a vote on Motion No. 52 will dispose of Motion No. 53.
Motion No. 54 appears to the Chair to be beyond the scope of the Bill, as is Motion No. 57.
Motions Nos. 55 and 56 should be debated together but voted on separately.
It is my intention to give Elon. Members an opportunity to speak to the procedural regularity of the motions which 1 have just noted. Members may wish to have this discussion later and, if so, I suggest we now proceed to the first acceptable motion, which is Motion No. 24 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
I am setting these 20-some motions aside. This is a preliminary ruling. At first reading of them, as I say, the Chair has misgivings about them. However, there has not been time to look into them in more detail and to mount the arguments and precedents which would support my decision. Therefore, that is the reason I am setting them aside and asking Hon. Members also to reflect on these preliminary arguments that I have given the House so that when the time comes and I am ready to give a more considered opinion on these amendments, we can then enter into the procedural debate if there is a need to have such procedural debate. I will be ready to rule on the remaining motions either tomorrow or Monday, at which time the procedural debate could take place.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I thank you for the consideration you have given to the question of calling for submissions as to procedural regularity at a later time. Having regard to the fact that the entire first page of your statement and the entire second page, except for the last paragraph thereof, and Motions Nos. 51, 54 and 57 on page 4 of your statement, are all motions with which the Chair has some concern-and I think you will agree that it is a considerable number that give the Chair concern-my only concern now is your stated intention to make a ruling tomorrow or Monday. That may not give us enough time to consider the concerns and make the submissions that we may wish to make.
In the meantime, however, the remaining portion of Your Honour's statement has opened enough motions which the Chair considers to be regular to allow debate, certainly to carry on today, tomorrow and Monday, and perhaps the Chair might consider a greater degree of leniency before making a definitive ruling either tomorrow or Monday. I do not know how much time we need, but we will certainly try to be ready by Monday. We certainly will not be ready by tomorrow, but we may be ready by Monday, given the weekend. However, if
we need more time, 1 may wish to ask for it at a later stage in the debate.


Madam Speaker:: I do not disagree with that. I think it would accommodate the Table officers considerably if Hon. Members would accept that I not rule tomorrow, because they do need the time and they are working through the night to do these things. I would therefore be quite prepared to leave it at least until Monday, at which time I think I could give the House some indication of our thinking on most of these amendments. Then we could determine when the procedural debate could take place.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I fully agree with the comments of the House Leader for the Official Opposition. I am concerned, however, that the scope of the rulings today, preliminary though they are, covers such a multitude of different amendments and topics that it will be extremely difficult for people adequately to analyse both those and others which I believe to be of concern to many of us.
I was wondering whether it might not be more appropriate if the Government were to go ahead with some other business today and allow the Chair and the Opposition the opportunity to review the whole question of the appropriateness of amendments and prepare for discussion on them.
Quite clearly, the amendments that are being ruled upon, even in a preliminary way, not only touch upon amendments from the Opposition but also amendments that the Government may feel have some substantive requirement for its purposes. I would ask whether it might not be appropriate simply to call another order and allow that this be dealt with properly, rather than in a staged and haphazard way.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, with regard to this particular point, I think the suggestion made by the Hon. House Leader for the Conservative Party is by far the appropriate technique to follow. We recognize that there are a number of very critical amendments that should be allowed further review and, as he said, further submissions. The suggestion made by the House Leader of the NDP I believe would just be delaying further what is a very critical and important piece of legislation. Therefore, we would certainly be prepared to follow the proposal put forward by the House Leader of the Conservative Party and support his submission that perhaps further time can be taken to examine those amendments on which you would like further review. But we would hope that we could proceed with the amendments that are already acceptable and start today forthwith.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I too agree with the proposal put forward by the House Leader for the Official Opposition. I myself would like to have a little time to look at some of the rulings you have made. I have some idea of the complexity of the report and I am not surprised that you call into question some of the amendments that were made because there was much lively
September 29, 1983

discussion on some of them in the committee. Indeed, it was very difficult to decide in some instances whether or not amendments were in order from the point of view that you have expressed in your notes today. They were accepted in the committee on the basis that there was some question as to their procedural acceptability. They were not obviously out of order to the Chair. Therefore I may want to argue in favour of some of the motions about which you raised questions in your preliminary ruling.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I really do feel quite strongly that some time should be given in order to consider this. Therefore, I would move that this House recess until 2 p.m.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid that the motion is not in order. We must proceed with the business of the House.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West) moved:: Motion No. 24
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 3 striking out line 35 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion or board, the business of'.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 38 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "(f) not more than twelve other members."
(b)	by striking out lines 3 to 18 at page 4 and substituting the following
therefor:
"(i) five members, representing the following organizations in Canada: one member representing the Manitoba Pool Elevators, one member representing the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, one member representing the Alberta Wheat Pool, one member representing the United Grain Growers Limited and one member representing the privately-owned primary elevator licensees, as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council,".
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 38 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "(t*) not more than fourteen other members".
(b)	by striking out lines 3 to 12 at page 4 and substituting the following
therefor:
"(i) six members, each representing one of the six largest primary elevator licensees in Canada as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, and determined on the basis of elevator receipts and cash purchase tickets,".


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia) moved:: Motion No. 27
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 3 to 12 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"(i) six members, each representing one of the six largest primary elevator licensees in Canada as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, and determined on the basis of elevator receipts and cash purchase tickets,".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 29
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 19 to 22 at page 4.


Madam Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Western Grain Transportation Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, may I be clear on something? Are you reading all of the amendments Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 and then we will begin the debate with No. 24? Have I got that correct?


Madam Speaker:: Yes. These motions were grouped for debate, as the Hon. Member will recall. If he reads the preliminary ruling I have just given to the House, he will see that these motions were grouped for debate and debate can start with Motion No. 24 in the name of the Hon. Member.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise on Motion No. 24. In light of the earlier discussions, the preliminary ruling of the Chair, what the Clerks at the Table have had to go through day and night and what Members on all sides will have to go through to sort out where we stand on each of the amendments and the arguments we want to make, I do not think this debate should proceed at this time. I therefore move:
That this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As Hon. Members are aware, no debate is permitted on a motion to adjourn. Accordingly, those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the Members.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, since we in this Party were here between 12.30 and one o'clock ready to vote, and since the bells rang until now as a result of the Government, I wonder if there might be a disposition to extend Question Period since we have gone 30 minutes into it, so that we have the full time of a normal Question Period.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member was referring to the Energy debate or the debate on the Crow. In any event, he is aware of our traditional generosity, and so, as far as I am concerned, there is no objection to having the usual forty-five minutes for oral question period.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for-


Some Hon. Members:: Where is your Leader?


John Carnell Crosbie: Where were they for the last three hours? Now they are yelling like jackasses.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: My question is for the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The motion is defeated.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HER ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCESS
Madam Speaker:: Before going into the next proceeding, may I call the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of a beautiful princess who was born in Canada, Her Royal Highness Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, and her husband, Mr. Pieter Van Vollenhoven.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Minister of Finance will know that yesterday Statistics Canada released a report showing that the economy has slowed down in the first half of the year and there has now been a significant slowdown in the second half of the year. The leading indicators for household income have slowed. Yesterday the Conference Board of Canada showed that the current economic recovery may already be over. Growth is sluggish.
In view of those facts why did the Minister, in his speech of Tuesday, September 27, say to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce that we have a real recovery that is becoming increasingly well rooted? How could the Minister make that statement knowing the facts as indicated by these two bodies, and what steps-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.
September 29, 1983


John Carnell Crosbie: You may not be interested, but the unemployed are.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: What steps is the Minister taking to overcome the decline in personal disposable income, the decline in housing starts, the decline in momentum of retail sales? What steps will he take so that the recovery will be well rooted?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it is not easy to answer all the Hon. Member's rhetoric in a few words. I may remind him that the Conference Board, to which he was referring, very clearly indicated this week, when it published a summary of forecasts made by 18 major organizations and forecasters, that this year and next year, growth in Canada would be very substantial and compare favourably with growth in the United States. I can assure him that the discussions I had at the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in the last few days with my American and other colleagues have confirmed this trend, and international analysts expect that both Canada and the United States will experience greater growth than other industrialized countries in 1983 and 1984.
As far as personal disposable income is concerned, Madam Speaker, there will not be a decline but an increase in the personal disposable income of Canadians in 1983. Instead of declining, total housing starts will be close to 200,000 units this year, compared to 96,000 last year. As far as retail sales are concerned, the Hon. Member ought to know that their momentum has increased this year compared to last year. Retail sales in 1983 are expected to be substantially better than they were in 1982, and we need only look at sales in the automobile industry, which have been doing very well in recent months.


DECLINE IN PERSONAL INCOME
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this is not rhetoric. 1 refer to the Minister's own Statistics Canada report of yesterday. That report reads:
Personal disposable incomes... declined by 5.8 per cent at annual rates in the first half of the year-
This is because of a number of factors, including the weak recovery of labour income, and increased taxes. Then it goes on to read:
Housing starts declined by 27.0 per cent in July-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that that quotation is too long. All that is necessary at this particular time is to ask questions.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister is this: in view of these facts, the only thing well rooted in Canada is the Minister's propensity for deceiving the Canadian people. When will the Minister take steps to assist in raising the personal disposable income of Canadians by reducing taxes, or by taking other steps to help the recovery that he says is so well rooted?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, as far as deceiving the Canadian people is concerned, I do not think anybody could beat members of the Conservative Party at that, particularly when one considers their Leader's statement in the House last week concerning the International Monetary Fund.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BOARD'S PROJECTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the same Minister, Why does the Consumer Board of Canada say at page 3 of its report that real disposable income, or household incomes, once taxes and inflation have been accounted for, is expected to decline by nearly 2 per cent, thus giving the lie to the Minister who says the exact opposite in his answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why is it that the Minister is not telling the truth to the Canadian people and is attempting to deceive the Canadian people with these slanted statistics that he offers the House, while ignoring his own Statistics Canada and Conference Board Reports?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, one must assess the validity of the Hon. Member's claim in light of the fact that he refers to the Consumer Board when he is really talking about the Conference Board. He cannot even get the names right, so how can he get the figures right?


John Carnell Crosbie: Statistics Canada.


Marc Lalonde: As far as the personal disposable income of Canadians is concerned, I have indicated before and I repeat again that it is expected that, by the end of this year, the personal disposable income of Canadians will have gone up and not down as compared to last year.


LEVEL OF INTEREST RATES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. In the Conference Board Report which was released yesterday, the Board takes the view that fears about inflation and huge government deficits will keep interest rates high for a long time to come. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, therefore, if he agrees with the statement made in the House last week by the Deputy Prime Minister in response to a
27574

September 29, 1983
Oral Questions
question from the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that the high Canadian deficit has absolutely no bearing on our economic performance. That statement is directly contradicted by yesterday's statement from the Conference Board.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows of the Government's concern about the growing inflation that we have known in the last few years and the damage that that has done to industrial economies all over the world. The Hon. Member also knows that we are concerned about the size of the deficit, and I referred to this extensively in my last budget. I initiated a number of steps that would gradually reduce the deficit. However, at the present time all analysts in Canada and the United States recognize that for this year, and most likely for next year, the deficit itself will not have a significant impact on interest rates. The source of concern is the medium level of the deficit in the last years of this particular decade, and this issue must be addressed. I proposed a number of steps in my budget that would address this issue.
As the Hon. Member knows, a year and a half ago the spread between the Canadian and American short-term interest rates was as high as 4 per cent and 5 per cent, but for the last three months the Canadian interest rates have been lower than the American rates. We have exploited to the maximum the existing room for manoeuvring.
Again, at the International Monetary Fund meetings it was stressed by representatives from almost every country that it was important for the United States particularly to aim at reducing its deficit in the medium term, and I am confident that the U.S. administration will want to address this issue.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance seems to defy the credibility of the Conference Board of Canada in that reply. It is evident that the Government merely follows the trends and projections established by Statistics Canada analysts and others.


GROWTH RATES IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, who is so confident that Canada is moving in the right direction, why yesterday's Conference Board report shows that growth in Canada will fall considerably below that of American growth for the next five-year period. That indication defies the answer he gave to the Hon. Member for St. John's West a few moments ago. Growth in Canada will be less than 1 per cent, while it will be 3 per cent to 6 per cent in the United States during the next five-year period. The unemployment rate in Canada will be-


Madam Speaker:: Order. This is an abuse of enumerating statistics. These preambles are simply too long. I cannot allow them to go on. Ask the question immediately.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, does the Minister concur with the projections of the Conference Board of Canada, or will he
continue to mislead the House by citing out of context the trends to which this report points?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the best answer I can give to the Hon. Member is to refer to another statement issued by the Conference Board last week, I believe. That statement included a survey of the 18 main forecasters in the country who have arrived at different conclusions than the conclusions arrived at in the statement issued by the Conference Board yesterday. The Conference Board statement is only one out of 19 forecasts. It is one that is very much on the low side and it does not correspond to our own forecast.
Our own forecast corresponds very substantially to the forecasts of the 18 other forecasters as indicated by the Conference Board last week. My friend can pick and choose what he wishes. I can tell him that the international analyses made by organizations like the OECD and the IMF also correspond with the forecasts made by the 18 forecasters referred to in my answer. We are trying to look into a crystal ball. The only thing I can say to the Hon. Member is that he should consider the 18 other forecasts which take totally different views from those of the Conference Board.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Government House Leader that concerns the important piece of legislation that is now before Parliament. As the Minister knows, the Crow legislation contains three key elements: first, the revitalization of port and rail facilities; second the disposition of some 50,000 acres of coal lands in British Columbia and, third, the change in the Crow rate. The Conservative Party has now joined the New Democratic Party in opposing a change in the Crow rate.
I should like to ask the Minister if he will tell the House what conclusion he has reached in response to a letter sent today by our House Leader. The letter said that if the Government breaks the Bill into three elements, we on this side will be willing to dispose of those sections that deal with the coal lands and the revitalization of the ports and rail facilities by the end of next week. Will the Government indicate if it is prepared to take action that will produce results, by accepting that idea?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have two things to say in reply. First of all,
I am sure that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party wants to respect the Standing Order and apply them. He knows very well that when a Bill is debated in the House he is not allowed to ask questions on the subject. That is the first point. Besides that, if, rather than delaying things this morning and using dilatory tactics by moving the adjournment of the House, thus preventing debate from occurring, he had used
September 29, 1983

that time to try to make his point, that would have been much more useful than wasting three hours of the time of the House.


Erik Nielsen: You rang the bell.


Yvon Pinard: As to the second part of the Hon. Member's question in reference to a letter that, I gather, was sent to me by his colleague, the House Leader of the NDP, I have not received that letter yet. Even if 1 had received it I would have invited my hon. colleague to join me in a House Leaders meeting that I am willing to have at any time to discuss all the business of the House, including the Crow. Of course, to try to score political points it is useful to be able to refer to a letter which has been sent to me but which 1 have not received.
1 speak in good faith. Madam Speaker. I am willing to negotiate anything on any Bill. His colleague knows that all he has to do is call me and I will have a meeting anytime.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 say to the House Leader that we are serious. My understanding was that the letter had been delivered to his office by hand this morning.
If I understand the rules correctly, one can ask procedural questions but not substantive questions about Bills that are before the House. Let us forget those matters; we are concerned about the substance of this matter.
1 should like to clarify what the Minister has just said. Is the Minister telling the House that the Government is now prepared to do what ought to have been done sometime ago, which is to break the Bill into its three key elements and bring two of them before the House so that they can be disposed of quickly?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member contradicted himself in the preamble to his question. I would rather not go into this any further, because 1 would be insulting the intelligence of most of the members of this House by elaborating on the issue. 1 may therefore remind the Hon. Member that discussions on how the business of the House should be conducted usually take place at meetings at the parliamentary House leader level. 1 offered to suggest that his colleague, who is well aware of this procedure, advise me that a meeting would be desirable. I am willing to discuss the form and duration of the debate. 1 am also willing to negotiate any agreement that will help the House dispose quickly of the Bill in question. However, I think the Hon. Member should understand that a good way to get one's views across is to refrain from using purely dilatory tactics like the one used this morning by the New Democratic Party when it moved an adjournment motion on the spur of the moment, at eleven o'clock this morning, thus preventing Parliament from considering this important matter. I think there are more useful ways of speeding up the debate
Oral Questions
than preventing the House from sitting and trying to make political points during oral question period by making proposals usually made during private meetings among the parliamentary House leaders.


REQUEST FOR HOUSE LEADERS' MEETING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that would all have sounded a model of sweet reason but, as the House Leader knows, the reality is that there was no House Leaders' meeting today, nor is one scheduled for tomorrow. We are quite serious in making the proposal now. This part of the Bill that is totally unacceptable-and that is the change in the Crow rate-to Canadians almost from coast to coast-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member is giving the Chair some difficulty. First of all, just now he is debating, and I wish he would keep to questions concerning the procedure of the Bill and be very careful not to surpass that.


John Edward Broadbent: I will be very reasonable with the House Leader, Madam Speaker. Since the House is supposed to debate this measure for the rest of today and tomorrow, and since it is evident that this Party does not intend to allow that Bill to pass-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -and the Conservative Opposition has taken the same view, will the Government House Leader meet with the House Leaders of the two Opposition Parties this afternoon to discuss breaking up the Bill so that we can proceed in an orderly fashion in the House of Commons?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat what I just said, namely that 1 am always prepared to meet with my colleagues. I indicated yesterday to the Hon. Member's parliamentary House leader that although I was unable to hold a meeting this morning, I was willing, if he wanted a meeting, to have one later on, even this afternoon. Meanwhile, I think we ought to proceed with the debate, and since the Hon. Member says he wants to be reasonable, in that case perhaps the House could be allowed to sit so that the debate can take place. I realize he may be opposed to the bill, but I feel that if he has any respect for democracy, he will allow the debate to take place and let his party express its views and dissent, and support amendments it has proposed, and at the appropriate time, allow the House to speak out in favour or against the amendments at the report stage and third reading. That is what the parliamentary system is all about. In that case, the House can proceed intelligently, and the Opposition, while making its dissenting views known, can, at a given point, allow Parliament to speak out in favour or against a question. Nevertheless, this procedure does not preclude having meetings at the parliamentary House leader level to negotiate what can be done during the

September 29, 1983
Oral Questions
debate, and if his colleague wishes to meet this afternoon, 1 am available, provided the House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party is willing to attend the meeting as well and make his views known.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister who, I understand, will not be in the House until next week, I put my question to the Acting Prime Minister.


An Hon. Member:: Where is Mulroney?


An Hon. Member:: We want Joe.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as Members of the Government know, the Leader of the Opposition is attending the funeral of one who has served Canada well for many years-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not part of Question Period. The Hon. Member owes no answer to the House in these things.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In the context of a statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House on September 12, who quoted our ambassador to the United Nations as saying, when referring to the KAL 007 tragedy, as reported at page 27025 of Hansard as follows:
The deliberate in-flight destruction of this civilian, unarmed, easily identifiable passenger aircraft by sophisticated fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union, no matter where it occurred, is nothing short of murder.
Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if in fact the Prime Minister was stating the present position of the Government, when he said in Sault Ste. Marie on Sunday that the same shooting-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. Really, this is an abuse of quotations, the second one in the same question. There must be a simple question which can be asked, and the House need not be reminded of all of these quotations.


Erik Nielsen: A simple answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Was the Prime Minister expressing the present position of the Government when he stated that the downing of the KAL 007 flight was an accident, as he stated last Sunday?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of these statements. I will report them to the Prime Minister. I am sure he will be able to handle the question when he returns from his trip to New York where he is attending a meeting of the UN. Of course, I would like to report to the Hon. Member that the Leader of the Opposition is having a very good week this week in the House; he did not open his mouth at all. I have nothing else to add.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister at least concluded his remarks with something we all agree with; he has nothing to say.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, if the Acting Prime Minister does not want to comment on the unfortunate comment made by his Prime Minister, would he tell the House what in fact is the Government's position with respect to the shooting down of the Korean aircraft? Was it an accident, or was it a deliberate act of murder?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the position of this Government is very well known on this issue. Canada was the first country to move on this issue. It was the first country to apply sanctions against the Russians. I believe the policy of this Government on this incident is very well known in the Canadian and the international community.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What is it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We took many initiatives. I am sure that the statements made by the Prime Minister here in the House or anywhere else can be read by everyone, but the facts remain the same. This Government was the first to condemn the action of the Russians and to take action to ensure there would be adequate compensation for the lives of the Canadians who died. I have not read the two statements referred to by the Hon. Member. I will read them and will be in a position to comment after I have done so. I have not seen them yet.

[ Translation]


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Some time ago, I sent a press clipping from a Montreal daily which indicated that in 1970, the Government had asked its experts to make a study of land expropriation in connection with Mirabel Airport. The document clearly condemns and acknowledges the monumental error made by the Government in expropriating so much land, and 1 would like to know
September 29, 1983

whether the Minister could confirm today that this document is genuine?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, this is a newspaper clipping that was sent to me by the Hon. Member. 1 referred the clipping to my Department's legal section and asked the archivists to find out whether such a document existed and what it was about. 1 have not yet received a reply, but as soon as I do, I shall inform the Hon. Member accordingly.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I should be delighted to hand over to the Minister a so-called confidential document, dated March 31, 1970, which acknowledges the monumental error of the Government with respect to land expropriation and makes other recommendations I will not have time to quote in the House today. In the circumstances, could the Minister of Public Works undertake to make this document public, with a view to providing all Canadians with further information on the reasons why, for 14 years, the Government has refused to cede back land to owners who were expropriated and who have reason to accuse the Government of having treated them unfairly?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, first of all, I think the Hon. Member is misinforming the House. It is not a matter of refusing. We have already announced that we were prepared to sell back 30,000 acres. 1 feel that this is an excellent indication that we are acting in good faith. As for finding out what the document exactly contains, the Hon. Member, who was briefly in the same position I am now, and I am referring to that of having to answer questions, will surely allow me to examine the document if it is transmitted to me and to find out under what conditions it can be made public and to what extent I could or would not be able to comment.


HOUSE RESALE PROGRAM-MIRABEL AREA
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Public Works.
Since I just heard the Hon. Member for Joliette say that the land at Mirabel is badly administered, I would point out to the House that when his Government was in office, it did suggest that the land be handed back to the former owners. Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Public Works to tell the House whether the house resale program in the Mirabel region was successful.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the fact that a great many people-including many former occupants and owners-jumped at the chance to buy back the houses is a clear indication of the success and generosity of that program. 1 hope that the Hon. Member will indeed support my efforts to defuse that situation rather than make it worse.
Oral Questions


INDUSTRY
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and of his Parliamentary Secretary, perhaps the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) could answer this question. It refers to the White Farm Equipment Company. Last week in response to a question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brant, the Minister indicated that the Government would be open to consideration of any kind of bids from companies which were concerned about keeping White Farm equipment as an ongoing concern. The Minister mentioned other points as well.
I wonder whether the Government is aware of the recent offer made by a consortium of some 75 dealers, headed by Mr. John Buhler, a successful businessman, to salvage this company? I would like to know whether the Government is encouraging the receiver to consider this particular offer so that many, many dealers and small businessmen in rural constituencies could remain viable and not go bankrupt if there were a liquidation of White Farm Equipment?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has in fact been monitoring the situation with regard to White Farm Equipment quite closely. I will take the question as notice in order that he may respond upon his return to the House.


COMPANY'S RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that response from the Minister. When he is making the representation to the appropriate Minister, could the Minister also inquire whether the Government will ensure that various research programs which have been committed, or have been offered to White Farm Equipment, would continue if this bid is successful? As the Minister knows, research is a very important element in the whole operation. May I have the assurance that the Minister will convey this request to the Minister as well?


David P. Smith: Yes.


URGENCY OF ISSUE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question addressed to the same Minister. The Minister should know that there is a certain amount of urgency about this issue because I understand that tomorrow morning the proposals must be in the hands of the receiver by nine o'clock. If he is going to make representations to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, 1 would hope that

September 29, 1983
Ora! Questions
he would do it in such time that this proposal from Manitoba can have some impact.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has in fact been monitoring the matter very closely and he is aware of all of the time frames involved.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since the Minister recently moved to withdraw some perks from some public servants, will he now move with equal dispatch, as one of the most senior public servants, to establish a new set of guidelines for Cabinet use of executive aircraft, such guidelines not to be subject to individual judgment of purpose or passenger?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the Acting Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, the use of the government executive fleet has existed now for some 30 years. It was designed to ensure that Ministers of the Crown, as well as Royalty and other people who need convenience-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that members of the Opposition would be so disrespectful of the Royal Family.
The fact of the matter is that the fleet is at the disposal of Ministers, taking into account the pressures of time and the need to fulfil responsibilities under the very heavy agenda to Parliament and Cabinet. The guidelines established in 1977 are being applied with the responsibility and standards which I think are necessary. However, as the Hon. Member knows, we are taking a look at a number of aspects of the operation of my Department and that may be one of the areas which will come under review. If the members of the Opposition would give us a chance to get rid of the Crow Bill soon, I would have more time to look at such matters as that.


Erik Nielsen: You kept the bells ringing today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, perhaps we should start calling Members opposite Royal Hon. Members, instead of Hon. Members.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


PUBLICATION OF PASSENGER LISTS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I am talking about the revelations of the abuse by Cabinet, at a cost of $10,000 a day for 100 days. If the Minister has nothing to hide and feels there is no abuse, then surely as a preliminary step of resurrection he would undertake to publish the passenger manifest list from both the Transport and Defence fleets on a monthly basis, so the public would find out what is going on and there would not be any suspicion of a cover-up. Will he do that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, to begin with let me make it very clear there are no abuses of that system, nor is there any attempt to cover up. We will review the regulations, and perhaps the Hon. Member's recommendation might be accepted. I will look at his proposal because I want to assure him and other Members that there are no abuses and there will be no abuses in the use of that fleet.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Since he and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board are both in the air, is he aware of the serious cash flow situation that farmers have? The Canadian Wheat Board, as well as grain companies, have been calling for an increase in the initial payment for grain to farmers. When will the Minister announce it, and how much will it be?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, just to correct the record, the Minister of State for the Wheat Board is in China selling grain, and I was in Saskatchewan selling the Crow.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Eating crow.


Lloyd Axworthy: No; selling.


Some Hon. Members:: Eating crow.


Lloyd Axworthy: No. Well, Madam Speaker, in comparison to the members of the Opposition who are eating turkey all the time.


Erik Nielsen: Then I find you most distasteful.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member's question, if his colleagues will allow me to answer, the fact is that the Wheat Board has made recommendations and the Minister responsible has discussed those recommendations with members of the Grain Advisory Board. They are now being formulated into Cabinet proposals and I expect that, as soon as the Minister of State returns from his selling mission overseas, the Cabinet will take that under immediate
September 29, 1983

advisement. We hope to have a decision very soon on that very critical matter.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who will know that Mr. Roy Olsen, President of Phillips Cables, is an Order in Council appointment to the Atomic Energy Control Board. He will also know that this company has sold over $10 million worth of cable to Ontario Hydro's nuclear system. Does he not believe this is a conflict of interest?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This question was asked of me some months ago and we have looked into the matter. The advice we have received from the people looking into this matter is that there is no conflict of interest.


ADVICE GIVEN TO MINISTER
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, the Minister has guidelines which were prepared by the Government in 1974 for Order in Council appointments. Those guidelines mention in several places that those who are appointed to the Board should not be involved in any commercial enterprise. 1 ask the Minister who advises him, and on what basis does he consider this not to be a conflict of interest.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I think this gentleman was appointed because he is an expert in the field and it is an advisory board, not a full-time job. I do not think the Hon. Member is suggesting that we should not appoint anyone part-time on any boards. Most of the members appointed are on a part-time basis. At the time I asked the question I was informed that the people who looked into this matter reported to my Department that they did not feel it was a conflict of interest situation. But I will certainly review the situation again and report back to the Hon. Member.


CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice who is no doubt aware, because 1 gave him notice of the question, that the Canadian Association of University Teachers has made representations on the inclusion in the new obscenity legislation of some safeguards to ensure that the new laws cannot be used to go after genuine works of art, to hinder scientific
Oral Questions
research or political discussion of pornography. Would the Minister agree that these are sensible safeguards, and give a commitment to introduce them at the same time as the provisions he has already put into the draft legislation?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I do thank the Hon. Member for notice of her question. 1 am, in any event, aware of the representations of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. There already is a safeguard provision in the Criminal Code for work of that kind. Section 153 (3), which is known as the "public good defence", does exempt works of that merit. I am not aware of any history of persecution by Attorneys General in their administration of the legislation which would justify changing the character of the existing Section to put the onus entirely on the Crown. I really do not see why there should be any need at this time for a change of that kind to give a broader protection than now exists, because the existing Section seems to be quite adequate.


BALANCE URGED IN LEGISLATION
Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, the existing provision refers to the public good but is not as specific, I trust the Minister will realize, as what is being proposed, which says quite specifically serious artistic, scientific, medical, literary or political value. It also gives some other specifications about use in universities and so forth.
Does the Minister realize that what the community wants is a much more vigorous implementation of the law, and in order to get that we need new safeguards as well? We do not want new vigorous laws to go overboard and in the wrong direction. The CAUT proposal would be a means of giving some equilibrium to the law. The new law would be tough, but it would be directed to real pornography and could not be used as an excuse for a new witch-hunt of people like D. H. Lawrence or own Margaret Laurence.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I welcome the assertion by the Hon. Member that what is desired is a more effective law on obscenity. That is the objective on this side of the House as well, it is inconceivable to me that under the present law, or the law as we propose it, a court would find there is undue exploitation of sex or violence or any of the other categories in a situation where there was serious artistic, literary, or scientific merit. I do not really believe, Madam Speaker, that there is a problem here which needs to be addressed beyond the way in which it is now dealt with in the Code. Obviously when that legislation is introduced we will be having discussions about that, and the Hon. Member can make her point again.

September 29, 1983
Oral Questions PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


FEDERAL EXAMINATION OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question was for the Secretary of State but in his absence 1 will direct it to the Minister of Justice who, last week in an answer to a question by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, said:
-the Secretary of State has already granted funds to at least one group in British Columbia to consider the implications of the legislation and to engage in public education with respect to it.
In view of the routine nature of that answer, as though that practice is routine, is it the policy of the Government to examine provincial policies to see which ones the Government disagrees with, and then fund organizations in each of the Provinces if it disagrees with the aims of particular legislation?
I would like to ask the Minister what are the criteria that the Government uses to make those judgments.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend may also have a question to address to my college, the Secretary of State. However, let me remind him that one of the reasons that we were looking at the legislation in British Columbia is that we were asked to do so by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who raised the question in the House last week.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Obviously there are occasions when the federal Government does have to look to provincial legislation. However, in this case, to the best of my knowledge the grant which has been made by the Secretary of State is a perfectly proper one for normal purposes.


Benno Friesen: It is apparent, then, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Justice takes his marching orders from the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


GRANT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA ORGANIZATION
Benno Friesen: My
supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Justice with respect to the grant made to a British Columbia organization, would the Minister confirm that, first of all? Second, to what organization was the grant made, and how much of it was made to the organization? In view of the statement made by the Minister of Justice that it involves at least one organization, is the Secretary of State intending to make further grants to other organizations and, if so, which ones?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that since 1970 we have had a program to support human rights groups all over Canada, not only in British Columbia but in all the ten Provinces. Any groups that want to apply to the program are
free to do so, and the conditions and criteria are well known. We do study each request individually. If the request meets the objectives of the program, we do grant the money as appropriated by Parliament.


INCOME TAX
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Could he explain to the Canadian people, especially the senior citizens of this country, why they must pay income tax quarterly to the Government?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer the Hon. Member to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, which state that when part of your income is not subject to deductions at the source, taxes due on this income must be paid quarterly. Naturally, this situation can cause problems to certain groups, such as senior citizens, which the Hon. Member mentioned. However, I cannot preclude one group from meeting the requirements contained in the Income Tax Act without parliamentary approval. The Act would therefore have to be amended accordingly to meet the wishes expressed by the Hon. Member. This requirement of the Act as it relates to senior citizens concerns me as well as other Members on both sides of the House. We are looking at solutions to correct the situation.
I have already discussed this with the Minister of Finance. I will have other opportunities to discuss the matter with him and if it is possible to implement special provisions for a particular group of taxpayers, we shall see what can be done.


REQUEST THAT EXCEPTION BE MADE FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
John Horton McDermid: Will the Minister make a firm commitment today to request the Minister of Finance, in his next budget, to make that allowance? The Government makes exceptions for all kinds of people. Surely it can make an exception, in this instance, for senior citizens.


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


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, whatever the sympathy we may feel for a particular group of taxpayers, I think that it would be irresponsible to change the provisions of the act without having first examined the consequences of such action. I can assure the Hon. Member that we are looking at the various groups and at the consequences of a possible change. If with such a
September 29, 1983______________________________COMMONS
change we can lighten the burden which a particular group of taxpayers must now bear, we shall do so.


MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last week, the Union des municipalites regionales de comte et des municipalites locales met in Quebec City. One of the items on the agenda was of course Bill 38, tabled by the Government of Quebec some time ago to prevent municipalities from receiving federal assistance for job creation, and as a result of this meeting, both participants and the Quebec Bill made the headlines. The Union des municipalites is having a convention at this time.
I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration what the federal Government's position is on this issue. Does the Minister intend to meet the Quebec ministers in order to find a solution to the problem of distributing funds earmarked for municipalities?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I am, in fact, meeting the Quebec Minister, Mr. Leonard, on October 4 to discuss this matter. 1 quite understand the Quebec Government's insistence on respecting provincial jurisdiction over municipalities, but in turn, I must also insist on the right of the Government of Canada to treat Canadian citizens residing in Quebec as it treats other Canadian citizens across the country, and I hope Mr. Leonard will show his good faith and intelligence by agreeing with the position taken by the federal Government.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, September 28, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

Petitions


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Government House Leader. May we take it for granted that we will be dealing with Crow for the remainder of this day, the Crow on Friday, the Crow next Monday and the Crow next Tuesday?


Yvon Pinard: No, Madam Speaker, the business of the House is always subject to change with notice. But in principle, theoretically, I think the Hon. Member is right.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: We intend to proceed with Bill C-155 today, tomorrow, and Monday and Tuesday of next week unless we change the order of the day, as is our prerogative.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-second report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. If the House gives its consent, 1 intend to move concurrence in the report later today.


MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES-PRESENTATION OF NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
[Editor's note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition from concerned citizens in the form of a resolution, distributed to many municipalities in the Province of Ontario and approved, which petitions the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to allow for the testing of blood samples for blood alcohols levels in cases where, because of injuries sustained in motor vehicle accidents, drivers are not now subject to testing when suspected of driving while impaired.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 29, 1983
Order Paper Questions


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move concurrence in the twenty-second report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs presented earlier today.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,969.
Paul-Emilien Dalpe Former Labour Leader St-Jerome	Donald H. McDougall Partner Stewart MacKeen & Covert Halifax
G. Campbell Eaton Managing Director Newfoundland Tractor and Equipment Co. Ltd. St. John's	Peter Podovinikoff Chief Executive Officer B. C. Central Credit Union Vancouver
Shirley B. Goldenberg Professor Faculty of Management McGill University Montreal	Alastair H. Ross President Allaro Resources Ltd. Calgary
Gerald V. Schuler Chief Executive Officer Co-operative College of Canada Charlottetown	Douglas P. Thomas Vice-President Toronto Investment Management Inc. Toronto
Patrick Shimbashi Farmer Taber, Alberta	Roy Vogt Professor St. Paul's College University of Manitoba Winnipeg
Ralph G. M. Sultan Vice President Starlaw Holdings Limited Toronto	J. Irving Zucker President Re-Vest Holdings Limited Hamilton
The three full-time Members are:


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


John Leslie Evans: 1. The Economic Council is composed of up to 25 part-time Members and three full-time Members all of whom are Governor in Council appointments. The term of the former is three years and the latter seven years. Part-time Members receive no remuneration. The following are parttime Members:
Directors (2)-GIC-8 ($73,000 to $85,920).
Paid Benefits: The Chairman and Directors (2) receive the benefits associated with the Public Service Compensation Plan for Senior Executive Officers and Equivalents.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 4,942 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
Philip C. Barter Partner Price Waterhouse and Co. Vancouver	T. Earle Hickey Former Minister of Finance of P E L Charlottetown
Roger Beauchemin Senior Associate Beauchemin-Beaton-Lapointe Montreal	Gordon Hill Vice-Chairman Ontario Bean Producers Marketing Board London
Raymond Blais President Confederation des caisses populates ct d'economie Desjardins du Quebec Levis	Kalmen Kaplansky Senior Fellow Human Rights Centre University of Ottawa Ottawa
Pierre Brien Vice-President Canada Lands Company (Mirabel) Ltd. Ste-Scholastique	Pierre Lortie President Montreal Stock Exchange Montreal
David W. Slater Chairman
Economic Council of Canada Ottawa
Peter M. Cornell Director
Economic Council of Canada Ottawa
Patrick Robert Director
Economic Council of Canada Ottawa
2. Compensation: Chairman-DM-2 ($86,250 to $101,500)

September 29, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 4,942 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: |. How many different programming formats for FM radio does the CRTC license and what are those formats?
2.	For what reason does the CRTC require strict adherence to particular formats?
3.	What studies, if any, have been done for the government or for the CRTC to determine whether there is greater variety in programming in comparable United States or Canadian markets?
4.	How many persons are employed by the CRTC to monitor (a) all broadcasters' (b) FM broadcasters' compliance with all federal programming requirements for broadcasters?
5.	How often are individual FM stations monitored to ensure their compliance with CRTC programming requirements?
6.	How many FM stations are there in Canada?
7.	How many FM stations are monitored each year for their compliance with federal programming requirements?
8.	What records must be kept by FM stations in order to permit the CRTC to ensure compliance with the federal requirements?
9.	What is the direct cost to FM broadcasters of compliance with CRTC requirements?
10.	Was an estimate made of the loss to FM broadcasters from foregone revenue as a result of compliance with CRTC regulations and (a) if so, on what date and how was such an estimate made (b) if not, for what reason was it not made?
11.	If an FM broadcaster wishes to adjust his format as a result of market requirements, how does he go about receiving the CRTC's approval?
12.	On average, how long does it take to achieve a decision from the CRTC on a proposed format change?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as
Western Grain Transportation Act
reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26 and 29 (Mr. Benjamin) and Motion No. 27 (Mr. Gustafson).
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to stand and participate in the debate on Motion No.
27 which deals with representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. 1 am somewhat surprised that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) had so little to say on the matter of the statutory Crow rate. I believe his speech consisted of less than a couple of lines.
I was also surprised that Government Members were not here for two hours and delayed debate on this Bill this morning.
Since this is a historical piece of legislation with which we are dealing and because representation on the Transportation Committee is so important, I believe it is fair to say that the farmers in western Canada are very concerned about who is represented. 1 believe if one studied the action and direction which the Progressive Conservative Party has taken with this Bill, one will find that we have constantly recommended producer representation on the Transportation Committee. While certain Members have said that the Conservatives had taken one position then and another position now, 1 suggest that nothing is further from the truth. I have reread some of the speeches made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and also went as far as to read some of mine. I want to suggest that since the outset of debate on Bill C-155 this spring, which has gone on for some time, we have constantly defended the position of the primary producer and the farmer.
The statutory Crow rate was originally established so that produce could be delivered to the open water ports of this country which, in most cases, are more than 1,000 miles away. It was most important that the agreements which were reached at that time would allow the producers the right to believe that their products would get to the markets of the world, and it is our position that this Bill in no way would obstruct the rights and the privileges of the producer to produce his grain and realize a fair return for his production.
In dealing with Motion No. 27 in particular, 1 want to go back to the original proposal that was put forward and amended by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). In keeping with the direction that our Party has taken, it was suggested that there should first be a producer representation of one from the Province of Alberta, two from the Province of Saskatchewan due to its high production of grain as compared to Alberta and Manitoba, and one producer from the Province of Manitoba. It was the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, who implemented this on behalf of the producers.
Our reason for moving Motion No. 27 is that we believe it is important that there be equal representation from producer elevators and grain line companies. Basically, this motion states that there will be three members from the grain line
COMMONS DEBATES__________________________________September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act companies and three representatives from the Pools, which are the Alberta Pool, Saskatchewan Pool and Manitoba Pool. Once again, our Party has mapped out a direction that is fair and equitable in respect of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
Since this Committee will play a very important role in directing the activities of transportation and making suggestions to the council, it is most important that it has fair representation. 1 also suggest in regard to the smaller grain companies that they have representation according to Clause 3(e)(ii). The smaller companies such as Parrish Heimbecker, Weyburn Terminal and others will have the right to elect one member to represent them on the board.
I want to re-emphasize the importance of having broad representation and producer representation. If the Government has made one major mistake in the Bill, if the former Minister has made one major mistake-one of several, 1 believe-and the Minister who was in charge before him has made a mistake, it is that they have not investigated the situation of the primary producer. They have not researched the problems that the producer faces and do not realize that the producers are incapable of meeting the increased freight rates that they will be expected to pay. I suggest that is the greatest mistake which has been made in Bill C-155. Producer representation is the most important element in this Bill.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville and the Conservative Party have justifiably made great attempts to make sure that one producer is not played against another. That is exactly what the Government has done and we have tried in every way possible, through our amendments, to make sure that that kind of obstruction does not exist.
If the prairie producer is not considered when we deal with this or any other clause of the Bill, our country faces a very serious situation. 1 want to draw a comparison because I think it is helpful.
The Government, through its national energy policy, took action while not understanding that it was putting Canadians out of work and putting the primary producer in the oil fields of western Canada out of business. The Government chose to buy oil from Mexico. The Canadian oil fields were shut down and put out of business. I am glad the Minister is here. 1 want to say to him that if the primary producers in agriculture are put out of business because they cannot meet the costs, and research shows that the costs to the primary producer are high, the impact will be great. The impact of the national energy policy will be small in comparison to the impact it will have on agriculture throughout this country.
This and other amendments we have put forward protect the primary producer. They are most important. We ask the Government to accept these amendments in the interests of the primary producer.
1 see I have about half a minute remaining, Mr. Speaker, so let me say that if the farmers are to be represented, it will be the Progressive Conservatives who represent the interests of
the farmer and the primary producer. I have said that in the House, in my riding and across southern Saskatchewan. It is important that they be represented. That is no more important than Motion No. 27 which puts the producer into a position of responsibility and a position where the producer has some input with the Minister in charge.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Motion No. 27, of course, would be impossible unless Motion No. 26 was passed. Sub-clause 3(e) states, "not more than 11 other Members", and the three Members cannot be increased to six other Members without increasing the 11 to 14, a move which 1 shall oppose for a number of reasons.
First, I have always believed that the committee is too large to be functional. It is very difficult to get advice from a committee with that many members. One would probably get conflicting advice all down the line. My second reason for opposing it is that Clause 3 as it is now written is amended from the original clause in the Bill by an amendment put forward by the Progressive Conservative Party in the committee and accepted by the committee. I intend to stand by the proposal adopted by the committee.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) talk about the Conservative Party, the co-operative movement, and how they are supporting farmers in the Province of Saskatchewan. He has moved Motion No. 27 which would, in effect, have three Members on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee which is referred to in the Bill.
When the Bill was originally drafted, the three prairie Wheat Pools were to have three committee members on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. During the summer, the Conservative Party, in a blatant attack upon the Wheat Pools and co-operative movement of this country, introduced an amendment-I believe it was introduced by the Hon.
Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)__________
which reduced the number of committee members from three to one. Now we have the Member for Assiniboia saying in the House that they made a serious mistake. Once again they are changing their mind. It is like the Leader of the Conservative Party who is on both sides of every single issue that comes up in the House, that is when he has the courage to come into the House. During the summer, the Conservative Party said that the Wheat Pool should not have three members on the committee. Their amendment was passed, supported by the Liberal Party, and now the Member for Assiniboia contradicts his own Party, once again saying that the Wheat Pool should have three members on this committee. That shows the confusion there is in that Party over the Bill now before the House. It shows that they do not know where they stand on the important issue of the Crow rate as it affects western Canadian farmers.
I am concerned also about where they stand on a number of other motions before the House. We are not debating just this motion. By the way, Motion No. 27, moved by the Hon.

September 29, 1983
Member for Assiniboia, is exactly the same as the motion that was put on the Order Paper by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), that is, Motion No. 26.
My colleague from Regina West was the only person in the committee who voted to have three Wheat Pool members on the committee. The Conservative Party voted against it. He is the Member who led the attack on behalf of the Wheat Pools, which market the majority of grain in my Province. He was the only Member who stood up and defended them against the combined forces of the Liberal and Conservative Parties.


Mr. Thacker:: He is the only one who showed up. We never saw you there.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We only have one Member on that committee. That Member was at the committee throughout the summer. We also had one alternate and we made sure he was there at every hearing. The Conservative Party often went day after day after day without its full delegation of representatives on the committee or their full delegation of alternates. Where were they?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 hate to do this, but 1 am not going to sit here and listen to the Hon. Member attack Members who spent a great deal of time this past summer on the committee. What the Hon. Member just said is patently not true. The Conservative Party was fully represented there at all times.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) may agree or disagree with the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), but that is basically a matter for debate. Matters like that should not be raised under the guise of points of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is very interesting to see the Liberal Party jump to the defence of the Conservative Party once again. I guess it shows the true alliance in this country. That is why when the motion was moved last summer reducing the number of Wheat Pool representatives from three to one, the Liberal Party supported that Conservative amendment. It shows who are the true friends of the farmer.
The other motion that is important here is Motion No. 24, moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West. That motion would delete the word "co-operative" in Clause 3 of the Bill. This is another indication of a blatant Conservative attack on co-operatives and the United Grain Growers. It makes it impossible for wheat pool directors, officers or committee members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Manitoba Wheat Pool, Alberta Wheat Pool, or UGG to be members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
1 do not know whether the Conservative Party believes in democracy. However, this kind of clause in the Bill virtually eliminates thousands and thousands of ordinary farmers in all three prairie Provinces from running for democratic office and being a member of the Senior Grain Transportation Commit-
Western Grain Transportation Act tee. In my riding-and I am sure the same is true in the riding of Assiniboia-there are hundreds of ordinary farmers who are Wheat Pool Committee men. They work for the Canadian Wheat Pool or for United Grain Growers. With Clause 3 of the Bill in effect there is no way they could seek office.
Another point is that we have taken the time and trouble to obtain a legal opinion. We were told by a lawyer that this meant that ordinary Wheat Pool Committee men or farmers who are out there trying to work for the Wheat Pool would not be eligible to run for office. Yet the Conservative Party would eliminate thousands of ordinary farmers in my Province from the democratic process. 1 believe in freedom, I believe in liberty, and 1 believe in the right of every man and woman to seek elected office. 1 believe in true democracy and in economic democracy. It makes me very angry as a Member of Parliament to see hundreds of my friends in my constituency being excluded from the democratic rights they should enjoy by the Conservative Party.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: And supported by the Liberals.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Unfortunately, their leaders, such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, talk about freedom and democracy, freedom and democracy if one is wealthy and rich, freedom and democracy for the elite. When it comes to ordinary citizens or farmers in Kamsack, Canora, Church-bridge, Melville or Ituna in my riding, that same Party will deny them the right to be members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I cannot understand it. 1 would be very interested in knowing whether or not there would be any support whatsoever for that among Canadians. 1 am absolutely sure that there would not be.


An Hon. Member:: They are not bad guys, just misled.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I believe I hear the Hon. Member for Leth-bridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) making utterances from his seat. I would be very interested in hearing him rise in the House to defend the stand of the Conservative Party that ordinary Wheat Pool Committee men cannot seek office on this Senior Grain Transportation Committee. 1 would be very interested in seeing him rise to make an undemocratic speech. Also 1 am interested in ensuring that all farmers in the prairie Provinces know where the Conservative Party really stands. It is interested in giving the private grain trade seats on that committee. It is interested in giving the railways seats on that committee.
1 see the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is present today. He must be embarrassed because his face is turning the same colour as his jacket. He must be embarrassed to know that his Party is supporting a clause in the Bill which is undemocratic. It stands against freedom. His Party moved that particular clause. Members of that Party are denying basic rights to ordinary men and women. It is something which goes back to the nineteenth century and tells us where the Conservative Party really stands.

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
One of the motives for its amendment is that it is attacking the Wheat Pool movement and the United Grain Growers. It is defending its friends in the private grain trade and in the private grain exchange. The co-operative movement in Canada has been very important. The people who built the wheat pools, the co-operatives and the credit unions made a tremendous contribution to the country. As I travel throughout my riding I see wheat pool elevators in village after village, town after town. Those people want to be treated fairly and squarely. They want at least three members on the Committee. They do not want the membership reduced to one, as the Conservative Party would like it. Also they want to ensure that ordinary grassroot farmers have a chance to be members of that committee, not just bureaucrats, Government officials and the corporate elite which the Conservative Party would like to see running the affairs of the country.
I do not apologize for standing up for ordinary citizens in the House of Commons. It is very interesting to see how the Conservative Party, when push comes to shove, will not stand up for ordinary Canadian citizens. I am very shocked that several of my friends in that Party, who I know believe in democracy, fair trade and equal treatment, will sit on their hind-ends and allow their Party leadership to get away with this nonsense and discrimination against western Canadians and ordinary farmers in my constituency and indeed right across the land.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that Members of the New Democratic Party started out in this debate by saying that they would do everything in their power to kill the Bill and now they are making various proposals and deals with the Government in an attempt to get some parts of it through. That was the essence of their press release and their questions today. If there is any caving in, it seems to be coming from the NDP.
I rise in support of Motion No. 27 presented by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). The motion would establish a representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee from the primary elevator system in Canada. In part it reads:
-six members, each representing one of the six largest primary elevator licensees in Canada as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, and determined on the basis of elevator receipts and cash purchase tickets.
This would mean that each of the three prairie pools would have one representative, United Grain Growers would have a representative, Pioneer would have a representative, as would Cargill.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) moved two of the motions we are now debating. In Motion No. 25 he proposes five members, and then as a safety valve he proposes six members in Motion No. 26. Motion 24 is a perfectly logical and reasonable amendment. I certainly want to support it. It is consistent with the proposition of fairness, and consistent particularly with our major thrust in ensuring that producers have adequate representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee and in ensuring that the producers' interest is incorporated in the Bill.
One of the many deficiencies in the Bill is the lack of any mention of producer interest and the requirement to maximize returns to the producer. We have incorporated that into several clauses of the Bill as one of the primary obligations of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as well as the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator. It is important to recognize the welfare of the producer. We are really setting up a new grain handling and transportation system and a new grain handling and transportation administration. We were appalled by the fact that there was hardly a mention of the producer. We sought to incorporate that in the Bill. The thrust of our amendments to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee concerns grassroot producers who are not necessarily tied into any grain handling company, grain handling system or co-operative.
We think that the pools can adequately maintain representation on these kinds of organizations through their administration and management, but we thought it was very important to include individual producers whose sole aim, objective and purpose in life is to produce grain. It is important to have them there functioning and representing the interest of the producer, not the interests of grain elevators or any other association.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) became excited and indicated that the Conservatives were trying to exclude ordinary producers. The fact of the matter is that we are doing just the opposite. We are trying to include ordinary producers and to ensure that ordinary producers who have no other vested interest, have an opportunity to sit down with the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. That committee will be attended by the Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Chairman of the Canadian Grain Commission, representatives of the railways and representatives of the grain elevator companies so that they can say, "Look, guys, there is a problem here," and so that they can speak directly to the railroads, so that they can speak directly to the Chairman of the Canadian Grain Commission and the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. We think that that is very important.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville has become very excited when talking about attendance of Conservative Members. This committee travelled across western Canada and visited his home Province. He did not even attend the hearings in the Province of Saskatchewan. Out of the 66 meetings that this committee held, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville attended only one meeting. That only goes to show his interest in the Bill and his interest in the welfare of the producers. Yet he stands here today and pontificates and chastises Conservative Members and Liberal Members.
I am pleased that the chairman of the committee stood up in defence of all Hon. Members who worked very hard and very diligently and for long hours to try to dissect each and every clause of the Bill and to try to seek out solutions. There
September 29, 1983

certainly were differences of opinion, and there will be still more as the Bill proceeds, but the fact of the matter is that the Members worked very hard. I take violent exception to the fact that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville chastised us after attending only one committee hearing.
1 should add, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the committee was very generous. Whether an Hon. Member was a member of the committee or whether he just attended as an observer, the chairman allowed all Members to participate. He was very generous with the committee s time, and certainly when we travelled to Regina, Edmonton, and Winnipeg, any Member who was located in the area had the opportunity to sit in on the committee hearings and to participate in any way, shape or form excepting only for the opportunity to vote. 1 commend him for it, and I think as a result of that, the committee hearing process was much better.
1 take violent exception to the fact that a Member such as the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville can come to the House in such an excited state and try to suggest that we as members of the committee were attempting to exclude the primary producer when the opposite is the fact.
We moved a motion, Mr. Speaker, that would incorporate four producer members into the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I guess the difference between the position taken by Members of the Conservative Party and the position taken by representatives of the pools was the fact that pools collectively wanted to exclude the producers. We do not know why the representatives from the pools wanted that. They made the point that they wanted to exclude the producers. Rather than having three producer members as originally called for in the Bill, they suggested that that be deleted and that the Chairman of the Wheat Board Advisory Committee and the Chairman of the Livestock Feed Board Advisory Committee represent the producers. We found that totally unsatisfactory and, as a result, we moved an amendment which allowed four grain producers to be members of the board, two from the Province of Saskatchewan and one each from the Provinces of Alberta and Manitoba.
In addition, we moved another amendment which allowed for a feed grain producer to be represented on this committee. We also made other changes to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee by allowing for representation from the trucking industry. When we are talking theoretically about the movement of grain, we must remember that every bushel of grain that moves travels by truck. The trucking industry is an important component of the whole grain moving system.
In terms of enlarging the objectives and the terms of reference of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, we have endeavoured to have the members of that committee commit themselves in their duties and obligations to the principles of maximizing the returns to producers and representing the best interests of the producers. We endeavoured to do the same regarding the terms of reference of the Grain Transport Administrator and we think that that is a step in the right direction because, throughout the course of our hearings, we were told time and time again that the producers' interests
Western Grain Transportation Act were not clearly enunciated in the Bill, and that is what we wanted to change.
1 would like to speak briefly to Motion No. 29. Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party want to stop the railways from having a seat on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. How absurd could they be, Mr. Speaker? The producers want to get their hands on the representatives of the railroad at committee. That is where the decision-making process, the communications process and the entire co-ordination and consultation process should take place.
I find the position taken by Members of the NDP to be absolutely ludicrous and absolutely absurd. In my opinion, the real action will take place at committee, because I can see producers who have been shortchanged by improper allocation of cars, shortage of cars or lack of service tangling with the railroads there. I can see them tangling with the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board and the member from the Canadian Grain Commission, but it is important to have the railway representatives present because if they are not at the table, then this committee will be worthless. 1 say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the Government will see fit to support Motion No. 27 and reject Motion No. 29.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words respecting Motion No. 27 which was so excellently moved by my friend, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), it appears to me that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) either did not listen when the Hon. Member was speaking or did not bother reading the amendment, because the allegations he made are simply unfounded. They are not right. That is not what the Hon. Member for Assiniboia said at all. As a matter of fact, the words of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia were fair and just. Fairness and justice is what we want and what our people and our farmers want.
I would ask the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville if it is fair and just for a group that handles 20 per cent of the grain in western Canada to be entitled to membership on the committee. He suggests that we designate members according to the organization. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia is suggesting that we designate members in accordance with the amount of business done. That is sensible and 1 am sure every farmer in the country would support that. It makes sense.
As a matter of fact, I received a phone call from a member of the Alberta Wheat Pool recently. He said: "This isn't fair at all. We handle far more grain than another company and we have many, many more elevators. But our representation isn't anything near what it should be. We should have more than one representative for the three prairie Provinces." 1 agree with that. I am not going to argue the case for the Alberta Wheat Pool or the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or the Manitoba Wheat Pool. 1 am arguing the case for the farmer who is entitled to fair representation.
If a large percentage of farmers take their grain to the Alberta Wheat Pool, that indicates that there should be more representation from the pools than from independent compa-

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act nies, and vice versa. If farmers take 50 per cent of their grain to an independent company, are we to leave that company out because it does not happen to be one of the big boys with big elevators? That is what the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Mel-ville is suggesting. He is suggesting that we are to designate them. I say that that is offering special favours and special privileges and we are against special privileges. We want to be fair to every individual farmer in the country. This amendment is fair to every individual farmer in the country.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville talked about killing the Bill. He is more concerned with killing the Conservative Party because he is frightened that, day by day, he is getting closer to losing his seat.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if it is in order to distort what I said. It was Members of the Conservative Party who moved the motion to reduce the Wheat Pool representation from three to one. They did it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is hardly a point of order. That is debate. Hon. Members will have the opportunity to contribute additonal remarks to the debate later on. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) has the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of misrepresentation which the Hon. Member tries to make continually. He is not getting through to the people of western Canada because he is not telling the truth. This Party is not trying to reduce the membership of any particular organization. We want to have representation according to the way individual farmers deal with them. That is the basis of it. If ten farmers take their wheat to one pool and 100 farmers take it to another, why should we insist on one having ten members and the other one maybe no members?
The Hon. Member for Assiniboia tries to be fair but, by misrepresentation, the Member from the NDP tries to hide the facts. The resolution of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia calls for six members-the original motion says three-each representing one of the six largest primary elevator licencees in Canada as prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council and determined on the basis of elevator receipts and cash purchase tickets. The interpretation given by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is completely different from that.
I want the farmers in my riding to know what the Conservative Party is doing. We do not stand for special privilege. We want the farmer to have a fair show, whether he has five cents in his pocket, whether he has 1,000 hogs, whether he has five elevators or whether he is a quarter-section farmer, he is an individual, a Canadian and is entitled to representation. When the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville tries to mislead the House, we have to be suspicious of his motive.
1 support the amendment and I will be prepared to stand anywhere in Canada and fight for the principle. All too often I have seen the big shots get in where they have a vested interest
instead of the people who go in objectively for the good of the country, not for their own pocketbook. That is what we want in Canada and that is what the Hon. Member for Assiniboia is fighting for. That is what his motion says in black and white for anyone to read. The trouble is that the NDP Members do not read anything unless they like it. If it is socialistic, they will read it.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville said he had legal opinion. I would like to know where he got that legal opinion because I have legal opinion that is completely different. The man who gave me the legal opinion will stand head and shoulders above any solicitor his Party can put forward. If he wants to name his legal opinion, I will be glad to name mine.
Let us forget the legal opinion for a moment and get down to the common sense of the ordinary, every day farmer. Let each of them interpret Clause 3(d) of the Bill. They are not illiterate. The clause deals with the membership of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as follows:
Four members who are active grain producers currently holding a Canadian Wheat Board permit book-
They have to be growing wheat and selling it to an elevator and have a Canadian Wheat Board permit book. It goes on:
-and who, in the opinion of the Minister, have been duly elected as representatives of grain producers-
Not appointed but elected, Mr. Speaker:
-one representing the producers of Manitoba, two representing the producers of Saskatchewan and one representing the producers of Alberta, and who, at the time of their election, and for the duration of their service as members of the Committee are not nominees, officers, directors, agents or representatives of any corporation-
This is not one from a corporation that has a vested interest, or a co-operative that has a vested interest or a business that has a vested interest. The NDP Members would leave all of them in, however, except the co-operatives. They would delete co-operatives but apparently all the others are fine with them. Why should there be a special privilege for the co-operatives?
I deal with co-operatives because I like their business, but they have never asked for a special privilege and I am not going to give them a special privilege. They will take their share along with everyone else.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville indicated that an individual farmer would not get on the board, but that is who we want on the board, Mr. Speaker, not someone with a vested interest or someone who holds a high position in some agency or corporation or co-operative. We want the ordinary, every day farmer who will deal with things objectively. My hon. friends should take this back to their lawyer and tell him to read it. It does not bar the individual farmer, it perpetuates him. It gives us a chance to get a fresh, net opinion from the farmer fighting for a livelihood, not the rich, wealthy and special people.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the amendment to this Bill that would provide for farmers to be members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I submit that the amendment ought to be accepted if for no other reason than that the history of the Crow rate
September 29, 1983

relates to the movement of grain. From its inception, this legislation was directed toward producers. For as long as the Crow rate has been in existence, there has been an intention to serve producers of the country. It only makes sense that when changes are made to the legislation, its fundamental purpose must be kept in mind. And the fundamental reason for the Crow rate originally was for the movement of grain in western Canada.
There are those who argue that we would deny representation to Wheat Pools, but it should be remembered that in the original draft of the legislation there was an opportunity for farmer-producer representation. It was the Wheat Pools, in their own interest, which took the view that they should be represented and not the producer. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) asked why we should single out the co-operatives for attention when it comes to having vested interests. How can we say that among all grain traders only they should be represented? Is there any reason that we should single them out for that privilege, among all grain traders?
I see I have the ear of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). I would ask him if it is not obvious that the purpose of grain companies is to buy and sell grain and that this leads to the export of grain? Is it not also obviously the case that producers may do other things with grain than export it, particularly in Alberta where 47 per cent of grain grown is what we call "value added"? It goes into the production of poultry, pork, beef, or is in some other way used for some purpose other than being sold as whole grain. Those producers, who represent virtually one half of the agricultural income of Alberta, surely ought to have some say as opposed to those whose only objective is the export of grain. Those who are members only of a pool organization will reflect a perspective which is primarily self-serving, and that perspective will mean that grain will move from the Province without value added. I hear a little heckle coming to me from the New Democratic Party to my extreme left, whose Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, are very pink and very ill read. Since that Hon. Member comes from the Province of Saskatchewan, he ought also to be aware enough of western agriculture to know that while he may be arguing his individual point, the truth of the prairies is that we are not homogeneous, and we ought not to be.
One of the great challenges which comes often from the Government side on this question is that the prairie people cannot get their act together. I hope we do not because our acts are in fact different. Saskatchewan exports almost 85 per cent of what it grows. In Alberta, a sister and neighbouring Province, virtually half of the grain grown is feed grain. Our producers have a different purpose from that of those who belong to grain companies whose first priority is to export. I submit, Sir, that it is counter to prairie production to say that it ought to be a grain company which sits on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee when in fact it is producers, for whom this Bill was designed originally, and for historic reasons who should continue to be the representatives from this day forth. This Bill is intended for the producers of western
Western Grain Transportation Act
Canada, and there is a variance in what Alberta and Saskatchewan do with their production. This variance can only be expressed with adequate producer representation.
I believe that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) has done western Canada a great service by submitting that it should be those with the particular mental bent only to buy and sell grain and little else who should be removed by method of amendment in order to allow producers a variety of representation on a board which is sensitive to the needs of western Canada. A challenge was put forward by the Hon. Member for Bow River. How can the Government possibly select one set of grain traders and say that they are to be the privileged few is a question which absolutely demands an answer. We cannot pick out a grain company and stamp that across the three prairie Provinces, and say that it is privileged above all other companies, without any system of vote or any system of determining how it gets there. The Government surely cannot set up a committee which will have the power that this one will and not allow for some kind of input from the producers.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Mount St. Helen's is over here blowing his top again. He is a Member of the NDP and will probably not have the courage to speak himself, but he will stand here and shoot off steam and blow off ash as he always does. He sits over here and hollers through my microphone. I challenge him. He has a chance to rise and speak. We will allow him to do that any time that I sit down.
I would like to read into the record what the Province of Alberta, in its official submission, had to say with regard to this question of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. It said this:
The Senior Grain Transportation Committee should be restructured so that a majority of the members represent Western farmers and are free of vested interest in the grain handling/transportation system.
In short, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that that is the official position of the Province of Alberta. The submission goes on to read as follows:
The grain farmer who has the responsibility to pay future cost increases is not adequately represented. The Crown is well represented through the Canadian Wheat Board, Canadian Grain Commission and the Administrator: the trade interests are covered through their appointed representatives, the railways' interests through their representatives but direct grain farmer representation is restricted to 3 out of the total 21 memberships.
What we find is that the Province of Alberta, as a provincial Government, stands opposed to the position of this Government. It would favour the amendment presented by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. I feel it is important that I read into the record the position of the Alberta Wheat Pool. I quote directly as follows:
The Pools submit that representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee should be composed of those parties having a significant interest in and a direct responsibility for the transportation of western grain. This is considered desirable as it is anticipated that the Senior Grain Transportation Committee will be involved in significant grain transportation matters affecting Western Canada.

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I regret to interrupt but the Hon. Member's time has expired. He could be allowed to continue with unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is agreed.


Arnold John Malone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that the House has extended extra time. I would not want to take very much time but that the point I have been making hangs in limbo if I do not add some words to the quote I just read.
What the pools are saying in essence is that this is a transportation matter and it is only a transportation matter. The original debates, as they related to the Crow rate, back in the earlier history of this country, clearly showed that the establishment of a Crow rate was not purely a transportation matter, and in western Canada today it is not believed to be purely a transportation matter. This, Sir, is an economic development matter. If it were only a transportation question, as the pools are trying to submit that it is, their argument might be a more viable one.
The question is which way the economy of western Canada, and in turn the whole of Canada, is better served. I submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Minister, that the economy of western Canada is much better served if the members of that committee, which will have some considerable power, reflect the interests of those who are the growers of grains and the users of grains. We cannot conclude, Sir, that those who are intermediate to the process of bying and selling grain can be guaranteed to have the best interests of the growers always at heart. They have a vested interest. We would be fools to believe otherwise.
I submit in conclusion, Sir, that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia has presented an amendment which commands that we lend an ear and be respectful to the producers of this country, consistent with our history, with the fact that the principle of this Bill is to serve producers, and consistent with the fact that this is an economic initiative, not just a transportation initiative.
Now is your chance to speak.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) said that now it is my chance to speak. I do not know what he is getting at. Perhaps he is alluding to one of the Members who was standing behind me and shouting at him occasionally during his speech. He may have thought it was me, but it was not.
There are a number of things which have come up in this part of the debate, and what we are looking at is some amendments to set up the membership of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee as it will be called under the new legislation. What we have seen in the debate so far, particularly from my friends to the right, is a fair bit of misunderstanding, to put it charitably, and a lack of information as to what
actually went on to get us to where we are. I would like to put on the record what the process was from the time the original Bill was put before committee, what it said, and what happened to it in committee. Apparently the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), in particular, is quite ignorant of what went on in committee.
The original Bill had the precise same wording as the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). But that was not good enough for the Conservative Members on the committee, so they got together with their friends across the way and proposed an amendment to that portion of the Bill, Clause 3, which we now see before us here today. That is a Conservative amendment proposed on September 1 at 9.40 in the morning by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). It is word for word exactly what he proposed, with one change. The Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) came in at 11.40 a.m. and proposed an amendment to the amendment, which was also incorporated in the Bill, and that is what we have here now. It was supported by the Liberals. The vote in each case was Liberals and Conservatives against the one lone New Democrat who sits on the committee.
In the course of the amendment by our good friend, the Hon. Member for Red Deer, the various organizations were named. Great issue has been taken with that by two or three previous speakers, but it was not until the Hon. Member moved his amendment that we were told who those committee members would represent. We were told very clearly that there would be one representative of the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Organization, which is the umbrella organization for the three prairie pools; one member representing United Grain Growers Limited, and one member representing the two largest privately owned primary elevator companies. So it was the Hon. Member for Red Deer who put names on who would sit for whom. It was the Conservatives who changed the Bill as it was written and to which we are now proposing to return by the motion of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia; they changed it themselves. It was set up to provide a certain amount of equity, or the possibility of it. By having the six members you can see it would be possible to have at least one member representing each of the three prairie pools which collectively handle a little over 60 per cent of the grain in prairie Canada. The other two or three members could have been divided among the private grain companies and the United Grain Growers. They were not satisfied just to reduce the proportion of representation from those prairie co-operative grain companies; they have to go a step further. When they got down to the point of adding producer representatives, they made it very clear that they did not want anyone who had anything at all to do with prairie Wheat Pools to be part of that committee by way of being producer representatives.


Charles James Mayer: Or the United Grain Growers; be fair.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That is right. I do not know whom we have got.


Charles James Mayer: We would have got farmers.
September 29, 1983


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Elon. Member says it would have been farmers, but they would have been a very special kind of farmer. They would have been farmers who did not have anything to do with the local committees of the United Grain Growers or the various Wheat Pools. By placing them outside without ability to take part in this committee, you are eliminating a great many farmers in western Canada. I do not know the figures for Manitoba and Alberta, but I know from my own Province of Saskatchewan that there are approximately 800 Wheat Pool Committees made up of some 12 to 20 farmers each. Given a legal opinion and the reading of the resolution as it is now, all of those will be eliminated from being able to participate as representatives on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. You are eliminating 15,000 or 16,000 farmers in Saskatchewan alone.


Arnold John Malone: Not true.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: 1 have not even made allowance for the committee members who are part of the UGG structure. The history of the Wheat Pool movement is perhaps not well understood on this side. I do not know how they could forget, but the Wheat Pools and farmers are very closely allied, always were and always will be. I remind the House that the Wheat Pool movement began in my riding with some individuals from the Kelvington and Ituna areas who pushed to begin signing up people for the Wheat Pool which was finally begun in 1924, with a president from Bankend, again in that little triangle.
The membership is very much involved in the marketing of wheat pool grain. That was the reason they started. They started with at least 50 per cent of the grain signed up and committed to a five-year contract, a commitment which continues to this day. In our Province the pools have over 60 per cent of the business and they do not get that kind of commitment without having the full support of the Wheat Pool Committee members and individual members out on the farm.
I think no one with that kind of involvement in his community activities, including the marketing of grain and the interest he would have in being part of the local Wheat Pool Committee, should be eliminated from taking part as member of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. Those are the very kinds of people we want on that committee. The legislation proposed by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and amended by the Hon. Member for Red Deer prevents them from taking part.


Arnold John Malone: Wrong.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I think it was a misinterpretation of what Members of Parliament are suppose to be doing here, a misinterpretation of the input individual members have within their organizations. The way this motion is written it would even prohibit a person who was part of a co-operative farm. To be a member you have to be a director in most of the co-operative farms I have in my area, and those people could not take part, simply because of the kind-
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) rises on a point of order.


Mr. McKnight:: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, on debate, 1 wonder if the Hon. Member could describe the amendment in the Bill that he is speaking of?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Let it be clearly understood that before a Member is allowed to ask a question of the Member who has the floor, that Hon. Member must consent to receiving the question. That is hardly a point of order in the way in which it was done. Rules of debate require that an Hon. Member who has the floor be not interrupted unduly. In any case, the question has been asked. The Hon. Member may respond if he so wishes.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: On a point of order, then, Mr. Speaker, there is a rule of relevancy, and if the Hon. Member who is speaking could bring himself to the amendment as the Bill is printed in his references, it would certainly make debate much more lucid and we could carry on in a much more economical manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre has 30 seconds left.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, to the poor Hon. Member to my right, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) who is getting lost, 1 will say that if he looks at the Bill, we are on Clause 3. We are on amendments to Subclause 3. I have been discussing Clause 3 the whole time in my speech. Perhaps he would call a page and get himself a copy of the Bill so that he could follow along as well. The pages will, I understand, if requested, even read to the Hon. Member what is being said in the Bill, if he has difficulty there as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I will now recognize the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the courtesy which was just extended would also be extended to the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre so that he may complete his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is agreed.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 was in the process of pointing out the very clear connection between the grass roots farmers and their Wheat Pools. Some Members of the House were concerned that these farmers might not be represented on the Transportation Committee, and were therefore defending their position of ensuring that anyone who is a member of a

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
co-operative or corporation must not be allowed to be included in that committee. Farmers who have taken an interest in marketing grain have done so, to a very large extent, through the Wheat Pool movement by becoming members of the pool as young farmers and participating in local Wheat Pool Committees which are comprised of 12 to 20 people. Some of them are even larger than that. At each elevator delivery point, there is a Wheat Pool Committee with a chairman and a secretary. With the Bill as it is now worded, thanks to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, these people would be denied the privilege of participating as advisers and representatives on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee with which this Clause of the Bill deals. This is where the potential leadership for the farm movement originates, almost without exception. It is not doing anything for the agricultural movement in western Canada to try deliberately to eliminate these kinds of people from taking part as elected or appointed representatives of their organizations.
We think that this whole debate shows a bit of hypocrisy on the part of the Conservative Members, since they had the exact same clause in the original Bill as they are now attempting to put back in. They eliminated it themselves.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They repented.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Now I am pleased to see that they have repented. There have been a great many repentances on the part of that Party. The Conservatives fought a very weak fight at second reading. Halfway or two-thirds of the way through the committee stage, they decided that perhaps the NDP was right and that perhaps they should be opposing the Bill with a little more power and a little more influence than they had before.


Arnold John Malone: Tell us about Mission-Port Moody.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: At second reading, we heard barely one Conservative for every New Democrat who spoke. The normal process is three to one. They could not disturb themselves to take part in the debate at that time. I am pleased to see today that they have been stirred up enough to keep their usual share of the debate going and that they now find that the original way in which the Bill was written was fine. I hope they will be able to convince their Liberal friends again, as they did in committee, that a mistake has been made. I hope that we will be able to get this part of the Bill back to where it will be of some use to farmers so that farmers, who are members of the co-operative movement, either the United Grain Growers or the pools, will be eligible to be part of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is always a delight to follow the Members of the NDP, because when they speak of hypocrisy, they just reflect it themselves. They are always so sanctimonious in their comments. They purport to represent the ordinary producer, yet they voted against Clause 3(c) which would provide for four active producers. The facts speak for themselves. One can look at the record. They purport to represent the senior people, the
labouring classes of the country, yet what do they do? They keep a Government in power that goes into deficit so far that the people who are hurt are the senior citizens, the poor people who can never get out. It is because the NDP keeps the Government in power.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member's remarks are not relevant to the motions now being debated. I would invite him to come back to those motions, please.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, then the Hon. Member went on to another point. 1 think the truth of the matter is that Members of the NDP are speaking for the body corporate of the Wheat Pools, which are huge organizations. They have the vast majority of grain sales in the West. They are speaking for the body corporate, not for the little man who owns them. However, are they prepared to apply the Combines Investigation Act to them? No way. They are prepared to see the corporations getting 100 per cent of the market. However, concerning a newspaper or something that has 20 per cent of the market, they are prepared to attack it viciously, if an oil company happens to be a little larger, they will attack it viciously, but not the corporation.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) said that the reason the membership was reduced and the PC moved the amendment was that the Wheat Pools acted as one corporate body on the issue. The Hon. Member himself said that they always acted together, and therefore, why would they be given three votes? Would the Hon. Member be prepared to give Cargill three if it split itself into Cargill Manitoba, Cargill Saskatchewan and Cargill Alberta? Would he give the United Grain Producers three votes if it split itself into UGG Manitoba, UGG Saskatchewan and UGG Alberta? Of course it just has one vote because it has one legitimate interest. Of course, that is where the Minister and the Government made their largest mistake, when they went from the Gilson proposals which, concerning the method of payment, was 81 to 19, to what the former Minister of Transport then proposed, which was 50-50. By listening to the Wheat Pools, the body corporate, and giving it more power and legitimacy than it deserved, the Government acted as if it were representing all the farmers, but it was not. It represented the corporate interest. It was its duty. If I were the president or the director of the Alberta Wheat Pool and went up to a meeting, I would act for the corporation. That would be my job. I would be a director of the corporation. Therefore, the Government should have been seen in that light. The Government should not give the weight to the corporate interest that it did. It acted in unanimity, together, when it went into Quebec. It acted in unanimity when it came in and said, "Take off the active producers and put on only our three body corporates."


Arnold John Malone: Take off, eh?


Blaine Allen Thacker: We simply would not agree with it. We felt that the interest of the man on the soil was different from that
September 29, 1983

of the corporate body, whether UGG, Cargill or the Wheat Pool.
The Wheat Pool, as a body corporate, has become very large. It has professional management, directors and the whole body. It is just as unrepresentative of the man on the soil as other corporations such as Esso. The NDP Members constantly rise to attack large corporations because they have a professional management body, but the Wheat Pools are no different.
Therefore, 1 stand in favour of the motion and 1 hope the Government will accept it. I have no doubt at all that the people of Canada will see through the NDP arguments purporting to represent and protect people and that they are actually injuring the very people whom they purport to represent.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), Shipbuilding-PIP grants-Loss of jobs in shipyards, (b) Construction of drilling rigs; the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), White Farm Equipment Ltd.-Urgency of issue; the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), External Affairs-Nuclear technology-Possible exchanges between Argentina and Libya, (b) Relations with Argentina.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport, and on Motions No. 24, 25, 26 and 29 (Mr. Benjamin) and Motion No. 27 (Mr. Gustafson).
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-155. I will read
Western Grain Transportation Act
the amendment 1 am speaking to very slowly so that the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) will be able to keep track of it.
At the outset I will say that the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre did participate during several days as a member of the standing committee. Since the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) was in briefly to make a statement one afternoon and, for some reason, we did not see him again at all the remaining sittings we had throughout Canada, 1 can understand the mistakes and misinterpretations he made concerning this amendment. However, I believe the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre must be making a deliberate attempt either to take things out of context or else be relies on old reports which Members have.
I would like to review for the House what occurred with Part 1 dealing with the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. At the outset, we who travelled with the committee across western Canada heard from approximately 20 Wheat Pool Committees that appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport. They said time and again that they were not sure that the Wheat Pool speaks for them. They indicated that they were not convinced that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, for instance, is representing them in a fair and open manner. They believed it might be tinged by some bias it has as directors for members of the corporate board. Therefore they wanted to express their views to the Members of the Standing Committee on Transport in the House of Commons and not those of the directors and officers of the company. They did so on several occasions.
We then had a submission made to us on behalf of the Canadian Co-Operative Wheat Producers Organization, which is an umbrella group for the Alberta Pool, Saskatchewan Pool and Manitoba Pool. When we examine the original Bill as it was first presented to the House by the previous Minister of Transport, we see that it provided for three representatives from the three pools. There was a representative from the United Grain Growers and a shared representation from what could be considered Richardson or Pioneer and Cargill Grain. The pools considered that to be a very large and cumbersome committee, as stated in their brief to the standing committee on behalf of the Canadian Co-Operative Wheat Producers Organization. They said they did not want to have those three men or women, who actively earned their livelihood from month to month and day to day by producing grain representing them but that the elected chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee should represent all the producers in the three prairie Provinces. The chairman is probably elected by a 35 per cent voter turnout and probably receives 25 per cent of the vote. Nevertheless, he is elected.
The pools then came and said that in order to protect the feed grain producers in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and B.C. we should have the chairman of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, who is not elected but appointed, on the board. The pools wanted him rather than three feed grain producers. It was obvious to people who studied that situation that it did

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
not allow representation from the Maritimes but only from Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia.
We put forward an amendment to reduce the size of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to comply with the request of the pools since they said it was too large. We eliminated two pool representatives but said they could have one, because this committee is not really one where votes will count. It is not a committee where votes will be decided for or against but one where views can be expressed. We felt that they could be expressed on behalf of those pools by the Canadian Wheat Producers Organization. To counterbalance that, we said that the producers should have four members consisting of one from Alberta, one from Manitoba and two from Saskatchewan.
Furthermore, rather than the only person to protect the consumers of feed grains being someone from the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, we suggested having one user of feed grains from the prairie basin, the three prairie Provinces. That made a lot of sense and was supported by members who wished to have producer representation.
As these hearings progressed we wanted to make sure that there was not a vested interest or duplication of interest in the expression of views on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. Therefore, we took steps similar to those we take when we prescribe the ability to vote in a federal or provincial election in Canada. We enunciated the eligibility of those who could run in an election, such as we do for elections to this House or to legislatures across the country.
I would like to quote from page 12586 of our standing committee reports. An amendment was made that caused some concern as to whether the committee Members of the pools and the UGG would be eligible to serve on the committee. The amendment read, "... is an elected or appointed representative of any board or committee involved in an advisory or other capacity with respect to the grain trade." We debated that amendment and asked for a legal opinion. We asked for that legal opinion from Mr. Thompson, counsel to the Standing Committee on Transport and a member of the Canadian Transportation Committee and from Mr. Lefebvre, who is the General Counsel to the Department of Transport. Both counsels were asked for their opinion with regard to the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) as to whether committee members of the pools would be eligible. If it is a real concern that he has raised, it is something we should be concerned about. The question concluded:
So, Mr. Chairman, I think now is the time to raise it with the counsels while we have them here.
Mr. Thompson stated:
In my opinion, if such a person were a member of such a local advisory committee he could not, unless he resigned, be elected as a member of this committee.
That was Mr. Thompson's information. We then asked Mr. Lefebvre, and he said:
I do not know enough about the role or the structure of the wheat pools, their committee members, what their role is. It could go either way, but I do not know enough-
The Hon. Member for Regina West then interjected and reiterated his concern. The Chairman, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), then said:
Mr. Benjamin, I think your point is well taken, and I remind committee members that I asked the question this morning as to whether or not a delegate to the wheat pool would thus be ineligible to the elected-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We amended it; we took that out.


The Chairman:: -and I was told so.
No meaning he would not be. The Committee report goes on to read:


Mr. Neil:: Mr. Chairman, I understood from Mr. Lefebvre when the question was put to him that this would not restrict those people from being part of the-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: That was my understanding.


An Hon. Member:: It is mine too.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But they have to resign.


Douglas Charles Neil: Not, no, no; that was not our understanding from counsel this morning. It was asked specifically. It is not the intention of the members on this side to prevent members of local pools or UGG organizations from being elected or named to this committee.
Then we have the workhorse of the NDP. 1 pay tribute to him. He singlehandedly put forward their point of view day after day, hour after hour. Referring to the statement by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), he said this:


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, 1 appreciate that; I agree that was not the intent of the movers of that addition. I think by unanimous consent we can do anything. We could go back and reword that, or else an appropriate amendment is going to have to be done at the report stage.
Hon. Members who spoke for the New Democratic Party have completely taken out of context any representation that was made in the Bill. The Member for Regina West recognized that it was not the intention of this Party to deny local Wheat Pool men or women or UGG Members the right to be elected to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, we are moving into what 1 am sure most Canadians viewing this debate must find very confusing. We are talking about different clauses in the Bill, in particular the makeup of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
The Conservative Party has been quite loud and vociferous in its hooting at our speakers. That generally indicates there is something that disturbs those Members. When Government Members begin to hoot and holler, you realize you have touched a sore point, something is there and they do not want it heard. In fact, they try to drown you out, as Members to my right have been trying to drown out the major point we have been trying to make. Many of the amendments we are dealing with today, amendments to the report from the Committee, are really amendments to Conservative amendments. The point which the Hon. Members for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made is that the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) in essence reverts to what the
September 29, 1983

original Bill said. It negates the Conservative amendment introduced in committee on which the Liberals and Conservatives voted together. I have the records here.
When the sessions started at 9.40 a.m. on Thursday, September 1, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) moved the major amendment, "that Clause 3 be amended by deleting lines 11 to 39 on page 3 and lines 1 to 17 on page 4 and substituting the following therefor". What follows is close to what we have now. There were some further subamendments, for example, at 11.12, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) moved a further refinement to Clause 3(e)(i).
The Bill before us today is a combination of Liberals and Conservatives voting together to reduce the number of delegates from the Wheat Pool on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. That is clear. Regardless of what the Hon. Members for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), Assiniboia and Kindersley-Lloydminster had to say, the truth is here and it is substantiated in the records. It was their amendment which reduced the number of representatives from the Wheat Pool from three to one.
In the debates today we heard justification of that original amendment introduced by the Conservative Party how the Wheat Pool, indeed, is one organization. As I listened to the speakers and read through the transcripts of the original debate, it was as though these Members were arguing the cause that they were arguing on Thursday, September 1. The arguments that many of them presented today were indeed the same type of argument that they were presenting on September 1. It is as though they are still arguing the cause that the pool should, in fact, have only one representative and not three.
I wish these Members would have heard the speech of my dear friend from Assiniboia who laid out the new line today. It is quite different from the line laid out on Thursday, September 1. The new line today, as it is in Motion No. 27, is to go back to what was in the original Bill. The line today is to support what the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) was saying in committee on September 1.
The line today is never to admit that you made a mistake. The Conservative Party can never admit that it made a mistake. It will not admit it made a mistake on September 1. Instead of admitting this basic mistake, it is totally changing direction from September 1 to today. They are now trying to bring in a group of red herrings: how often the Member for Yorkton-Melville attended the committee meetings, questioning the personal motivation of Members, shouting down our Members and trying to do everything possible except to admit that they have changed direction totally.
What they are proposing today and urging this House to accept is what they were arguing against on September 1. That is the simple truth. As the Canadian public listens to this debate, I hope they will not be influenced by the catcalling and all the red herrings from the Members on my right, but will realize one simple fact, that what the Conservative Party is proposing today was what they were opposing on September 1.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Today is September 29. That was on September 21. In 28 days we have seen a major turnaround. Why? I suspect that when it was finally realized what the Conservative amendments on September 1 did, the farming members in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba started ringing their Members of Parliament and saying, "Are you guys crazy? Do you realize what you guys have done? You have totally emasculated the ability of the Wheat Pool to represent or make representations to this committee. You have reduced them from three to one."
The Conservative Party suggests that the Liberals always rule by poll. It is quite right. I might also suggest that today the Conservative Party enunciates its positions according to polls. It realizes that the producers in western Canada were totally outraged at the amendments it forced through committee, supported by the Liberals, and now it is desperately trying to backtrack from that position.
Unless we live in 1984 in the George Orwellian world-and we have not reached that yet-the record stands. Hon. Members interested in the topic can refer to the transcript of the committee hearings. They can go back to Thursday, September 1 and they will realize the greater mess into which the Conservative amendment put the producers of western Canada. It made a terrible Bill even worse. If the aim of the Progressive Conservative Party was to make a terrible Bill so obnoxious that no one could support it, indeed with its amendment on September 1 it moved in that direction. I think the Conservatives were surprised to learn that the Government would go ahead with the legislation and that their obnoxious amendment would be written in stone, included in the legislation and become a reality. They desperately want to backtrack from their position but, when they backtrack, they must clothe the issue in some good rhetoric-"we want to see more producers; we want freedom". The Conservatives have misused the term "freedom". Historians will shake their heads in shame. It has been a total misuse and abuse of the word.
Of course they are suggesting that the pools are like any other corporation and that they are not co-operatives. Sometimes one has criticisms about Wheat Pools as one has criticisms of all organizations, particularly democratic ones. There is no doubt that the Wheat Pools are representative of their members. I see Mr. Speaker indicating that my time is up. I wonder whether, with the unanimous consent of the House, I might have just another minute to conclude my remarks.


An Hon. Member:: No.


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What Tory said, "No"?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, did 1 hear you correctly that there was not unanimous consent? According to the established custom we have given consent to Conservative speakers to wind up their remarks.

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair heard a negative voice in reply to the request for unanimous consent.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is very surprising.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, I did not hear any "no" from our side.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It was from your side.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, it was.


Charles James Mayer: Certainly we were prepared to listen to the Hon. Member. It is always interesting to listen to people making fools of themselves. If he had continued, I would have had no objection. It is very interesting to listen to the comments of this great grain farmer from Regina East. He talked about producers, representing producers, and what was in their best interests. I did not hear any NDP Members say whether or not they were in favour of additional producer representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I did not hear any of them talk about what that committee would do. Those Members did not see fit to support the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) in his "Lone Ranger" vigilance before the Standing Committee on Transport. Now they are instant experts and want to talk about everything in the Bill. They want to explain the intricacies of the amendments and everything that occurred on September 1.
Where was the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) on September 1 ? I do not think he was working as hard as the Hon. Member for Regina West or the rest of us who worked on the Transport Committee. Had he attended the hearings, he might have had a better idea of what those of us who attended went through regularly.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Stop attacking people and address the issue.


Charles James Mayer: I hear him shouting and hollering and catcalling. That was the very thing he was blaming Hon. Members on this side for doing. I have with me a Canadian Wheat Board permit book. I wonder how many permit books the Hon. Member for Regina East has had in his long career as a farmer. That is the nub of the issue.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That is an old line.


Charles James Mayer: I do not understand why he is shouting and hollering. He made mention of the fact that when people become excited and shout, it is because a nerve was struck. If he is as good at his word as he is with his lungs, what I am saying must offend him and have some validity. I wonder how much grain he has produced. I wonder what kind of a feel he has for producers. I wonder how many line-ups he has had the privilege of standing in on a hot day, trying to deliver grain at the end of a crop year. These are the kinds of things producers understand. These are the kinds of things which many of us in the Official Opposition have done in terms of farming, trying to stay in business and meeting commitments to our bankers or
business people who gave us credit. These are the kinds of things the Official Opposition attempted to represent.
In many ways the Bill was drafted in favour of the railways. Our main purpose on the Transport Committee was to get some amendments through which would in fact favour producers. 1 would be interested in knowing whether or not NDP Members were against additional producer representation. I did not hear them bemoan that fact. Why are they so strangely silent? Are they against producers, as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) pointed out? Producers are really the foundation of the whole system. Without producers producing grain, we would not need the Bill, the Senior Grain Transportation Committee or all the things we will discuss in days ahead.
NDP Members talked about red herrings. I submit that this whole issue is nothing more than a red herring for them because they did not once address the substantive issue of what in fact the Senior Grain Transportation Committee would do. For the benefit of the NDP Members who did not attend the committee meetings this summer and fall, 1 will attempt to clue them in. It may be tough because I think it is very difficult to explain things to some of them. Basically the Senior Grain Transportation Committee will function as a group comprised of the various sectors involved in grain. Certainly the producer is the primary one, but it will also include elevator companies, shippers, people who handle grain on the coast, truckers, railway companies, elevator operators and terminal operators. This committee should function with all those participants at the table. It is important to have them all there. That is why this Party saw fit to include producers. Without producers, who are the first in the chain of production, we would really miss a very important link.
In addition, I would argue that producers have a basic, common sense understanding of what goes on. They are basically mechanics. They are able to farm because they understand machinery and they know about the grade of grains. They know what is involved in terms of cleaning and shipping grain of the same grade on unit trains to get away from shipping carloads of different grain and to get away from some of the switching at the terminals.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What does that have to do with the amendments before the House?


Charles James Mayer: Producers have a lot of common sense and a basic understanding of the grain handling system. Some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee this summer thought there was no room for bona fide producers on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. We were successful in moving an amendment to have additional producer representation on the committee. It was interesting that the Hon. Member for Regina East bemoaned that fact, but my Party moved an amendment which actually provided for an additional producer representative from his own Province. I would be interested to know if he was against that. Four producers will be elected: one from Manitoba, two from Saskatchewan and one from Alberta. I wonder whether the Hon. Member wants
September 29, 1 983

to shout, hoot, make noises and raise red herrings about that. At the moment he is strangely silent.
Returning to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, it should involve all those factions so that problems can be settled at the table or in the room so that people do not go elsewhere to point fingers, blame someone else or raise false concerns in the press. There would be a chance to address issues right in the room.
Certainly there is concern about the size of that committee. Any of us who have been involved in committee work know the interesting saying that the best committee in terms of size is one of three with two absent. That goes a little too far, but if the amendment of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is accepted, I believe the committee will have 21 members. It will be a very large committee. Therefore, it is very important that the committee be structured properly, that the meetings be well organized, that the people who are to attend the meeting will have a chance to look at an agenda beforehand, will be well prepared, will know what the problem is and how it will be addressed and will proceed in that very businesslike fashion. Although we agree that a committee of that size can be rather cumbersome, I think there are ways for that committee to organize itself so that it will function and function well.
I also think that it is important for producers to be involved, Mr. Speaker, and that was essentially our feelings in committee. I point out to the Hon. Member for Regina East that I represent a rural riding that consists largely of farming communities. I do not think there are many farmers in Regina East, but in my travels to my constituency every weekend, I did not see that any producers were outraged. I did not receive any phone calls from producers who were upset that additional producers were to become members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I do not know who members of the NDP were talking to, but my experience, Mr. Speaker, was not like their experience.
The Hon. Member said that it was a terrible Bill. In many ways, it is a terrible Bill. I believe that the Government itself realizes that the Bill has some shortcomings. The Government has indicated that by moving an amendment to establish review processes which would immediately begin looking at the Bill once it is passed.
I would agree with the Hon. Member for Regina East who said that the Bill is in many ways a flawed Bill, but I do not understand why members of the NDP did not take the opportunity of this amendment to raise some of the things that they think are wrong with the Bill and point out to the Government why they think it is terrible and where it can be improved. All we have heard from them is a tirade by these instant experts who did not see fit to attend any of the committee meetings. They abandoned the Hon. Member for Regina West and left him to do that very important job on the Transport Committee by himself all summer.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I do not particularly want to prolong this debate, but I would like to raise a point that may or may not be significant regarding its procedure. If this amendment is accepted, there should be a consequential amendment moved at the bottom of page 3 that would allow for the addition of the three members as moved by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. That consequential amendment would raise the number of members on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee from II to 14. I assume that if the Government is prepared to accept this amendment, that will be taken care of, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to be afforded the opportunity to make a few remarks on this first day of debate of the Crow freight rate Bill. Without a doubt, this is a historic day in the House of Commons. It is a day that Canadians have been talking about, thinking about and asking questions about for a long time.
I am very happy to see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) has been present through the whole debate today. I respect his presence although, with all due respect to my friend, the Hon. Minister, I would have to say that when I heard that he had been removed from the role of Minister of Employment, a very difficult role, and placed in the role of Minister of Transport in order to bring the Crow debate to western Canada, I could not help but think of the poem entitled "The Charge of the Light Brigade". I could see the Minister swashbuckling along in his cavalry uniform, with his helmet, sabre and pistol, on his horse and saddle as he heard the order: "Charge for the guns". If this Bill is passed and the Crow rate is changed, the Minister will be as flat on the ground politically as those 600 poor cavalrymen who rode against the guns. I think that he is probably well aware of that, so I will not continue with that line of thinking any longer.
It is true that we are participating in a historic debate today. During the preliminary discussions, there have been many friendly interventions between the Parties.
I am a western Canadian from the Prairies who grew up on a farm. I grew up within the system of co-ops and pools that are very much part and parcel of Canadian life in the West. From the time I was small, I knew that the things that were important in life were grain elevators, schools, churches and the like. I also knew, from listening to my father and my uncles and others, about the great difficulty that Canadian farmers had with handling their grain in the beginning.
I heard this summer that an amendment had been moved during the committee hearings. I give full credit to all Members of the House who sat through those committee hearings because they were long, hard and complicated and were held during a very hot summer. I have much respect for the people from all Parties who sat in on those hearings. Because of the work of those Members, we have before us what might be called the tracks of that committee. The committee's reports speak about the discussions and debate that occurred, about the people who were interested and presented statements and position papers to the committee. I must say that when I heard that the Wheat Pools would have only one representative on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee representing

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, realizing that the Wheat Pools still handle the majority of grain sales in the West, I was very surprised. I was surprised because it seemed to me to be a very unfair way of handling that particular situation.
The pools that handle the largest amount of grain sales in the West were built upon a historic way of handling grain that began when our fathers and grandfathers realized that they were not going to be able to cope with the big grain companies. They built their own pools, which afforded them a democratic, co-operative way of looking after themselves. I think that that must be greatly respected. I have a feeling that Members of the House have that respect, but when I heard that an amendment had been moved that would limit the three pools to one representative rather than three, I was shocked.
1 would like to point out that it is extremely important for Members who are participating in the debate but who were not present at the committee hearings to go over the reports of the committee hearings because much of the debate has been handled in those reports. From his remarks this afternoon, I would say that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), for whom ! have much respect, should do a little bit of reading. He should read the reports of the committee because I felt that some of his remarks did not, in my opinion, properly indicate the historic development of the amendments.
1 would repeat again that I have great respect for the parliamentary form of the Hon. Member for Bow River. I know that he is an outdoorsman and has done a great deal of good work with young people. He knows very well that one cannot cover one's tracks in the snow. 1 would suggest that the tracks made by the committee in preparation for today's debate are contained in the minutes of the committee hearings. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he go and check those tracks, because I felt that he was unconsciously offering the House information that was not contained in the minutes.
1 was surprised by the remarks made by my good friend, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). From his remarks I understood he was suggesting that it was more important to have somebody represent views than represent votes on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee that will be established by the new Act. I personally believe that views are extremely important, naturally, and every sector should have its views properly represented. But when it comes to the crunch, 1 think everyone in the House and most people in the democratic process in Canada, realize that votes finally make the decision. I insist that the three pools be represented on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee because, in the final analysis, it will be extremely important that they have voting rights so that they can put their views into the democratic process.
During the debate this afternoon the tone of some of the remarks by my colleagues to my right spoke against the notion of co-operation, the basic notions that set up the co-ops and the pool systems and that one vote be represented in those
organizations and that they are basically different in their structure, philosophy and the way they operate from the grain companies.
I suggest that the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) should check his remarks. When he spoke I heard a tone that I think was condescending toward most of the grain farmers I know. He was almost attacking the people that this Bill is all about. It is important in the debate today and in the days following that we show respect for people on the farm.
Regarding the pools and their representation, 1 feel that the three prairie Provinces, a great wheat producing area of the world, should be represented by a member from each of the pools on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
I see that my time has come to an end, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I am rather surprised that no Liberal Members have spoken on any of the amendments since they supported all the Tory amendments in committee. It is rather interesting that they are not willing to speak on the Bill now.
I should like to begin with a reference to my own constituency on Vancouver Island, a reference which may not seem to be too well related to the Bill but really it is. Some nine years ago I visited some retired prairie farmers who then lived in my riding. I noticed that in their homes plaques were exhibited in celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which, as my hon. friend from Saskatchewan pointed out, was founded in 1924. They had a great feeling for their Wheat Pool because it represented them as basic, grass roots farmers. It was their organization and it represented a degree of emancipation from the elevator owners who had ripped them off for years. They were very proud to be members of the Wheat Pool and so the plaques had a prominent place in their homes.
I think it is significant that when the Bill was before committee the precise wording that Motion No. 27 is trying to introduce, was there. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) is now trying to restore it but the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) had changed that. I think it is very important that we recognize the importance of Wheat Pool members and the contribution they have made to farming in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. They should have proper representation on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. This is a committee that will be responsible for making basic representations concerning the allocation of freight cars, and recommendations about how the system will operate.
It is interesting to note that some 60 per cent of grain shipped from the prairies comes from the three Wheat Pools, 17 per cent from the grain growers and about 20 per cent from the private organizations-about 20 per cent from the United Grain Growers and about 20 per cent from private organizations. The New Democratic Party suggests and it seems reasonable to me, that because some 60 per cent was being
September 29, 1983

shipped through the pools they should have three representatives on the committee, one from each of the prairie pools, the United Grain Growers, which shipped between 17 per cent and 20 per cent, should have a representative, and the private elevator companies, which ship about 20 per cent, should have a representative. That would make five representatives in all.
On the other hand, the Conservatives say that the three pools, which ship come 60 per cent of the grain, should have one representative, and the United Grain Growers should have one representative, making two from the total co-operative sector which accounts for 80 per cent of the total shipments. They add a representative from the private sector. We see where the Conservatives stand. It is interesting that they are now trying to repair some of that damage and changing their positions. This is typical of their approach to the Crow. They now say they are opposed to any changes for three years. We would like to see something more than this flip-flop policy. We would like to know where they stand.
I urge that the amendments put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) be accepted. All Members paid tribute to his sterling work on that committee. This proposed committee should be made much more representative than it is as a result of the Conservative-Liberal coalition which stripped the pools of their proper representation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps before I address my remarks specifically to the amendments I could express my sincere appreciation to Members of the Standing Committee on Transport who have spent a good part of the summer on this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: One of my staff travelled with them, and in his last gasping moments before he expired at the end of the committee hearings he indicated to me that the committee met for 31 days over the summer and heard over 240 witnesses. That is quite a remarkable tour de force on the part of the committee. I believe the fact that we had well over 80 amendments moved by the committee and accepted, is also an indication that the work was not in vain but in fact produced an improved piece of legislation.
It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to address the series of representations being made today. At the first opportunity I had to meet with that committee, as the new Minister of Transport responsible for this Bill, I indicated quite clearly that because of the very extensive debate which had taken place, and the representations which had been heard concerning membership of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, that was a set of proposals which I was prepared to accept as a committee recommendation. Speaking on behalf of the Government, we were not taking a hard and fast line that it was something which was Government policy. We felt that that was something which should reflect the best wisdom which could be accumulating during the course of the commit-
Western Grain Transportation Act
tee hearings. It was in that spirit that our own Members supported the initial motion to reduce the number of members on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
I am interested to know, Mr. Speaker, that we now have a change in that position. It is a change which I personally welcome. Coming from western Canada I share many of the same sentiments which have been expressed during the course of debate, and 1 feel that representation of the producer groups is a very important element to have on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I share the notion that that committee is a central component of the whole change which we are introducing. It is the first time we will bring together all the different players in the game who will have to share information, knowledge, and also begin to share some responsibility for making the new system work. There will be the producers, the railways, the terminal companies and the truckers, all now sitting around the same table on a regular basis, and if they go back to some good old fashioned labour/man-agement procedures, they will realize that if you get all the parties in the same game sitting on a continuous basis, then the likelihood of an agreement is much higher. Furthermore, we might achieve a higher rate of efficiency in the system because each of the major players will have an opportunity to realize that he has an obligation and responsibility to get the best price for the farmers and the best cost in the system.
We sometimes tend to make the mistake of assuming that the delivery system of grain is purely railways. It is not. There are a number of other major players. Certainly, the terminals and the companies which gather the grain, the ports themselves, and the other forms of transportation, are all part of that linkage which comes together. In this particular committee we will have all those people having to get into that kind of discussion and, I believe, out of that will emerge degrees of consensus about the improved implementation of the grain delivery system in western Canada.
In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that we are quite prepared to accept the proposals put forward by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). We think that the wording has a familiar ring to it, back to the original proposal. I do feel it is an improvement, frankly. Therefore, we can indicate to the Hon. Members of both Parties opposite that, if they are prepared to agree, we would also, as the Government, be prepared to go along and support that amendment.
I believe it was the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) who pointed out that in order to make that amendment effective a series of consequential amendments would have to be moved, and it is the responsibility of the Minister to do so. I indicate to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am prepared to move those consequential amendments which would give force and life to that particular amendment. If it is in order to do so now, I would be prepared to do so. However, I notice that in the Speaker's instructions this morning, she indicated she wanted to have grouped amendments debated first and that we would be voting on them at a later date. I am really in the Speaker's hands as to whether I should move the

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
consequential amendments now or simply wait until those amendments are about to be voted on.
Perhaps there is agreement on Motion No. 27. I heard the Hon. Members of the New Democratic caucus saying they felt that producers should be involved. Certainly the movers of the amendment are in agreement. We are in agreement with it as well. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we could have this amendment accepted on this first day and then we can go on to other business. If that is the case, I would be prepared to move the consequential amendments along with it. However, Mr. Speaker, I will take your advice on how we might proceed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that the amendment before the House would have to be adopted. It would then require consequential amendments which the Minister would be in a position to offer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the remarks of the Minister. Madam Speaker grouped Motions Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 29 for debate. No. 24 should be voted on separately. Affirmative vote on Motion No. 25 would dispose of Motion Nos. 26 and 27. A negative vote on Motion No. 25 would require further voting on Motion Nos. 26 and 27, and Motion No. 29 is to be voted on separately-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call the attention of the Hon. Member for Regina West to the fact that he apparently has spoken in the course of this debate and cannot be recognized again on the same subject matter.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member rose. He started to speak. It is my understanding he moved an adjournment motion. He clearly spoke. He had his opportunity, according to the rules of the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order. The Minister asked for the guidance of the Chair. I am asking for the guidance of the Minister. Is he saying that he is accepting all five of those motions, two of which are identical, and he would then move consequential amendments following the deferred votes? Or is he only accepting certain ones, and what would be the procedure then? Do we vote separately in spite of Madam Speaker's preliminary ruling? Do we vote separately if the Government indicates it is prepared to accept amendments that the Speaker said should be voted on in concert? I think we are going to find ourselves in trouble farther down the road.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: What is before us, as I understand it, is an amendment which would increase the number of members of a board. If such an amendment were adopted, there would then be consequential amendments which the Minister has indicated he would be prepared to move. It seems to the Chair that this is what is before us at this point. If the Minister has further comments which he cares to make by way of clarification, perhaps he could have the unanimous consent of the House to speak.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To clarify the situation and perhaps to dispatch the proceedings, what I was proposing is that the wording under Motion No. 27 in the orders be accepted, and I would be prepared to move any consequential amendments thereto. I was asking what the appropriate timing for moving such a motion was. I know that Motion No. 27 has virtually identical wording to Motion No. 26. Therefore, it seems to me there is an agreement. If we can move that wording now and then move on to consequential amendments this afternoon, I would be prepared to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister has given an undertaking to introduce the appropriate consequential amendments at a subsequent point. Does that answer the questions of the Hon. Member for Regina West?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I take it, then, that the Government is prepared to accept Motion Nos. 26 and 27, which are the same as the original wording of the Bill. Can I take it, then, that now he would bring in his consequential amendments to Motions Nos. 26 and 27 but that Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 29 will remain under debate and will be voted upon separately?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreeable to the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be agreement. Is the House ready for the question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On Motions Nos. 26 and 27?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions Nos. 26 and 27 appear to be the same motion. Therefore, we can put these two motions at the same time and they can be voted on by the House, presumably. With the consent of the House I am taking Motion No. 26 simply because it is numbered ahead of Motion No. 27. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 26 (Mr. Benjamin) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am told that Motion No. 26 does not need the same consequential amendments because it did include a reference to not more than 14 other members. Is the Minister aware of any other consequential amendments?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think it is true that with the acceptance of Motion No. 26 one of the consequential amendments back on line 38 is taken care of. It is my understanding, however, that we would also have to move a consequential amendment on page 4. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
September 29, 1983

That Bill C-155 as reprinted be amended at page 4 by striking out lines 15 to 1 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"referred to in subparagraph (1) and".


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


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


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, it would have been nice to have a copy of the amendment. Does the amendment moved by the Minister do nothing more than confirm the adoption of Motions Nos. 26 and 27?


An Hon. Member:: Motion No. 26, not Motion No. 27.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there is no substantive change. This is simply to keep it in line with other amendments. It maintains the representation under the proposed amendment in Motion No. 26.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House having accepted Motion No. 26, there is no need to vote on Motion No. 27 and it is dropped.
Motion No. 27 (Mr. Gustafson) withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my understanding that at this point the debate will resume on the balance of the clauses grouped for debate, Motions Nos. 24, 25 and 29.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity this afternoon of listening to debate on Bill C-155, which is commonly known as the Government's proposal to amend the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. I have been very impressed at the thoughtful contribution of Members of my own caucus.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) rises on a point of order.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hesitate to interrupt, Mr. Speaker, but would not Motion No. 25 now be considered out of order or redundant? As I see it, it was leaving one Member off; it is asking for five members from the major grain elevator companies, not six. Would it not be considered to be redundant now that we have adopted Motion No. 26?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. Now that motion No. 26 has been adopted, is there agreement that Motion No. 25 could at this stage be dropped?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 will quite readily confess to you and the House, Sir, that while we are pleased that the intent of Motion No. 26 has been approved and the Minister has brought in a consequential amendment, I appreciate there is some conflict between Motion No. 25 and Motion No. 26, which is why 1 could not understand why they were grouped. However, could we let it stand for now and just continue
Western Grain Transportation Act debate on Motions Nos. 24 and 29, and I would be happy to advise the Chair tomorrow on Motion No. 25?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will resume debate on Motions Nos. 24 and 29, grouped for purposes of debate.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I have been very impressed this afternoon by the thoughtful contribution of Members of my caucus to this particular debate-


David P. Smith: You are easily impressed.


Neil Young: -and the passionate pleas made by Members of my caucus on behalf of the farmers in the prairie Provinces. Those pleas arise I believe because of their deep concern that the measure before the House will destroy the co-operative spirit which has traditionally been a part of prairie life. As I understand it from both the minutes of the proceedings in the committee and the debate, at least from the Conservative side of the House, the only co-operative spirit which exists around this amendment exists in the coalition of the Conservative and Government Parties. I would also add that since some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party have been loudly boasting and bragging about how they are going to form the Government after the next election, I think they are going to be in for a big surprise in the prairie Provinces.


Mr. Beatty:: This is a prairie expert speaking here.


Neil Young: You will probably find that even though the Liberal Party does not exist west of Winnipeg, perhaps the Conservative Party will find itself in much the same position in certain sections of the western Provinces. I can understand why some of those Conservative Members would get rather excited about that because, contrary to the claims they have continually attempted to put forward that the NDP is somehow associated with the Liberals, surely the actions of the Conservative Party, both in committee and particularly on this amendment, clearly show to anyone who cares to look or listen that the true picture is that the Conservative Party is in the pocket of the Liberal Party. This particular amendment clearly eliminates any doubt which ever existed about any kind of allegiance they might expect from the farming community in this country.
It is not only a person like me who comes from the east end of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, who is particularly concerned about what this proposal is going to do to farmers. We in the cities appreciate that there has been a strong tradition of support in our country for farmers. We welcome and appreciate the contribution that the farming community makes to Canadian life. There are many people in my own constituency who came off the farms and who have spoken to me personally about their concern over what this Government is trying to do to the Crow rate, particularly the attitude this particular amendment displays towards the farmer and their importance in our community, their own local communities, the agricultural community generally, and particularly to the life of Canada.

September 29, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Surely, as Members of my caucus have expressed it in the past, in this debate and specifically this afternoon, the amendment, if passed, would be clearly undemocratic. It would make this particular Bill even more undemocratic than it was before it went to committee. It is not only myself nor the NDP that makes this statement. The Toronto Star, which one would hardly call a progressive paper in terms of where the NDP stands, published an editorial not too long ago which absolutely castigated the Government for what it was doing to the Canadian farmers. I would like to quote just a few paragraphs because I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will be quite interested. The Toronto Star stated:
Despite the opposition of provincial governments and of virtually every responsible farm group on the prairies, the federal government intends to unilaterally and drastically restructure the Crowsnest Pass Agreement. And if the Crow dies, the funerals of many western communities may follow.
It then goes on to state, "When the national Government- on our behalf', and with the words "on our behalf', it means not only Canadians who live on the Prairies but also others who have supported the farming community over the years, including those who live in cities, as 1 do, in the east end of Toronto. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) asked of me in the past when I rose to debate this Government measure on the Crowsnest Pass rate, "Why is the guy from the east end of Toronto standing up to debate this issue"? The reasons I stand up are exactly the same reasons the Toronto Star put forth as to why Canadians should be concerned, why they should support the farming community regardless of where one lives in Canada. It is because the farming community is such a strong element in our traditional life and certainly in the economic life of this country. It is with that concern that the Toronto Star goes on to state:
When the national Government-on our behalf-proposes to disregard so cavalierly the deepfelt and legitimate concerns of one of our regions, all Canadians have cause to be disturbed. Our Confederation is based on recognition of the frequent need to subordinate local, parochial concerns to the broader national interests in which we all share; but it is equally based on recognizing the need for fairness, understanding and sensitivity in handling the legitimate claims and grievances of Canadians in all parts of the country.
This amendment clearly does not fall within the sense of understanding, fairness or sensitivity of the Star or any Canadian. Frankly, it goes beyond Canadians' view of Canada as being a fair country which does not believe in dealing meanly or unfairly with any part or constituency within the country.
The Toronto Star goes on to state:
As Western Canada sees it, the Crow is part of a Confederation bargain: Western Canada got low, fixed freight rates in return for agreeing to pay high import tariffs protecting eastern industries.
Residents of eastern Canada understand that they enjoy support from the farming community, and they were willing to enter into this bargain with the farmers in western Canada. The article continues:
Since then, the Crow's fixed rate-a half cent per ton-mile-has allowed our western farmers to compete for exports, from their land-locked position, with the
transportation-subsidized farmers of Argentina, Australia and the U.S. Grain is Canada's fourth largest export, accounting for sales last year of about $6 billion.
But the West's commitment to the Crow is based on concerns much deeper than simply cheap rates.
Mr. Speaker, I see that my allotted time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


Neil Young: With the agreement of the House, of course, 1 could continue speaking for another half hour about the injustice of this particular Bill. I will end on that note.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, as the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River, to register some of the concerns of my constituents over this particular Bill and the reason we are supportive of the amendment as brought forward by my colleague. The purpose of the amendment would be to eliminate from line 35 the word "co-operative". That is extremely important, especially in areas of the West, because members of co-operatives would no longer be excluded. The wording in the Bill as it is at the present time is very anti-democratic because it would mean that farmers at the grass roots level who were interested in participating in committees such as the Senior Grain Transport Committee would be excluded.
For the benefit of the House, may I mention the importance of co-operative tradition to western Canada. In fact, it is the grass roots involvement in co-operatives that has seen the rise of many people in western Canada with regard to their participation in our institutions in general. It is the co-operative spirit and the co-operatives themselves that have built up much of western Canada.
As I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is well aware because of his roots in the West and his involvement at the University of Winnipeg in matters relating to people working together, it would be very unfair to have this type of wording in a clause which would prohibit participation by those farmers at the grass roots level who have been and are involved in co-operatives. I am very pleased that before the amendment was even brought before the committee, a Member of our Party was the one who stood up for the rights of individual members who are members of the co-ops. This particular wording underlines the lack of understanding of the drafters of the Bill concerning the unique way in which the farming culture has developed in western Canada.
For that reason, it is important to see that we adopt the amendment brought forward by my colleague, as it recognizes the fact that it is the co-operative spirit that has built up the West. I would therefore urge Hon. Members to support this particular motion.
September 29, 1983



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have risen in the Chamber to express some concern that continuation of the Petroleum Incentive Program grants established by this present Government would in fact negate or perhaps totally obliterate the few positive aspects that were contained in the Government's assistance to shipbuilding last January or February.
As recently as September 20, I brought the plight as seen by the Canadian shipbuilding industry and its related industrial framework to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Their concern is that unless the Government takes steps to maximize Canadian content flowing from PIP grants, the impact on Canadian industry will be very bad indeed.
The reason for raising the question again stems not necessarily from the growing concern by all sides of the Chamber, I am sure, but by the industry as well, that we now have virtually a $7 billion tiger by the tail. No one quite knows how to control it. In fact, the grants are beyond the power of this House to deal with other than by cutting them off and I do not believe anyone is suggesting that. I am looking for a clear and concise answer about the Government's intention with respect to the impact that the program has on the Canadian shipbuilding industry in its present from.
In just the last six months the Canadian industry is down by some 6,000 jobs. That makes a total of approximately 12,000 jobs which have been lost in the last 18 months. The reason for that loss is that, according to the PIPs program, capital costs are not included. Therefore it is to the advantage of the entrepreneur to have someone else build an offshore service rig or a drilling platform and then lease it from him because the cost of leases can be included in the 80 per cent grant toward this type of energy exploration and development.
It would be one thing if the entrepreneur went to a Canadian shipyard and told it to build a structure, lease it back to the entrepreneur who would then pay the shipyard. If that were the case, we would be providing and stimulating Canadian employment in our shipyards and support industries in that sector of our economy. What happens, however, is that it is cheaper-when the entrepreneur sees that he cannot get access up to the 80 per cent grant, since he will pay a certain amount more if he builds a rig in Canada-to go off shore to Korea, Japan, Norway or another country to build it. He can get the advantage of cheap financing through Export Development. Since his responsibility is to his shareholders and he is not in
Adjournment Debate
the business of losing money for his investors, he goes offshore to find a foreign builder and then leases the rig back. He then brings it back into the country under a foreign flag. It does not need a Canadian crew and only has to meet a minimum-not Canadian-standard with respect to operation in our coastal or northern areas. That is what happens first.
To demonstrate that, PetroCan, in the first blush of Canadian nationalism, built several offshore service rigs in Canada. The incentives grants came in. Petro-Canada said that it was being silly by continuing to use its own ships. Therefore, it sold them offshore, or wherever it could sell them, and then leased them back. It charged this country with 80 per cent of the total cost that was allowable. In fact, it included the full cost of the lease, not just 80 per cent.
The spin-off is that what happened will continue to happen because when you bring a foreign vessel into this country, a duty must be paid. Lo and behold, we find that the 80 per cent grant pays for importing the ship. This is therefore a good thing for the entrepreneur.
While the grants are good in terms of stimulating new energy development in this country, they deprive Canadian workers of sustainable long-term jobs. This shows up in the figures and indicates why Canadian shipyards are facing the worst year in the last 15. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to enlighten us as to whether the Government intends to bring in some modifications to change these one or two narrow points.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the PIP grants are providing up to 80 per cent for exploration in the offshore and 25 per cent for development costs in the offshore. However, when a grant is given, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) has the power to supervise plans for the employment of Canadians and for the full development of opportunities on behalf of Canadian manufacturers and suppliers. In addition, under a grant there is the right of the office of Regional and Industrial Benefits in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to review plans to ensure that these opportunities are being given to Canadians.
Hon. Members will notice that I use the word "opportunity". I do not say that these two different ministries have a dictatorial power. We cannot provide a dictatorial power because of our obligations under GATT and because market conditions and the intelligent operation of these companies require that they must have some outside option beside Canadian suppliers.
There is a balancing act here. No doubt we would all like to see the exploration and development activities in the offshore, plus 100 per cent of supply, undertaken by Canadian companies and Canadian shipyards. However, under GATT we cannot demand that 100 per cent of the supply take place in Canadian shipyards. We do not have that power under our international obligations.

September 29, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Unfortunately, the Hon. Member does not get all his facts entirely straight. The losses that he describes are not as a result of PIP grant incentives but a result of an enormous world glut in exploration equipment. Second, it is as a result of the recent general slowdown in ship purchases all over the world.
It would only be fair for the Hon. Member to note that government activity has more than offset much of this slowdown. In fact, government activity is specifically designed for that. The $700 million coast guard ship acquisition and refurbishing plan under the special recovery program is intended to speed up activity in the shipyards, to take projects that were further down the line and schedule them for today.
We believe that the patrol frigate given to the Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd. will offset much of this slowdown. The new regulations, customs jurisdiction, temporary extension of subsidies to Canadian shipbuilders and the adoption of new coastal trading rules combine to provide some offset to this world glut of equipment and to the general slowdown that the industry has experienced.


INDUSTRY-WHITE FARM EQUIPMENT LTD.-URGENCY OF ISSUE
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to raise an issue this evening which 1 raised in the form of a supplementary question this afternoon in the House. I very much appreciate being on the adjournment debate list, because this is the type of thing for which the adjournment debate should be used.
Earlier I asked the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) a question concerning the situation of White Equipment. It is a well-known issue of which most farmers are aware because the White Farm and the Cockshutt names in farm equipment have long been associated with agriculture in Canada and throughout the world.
The imminent problem is that at nine o'clock tomorrow morning it is my understanding that the court-appointed receiver, Peat Marwick, will determine what will happen to the company. One of my concerns is that there are many people who will be affected by the move tomorrow morning. It relates to jobs, both direct ones at the plant in Brantford and those with dealers across the country.
It is my information that there are 123 dealers in Canada. The majority of them are in Saskatchewan, according to my information there are approximately 50 in that Province. As far as jobs with the dealers are concerned, I would estimate that there are roughly ten jobs per dealer. That would be a conservative estimate. There could very well be more. My guess is that we are talking of something in the order of 1,200 to 1,500 jobs in the dealership network across Canada. At the peak of the operation of White Farm Equipment, it employed something like 1,100 people. Even if we took a figure of 500 people at the plant, we would be talking in the neighbourhood of 2,000 jobs. This is a significant number of jobs, especially when we will face a very tough winter as far as employment is
concerned. This issue does have consequences in respect of jobs.
The Government should also be concerned about the service end of the matter. As I said, the White Farm and Cockshutt names in farm equipment are synonymous and have long been associated with agriculture in the world. There are very major implications for farmers who have purchased this equipment. In addition to the 2,000 lost jobs I referred to earlier, this also involves an issue regarding service.
What will happen to the people who purchased expensive combines in the last two years or three years? Will they be able to obtain service? Will parts for these combines be available? What will happen to their resale value or their trade-in value on new equipment? There will be far-reaching consequence in terms of the individual farmers who are affected, and this comes at a time when farmers like everyone else are facing financial difficulty. Some people who have recently became involved in farming have purchased this equipment. 1 know of instances where this will cause extreme financial problems and in some cases could even be the determining factor in whether or not people are able to stay in business.
The issue also involves technology. I am a farmer. 1 have owned combines and I have operated Cockshutt combines. It is my understanding that the technology associated with the new 9700 model of White combine is extremely important because it performs very well in the field. There is an opportunity for Canadians to pursue this technology and to develop a name for themselves outside the country. 1 know there are many White combines across the line in the United States. I would suggest that we also have an export potential if we can maintain this operation and technology in Canada.
This issue has consequences in four areas: in jobs, in service, in technology and in our ability to export, and that relates to our balance of payments, interest rates, the value of our money and all those things.
Let me quote from the Regina Leader-Post of September 20, 1983:
The court-appointment receiver-Peat Marwick Ltd.-is looking for a buyer who will protect the jobs at the Brantford plant as well as the dealers and the axial-flow combine technology developed by White with federal financial help, Lumley said.
It has come to my attention in the last couple of days that a group in Winnipeg is prepared to put forward a very serious bid that would save the company and keep it from being liquidated. The members of that group are concerned that they may not have enough time to meet the nine o'clock deadline tomorrow morning. Let me indicate what I am asking from the Government. I know my time is fast running out, Mr. Speaker.
The people from Winnipeg who are involved in this offer are, I understand, in the farm equipment manufacturing business. They are putting together an offer that will include the dealers, which means that the dealers themselves will be putting up some money. I think it is very healthy for them to be involved directly. They are, however, concerned that they
September 29, 1983

may not have enough time to meet the nine o'clock deadline tomorrow.
1 know that the Government itself cannot legally interfere with the actions of the receiver. However, 1 am suggesting that the Government use every method it can to see that this legitimate group from Winnipeg has the time to make its offer to the court-appointed receiver tomorrow morning. If there is a chance to save these jobs, to provide this service to farmers and do the things that the Minister himself said he hoped to do, we should in fact provide enough time for this offer to be made tomorrow morning. I would ask again that the parliamentary secretary address this problem and use whatever influence he has with the Minister to see that in fact this offer from Winnipeg has a chance to materialize in time to be of some use to the receiver.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concerns of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), because it is true that we are talking about thousands of jobs, about preserving the dealer network and about preserving the technology involved in this situation.
The Hon. Member knows that the Minister and the people involved in ITC, as well as the receiver, have been trying to find somebody that would continue to operate White Farm Equipment Ltd. of Brantford in a viable way. At this point in time, since the receiver has been named by the Court, I honestly think, as I am quite sure the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette will understand, that it is in the best interests of the people involved that no further comments should be made. I honestly believe that any further comments on the matter could hurt the negotiations that may occur tomorrow morning or the day after as far as a prospective buyer is concerned.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the position that has been taken at this time, and I am quite sure the Hon. Member will understand that it has been taken with the best interests of all of the people involved in mind.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY-POSSIBLE EXCHANGES BETWEEN ARGENTINA AND LIBYA. (B) RELATIONS WITH ARGENTINA
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I make this intervention in the Adjournment Debate this evening subsequent to a question that was asked on June 2 of this year of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). That question was prompted by two things; the Falklands crisis, and the press reports which indicated that the Argentinian Government was negotiating with Libya for nuclear materials. That report indicated that the nuclear materials might in fact have been medical isotopes, but there was no confidence that the relationship between Libya and Argentina would be held at that level.
The concern I expressed at that time to the Minister was that Canada inadvertently, through the relationship we had established with the sale of the Candu reactor to Argentina
Adjournment Debate
and through the ongoing supply of uranium fuel to Argentina, was an unwitting accomplice to the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons materials. Well before the question of the Falklands crisis, our relationship with Argentina was and has continued to be a tenuous one. Argentina has refused to sign bilateral agreements which we felt were important to make sure that Canada's involvement was not in the field of nuclear weaponry. It is true that Argentina had signed agreements with us, but the bilateral agreement that is important to us now, and those subsequent to the unfortunate history of the Candu sales in the East, were not forthcoming from the Argentinian Government. We know that Argentina has been reprocessing fuel since our sale of the Candu reactor to Argentina. It now has plutonium in quantities large enough to produce bombs.
With the report that Argentina was negotiating Khadafy I think there was a great level of concern around the world that we would see the birth of another member of the nuclear weapon family. Several coincidences have occurred in this past week. The first was that Margaret Thatcher while here reminded us of the type of Government there is in Argentina, and that it is unreliable. In addition, recent press reports on the memoirs of Richard Nixon indicate that he has said that Khadafy used to give him nightmares. If the general can do that to Richard Nixon then I suggest we ought to pay attention to him.
The question I should like to leave with the Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs is whether we in Canada have any additional information on this. In spite of the fact that I fully support the entire nuclear system, I should like to know whether we have taken a good solid look at withdrawing from our relationship with Argentina because of present difficulties, and those that may occur in the future if we continue to co-operate with Argentina.
[Translation]	.


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, Canada and Argentina have just completed together a Candu-type nuclear station at Embalse. The station was officially opened on May 3, 1983 and has now come on stream. However, such industrial cooperation for peaceful use of nuclear technology falls within the four corners of the January 1976 bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement between the Canadian and Argentinian Governments. As it has been stated on several occasions in the House, this agreement is altogether consistent with Canada's December 1974 non-proliferation policy which was aimed at ensuring to the fullest extent possible that Canadian nuclear materials would not encourage proliferation.
In December 1976, the Government of Canada changed its policy so as to make sure that our nuclear trade would involve exclusively such countries as those which were formally committed through the Non-Proliferation Treaty or a similar
27606

September 29, 1983
Adjournment Debate
agreement to reject nuclear explosive technology and to put all their nuclear facilities under international guarantees. Rather than putting an end to the existing and fruitful cooperation with Argentina, the Government decided at the time that our cooperation would not extend beyond the Embalse project for as long as the Argentinians would not agree to the provisions of December 1976.
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the Argentinian Government has steadfastly denied having any intention of developing nuclear weapons. On the other hand, everything leads me to believe that, in its relations with other countries, Argentina is prudent and moderate. The fact remains that states are sovereign and free to choose their nuclear partners. Should Argentina want to cooperate with Libya, surely it will keep in mind the fact that that country is signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that all its facilities are controlled by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Any planned diversion of nuclear matters or Canadian technology to Third World countries must be agreed to in advance by our country. The Canada-Argentina agreement is perfectly clear on this. We have no reason to believe that the Argentina government wishes to divert some items of Canadian origin without the consent of our government, something it agreed freely not to do on signing the agreement in January 1976. Some have also alluded to a possible trade between Argentina and China. Anyone interested in this issue, including the hon. member, will be happy to learn that the government of China applied for membership in the International Atomic Energy Commission on September 6, and that its representatives have indicated publicly on many occasions that they want to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! 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 6.25 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, September 30, 1983.