1983-10-31

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 24, 1983 consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motions Nos. 47 and 49 (Mr. Benjamin), and Motion No. 48 (Mr. Mazankowski).
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, when debate finished on Monday a week ago at one o'clock, I was making the point that Motions Nos. 48 and 49 were important because they allow for considerably more time for debate on regulations which the Administrator would recommend than do the Government's proposals. The Government has suggested that one hour is sufficient time for Parliament to take a good look at those regulations.
Officials of the Ministry of Transport admitted that the ability of the Administrator to make regulations which could be brought before the House and passed was very important. In fact, it was admitted that it was so important that they thought it could not be done entirely by Cabinet but that it should have some relationship to Parliament. Because it was so important for this to be referred to Parliament, they implied that it would be wrong to apply awards and sanctions by way of Order in Council and that it therefore should be brought to Parliament. I do not have his exact words before me, Mr. Speaker, but an official of the department indicated that the applications of awards and sanctions were so important that they should not be left to Cabinet but that Parliament should be allowed plenty of time to look into the matter.
To Members on the Government side, "plenty of time" appears to be one hour because that is what was put into the Bill. The Government has allowed a one-hour debate on the matter. Conservative Members went one step further. Through Motion No. 48, they suggested that the opportunity for debate should be extended to three sitting days. We can accept that and would support that, Mr. Speaker. However, Members of the New Democratic Party have gone even further through
Motion No. 49 which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). That motion would extend the debate on that issue to an unlimited time until the House had decided that the debate was adequate.
Perhaps this is a pretty good indication of the value the three Parties put on the parliamentary process. Liberal Members would allow for one hour, Conservative Members would allow for three days and New Democratic Party Members would allow for full, responsible Government as indicated by unlimited debate.
The esteem Liberal Members have for Parliament is pretty well indicated by that particular clause in this Bill. Their arrogance and disdain for Parliament has been further strengthened by the very fact that they have now taken this Bill out of public debate by closure and will give Parliament two more days in which to find out what the country wants. It is not that they do not know how the majority of people in the country feel about this Bill. It had ample opportunity to find out and discovered that it did not have a consensus in the West which it promised it would get before it moved on this particular Bill. This has always been a bureaucrat's Bill and now that closure has been imposed we see that all the hearings and the shows the Government has put on in the West have had no real impact on the content of the Bill.

The essence of good government is consent. There has been no consensus with this Bill and there clearly has been no consent on the part of the Government because the people who are most affected by it do not want this Bill to be passed. Therefore the implication of that is that there is no way this Bill can reflect good government.
One only needs to ask the former Minister to see the indication of just exactly what western Canadian farmers feel about this Bill. For every letter he received in support of the Bill he received 561 letters opposing it. In fact, he received 38,713 letters opposing the passage of this Bill and only 69 letters in support of its passage.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make some comments with respect to the

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
amendments that are before us today. Before doing so, I would like to express my concern about the fact that the Government has seen fit to invoke closure on a Bill which is of so much vital concern to the grain producers in western Canada. 1 think it is safe to say that the vast majority, if not all, of the grain producers in western Canada are concerned about the impact of this Bill and even more concerned that closure has been brought in to prevent a proper and intelligent discussion of the various amendments that were put on the Order Paper.
Having said that, I would like to make some comments regarding the three motions before us and Motion No. 48 in particular. This motion was proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and it seeks to extend the debate from one hour, as limited in the Bill, to three days. The debate that is referred to concerns the regulations made under Clause 21(a). These are very important regulations because they set forth the performance objectives and pertain to awards and sanctions by the various system participants in the grain handling and transportation system. These three types of regulations are of utmost importance.
[DOT] (ms)
What happens under the Bill as presently constituted is that the regulations are prepared, they are laid before the House in accordance with Clause 22 and within 20 sitting days 15 Senators or 30 Members may request the referral of these regulations to a committee. I have no argument with the 15 Senators or 30 Members as the NDP has. I think 15 Senators or 30 Members is a fair representation. The matter goes to the committee for a period of 30 days and the committee reports back to Parliament. At that point in time Parliament does not have the power to take any action. For example, if the committee said "We do not agree with these regulations, they are wrong,'' there is no provision whereby Parliament can deal with them at that time. The Minister, despite the committee's report on the regulations, can go ahead and prepare the regulations and put them into force. Having been put into force, they are laid before Parliament within 15 days. This Bill provides for a one-hour debate only on the regulations that have been promulgated by the Minister by Order in Council.
As I said at the outset, these regulations are very important. It seems to me that a one-hour debate with a ten-minute speech limit is very inadequate. What can this House do in one hour with a series of ten-minute speeches, which means six speeches? This is why the Hon. Member for Vegreville put forth amendment No. 48 which provides for a three-day debate with no ten-minute limit. In that three days it seems to me many Members will have the opportunity to express their views on these regulations.
Members of the New Democratic Party have said there should be no time limitation but we are dealing with regulations, not with a Bill. In my opinion and in the opinion of the Members of our Party we feel that three days is adequate. With this in mind, I would recommend to Members of this House that when this motion comes to be considered and voted upon, Members of all Parties give it their support.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I want simply to follow up on the comments made by my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), concerning the amendment put forward to Clause 24 of the Bill, What we have in terms of Clause 24 in this Bill is what I refer to as a rubber-stamp review of regulations on a very important element of the legislation. It gives you some sort of idea as to what this Government's attitude is with respect to western Canada, and what sincerity the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the last Speech from the Throne had when he made reference to the fact that, although there are no Members in the Liberal Party elected in western Canada of any consequence, he would want to listen to representations made by Members on this side of the House from western Canada on the legitimate concerns of people in that area. It is a demonstration of the Government's view of western Canada. It is that western Canada is worth one hour of debate on this piece of legislation respecting the performance of the railways; that is all, one hour. That is all the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party think is appropriate in terms of an important piece of legislation which affects what has been termed the Magna Carta of western Canada.
We have quite a different view of the matter. We think there should be some reasonable opportunity for debate in the House of Commons on legislation which affects the very substance and essence of a particular region of Canada. I feel rather strongly about the proposition of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) with respect to extending debate for at least three days. We have to understand that the motion is now being considered in the context of closure being imposed by the Government on the legislation. This gives us three days to consider every element of the remaining legislation, although we have not been able to discuss the most important parts of it. By virtue of the Government majority, we are being given only three days to discuss the remainder of the legislation on the floor of the House of Commons. For the Government to come forward now and suggest that one hour of debate in the House of Commons concerning the provisions of the Bill relating to the performance of those elements involved in the grain delivery system, the system participants, is simply outrageous and offensive to any thinking person, particularly those persons involved in the production of grain in western Canada.
1 rise to debate this particular provision with a sense of anger and disbelief that the Government has taken such a draconian step as invoking closure to bring the debate to a close. 1 know the feeling in my part of the country about the activities of the Government. 1 know what are the provisions of this legislation with respect to the operation of the system proposed by the Government. Complex to a degree, unequalled by any other legislation, the Bill is indecipherable to people, even those involved in the industry and legal scholars. I venture to say that it will cause us nothing but grief and difficulty, not only in western Canada but across the country, simply to determine what the Bill means. When we come to
October 3!, 1983

the provision for a review of the regulations being promulgated under a piece of legislation which in my estimation is impossible to understand, we have a double whammy. We have limited opportunity to consider the matter. All we have is a motion which will be placed before a committee and subsequently before the House of Commons. The motion is simply that we either accept or reject the regulations. It is an either/ or, black or white proposition. There is no opportunity for us to work in a constructive manner to improve those regulations which may require improvement or delete provisions we think are harmful or difficult. We either accept or reject the whole package. That is what is indicated in the provisions of the Bill; that is what we are being asked to consider in one hour on the floor of the House of Commons.
I do not think people fully understand about what we are talking. We are talking about the livelihood of people in all parts of this country; the grain producer, the cattle producer, the transportation workers, those involved in the manufacture of farm equipment and rails for our railways, those involved in manufacturing in both central and eastern Canada. We are talking about the capacity of our ports on the West Coast and at the Lakehead. All these people are concerned with respect to the operation of this legislation, yet the Government says it is going to make regulations as to how the system is going to operate, that these unknown regulations will be promulgated and Members will be given an opportunity to look at them in the committee structure.
[DOT] (M25)
When it comes to debate and discussion on the floor of the House of Commons, there are serious constraints on what can happen. First and foremost is that there will be only one hour to discuss it. How can we carry out the responsibility placed on our shoulders by the Prime Minister in the first and only Speech from the Throne that we have had in this Parliament? How can we properly articulate the concerns of our people when Members will be vying for that sacred ten-minute slot in the one hour? How many Members of Parliament will be able to tell the Prime Minister what they think about this policy?
I am somewhat more sanguine than one would think about this provision. I can stand here and rest assured, as the people of Canada will rest assured, that there is a good prospect for an upcoming election and this crowd which has foisted this undesirable, badly thought out, wrong-headed legislation upon us after that election will no longer be seated on the government side. The few remnants of them will be over on this side wondering why they did not have the courage to stand up and fight the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and the Prime Minister when they brought forward this legislation. This kind of arrogance and disregard for important parts of the country will be the downfall and demise of the Liberal Party of Canada.
In the past, the Liberal Party had fine traditions and a fine sense of national purpose. At one time it had representation in western Canada. This outfit has frittered away its mandate. It
Western Grain Transportation Act
has dissipated the fortunes of that Party in almost every part of Canada, particularly western Canada. I believe if the Liberal leaders of yore could see what is happening to the Liberal Party and the way it is conducting the affairs of this country, MacKenzie King, Laurier, and other Liberal leaders would be whirling in their graves wondering what has happened to the once great Liberal Party.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, we live in a country without a government. We live in a country where government is not here by mandate. It does not reflect representation of the peoples of the broad expanse of this country. Instead of a government running Canada, we have a club, a group of people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With respect to the Hon. Member, the debate at this point should be relevant to the amendments before us. I invite the Hon. Member to bear in mind that we are discussing Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, no one is more thoroughly aware that we are debating Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 than I am. I am talking about Motion No. 48 which tells us that we do not have a government in this country. What we have is a club. That is what I started to say and that is what I will continue to say because it relates to Motion No. 48.
I come to this Parliament from a Province that sends 21 Members of Parliament here to face a government with only that many Members of Parliament from eight Provinces and two Territories. The rest of their Members come from two Provinces, Quebec and Ontario.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, this is a general observation and the Chair has difficulty relating it to Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, if you do not know we are on closure, I know we are on closure. I am talking about Motion No. 48. What we are talking about here today is a Government that does not have licence. Motion 48 of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) would give us three days to debate the regulations. I am telling you, Sir, that the Government would prefer that we have one hour on a question that affects us because the Government does not have regional relevance. It is a Government that has no representation west of Winnipeg, a Government that threw away its representation.
This Government in 1968 had 48 Members in western Canada; today it has two. Motion 48 is a most justifiable motion which states that we have three days for debate on an issue that deals with transportation objectives and all sectors relating to transportation. That requires more than an hour of debate.
Those who think this club which has been formed of a few people from central Canada can take a decision on a question which is not just transportation policy are wrong. This is not just a question of who drives the train and how much the
28492

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
driver gets, but even more a question of economic development for the entire West. It has been narrowly prescribed as simply a western issue. It is not just a western issue. This is an issue that affects central Canada. It deals with the automotive industry, the farm machinery industry, the fertilizer industry and manufacturing. Crow rate and manufacturing should be synonymous. If you steal money from the farmers of western Canada and from the treasuries of the western Provinces, central Canada feels the pinch and the pain. A regulatory measure that relates to transportation objectives requires more than one hour of debate, because it has a tremendous economic impact on all of Canada. Yet this club thinks it deserves only an hour, knowing full well in that hour that it is simply yeas or nays to a majority, where there is no chance for public opinion to reach for their telephone. Three days does not give enough time to reach for a pen and write, with a postal system like we have today. Motion No. 48 makes a reasonable request of the Government in asking for the opportunity to allow a reasonable amount of time for debate.
The NDP's response to the motion is that it be without limit. It may be argued that it ought to be a little longer than three days, but obviously within the framework of Parliament it could never be without limit.
Again, I submit to you that our motion is a reasonable one in light of the fact that we are facing one of the most major economic development pieces of legislation ever to face the Parliament of Canada. It is big in scope and its impact. It is also complicated. The fact that it is complicated requires that there be more than a one hour debate.
As one who comes to this place from the regions of Canada, I face a Government whose members are all collected around industrial Canada and which believes that the western people can be shunted aside and run over. This is because the Government is not regionally relevant; it does not represent the regions. Yet the economic impact on the regions of this legislation is such that if they misstep in putting the Crow in place, whether it be changed or otherwise, the impact falls back economically and heavily upon the industrial manufacturing base of central Canada.
One of the facts that I have observed is that any time a farmer in western Canada has extra money in his bank account he does what every other Canadian would do; he spends it. If he buys a new Canadian-made refrigerator it is made in central Canada. If he buys a new Canadian-made car it is made in central Canada. If he buys a new Canadian-made tractor it is made in central Canada. The clause that we are talking about now which deals with the performance objectives of transportation, which is what brings money to western Canada, is a clause that says we are dealing not just with transportation but with a whole economic development program for all of Canada. The magnitude of that program requires more than an hour of debate.
The Government's intent to limit debate to one hour is not just an insult to the West; it is an insult to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for London-Mid-dlesex (Mr. Bloomfield) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Bloomfield:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. I think it is well known that one of the tractors that is built in Canada is built in Winnipeg, that being the Versatile.


Arnold John Malone: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, what point the Hon. Member wants to make. If he is trying to say that because there is one tractor company located in western Canada, somehow the development of our regions does not have an impact on the whole country, what an insult that that Member represents for his people here.
The fact of the matter is that we should not be talking in this House about western Canada, eastern Canada, central Canada, English Canada and French Canada. We should be Canadian. If the Government opposite realized that it could be more than just a little club in the middle, if it could reach to its two oceans as the Latin words on our Dominion emblem say, "From sea to sea", then we would not have to face a Government which thinks it can point out because there is a tractor company in Winnipeg, therefore the Crow rate is not relevant to them. We are all interdependent on one another. That is what makes this country.
Some of the Hon. Members opposite would like to form us into some kind of economic community with eastern Canada, central Canada, Prairie Canada and British Columbia as members. The truth of the matter is that because we are a country we should have an economic concept of total development. That is why Motion No. 48 is important. It is important because it asks for an appropriate amount of time on an issue that is big enough to demand that amount of time and for the reason that it would impact on all of us. We need not be insulted by a Government that has run this country like a club, a little group of people at the middle who think somehow they can govern without representation. They never once mentioned the Crow rate in the last election. It was three and a half years ago, in April, 1980, that we had the last Speech from the Throne. This country is bigger than that. This issue is bigger than that. It needs more than an hour of debate. It needs a minimum of three days so that we can have a proper airing of the issues.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, before the House today we have three motions. I know the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) was speaking basically about one of them. The first motion is in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). It is a motion which would amend Clause 22 of the Bill and I want to say a few words about that.
Clause 22 of the Bill talks about what will happen when regulations are made under Section 21(1). This subsection gives the Minister through the Governor in Council the power to establish regulations. You have been here roughly as long as
October 31, 1983

I have, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you realize that when we give this kind of blanket power to a Cabinet Minister, we give him a lot of discretionary power to decide what the regulations may be. One of my frustrations with this place and 1 know one of the frustrations of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) is that this institution is often not very democratic. We tend to give a blank cheque to a Minister.
Sometimes the blank cheque is a good one because we have a Minister who is responsible and sensitive and who does a good job; but sometimes we have a flop as a Minister and someone who does not do a good job. Sometimes, even, the Minister does too good a job. 1 see the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) in the House and 1 remember the excellent job he did with the Indian people of the country, but because of that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) threw him out of the Cabinet. That is a shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With due respect to the Hon. Member, he appears to be straying from the motions before the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I would never challenge you, Mr. Speaker, as you have a lot of experience here, but 1 want to show what can happen when the House gives so much power to the Prime Minister's office or so much power to a Minister's office, as would be the case with Clause 21 (1). As it stands it would give them the power to establish any regulation they want under this Bill. Clause 22 of the legislation provides that within 20 days of proposed legislation being laid before either the Senate or the House of Commons, 30 Members of Parliament may sign a request that there be a debate in the Commons Transport Committee, or 15 Senators can sign a request which would be referred to the relevant committee of the Senate. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker.
I want to oppose that section of the Crow Bill very strongly, Mr. Speaker. 1 want to urge all Members of the House-and I am sure the Conservatives will agree-to vote for Motion No. 47 which would improve things marginally. It would change the number of Members of Parliament required to request a special debate in the Commons Transport Committee from 30 to 15. Why should only 15 Senators be required to request a debate? They are not elected and are not responsible, in any direct sense, to the people of Canada. They are not responsible in any way whatsoever. Why should 15 Senators be able to file notice for a special debate yet it would take 30 MPs to file for a special debate?


Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: It is a smaller House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not care what the size of the House is, it is an undemocratic House. It is a disgrace in the 1980s to have a legislative body that is not elected, that is not responsible. It is a house of patronage for the Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must call to the attention of the Hon. Member that he seems to be straying from the subject matter of the motions before us.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Arnold John Malone: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. 1 know you brought me to attention when I was speaking a few moments ago, but I must say that under closure surely Members should have more leniency on an issue as important as this. 1 believe, since it is a Member from another Party who is speaking-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising a point of order. What is before us is a debate on Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49, at report stage of the Bill. The fact that time allocation has been adopted is not the issue before the House; that was debated under a separate motion and was adopted.
The Chair is in the hands of the House. The rules of the House say that we are at report stage and we are debating Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49. I did call the Hon. Member to attention and he very politely conformed to the request of the Chair and found that he was able to make some very good points with regard to the motions. I am sure the Hon. Member who has the floor will be able to follow his good example.


Arnold John Malone: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member making the same point of order? It is irregular to raise the same point of order.


Arnold John Malone: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is making a new point of order the Chair will listen, but the Chair asks the Hon. Member not to simply repeat his point.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is that there are important amendments but they do not necessarily all follow, seriatim, as being the most important at the first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has ruled on the Hon. Member's point. The Chair has no alternative but to call to the attention of the House the motions currently under debate, Nos. 47, 48 and 49, and to request Hon. Members to confine their remarks accordingly. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, Clause 22 of the Bill deals with the House of Commons and the Senate and provides that it will need the signatures of 15 Senators to request a special debate but that it will need the signatures of 30 MPs for a special debate. We have moved an amendment to reduce the number of MPs to 15. Perhaps one of our reasons for doing that is that we are concerned about the future of the Liberal Party. The way the polls are going, there may not be 30 Liberal Members here after the next election. I am sure they will want to have the ability to file for a special debate on some of the regulations made under the Crow legislation. I know that matter is of great concern to the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River, Mr. Speaker, as he has already come over here to join me. Perhaps that indicates how he will vote in a few days time.
We have had an articulate speech on Motion No. 48 from "Red Ray", the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Elnatyshyn). Motion No. 48 would amend Clause 25 which in subclause (1) provides:
A motion filed under section 24 shall be taken up and considered by the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, within five sitting days-
Then it goes on to provide that in the generosity of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) we will be allowed a one-hour debate. Imagine, a one-hour debate on something that might be vitally important to western Canada! That is disgraceful. A one-hour debate with ten-minute speeches means that six Members can speak and that is it. The regulations may be vitally important to western Canada. For reasons that are obvious, therefore, I want to support Motion No. 48 moved by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) who proposes a three-day debate.
That is my second choice. My first choice is Motion No. 49 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) which would not limit the debate at all. As mature Parliamentarians we would be trusted to decide whether there should be a one-day, a three-day, or a ten-day debate. It would be open-ended. I think we have the sensitivity and responsibility to know when enough is enough. I think Parliamentarians must be trusted. This institution should be supreme and we should make the decision.
If Motion No. 49 is not accepted, then obviously as my second choice I prefer Motion No. 48 which would allow at least a three-day debate. I say that because of the importance of the Crow issue and of the transportation of grain in western Canada.
I find it absolutely despicable that we would only be allowed a one-hour debate on regulations that could be so vital to rail lines all across the country and to the movement of grain across the country in what is really the most important industry in Canada. If we do not have a healthy grain farming economy, that will affect jobs in Ottawa West, Montreal, in Toronto and all across the country. We should have a bit more democracy in this place and a bit more leniency so that we can speak on behalf of our constituents.
1 want to make the argument for my urban friends across the way once again, Mr. Speaker. It is not right, nor is it fair, that we have this severe limitation on debate where it would take 30 Members of Parliament to petition that a certain regulation be referred to a committee of the House or 15 Senators to petition that a certain regulation be sent to a special Senate committee. That is not fair because of the discretionary power given to the Minister of Transport.
Even if the present Minister of Transport were to be fully trusted, if he were fully sensitive to the needs of western Canada-the Minister is not but even if he were-who will be the next Minister of Transport?


Mr. Blenkarn:: Certainly not that one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It could be the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), for example, though God help us. It might be someone who would do things totally against the interests of western Canada. He could be from any Party, Mr. Speaker. In almost any Government there could be someone who blows the job, who is a dud. And what recourse do we have? We have a one-hour debate.
1 am sure, Mr. Speaker, as the fairminded arbitrator you are in this House, that if you were not in the Chair you would be standing on the other side of the House screaming about the unfairness, unjustice and lack of democracy which we have in Clauses Nos. 22 and 25 of the legislation which is before this House. I know that many Liberal Party Members, if they were not afraid of the immense power of the Office of the Prime Minister, would be standing as well and expressing their grave concern about this severe limitation which we have had imposed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Seikirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak this morning to Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49. You will be very pleased to know that I intend to keep strictly germane to the topic and not wander about. By speaking to this group of motions, Mr. Speaker, I would also like once again to register my opposition to Bill C-155, the Government's plan to kill the Crow rate. The amendments before us this morning, like all of the other amendments before this House, are very important. As I see it, the intention behind each of these amendments-two of them moved by this Party and one by the Conservative Party-is to protect the authority of Parliament in the face of a growing trend to govern by Order in Council.
It is a laudable provision contained within this Bill to give Members of Parliament, and even Senators, the ability to examine the regulations put forward by the Grain Transportation Administrator and to revoke those regulations if they are not appropriate. Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 only serve to make those provisions much more workable and, I believe, much more fair than what is now proposed.
Motion No. 47 seeks to limit to only 15 the number of Members of Parliament who must give written notice for a regulation to be referred to committee. The same number is required for Senators. As it now stands, 15 Senators or 30 Members of Parliament can give written notice to have a regulation initiated by the Administrator of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee examined by a committee. Why is that? I can understand why we should not try to double the number of Senators required to give notice to 30, the number now required for Hon. Members of this House. If it were not a Wednesday when the pay cheques are handed out, it might be very difficult to find even 15 Senators, let alone 30, who know anything about grain transportation, or who even care. However, setting that logistical problem aside for the moment, I must say that I cannot understand why this Bill would give to a Chamber filled, as my friend, the Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), pointed out, with political appointees, what amounts to twice the opportunity to have
October 31, 1983

regulations examined as Hon. Members of this House who are elected and responsible to their constituents would enjoy.
Motion No. 47 does not remove altogether the ability of Senators to have regulations examined in committee. That kind of slight towards the Senate would, of course, be too much to bear for the Government or my friends in the Tory caucus. The Senate, after all, is the place to which they retire both Tory and Liberal hacks. No, this motion does not slight the Senate in that way. What it does do, though, is recognize the plain and simple fact that Hon. Members and Senators must have at least an equal opportunity to examine, and in some cases reject, regulations proposed for grain transportation. It seems only fitting to me, Mr. Speaker, that elected Members of Parliament should not have more restrictions placed on them in this regard than appointed Senators.
Motions Nos. 48 and 49 deal with the length of time allocated for this House to debate a motion that the proposed regulation be confirmed and brought into effect. As it now stands, a regulation dealing with performance guarantees or awards and sanctions for those involved in the grain transportation system must be laid before each House of Parliament within 15 days. Then a motion must be put that the regulation be confirmed and signed by a Minister of the Crown. That motion is then dealt with by the Senate or the House of Commons, as the case may be.
That is fine as far as it goes. However, what the Government intends with this Bill is to impose a prearranged closure on the debate. The Government has proposed to limit debate to only one hour. If that is all the time the Government feels should be allowed for Members of this House to deal with the motions confirming these regulations, then I must ask, why bother at all? Allowing one hour is the worst kind of tokenism, Mr. Speaker. How much of that hour will Opposition Members receive in order to debate the regulation? Forty minutes? Half an hour? Even a full hour, for that matter, is not very much time for this Government, which has only one Cabinet Member from the West, to allow Opposition Members to deal with regulations which may have long-lasting effects on western grain farmers. It is not very much House time which this Government, which hails largely from central Canada, is allowing western Opposition Members to tell it what is wrong with its proposed regulations for grain transportation.
The motion presented by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) would extend that limit to three days. That makes much more sense, as my friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), suggested. That is our second choice. However, I do not think that is enough. As Hon. Members now know, some of these regulations can be very complicated. And as we are seeing in this debate, it takes more than three days to enlighten the Government on the faults of complicated proposals.
Of course, some of the regulations proposed by the Administrator will be very straightforward and there should be no reason to keep them from being dealt with very quickly. However, 1 am uncomfortable limiting the debate on these regulations to three days for the simple reason that it may take
Western Grain Transportation Act
more time than that to make all the points which need to be made. If a regulation is bad and is complicated at the same time, it could easily take Hon. Members of this House more than three days to convince the Government that the best route is simply to revoke the motion of confirmation in the regulation.
I am surprised also, Mr. Speaker, that the Tories would want to write in the limit of three days in this particular motion. Over the last few days we have heard that Party, and rightly so, complaining about the three-day closure which we are now suffering. 1 can only think that perhaps what the Hon. Member had in mind when he drafted this amendment was that since one day his Party may well be in power, he wanted to make sure that some form of closure or time allocation was in place for that eventuality.
For my money, Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 49 makes much more sense. It permits debate on the motions confirming regulations to continue until it is finished. Under this proposal, if it takes four days or even five days to deal with one particular regulation, then Hon. Members know they will have those four or five days to deal with it. They will not be faced with automatic time allocation and prevented from making the points which must be made.
1 am glad, Mr. Speaker, that with these motions we are recognizing that some checks must be in place on the Government's ability to govern by Order in Council. I am happy that the Government seems to recognize that Hon. Members of this House must have the ability to examine, and if need be reject, proposed regulations which will come from the Grain Transportation Administrator. I believe, however, when we are recognizing that need, that we must ensure we are not limiting the ability of Hon. Members of this House in that regard more than we are limiting the ability of Senators. As this Bill now reads, that is exactly what we would be doing. We must ensure that once regulations have been examined in committee, Hon. Members have adequate time, if they need it, to debate those regulations in the House. One hour allowed for each motion confirming a regulation is not enough time. For that matter, neither may three days be enough time. Members should be allowed as much time as they need to debate contentious regulations.
As I have said before, in many cases no written notice will be given to have the regulations examined in committee and no debate will occur on motions to confirm regulations; but there will be times when the regulations must be examined and debated. There will even be times when the motions to confirm the regulations must be-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I value this opportunity to contribute to the debate on the motions which are before the House at this time. As a Member, 1 have often noticed that when debates take place and there is enough time allowed for Hon. Members to express their views, the Ministers responsible for the piece of legislation or regulations that are to be put into place will be present taking notes. Because of that, we do find some changes taking place.
The present Government wants to allow only one hour to debate regulations that could have a profound effect on an industry that is vital to all of Canada but particularly to western Canada. I am talking about the farming industry. Government Members who introduce regulations by Order in Council that could and would have a very profound effect upon western Canada often do not understand how the regulations proposed will affect the western agricultural industry. This is to be understood when we have a Government with no representatives from west of Winnipeg and when we have a Government that depends upon political hacks in western Canada to tell the Government what it should be doing or how a regulation will affect western Canada. I am referring to some of these aged members of the other place who are running around representing British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. These men have not only grown old and in some cases quite senile but have absolutely no concept of what is happening in their own back yard. They are tired, old and have indeed been rewarded with a permanent pension by being appointed to the other place.
The motion put by an Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party calls for unlimited debate. I think that that is unreasonable. If in three days we cannot use our intelligence to indicate the opposition to a regulation that is being proposed by the Government through Order in Council, we should not be here. Of course, the New Democratic Party constantly reaches for the maximum. Its Members do not think about the legislation that must be put through the House.
The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) said that three days of debate on one regulation or on a number of regulations would not be sufficient and that we were probably trying to limit debate to three days because we will soon be the Government and would want this automatic closure in place so that we would not have to worry. I am particularly pleased that he recognizes that the Conservative Party is going to form the next Government. We will form the next Government but not with the help of Members of the New Democratic Party because they are the ones who put in that gang across the street. They should always remember that.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker-


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member has clearly misquoted me. I said that some day the Conservatives may form a Government. I did not recognize that they were going to.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, again we have heard a very frivolous comment from a Member of the New Democratic
Party. The comment made by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake was that we may form the next Government and we would want closure in place. That is totally irrelevant because the Bill that is presently before the House of which we are only dealing with one clause is a Bill that will have a profound effect and is composed of many pages and many amendments. That is why we are against the closure that exists today, closure that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) brought in. However, to suggest that we cannot discuss regulations that will affect western Canada in three days is ridiculous.
All that the Government is doing by limiting debate on regulations to one hour is perpetuating a system that has taken over the Government. I am talking about the system of having the bureaucracy draft regulations that become laws which can often severely penalize those who will be affected by those regulations to the point of fines, court appearances and incarceration.
There is something wrong when we in Canada allow the responsibility of governing and law making to fall out of the hands of the House of Commons and into the hands of the bureaucracy. That is what has happened time and time again. There is indeed something wrong. That is not why the people from our constituencies have elected us and sent us to Ottawa. We are here to be the law makers. We are here to account for those laws that are put into effect in the House of Commons. On the other hand, members of the bureaucracy are hired to carry out the policies and the laws that are passed in the House. More and more we see the bureaucracy setting down guidelines, rules and regulations that have profound effect. By limiting the debate to one hour with ten-minute speeches, the government ensures and absolutely underlines the fact that the bureaucracy will do the governing in the country.
One hour of debate on regulations after a motion has been initiated by a number of parliamentarians or Senators means 60 minutes of ten-minute speeches. The Government will use up three of those speeches and will then allow us only three ten-minute speeches to point out to the Government in a public forum the effect those regulations will have on the agricultural community.
We in the House all know that sometimes debate goes on for two or three days and it is not until the second or third day that members of the Press Gallery even realize or understand what we are talking about. It is only through this House that we signal to the press and through them to the Canadian people the detrimental effects that certain regulations will have. That is why I support my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), on his motion to allow three days of debate. Three days would be ample time and is at least a compromise position. One hour is totally inadequate. Again, I would not want to see unlimited debate on any one or two regulations that would be brought in.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying that 1 hope the Government will recognize that we on this side are being sincere in requesting that this amendment for a three-day debate be passed.
October 31, 1983


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendments which are before the House at this time. My concern about the Government's proposition to have a one-hour debate in the House of Commons on a regulation is that it does away with parliamentary control. Those of us who have been involved with legislation realize that regulations can be just as important as the Bill itself. They can be of any length, such as the regulation in the Department of National Defence concerning the rules of appeal for practices and procedures in courts martial which is over 14 pages long. Many words can be printed in 14 pages of The Canada Gazette.
I do not believe that Members of Parliament could ever agree to a clause which dictates that we must pass a regulation in one hour when it may take us five hours to read the regulation itself. If we really want to be the voice of the people and supervise the affairs of the Government, and if we really want to take the control of legislation and regulations away from the bureaucrats and restore it with the people's representatives, we certainly should have more than one hour of debate in the House of Commons.
Another provision I find offensive is that which suggests it takes 30 Members of the House of Commons to initiate this one-hour debate while it takes only 15 Senators to do the same thing. The situation may well arise when Members from one Province may wish to argue about a section in the regulations. I believe Members should have the automatic right to speak about a certain regulation, whether it is 10 Members or 15 Members. I find it hard to believe that anyone could suggest that two Members equal one Senator.
My main concern is that the Government, through this provision, is trying to limit the future role and authority of the House of Commons itself. The regulations on the awards and sanctions clause of the Bill will be very important to the agriculture and transportation industry in Canada. The provision in this legislation to provide only one hour in the House of Commons to debate regulations which could affect farmers, the transportation industry and the very way of life in western Canada is ridiculous. As one of my colleagues pointed out, even a time allocation motion requires two hours of debate in the House of Commons. The time allocation procedure under which we are presently debating this Bill allows us three days to debate the last two stages of the Crow legislation. Therefore 1 must ask how we could ever agree to a one-hour limitation provision which is more strict than any other rule in the House. It would give us less time for debate than we have for a Private Member's Bill and it is less time than we have for an Opposition day or for any Bill that comes before the House of Commons.
I must question why the Government wants to restrict us to a one-hour debate through this legislation when the regulations to be debated may be very important and of concern in the House two or three years from now and which may require a longer debate. If we agree to this one-hour debate, we will prevent future Parliaments from exercising their responsibility.
Western Grain Transportation Act
As a Member who represents the constituency of Churchill, which includes the Port of Churchill, I recognize the danger that this Bill to kill the Crow creates for a place such as the Port of Churchill. From the time this Bill was introduced we recognized that if variable rates were implemented and CN did not provide adequate repairs to its line, the Port of Churchill could be destroyed. For that reason the people in my riding are extremely concerned about this legislation and certainly would not want me to vote for it or any clause within it which would limit the power of the House of Commons to debate and supervise the affairs of the Government.
I certainly support the amendments put forward by my colleague for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). We should not limit ourselves in the future or today to a one-hour debate or even a three-day debate. We are all aware of the lengthy wording that bureaucrats put into regulations. If Members of Parliament are faced with 15-page regulations, how can we only allow them one hour or three days to debate? We should not set a limit on the length of debate when we do not know what the regulations will be. For us to limit our own ability to speak or investigate legislation which could affect all of western Canada and parts of eastern Canada would be complete folly and would run against the very nature of the House of Commons.
Each of us was elected to this place for the primary purpose of representing our constituents. The very history of Parliament has been for the people's representatives to review legislation. The very purpose of Parliament is to supervise the activities of the Cabinet and the bureaucracy. This limitation of debate to one hour as proposed by the Government detracts from the fundamental purpose and rights of Members of Parliament. I certainly will not support the Government's position and 1 suspect that Government Members, after reconsideration, would recognize that they are cutting their own throats if they pass legislation of this nature.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a few moments on the proposal put forward by my colleague from Vegreville that would deal with the regulatory process of this Bill. I suggest that all of us are looking for a reasonable position regarding the ability of the Government to design and implement regulations. The difficulty is that all of us have different ideas of what is reasonable.
The Government takes the position that once the legislation is passed it should have the right to design regulations that flow from that Act, regulations that would be pursuant to the Act. We feel that is true, but even those regulations deserve a certain amount of debate because it is not necessarily true that the Government will always present regulations that are pursuant to the Act or for the good of the people involved. I believe even Members of the Government would recognize that those who design the regulations and who have spent their years in Ottawa, rather than out in the fields where the producers are, do not necessarily remain in touch with the situation in the rest of the country. Since that isolation exists, the regulations flowing from the Bill that the Government designs may not

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act necessarily be for the good of the producer. Certainly we have seen that in the legislation before us.
The motion put forward by the NDP goes to the other extreme. Their definition of reasonable is that we should be able to debate regulations ad infinitum. I do not know that that is necessary either. While all of us have our own definition of what is reasonable, it is not reasonable to have a one-hour debate on regulations that determine the future of an entire industry in Canada. 1 do not believe it is reasonable by anyone's definition when the Government can in one motion, by Order in Council, dramatically alter the rules by which the producers operate.
I think it would not take much effort to register how the tables would be turned. 1 would wonder how Government Members from the Maritimes would react if we brought forward a Bill dealing with the Maritimes fishing industry, that would alter the terms of reference for the entire industry and there was a provision in that Bill whereby you could debate all the regulations pertaining to that industry in one our. 1 would imagine there are a fair number of Members, including the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc), who is here, who would have some concern that the Members from New Brunswick would be able to ventilate their views in one hour. I think the Minister of Public Works would like to see them given the opportunity to debate for more than one hour, unless he really wants to throttle his own colleagues from New Brunswick, though I do not think he is that kind of a fellow.


Mr. LeBlanc:: We have heard a lot of ventilation in the last few weeks.


Benno Friesen: When 1 ventilate, it is fresh air. What about Members from Nova Scotia or the two Members from Prince Edward Island? If we had a Bill dealing with the fishing industry that determines the future of the maritime Provinces, I think Members of the Liberal Government would be very exercised about the need to be able to discuss regulations that would affect the fishermen constituents whose future they are determining.
There you see the definition or reasonableness changes, Mr. Speaker. What now seems eminently reasonable, a one-hour debate affecting the future of western farmers, which is what seems to be reasonable to the Government, would change dramatically if the venue were changed, if it were to determine the fishing industry of the Maritimes.
We need to look very carefully at the proposal put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). By imposing a three-day limit to debate those regulations, he is being reasonable. Nobody is saying we have to debate the motion for three days. If we examine the regulations put forward by the Government and they seem to be meeting the needs of the producers, helping the producers operate comfortably within their arena and if those producers can function properly and the regulations are meeting those needs, why debate the issue for three days?
1 suppose we can say that one of the most overworked committees in this House, one which does not get much attention but nevertheless is overworked, is the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. That particular committee has the burden of examining all of the regulations the bureaucrats design. Every once in a while we get notice that the bureaucracy has designed regulations that really are ultra vires or have gone too far and are really not operating within the constraints that ought to be theirs. In that case the Standing Committee on Regulations and Statutory Instruments has a very important function to fulfil. If we have only a one-day debate on a motion on regulations flowing from this Bill, rest assured that that committee will get an awful lot of extra work.
As the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) pointed out and we are talking about a one-hour debate on this motion the Government wants us to deal with it, by having ten-minute speeches. This means six speakers. Of those six speakers the Government will make very certain it will have three of them. The Opposition, at the maximum, will get 30 minutes of debating time to deal with very complex regulations. That is not within the bounds of reasonableness, Mr. Speaker, unless everyone unanimously wants to support the regulations. If our experience shows us anything or teaches us anything regarding this legislation, it is that we ought not to take for granted the reasonableness of the regulations that flow from this Bill.
I suppose at the bottom of all this is the whole concept of honour. Because of the experience we have had on this side of the House for the past three years, there is very little confidence left in the Government's sense of honour. Think back to the omnibus Bill presented to us a year and a half ago which brought on the ringing of the bells, Mr. Speaker. The Government tried to invoke about three principles in one Bill and made it impossible for us to debate it. In fact, in the Bill before us there are several concepts that we have allowed to pass within the Bill that are really in violation of the concept of good regulation.
The fact that the B.C. coal lands are incorporated in a Bill dealing with western grain transportation seems to me a contradiction of the whole concept of debate.


Mr. Mazankowski:: How much are they worth?


Benno Friesen: The coal lands are worth billions of dollars.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is it $450 billion?


Benno Friesen: Let us try $450 billion within the life of those coal lands. We, representing British Columbia, might get ten minutes' debate on regulations determining the future of those coal lands under the Government's terms, assuming we get one of those three speaking slots.


Mr. Forrestall:: Are those dollars 1963 dollars?


Benno Friesen: That $450 billion is in 1972 dollars.
We are talking about an escalating figure as those coal lands are developed. By the time that land is developed it will
October 31, 1983

be worth a lot more than the $400 billion we were talking about. But the Government wants to debate those regulations affecting the coal lands in ten-minute debating slots if we are lucky. The other Opposition Party might get one of those slots and certainly representatives of the prairie grain farming area will get some of those speaking slots. We from British Columbia might get no time at all to debate the regulations affecting the development of those B.C. coal lands.
I am saying that when it comes to a sense of honour we have had enough lessons in the past three and a half years to teach us not to take a position of trusting honour in the development of the regulations. We have to be sure. Therefore, we need a minimum of three days' debating time. If the regulations are good and we agree with them, we do not have to debate them for three days. But certainly it is reasonable to expect at least a three-day opportunity to debate those regulations if we sense that we need that time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have an observation arising from a concern about a section in the Act. Although in this day and age legislation is becoming very complex. Thus it is incumbent upon us not to forget from time to time that we have a responsibility as Parliamentarians to ensure that people being affected by legislation and regulations made pursuant to a measure are understood. We have a responsibility to ensure that in this case producers understand clearly what Parliament intends when it introduces regulations.
If that concern is a valid one, it seems rather easy to me, indeed a very proper position for this House to take, to amend the present wording in the Act. As Your Honour knows, it sets forth with respect to debate on regulations a period of one hour. I have some uncertainty as to whether or not it is one hour for each regulation, one hour for all the regulations, or one hour for an amendment to the Act with respect to regulations which might be introduced at some point in the future. I am still unclear. If this piece of legislation produces a thousand separate regulations, it may well be that the House could be preoccupied for a thousand hours of debate. Of course, that is an extreme interpretation.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), together with those Members who laboured long and hard all summer with respect to the legislation, has adopted a much more reasonable position. The Hon. Member for Vegreville suggested that we should have three days of debate on regulations. That is reasonable. In three days it is possible for us to indicate clearly to those persons most directly affected by the regulations what we intended or what we meant, whether we understand clearly the position of the producers, but in theory the position of anyone directly affected by the regulations. Do we understand their position? The only way those directly affected will know is if they have access to a historical document, in this case the Debates of the Chamber. If they have access to the Debates, only in that way will they understand whether or not we in fact understood their needs or, to
Western Grain Transportation Act
put it another way, whether or not the regulations do what they were intended to do, that is, to make the legislation itself operative, flow smoothly and serve the needs for which it was intended.
In seeking to amend the particular clause by striking out the one hour and replacing it with three days, Hon. Members of the House and indeed the Senate would be given an opportunity to put on the record their interpretation of what they believe people in fact want. Unless I am seriously mistaken, it seems that the function and role of government is to serve the people. It is not complex or complicated. We do that by proposing and debating laws which are good laws. Good laws are simply ones which people will instinctively want to follow and adhere to. Bad laws are just the opposite. In my judgment it is not good law to deny people access to an understanding of our intentions. The three days would allow that access; if it is a simple matter, it could be simply stated and perhaps clearly understood.
As other speakers have said, there is no suggestion that every regulation be debated for three days. On the other hand, if it takes more than an hour or one speech to indicate that clearly to those most directly affected by regulations, then that is our responsibility. I think it is a very clear one.
I do not see it as anything other than a reasonable proposition, and I do not understand the Government's objection. I did not understand when it objected to it during the committee debate. It seemed like a reasonable position. My friends in the New Democratic Party suggested some other changes which are quite recognizable from their point of view. Today they might qualify; after the next election they might not. They see themselves as holier than thou, the only spokesmen for western producers or as very specific representatives of particular interest groups. I understand their seeking to reduce the numbers required to communicate to the Chair their desire to debate a particular recommendation. I have no quarrel with that in any particular sense, so I will not in any way try to deal with it.
I would like to deal more particularly with the amendments of the Hon. Member for Vegreville and his colleagues who worked diligently on this, in order to facilitate the prosecution of a responsibility, that is, to ensure that anyone who is interested and follows the debate clearly understands what we intend. It might be that with the complexity of legislation today a speaker may not in ten minutes be able to deal completely with the implications of a regulation. It is incumbent upon us in the Chamber not to impose restrictions on people who participate in debates in such a way as to render it very difficult, if not impossible, to communicate their views to Hon. Members, or, much more important, to those people directly affected, and to have them on the historical record. To this end the ten-minute limitation seems unreasonable. Whether it is more unreasonable to remove that and have no time limit on the debate than the ten-minute restriction, 1 am not absolutely certain, but I am certain that whatever we in this Chamber do with respect to these guidelines it should be done in such a way as to allow individual Members and Members

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
collectively ample time in the course of their interventions to make clearly known-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Motions Nos. 47 and 49, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and Motion No. 48, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
There are a number of issues before us in dealing with these three amendments. The first and perhaps the most offensive, not only to Members of Parliament but I suspect to the people of Canada, is clause 22 of Bill C-155. It states that it takes two Members of Parliament for every one Senator to request a debate on any of the regulations. When it comes to regulations regarding awards and sanctions, regulations regarding the allocation of railway cars, regulations that could affect the quota system or the block system or regulations that could discriminate against a system participant unfairly or discriminate in favour of a system participant unfairly, it surely requires some detailed attention by the House of Commons.
Surely those kinds of regulations deserve more attention, if they are deemed to be of sufficient importance by 15 Senators or 30 Members of the House of Commons, than ten minutes of debate for each of six Members of this House. Surely they require more attention than that if the question is of sufficient importance to some 30 Members of the House of Commons. The Government cannot have it both ways. If it is important enough for 15 Senators or 30 Members of the House of Commons to want to use the time of the House to debate those regulations, it is of sufficient importance not to be restricted to a one hour debate. That is a conflict in itself.
Perhaps government Members, regardless of what government it may be, are telling us in advance that little interest will be shown in a debate of the regulations, about as much interest as the Government is showing in the debate on this and other amendments we have been debating over the last couple of weeks.
I wish to quote a poem from the book "The Blasted Pine, An Anthology of Satire, Invective and Disrespectful Verse". If it was a long poem 1 would not read it, but it is comprised of only two lines. It says something about the silence that has been so evident in the seats across the way. The poem is entitled "Places" and was written by Joseph Howe. I quote:
As Bees, on Flowers alighting, cease their Hum,
So, settling upon Places, Whigs grow dumb.
I wish some Members opposite would show a little more belief in the project they are trying so hard to sell both to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada. They seem to have taken the position that, as far as they are concerned, it is of extreme urgency, so much so that they have refused time and again overtures from this side to split the Bill into its various component parts. By doing so, they could move ahead
on the matter of rail modernization, something that was very important at the time of the last election and when they talked about the Western Canada Development Fund in two different years.
At the time that was discussed, there was no mention of the fact that it was going to require a five times increase in payments by western grain producers in order to get that modernization. When the Government talked about double tracking at the time of the last election, it did not mention that it would be only the western farmer who would pay. What happened to that promise? We now have 50 miles-or do I stand in danger of being prosecuted because 1 did not put that in kilometres? At the time of that promise, there was no mention that it would be only the western grain producer who would pay for the double tracking.
We also had the Western Canada Development Fund. We were assured that a lot of that would go for the modernization and upgrading of the rail system. There was no mention that that would not happen unless western grain producers paid for it. That went by the boards. It was repeated the next year, but there was still no mention of the fact that it would not happen unless western grain producers paid for it.
There is one overriding issue in this debate. The whole matter of the Crow debate can be put very simply: the people of western Canada do not believe the Liberals and they do not trust the CPR. That is the issue.
Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 are trying to address different issues in the Bill. The Government wants to push them through all at one time instead of splitting them up in some reasonable way. The Government will get its way with regard to this legislation by virtue of its majority, which it obtained a number of years ago. Sooner or later it will have its way. It does not want the House to debate any of the regulations which may ensue from this legislation unless 15 Senators or 30 Members of Parliament request such a debate. If such a debate takes place, it will be restricted to six Members speaking for ten minutes each, or the equivalent amount of time.
It may be that the Members of the Liberal Party believe that it takes two Members of Parliament to equal one Senator. As far as 1 am concerned, and as far as my colleagues in this and the other Opposition Party as well as the voters are concerned, we have a somewhat higher estimation of the people who are elected here than those which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appoints. 1 suspect that Canadians trust their judgment to pick representatives who are at least equal to those selected by one man, a man who currently is not having a great love affair with the Canadian public, despite many of his credentials I am astounded at the reasoning and logic which produce that kind of solution.
I wish more Members opposite would rise in their place rather than simply alight on it. I want to know what is the logic for providing for 30 Members of Parliament or 15 Senators. Surely there has to be some and I would appreciate being edified on that point. I ask Members opposite to give us the reasoning behind that one item.
October 31, 1983

1 am glad we have had an opportunity to discuss these amendments-alhtough I sometimes wonder how many are listening-and to point out some of the tortured logic that makes up much of the legislation before us. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the Government's treatment of the clauses which Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 try to amend.
1 conclude by again asking that the Government not only have some of its Members rise to defend the legislation, but consider splitting the Bill in order that we can progress with those items which they promised to the people of western Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to participate in this debate on Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49. As other speakers have indicated, these motions intend to strengthen Parliament's role and the role of Members of Parliament in debating and deciding upon regulations that the Government may wish to introduce from time to time to change, enhance or subtract from the powers of the Administrator and the Senior Grain Transportation Committee.
We on this side of the House are very concerned with the original legislation in Bill C-155, especially the role of Parliament. Throughout the evolution of Bill C-155 we have been gravely concerned with the method. We are concerned that Paliament has in many ways been by-passed, as the producers had originally been by-passed. It took the pleading of the combined Opposition to have the Government form a committee to listen to the producers.
We feel that Bill C-155 is a product of the back rooms, that it is a product essentially of people in the Department of Transport who feel they know better in terms of western agriculture, the shape which grain production on the Prairies should take and the transportation of those grains. That Department has shown time and time again that it does not know better. It has made horrendous mistakes in the past that have cost the taxpayers of this country some billions of dollars. If Parliament was not here as an institution, I am certain that these people would have spent and wasted even more of the taxpayers' money than they did with Mirabel, Pickering and the passenger transportation system in this country. To allow these people almost a blank cheque is indeed very irresponsible.
What we have here in this legislation is a design to alter radically agriculture and the transportation of grains in western Canada. Earlier in this Bill the Government sets up the position of an Administrator and a Senior Grain Transportation Committee. We have argued in previous amendments that the Senior Grain Transportation Committee did not properly and adequately represent the producers of western Canada, the people who are directly affected by these policies. The Senior Grain Transportation Committee was stacked in favour of the
Western Grain Transportation Act
railroads and larger corporations. We stood in the House and fought to enhance representation from the pools on the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. We still have to vote on that, Mr. Speaker, to see how willing the Government really is to make certain that farmer organizations like the pools are adequately represented.
In this Bill we have also seen the Government attempt to enhance the powers of the Administrator. The Administrator is going to have the power of sanctions and awards that it can level against the pools and the Wheat Board. These are tremendous powers in the hands of the Administrator. How those powers will be used we do not know.
The people of Saskatchewan are very paranoid about the intentions of this Government and they have every reason to be. This Government has not been open or sympathetic to the needs of western Canada and particularly to the people of Saskatchewan. Public opinion surveys in Saskatchewan indicate how strongly the people of Saskatchewan are opposed to this Bill. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Saskatchewan are very paranoid of what this Government is intending to do, and they have every reason to be.
In addition, we now find that the role of Parliament, the role of the representatives of the people, is to be even further curbed. The Government has written into this legislation closure in advance. The people of Saskatchewan are outraged by what the Government is doing. They are outraged by Bill C-155. They are outraged by section after section of this Bill. What we are debating today is just one more item of outrage. It is no wonder that farmers in Saskatchewan occupied Government offices during the last few days. Surely the Government can take this as a signal of the degree of anger that exists in that Province. But no, the Government just buries its head in the sand and ploughs ahead.
Why is this Bill so important to the people of Saskatchewan? This Bill affects Saskatchewan more than any other Province. Saskatchewan is the big loser in this Bill. Hundreds of millions of dollars will be leaving that Province every year because of this Bill. Production of grain in Saskatchewan is our major industry. Towns, villages-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) rises on a point of order.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is never in the House, or comes in late and does not know where we are. For the Hon. Member's attention, we are not at third reading. We are at report stage discussing Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 which pertain to Clause 22. I wish he would address himself to what is before this House.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I hope that that illogical and out of order interruption will not be taken as part of my time. What I am trying to say to the Hon. Member, if he would only listen and if it would only begin to sink in, is this: If he would only for a moment take that bloody smile off his face and begin to realize the seriousness of this legislation, the Hon. Member would begin to understand that what the Government

October 31, 1983
is doing in this section is introducing closure in advance. I am trying to get it into your thick skull that this piece of legislation is drastically changing the whole way of life in Saskatchewan, not just its economy but society and culture as well. That is something that you darn Liberals, who are so smug and have enjoyed power so much that you become fooled by your own bureaucrats-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Lion. Member, remarks should be addressed to the Chair; and I am sure the Hon. Member realizes he is straying just a little bit.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not direct my remarks through you. The feelings that 1 have are just further provoked by the types of interruptions and interventions that the Hon. Member just exhibited.
As I was trying to point out to the Hon. Member, all of us from Saskatchewan, whether we are in the Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party, have been trying to point out to the Government that what they are doing has serious ramifications not just for the economy of Saskatchewan, but for the culture, the villages, the towns and communities that have developed because of our major industry, the growing of grains. Regulations and laws have a tremendous effect upon the workings of our Province. It is not just something that should be decided by a group of bureaucrats sitting in the back rooms in Ottawa. It should not just fit into the needs of some railway company. There is a whole way of life involved here. To limit Parliament to only one hour of debate is an insult to the people of Saskatchewan and their representatives.
I see by your motion that my ten minutes is up, Mr. Speaker. If it is only one o'clock, I will continue my remarks after the adjournment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At I p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, compared with the average 2.4 per cent annual growth in employment between 1971 and 1982, this year's projections of 0.5 per cent are dismal. Economists say it is a respectable
performance because a sizable increase in new jobs cannot come before business investment picks up, probably in mid-1984. In the meantime, youth unemployment is extremely high.
In contrast to the over-all trend, the unemployment rate for women aged between 15 and 24 rose in September to 16.7 per cent. The rate for men in the same age group was 20.9 per cent. These rates are far above the over-all 11.3 per cent unemployment rate.
The Economic Council of Canada in its annual review sums it up well. When all the sums have been tallied, putting people back to work or usefully upgrading their skills will be less costly than continuing to support idle resources. A large number of our youth continue to be idle.



LOUIS RIEL


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in a speech he held in Quebec this weekend, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party-I noted to my astonishment and concern-showed very poor judgment in saying that by supporting the unanimous resolution adopted by Parliament in favour of bilingualism in Manitoba, this Party was settling a historic debt resulting from the hanging of Louis Riel by a Progressive Conservative Government. Since the past prepares the future, the Progressive Conservative leader can not hope to wipe out his party's debt so easily or so cheaply. It is also incredible to see how he tries to fool people. He tells his constituents in Central Nova that he has not had time to think about whether he would be living in Quebec for the next election, while he is giving every single organizer in each Quebec riding he visits the impression that he intends to run in that riding. At that rate, he will have to run in 76 ridings, that is, the riding of Central Nova and 75 more in his native province.



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the thousands of Canadian shipbuilders who have been unemployed for one, two, or three years, 1 would like to congratulate the Liberal Government for doing an outstanding job to encourage and promote employment in foreign shipyards.
The 1980 policy to slash the Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program from 20 per cent to 9 per cent, and the failure to implement the promised tax changes to discourage the pro-
October 31, 1983

curement of foreign equipment, have resulted in an influx of foreign-built ships twice as numerous as those built in Canadian yards.
The Government's plan to ensure work for shipyards abroad at the expense of Canadian yards has worked; employment in the shipbuilding industry has sunk from 14,000 to less than
6,000	nationally. Very real concern has been expressed by the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Association.
Excessive unemployment, and billions of dollars in torpedoed business, can be directly linked to government actions that failed to protect Canadian industry and encouraged the importation of foreign-built equipment. Canadian shipbuilders cannot afford the financial and personal losses that come from the Government's protection of jobs in foreign shipyards. We on this side, as usual, are in conflict with the policies of the Government and will return this industry to a productive, vital Canadian sector by implementing legislation that will do just that.



DISASTERS


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, last week a raging storm went through my constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond, destroying a number of private wharves in the community known as Gabarus. In addition to destroying those wharves, the major breakwater which had been in place for about 25 years was also destroyed.
I wish to put on the record formally that I will be approaching the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), as well as the Minister responsible for Canada Works, to seek additional funding. It should be noted that I will also be seeking the co-operation of the provincial Government in Nova Scotia which viewed the disaster at Gabarus, to assure that it will also be providing moneys so that the facilities at Gabarus can be upgraded, renovated, and put back to normal in order that the fishing industry and the economic benefits of that area can be restored.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday in the House of Commons I brought up the matter of the immigration scam in Hong Kong. I mentioned the lawyers and so-called immigration consultants who are going over there and charging exorbitant fees for giving advice that could
essentially be had free from the Canadian High Commission. The Minister should take this matter up with the president of the Canadian Bar Association to find out who these people are, what this is really about, and what he can do about it.
We need to upgrade the Hong Kong office. There are good people there, but there are line-ups, and files all over the floor because there is not enough storage.
There are even ads in the Vancouver Sun about this. On Tuesday, October 25, an ad appeared in the Vancouver Sun saying:
Eligible for immigration. Make a solid investment in a precious metals refinery in Vancouver and become a Canadian citizen. $300,000.
It gives a telephone number.
There is nothing wrong with having business entrepreneurs as immigrants, but we should make sure that we do not give the impression that you can buy our way into Canada at the expense of the family class. Many of my constituents who have brothers and sisters in Hong Kong cannot afford $300,000, but they also want to get their relatives over here.
This is a real scam that is going on in Hong Kong and it is now going on in the Vancouver papers. The Minister should look into this. We should examine our immigration policy, which is inherently inequitable when you think-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, for those who had exhausted UIC benefits in the Peterborough area, the NEED Program would allow them to renew claims after a ten week work period. However, I have now been informed that this work period has been increased to 16 weeks because of a supposed improvement in the unemployed rate for Peterborough. This is simply not the case. It is only applicable if Peterborough is averaged into the high employment area of Oshawa which is currently benefiting from an increase in production and sales in the automotive industry.
It is indeed unjust and demoralizing to design a project, the purpose of which is to instil renewed confidence in the unemployed, and then, simultaneously, extinguish their hopes by extending the work period from ten to 16 weeks in the middle of the program. This represents callous indifference to the plight of those so adversely affected by unemployment, and therefore demands immediate attention from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts).
The unemployment percentage rate for Peterborough must be determined separately from District 52 since District 52

October 31, 1983
included job growth in the auto industry to our south. I will be requesting Statistics Canada to supply this breakdown of the job losses in Peterborough separate from District 52 at the earliest opportunity, in the hope that a ten-week UIC qualification period might be returned to the Peterborough federal riding.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to let Canadians know to what extent the present Liberal Government has been analyzing proposed changes to the Crow Rate. Before Bill C-155 was tabled in the House last May, a number of consultations and meetings with the people concerned had already been held. At the second reading stage, 97 Members were given nine days to consider legislation, and they did so for 44 hours. In committee, the Bill required 31 days of work, 11 being used to travel across Canada in order to meet concerned citizens. The Committee heard 240 witnesses and 89 amendments were adopted in committee. Until last week's sitting, and we should include today's as well, about 200 speeches had been made at the report stage in the House. Opposition Members are being excessively touchy about their democratic rights when they claim that the Government is not giving them an opportunity to be heard. Canadians are prepared to have these changes adopted immediately, and 1 hope this will be done as soon as possible.

O)



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party and some of the Liberal "American haters" in this House are excellent examples of the verse, "All is yellow to the jaundiced eye." Everything which is anti-American is gospel to them. For example, the Communists say, and these Members of Parliament parrot, that the Cubans and Soviets were building an airport in Grenada for tourists, that the Cubans and Soviets on the island were labourers, and that the U.S.A. initiated the invasion.
What are the facts? Well, this airport has gun racks throughout the building, even in the toilets. Some tourist attraction! And how come these Russian and Cuban labourers suddenly have rifles and anti-aircraft guns with plenty of ammunition, all Soviet made? What about the warehouse north of St. George's which was packed with Soviet made AK
47 assault rifles, hand-held RPG7 anti-aircraft weapons, and 120 mm mortars in sufficient quantity to supply a battalion for a month?
Furthermore, at least six of the Caribbean nations testified that they asked the U.S.A. to participate. Prime Minister Seaga of Jamaica has stated publicly that the invasion was just in time to stop the Soviets from carrying out early plans, and I quote, "... to turn the island into a Soviet Cuban fortress". How is it that some Hon. Members of this House cannot see that the Soviet Communists are slowly trying to get bases all over the world for the great world takeover?
Americans are fighting, and some are dying, for all freedom loving peoples. God grant that the socialists in this House will open their eyes before Canada becomes the next victim.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.



DISARMAMENT


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there can be no greater need for action in this time of international instability than the need for action to bring about a lasting and secure peace. In this Disarmament Week, Mr. Speaker, I call upon Hon. Members, and indeed upon all Canadians, to support the efforts of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to rally world leaders around new and creative initiatives-


Mr. Nielsen:: Where is the apple?


John Leslie Evans: -toward effective arms reductions. The initiative of the Prime Minister is an act of personal courage and a continuation of-


An Hon. Member:: No more Cabinet shuffles this year.


John Leslie Evans: -Liberal Government diplomatic initiatives in the decades since the Second World War when Lester B. Pearson announced Canada's approach to nuclear war. He stated that there is no national solution, only an international solution. The Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, is continuing the quest for a lasting international solution.
This effort is not, as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) would have us believe, simply "philosophical musing".


An Hon. Member:: I believe that.


John Leslie Evans: Rather than attempting to gain partisan political advantage by undermining the effectiveness of the Prime Minister's bold initiative, the Official Opposition should put aside their partisan rhetoric in an effort to further the cause of peace. There are no second chances, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, John!
October 31, 1983


John Leslie Evans: In the cause of world peace, as the old saying goes, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POLITICAL PARTIES


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the same topic as the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), because during the last week the Conservative Party has refused to take a stand against the Reagan administration's invasion of Grenada. Meanwhile, in Britain, that Party's soul sister, Margaret Thatcher, has condemned the invasion as wrong. In fact, many of the Conservative speakers during the special parliamentary debate on Grenada last Thursday were dangerously reminiscent of the 1950 McCarthy regime in the United States.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where is the Party of John Diefen-baker, who as Prime Minister was not afraid to stand up to an American president? Where is the Party of Robert Stanfield, a statesman, and a man who was respected on all sides of the House for his balanced and moderate views of the world? Where is the new Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney) when it comes to standing up for Canada? The Conservative Party has been reduced to a branch plant of Mr. Reagan's Republicans. The Americanization of the Conservative Party is complete.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the National Energy Board released its report on the federally owned Northern Canada Power Commission. Not wanting to be unduly harsh in my judgment of this report, I must, however, describe its recommendations as inept, inadequate and, above all, an insult to the two territorial governments and to the people who live north of 60 degrees. Rather than agreeing to the recommendations of a subcommittee of this House calling for the break up of NCPC into two territorially owned power commissions, with a debt free transfer of the assets, the National Energy Board argues for essentially maintaining the status quo.
It wants yet another federal regulatory agency to set rates and to be given complete and final authority in establishing NCPC's annual revenue requirements. The debt burden, it suggests, should remain, except for a very small portion.
What northerners want is to have their own public utility boards assume full responsibility for the setting of rates, and to
Oral Questions
have those rates roughly comparable to those in effect elsewhere in Canada. This is impossible under the present legislation which governs the Northern Canada Power Commission. Comparability in rate structures can easily be achieved by adding an energy agreement for cost recoveries in the North as is now done for health, social services, education, economic development, justice and public services, public works, and so on.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Statistics Canada in its economic figures the other day showed that the economy has dropped because of the poor performance in housing, wholesale trade, and manufacturing. This confirms the fears of a number of economists who have been pointing out that we are in a very slow recovery and, in particular, the Canadian recovery is looking much weaker than that of the United States.
Since the key difference between the industrial policies of the U.S. and Canadian Governments is that the Government of Canada has exercised a much greater degree of direct intervention in the economy, is the Prime Minister proposing that the industrial policy of his Government shift to a less interventionist policy?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Government's policy on the subject was published in the last budget, and also in a number of documents that were published subsequently to stress the importance of the private sector and the role it must play in Canada's economic recovery.
I may remind the hon. gentleman that during the first two quarters of 1983, Canada's economy was growing at a faster rate than the U.S. economy. In fact, our economic growth rate over this period was the highest of all major industrialized countries. We are waiting for the figures for the third quarter. As the honourable gentleman is aware, there was a slack period in July and August especially in August in residential construction as a result of termination of our housing construction stimulation programs. Since that time, however, there has been some recovery, and we believe we shall again have the same high growth rate we had during the first part of 1983.

October 31, 1983
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr, Speaker, the Minister gave us a long speech on economic policy, but did not address in any way at all the question which is put to him.


REQUEST FOR NON-INTERVENTIONIST POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr, Speaker, let me go directly back to the main element of my question. A recent survey by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce shows a clear desire on the part of business for a non-interventionist industrial policy by Government, for example, no bail-outs of sick companies, the use of broad base tax incentives rather than arbitrary, narrowly focused and, as the Minister knows, sometimes politically motivated grants to industry, and opposition to a major federal Crown corporation designed to invest in particular industries. Is the Government in agreement with this desire for a pull-back in its policies, which policies have intervened in the economy, presumably to benefit industry which clearly opposes these policies?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once again, 1 remind the hon. gentleman that the last budget contained many initiatives that were specifically aimed at stimulating the private sector. In fact, these measures involved funding of about $2.4 billion.
As for the survey the hon. gentleman referred to, you will recall that it was conducted in 1982, and that its findings reflect the views we have often heard in business circles, namely, a desire for less regulation and less government intervention. 1 believe the measures we have taken during the past year are a step in that direction, but 1 may remind the hon. gentleman that far from rejecting Government support, businesses are very much interested in obtaining such support.
This morning, the Minister announced, in my presence, a contribution to research and development at Pratt & Whitney, involving about $468 million over the next 10 years, to be matched by a $1.2 billion contribution by Pratt & Whitney, which will create 6,000 additional jobs and generate an additional $19 billion in sales over the next 10 years. That is a significant contribution and an important example of co-operation between the private sector and Government in creating jobs in this country and putting Canada in the forefront of advanced technology.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is very, very expensive job-creation money.


MINISTERS' VIEWS ON POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one more question and I would like to
address it to the Prime Minister. The Minister of State for Economic Development is clearly non-interventionist in his approach. He said that the Government should create a better business climate and not intervene directly. The Minister of State for Social Development in the other place takes a contrary view and wants the Government, through the Canada Development Investment Corporation, to invest directly in certain industries. The industrial community has clearly rejected this approach. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of the Government. Should the Government invest directly in industrial corporations, or should it not?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member followed the reply of the Minister of Finance he would know that current examples were given of co-operation between the federal Government and the private sector, but co-operation where the private sector was holding the equity and we were encouraging development, either through grants for technical development or through tax incentives, some $2.4 billion of which were announced in the last budget.
The answer is quite clear. The Hon. Member refers to the CDIC and to the Minister in charge. The Hon. Member knows what the portfolio of the CDIC is. It is not for the CDIC to invest in the private sector. It is for the CDIC to attempt to provide better management for those shares that the Canadian Government-


An Hon. Member:: Like Canadair?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that the Canadian Government already owns as a result of us preventing the private sector from allowing the destruction of this aeronautics industry, both in the case of Canadair and de Havilland. All CDIC is doing is managing assets that the private sector proved incapable of managing and that we are now attempting to manage to keep this technology here.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board who has a certain responsibility for the Niagara Peninsula as well as for southwestern Ontario. Last Thursday in St. Catharines, where the unemployment rate is already at 16.1 per cent, the highest of those metropolitan communities that reported, over 700 employees of the Port Weller drydocks who are unemployed were complaining and protesting about the fact that $4 billion worth of shipbuilding contracts had been let since June, 1983, and none had gone to Port Weller. Since Members of the Government have said that Port Weller drydocks will not share in the allocation of this money because it was not the low
October 31, 1983

bidder, is the lowest bid now the criteria upon which these contracts are let?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, according to Government policy, when there is a public call for tenders, the Government always applies the criterion of the lowest bidder. This was done in the case of the six class 1100 ice-breakers. 1 would qualify my answer only to say that two of the six ice-breakers were to go to shipyards on Canada's West Coast and four to the shipyards in the East. The Port Weller dry-docks bid on the four ice-breakers designated for the East coast, and unfortunately, the bid made by the Port-Weller dry-docks was higher than the bids of the other shipyards who were awarded the contracts for the four ships.


SUBSIDY TO MARINE INDUSTRIES IN SOREL, P.Q.
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister, and I trust that he will respond this time. If the lowest bid is the criterion upon which these contracts will be let, does the Minister take into consideration what was announced last week in the awarding of those contracts? By that 1 mean the grants to the yards themselves, like the federal grant of $2,189,000 that went to Marine Industries which received a contract for two icebreakers. When letting contracts, does the Minister take that $2 million into consideration?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned $2 million for Marine Industries Limited in Sorel and there was also an announcement that $1.2 million would go to Davie Shipbuilding Limited and more than one million dollars to Saint John Shipbuilding Dry Dock Co., Ltd., in New Brunswick. These subsidies were granted under the Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program and represent 3 per cent of the cost of work and renovation already carried out. This amount was not considered when awarding the contracts for the six 1100 icebreakers. The amounts were a 3 per cent subsidies for previous work on ships or for shipyard renovation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns last week's invasion of Grenada. Last week the President of the United States, in attempting to justify the invasion, said that the
Oral Questions
decision had been made on Sunday, after being requested to invade by a group of east Caribbean states.
It appears from information that was provided over the weekend in Washington that in fact the decision to invade was made by the President of the United States and Mr. Shultz on Saturday and that, after that decision was reached, the United States drafted the wording of a request for invasion which was sent to the Commonwealth countries, and an appeal was made to the Commonwealth countries to use that wording when demanding U.S. intervention.
Considering that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister were saying last week that we do not have enough information on this deplorable series of events in Grenada, will the Government now agree to send a fact finding group of Members of Parliament, composed of representatives from each Party, to the area in order to report back? Unlike the Conservative Party, we take a position on this important issue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot add anything to what 1 said at the end of last week when last commenting upon this matter, which was that we are attempting to determine the sequence of events and the facts. At this stage 1 do not see the advantage of naming a fact finding committee of this Parliament to make that investigation. We will try to find the answers in order to satisfy ourselves.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that the events are not only profoundly important in terms of the impact in this region of the world but have very serious implications well beyond this hemisphere.


SUGGESTED COMPOSITION OF MISSION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why, in the light of statements that he made last week, and in light of the statements made by the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, he would not agree to send a small delegation, composed of one Member of Parliament from each Party, and their staff, to visit the region and report back to the House and the people of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: October 31, 1983
Oral Questions
I answered the House the other day that we thought the decision was taken some time between Sunday night and Monday night. Apparently The New York Times has a contrary opinion on which the Hon. Member seems to be basing his question. We will try to find out, but I would think that it would not make the search any easier particularly to have the NDP and the Tories in the task force because, as the Leader of the NDP rightly points out, he has views and the Tories do not.


John Edward Broadbent: One must not totally despair over the Tories finally making a decision at some point about something.


TIMING OF INVASION DECISION-NATURE OF AIRPORT CONSTRUCTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to rely simply on government sources, whether they are ambassadorial or others, could he now give the Government of Canada's view on when the decision was reached and who drafted the communique requesting American intervention? Finally, does he agree with the British firm that was hired to build the so-called military airport in Grenada that, far from being a military airport, it was constructed for civilian purposes and has been financed not only by the Cubans but by other western European States that are part of NATO? Does the Prime Minister agree with all of that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I have not seen the statement by a British firm. I will look into it.
1 do know that there has been an aid program of Canada to Grenada and, contrary to what the official critic of the Tory Party has said, that it was the highest-


Mr. Stevens:: I did not say the highest; I said one of the highest.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: One of the highest. 1 think it was six out of ten two years ago, and it was third out of ten last year. So one can say one of the highest, I suppose, because ten is not a very large number. However, it does seem to me that we have not denied that we have assisted, in some ways, the Government of Grenada. The House knows that we were hoping to prevent it from being pushed all the way into the hands of Castro and the Soviet Union, and that has been our policy.
On the specific facts of the airport which the Hon. Member asks about, it is not something of which I have knowledge, but 1 am sure we could find out.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is directed to the Prime Minister-


John Edward Broadbent: Here comes a position.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question centres on our request last week for a reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that we could look into the Grenadian situation with particular reference to what went wrong with the Canadian airlift, why Canada was shut out from any meaningful knowledge of what was transpiring, and what indeed was the role of the Canadian ambassador in Washington with respect to this affair.
Since the Chairman of the Standing Committee seemed to be well disposed to such a reference, would the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government will co-operate in every way so that the committee can not only have the reference but a meaningful hearing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is hypothetical. As I understand it, the Committee has not been set up yet.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is a Standing Committee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a Standing Committee. I am sure that, as concerns the terms of reference of a question to it, our House Leader will gladly discuss the question with the House leaders of the other Parties.


POSSIBLE CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN PEACE-KEEPING OPERATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will recall that I asked him a question with respect to Canada's possible participation in an observation group or peace-keeping group, with respect to Grenada. Will he bring the House up to date on what steps have been taken by Canada with respect to participating in such a group? Would it be a Commonwealth type of group? Most important, will he assure the House that the provisional Government in Grenada will be consulted and that they will not exclude such countries as Barbados and Jamaica from whatever force is put together?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 advise the Hon. Member that we have been in close touch with Mr. Ramphal, through our High Commissioner in London, on this subject over the weekend. I think the Hon. Member would be aware that it is not intended at the present time to constitute a peace-keeping force in the sense that a new force would attempt to interpose itself between the troops presently on the island. What is intended is an effort to help restore constitutional authority on the island after forces might withdraw. I believe that the form that a Commonwealth presence might take is still somewhat unclear, except that it could support an interim government and could assist in the holding of elections at an appropriate time.
October 31, 1983


INDUSTRY
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is involved in a Cabinet meeting behind the curtain. I understand that the Minister will soon be announcing a deal involving the federal and provincial Governments, Fleet Industries of Fort Erie, and a German helicopter firm.
As the Minister knows, this year the Niagara region has been twice cited as the unemployment capital of the country. First, is it true that Fleet will get the helicopter deal and, second, if it is true, when will the Minister make the announcement?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, my experience in public office, both at the local level and at the federal level, is such that I believe premature discussions and announcements usually lead to very disappointing results. I would request that the Hon. Member refrain from discussing this issue until such time that we finalize negotiations with the company.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: I am not sure I appreciate the Minister's answer.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ASSISTANCE
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, since hundreds of jobs are at stake in my riding, would the Minister do everything in his power to assist Fleet in getting this deal?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is serious about these jobs, I think, as I have suggested to him privately and now publicly, that the least said publicly during negotiations usually leads to more productive results.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister was the absent host for a lounge suit reception for women attending the federal consultations. Obviously, boogeying with Barbra in New York took precedence over the serious economic concerns of Canadian women.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. Since the Government's job creation record for women has been very dismal, when only 20 per cent of NEED jobs went to women, what action will the
Oral Questions
Minister take, in co-operation with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to expand job-creation programs to guarantee this year that women will have jobs at least equal to their participation in the labour force?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of Members of the House that last night's reception was co-hosted by three of us, including the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and the Secretary of State. We had a very successful event. I must also say that the Prime Minister's Office was very well represented at last evening's function and that this Government is hosting three days of consultations with the women of Canada, which began very effectively this morning.
I might add that we made absolutely sure that the Members opposite were also invited to the reception and very few bothered to turn out.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: I might also add that the employment figures which the Hon. Member has suggested are not the actual figures, and that the number of women employed in the NEED program are much higher than the statistics to which she has referred. Yes, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and I are working very seriously toward very specific programs aimed at the retraining of women.


SERVICES FOR FEMALE VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary for the Minister responsible for the status of women. Battered women need protection now, as was promised in the House of Commons Standing Committee. They do not need just a federal-provincial report card, due in June, 1984, which is one of the things that came out of the meeting the Minister held last spring. What is the federal Government prepared to do right now to prevent further cuts in transition house services in British Columbia and other Provinces, and also to provide the kind of shelter that is urgently needed by women in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am shocked-


Mr. McDermid:: You are always shocked.


Judith A. Erola: -that the Hon. Member is not aware of all this Government has done in that area. As a matter of fact, last year as soon as the report was released this Government moved to finance more transition homes. We released 150 units immediately. We have exceeded that by at least 20 units in the past year. We have funded more transition homes in the past three years. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that she have

October 31, 1983
Oral Questions
a look at the actual figures and the thrust of the work that has gone on in the past year concerning battered women.
As to the project in the Annapolis Valley, 1 would suggest to the Hon. Member she bring it to my attention so that we can work on it very quickly to see that it happens.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, if he can tear himself away from his briefing with his predecessor.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: The question relates to a very serious matter which is developing in British Columbia. Today the Government of Canada will close a deal with British Columbia Packers and hand it $9.8 million so that Small Craft Harbours Branch can take over the operation of the small craft facilities that were formerly provided for fishermen by B.C. Packers. Coincident with that takeover, the fishermen are to be charged, up front, exorbitant increases in moorage and storage costs. Contrary to the undertaking of the Minister in a letter to me, there apparently was no advance consultation with respect to these increases.
Will the Minister please explain for the fishermen, of whom over 1,000 are meeting this afternoon in Richmond, B.C., why he is nicking them at least $1,000 each in the aftermath of a very poor fishing season?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, this is a classical case where the Minister is damned whatever he does. Here is a company, B.C. Packers, which has decided to use its land for a housing development project. As you know, it has berthing facilities for over 1,000 boats there. 1 came to the conclusion that it was my duty to convince Cabinet to give me the money to buy that facility so those who have their boats there will not have to move either to Port Alberni or to other sites in British Columbia. This is what 1 have done.
As for the amounts to be paid by our fishermen, this, of course, is open for debate. I understand that in order to score some political points the Hon. Member is against the Department charging a reasonable fee. But I just ask the Hon. Member to look at what the private sector charges, particularly to those involved in sports fishing in B.C., and he will see the Department's fee is very reasonable.


Thomas Edward Siddon: None of these fishermen are sports or recreational fishermen. Some of them operate small vessels. Some of them, particularly a large contingent of Japanese fishermen, were mistreated once before by this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. Member please ask his question?


DOCKING FEES TO BE CHARGED TO FISHERMEN
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister please explain why the fishermen are now going to be paying up to $1,000 a year, whereas formerly they were paying virtually nothing for these moorage facilities? Is that a sign of progress? Is that a consequence of the Government's nationalization of our waterfront in British Columbia?


Mr. McKnight:: It's user-pay.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is again trying to score political points and really is reaching the bottom. What we are talking about here is that the Government of Canada moved precisely to remove any hardship. But if the Hon. Member is now suggesting that my Department should not try to levy a small fee to have the participants of the fishery pay a small part of the cost of those berthing facilities, which will increase our expenditure on the small craft harbours in B.C. substantially, because of that major acquisition, frankly, I expected some more responsible comments from the former Parliamentary Secretary of the Department.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister visits our NATO allies in Europe this week, does he plan to tell them that this country, as a contribution to maintaining world peace, intends to restore the original size of our NATO commitment to 10,000 fully equipped men, which we pledged originally when NATO was formed, and which we maintained in Europe until 1968 when the Prime Minister took office and unilaterally cut that force in half?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very complex question. If I could refer him to my speech in Guelph on Thursday night, he would, I think, see the answers to that. There are two ways in which we can raise the nuclear threshold, one, by making the conventional force in Europe equal, by raising our expenditures in NATO on conventional arms, including the route which the Hon. Member indicates, that is, to increase the number of men and material over there. The other would be to have a successful follow through with the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna.
I would think it would be unwise to prejudge which of the two is better. But, as I said in my speech, surely the purpose of nuclear disarmament is not to make the world safe for more conventional arms. Therefore, the answer to the Hon. Member's question is not certainly that I would propose that we
October 31, 1983

increase conventional arms in Europe. There may be another and a better route which would leave more money free for helping the developing world rather than to spend more money for defence, as the Hon. Member suggests.


REQUEST FOR RESTORATION OF CANADIAN COMMITMENT
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister not agree that NATO is the only effective peace movement this world has known during the past 30 years? Does it not make sense to restore the commitment which a former Liberal Government made under Mr. St. Laurent, when NATO was first formed, of 10,000 fully equipped men, an excellent force, and that that force be restored to its full size so we can play our full part and pay our full share of maintaining this most important peace movement that has taken place during the past 30 years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the Hon. Member would do me the courtesy of reading the "blues" and seeing what 1 said in answer to his first question, and then reflecting on it a little bit. All the Hon. Member is proposing in his second question, as in the first, is returning to what was. Would the Hon. Member also argue that we should rearm our 105s with nuclear warheads? This Government, when it made the decision to reduce the number of men in the European theatre, also decided to denuclearize our force in Europe. 1 see the Hon. Member nods his assent. This, presumably, has his support and I am very grateful for that, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I simply asked did the Prime Minister live up to the commitment which a former Liberal Government made to help preserve the peace in this world.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. He undoubtedly knows that in the Throne Speech of April, 1980, the Government said:
As a major employer in Canada, my Government will play a leadership role by implementing affirmative action measures in the Public Service.
That was three and a half years ago. We have no programs before us. We have no legislation before us. All the Government has is an announcement that it will be doubling the number of women in the management category in a year and a half if the implementation programs are accepted and implemented. When will we have real action by the Government to bring affirmative action into the Public Service?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend must have been on another planet for
Oral Questions
the past six months. Last June, jointly with the Minister responsible for the status of women, and other Ministers, I announced the extension of an affirmative action program across the entire Public Service, covering women as well as indigenous people and the handicapped. We did not simply announce a doubling of women in the management category. We announced the beginning of a program which would have a number of milestones, with action taken both in the short term and over the next two years. The announcement about doubling the number of women in the management category which, if my hon. friend were sincere, he would applaud, is only one of the initial steps we are taking as part of the extension of that affirmative action program across the entire Public Service. I would ask my hon. friend to come down to earth, and then he would know what is going on.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour whose Department, I presume, is constantly examining the Canada Labour Code with a view to making amendments and updating that very important piece of legislation. Is the Minister considering introducing legislation in the forseeable future to amend the Canada Labour Code? If so, will he indicate to the House the nature of those amendments? Would they be either extensive in terms of their number, or very meaningful in terms of the potential change to the Canada Labour Code now contemplated?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I believe he is as anxious as 1 am to see the present session come to an end, and I can assure him that among the major projects the new session will include, there will be a Bill proposing a series of amendments to the Canada Labour Code.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Arden Haynes, President of Imperial Oil, stated that Imperial Oil reduced its investment in Canada by $6 billion because of the National Energy Program. What is the Minister's estimate of the total lost investment to Canada because of the NEP, and how many jobs will be lost because of this lost investment?

October 31, 1983
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 would certainly beg to disagree very strongly with the statement of Mr. Haynes. In effect, the abandonment of the project at Cold Lake, for instance, was like the abandonment of other projects in the tar sands, resulting from the absence of growth in oil prices. This situation has occurred not only in Canada but in the United States and all over the world.
1 remind my hon. friend that the same company, I believe, abandoned a project in the United States in which it had invested many hundreds of millions of dollars, around the same time. As a matter of fact 1 think it was a project which was ready to go into production and was to the tune of a couple of billion dollars. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it was a very large project. We have a situation where, all over the world, investment in the oil and gas industry has had to slow down quite significantly as a result of an absence of growth in oil prices.


EDUCATION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It also concerns the problems of Canadian women, many of whom cannot complete university and college programs because some provincial Governments, notably the Government of British Columbia, have tightened restrictions on eligibility for full-time student loans. This has had a particularly adverse effect on women. What action will the Minister take to improve federal loan assistance in such a way that it will not be vitiated by provincial action?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have already written to all provincial Ministers of Education, in particular to the Minister of Education of the Province of British Columbia, underlining the understanding of what happened in the House of Commons last June when Bill C-161 was voted on, that the additional amount of money, the $60 million, would be passed on to students, especially students who needed it most, in particular, women. 1 have not yet received a detailed answer from the British Columbia Minister of Education. 1 have raised the issue with the chairperson of the Council of Ministers of Education, who is the Minister of Education of Nova Scotia. I propose to meet with him in the forthcoming weeks to make sure that we review the various initiatives which could be taken at the level of the Council of Ministers of Education to ensure that the understanding will be respected.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to an earlier one asked by the Hon. Member for Northumberland. The Secretary of State for External Affairs ten days ago in Halifax reaffirmed Canada's commitment to NATO, yet today the Prime Minister indicated that he is not certain whether our full commitment of material and manpower to NATO should be made. In particular, according to The Financial Post, Canadians were not even able to participate in the full range of autumn exercises of NATO because of budgetary constraints. If we are fully committed to NATO, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicates, will he not supply sufficient funds so that our troops in Europe can at least exercise with our allies to provide some deterrent? Otherwise, they are worse than useless and might as well be brought home.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member was not listening to the question of his seatmate. The question was whether we would return to the 1970 or thereabouts situation. Therefore, the Hon. Member is perfectly unjustified in saying that I said that I was not certain whether our commitments should be fulfilled. Of course our commitments should be fulfilled. They are being fulfilled on the two-track. They are being fulfilled on our 3 per cent per year real increase.


An Hon. Member:: They are not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are being fulfilled. The question was about something that happened 15 years ago. The Hon. Member is quite unjustified in saying that I said in my answer that our commitments should not be fulfilled. He is quite wrong, and I wish he would withdraw it.


Harvie Andre: A supplementary question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown.


Harvie Andre: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It has been reported in the press that the Secretary of State is prepared, morally and financially, to support an individual in Whitehorse to fight a unilingual English parking ticket, up to the tune of about $25,000. Would the Minister be prepared to give me the same support after obtaining a unilingual French ticket in the National Capital Region last week?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, the program that the Secretary of State administers in relation to the official languages of Canada is essentially based on Sections of either the British North America Act, that is, the Constitution Act, 1982, or on some relevant Sections of the provincial Act of the Province concerned. In the case of the Province of Ontario, there is neither a similar proposal in the Ontario Act nor in the Constitution Act of Canada which could give rise to legal proceedings. It is a different situation in Quebec, for instance, where there is already a case in the Supreme Court of Canada which has been supported by the Secretary of State, and in the Province of Manitoba where there has already been some money provided to a litigant.
After consultation with the Department of Justice, the amount of $25,000 was a fair assessment of the average cost of an action launched at the Supreme Court or Superior Court level, depending on the Province.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Waterloo.


John Horton McDermid: Oh, come on.


Marc Lalonde: Don't be such a bigot and listen to the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: What's going on?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. Members will bear in mind that the Chair is trying to accommodate as many Members as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A supplementary, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the question is no, he will not support me on that particular thing.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not understand that his strident and unfair, one-sided support of bilingualism is not promoting bilingualism in Canada but is setting it back 20 years?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the Hon. Member, when a citizen wants to go to court and launch an action against the federal or a provincial Government, claiming that he or she has the right, either under the Constitution of Canada or under the constitution of his or her Province, there is a legal question which has to be established. If there is a legal motive or a legal basis on which to launch the action, there is a program to support the initiative. If there is no legal motive, there is no program and no money to support such an initiative. That is the only answer I could give to the Hon. Member.
Point of Order-Mr. Lumley
In Quebec, there is a legal basis of action, Section 133. There is no such Section in Ontario. There is a similar proposal in the Manitoba Act. That is why this House has voted on this. That is essentially-


John Horton McDermid: It was given to me in Quebec, in the National Capital Region.


Serge Joyal: The Hon. Member mentioned the Capital Region. If it is in the Hull section of the National Capital, then he has a legal ground of action. There has already been a case in the Supreme Court of Canada, the McDonald case, which will be heard in the next session of the Court. There is no doubt that, if there is a legal ground for action, the Hon. Member will have access to the financial support of the Secretary of State.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of seven, presented by Hon. Members on Friday, October 28, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. Three of the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and four presented by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Three Hon. Members have given me notice of points of order. All Hon. Members will be recognized. The Chair recognizes the Minister of State for Economic Development.



POINTS OF ORDER


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) asked me a very legitimate question. I want to apologize to him for my attitude. The negotiations are at a very critical stage. He asked a legitimate question. I did not answer it in a manner that is appropriate in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) has given notice of a point of order and the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) will be recognized on a question of privilege.

October 31, 1983
Privilege-Mr. MeDermid



MR. LEWIS-REPLY OF MRS. EROLA DURING QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, we intend to table this Bill.']
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order with reference to the remarks of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women during her reply to a question from the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell). The Minister suggested in her remarks that we were all apprised of and invited to the reception on Sunday evening. The best we can find out is that there were some telephone calls on Friday afternoon to some Members' offices inviting some of us to that reception. 1 suggest, as a point of order, that the Minister has come as close to lying as one possibly can in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his observation.



John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I was called some names across the floor of the House which are very unfair. I am going to ask that they be withdrawn. That is my point of privilege. It was said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that I was a bigot. To quote exactly, he said "Don't be such a bigot".


Marc Lalonde: And listen to the facts.


John Horton McDermid: I want to make it very very clear to this House and to the Minister of Finance that there is nobody who has supported bilingualism in Canada more than I have.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat. A reference to another Hon. Member in this context as a bigot is, in the opinion of the Chair, unparliamentary. If the expression was used, I invite the Minister, who is a distinguished Parliamentarian, to withdraw it.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will withdraw it since it has been uttered by me as has been said. I did indeed say "Don't be such a bigot and listen to the facts", since the point raised by the Hon. Member was answered by the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) saying quite clearly that it was his privilege-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Minister please resume his seat. The Minister of Finance has withdrawn the particular word which is unparliamentary in the judgment of the Chair. That is the end of this matter.

Tabling of Bills. The Hon. Pierre De Bane, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Stand.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, we intend to table this Bill.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Yvon Pinard (on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-170, an Act to authorize investment in and the provision of financial assistance to the Atlantic Fisheries for the purpose of restructuring certain fishery enterprises.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
*****
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of items under the heading "Motions". Shall I dispense?


Erik Nielsen: As in the past, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion we will not insist upon the motions being read seriatim, but we would agree to your putting the question to the House generally as to whether Members having motions standing in their names wish to call them this day. I do not think you will find any on this side.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I am becoming somewhat concerned about a practice that is developing in the House which has the motions carried en masse rather than carried individually. Over the course of the last few days, albeit there were a large number of motions, on each occasion when we reached motions we have for one reason or another allowed that they be carried without each being read. I would like to indicate that we are not likely to give our consent on any future day after today to this practice being pursued.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a misapprehension in the mind of the Hon. Member that the motions are being carried. That is not the case. They are simply being called by the Chair. We are agreeing to an exception here because we want to debate the Crow rather than taking up time by putting all of these motions. Apparently the New Democratic Party does not want to do that. We will agree on this day and on tomorrow and on any other day where the Crow is involved to treat the procedure individually on that particular day.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some misapprehension on the part of my hon. colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). The motions are not carried, they are only carried over. Furthermore, we are saving considerable time in this way, thus giving us a chance to consider a Bill that has attracted considerable interest on this side of the House and, I hope, on the other side as well.
October 31, 1983


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely no misunderstanding on my part. I know exactly what is happening. It is being carried over to tomorrow, the day after and the day after that. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the Conservatives decided to put down so many motions in an effort to block the Crow and then did not use them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we move to Questions on the Order Paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,028, 4,655, 4,799, 4,893, 4,940, 4,944, 5,012 and 5,013.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, what are the names of the officers of EMEC Trading Ltd., 555 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, British Columbia and arc these individuals Soviet citizens and/or residents of the U.S.S.R?
2.	At any time did the company use Canada Customs invoices that were not filled out and which were signed blank in Moscow in advance and, if so, what are all the details and on what date was the process discontinued?
3.	Did the company misdeclare values on certain import entries such as (a) entry No. 286837 through Vancouver, October and November, 1977, resulting in a short payment of $2,300 (b) entry No. 204610 through Vancouver, February and March, 1978, resulting in a short payment of $125 (c) entry No. 022536 through St. John, New Brunswick, April, 1978, resulting in a short payment of $5,400 (d) entry No. 001088 through St. John, New Brunswick, May, 1978, resulting in a short payment of $4,200?
4.	Did the Canada Customs Investigation Branch become aware of this matter and, if so (a) on what date (b) what investigations were made (c) was any action taken and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Did the Government at any time refund previously-assessed advanced duty to the company with the knowledge that Soviet dumping practices had undermined Canadian industries and, if so, what amount was involved and was it approximately $500,000?
6.	Has the RCMP been involved in investigating the matter and, if so, what were the results?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, National Revenue and the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	Departmental records do not contain the names of the officers of EMEC Trading Limited, 555 West Hastings, Vancouver, B.C. The names of the three directors of this Corporation are: Alexander V. Dgebuadze, Geoffrey Innes Edgelow, Leslie R. Peterson. Mr. Dgebuadze is a citizen of the
Order Paper Questions
U.S.S.R., residing in Vancouver, B.C., and the remaining two directors are Canadian citizens.
2.	Customs is not aware of such practice.
3.	(a), (b), (c) and (d) The import entries in question have been subject to review and Customs is satisfied that proper duties have been assessed.
4.	(a) Information alleging undervaluation was received by Customs Investigations Division (Vancouver) in June, 1980. (b) and (c) The entries in question were already being reviewed for Customs valuation purposes.
5.	Any information relating to entry documents is confidential pursuant to Section 172 of the Customs Act.
6.	Yes, the RCMP commenced an investigation in this case, but subsequently learned that Revenue Canada-Customs was already reviewing the entries in question for Customs valuation purposes. Consequently, the RCMP investigation was terminated.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	Was a memo issued to all Members of Parliament on November 12, 1982 by the Minister of Employment and Immigration stating that "our agents are working many hours of overtime on evenings and weekends" to alleviate undue delays in processing unemployment insurance claims?
2.	Are these agents being paid overtime and, if so (a) at what rate (b) what was the total cost to the taxpayer for the overtime payments?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. A letter dated November 12, 1982 containing the words quoted was released by the former Minister on November 16, 1982.
2. (a) Pursuant to current collective agreements, agents are paid overtime at 1.5 times their hourly rate for hours worked in excess of the normal scheduled work day and for the first 7.5 hours of work on the first day of rest and double time thereafter. Double time is paid on the second or subsequent day of rest (must be unbroken series of consecutive and continuous calendar days of rest).
(b) As such, total agent overtime cost for the period April-December, 1982, amounted to $4,100,702.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many permanent jobs does the Department of Employment and Immigration estimate that it created for handicapped persons in the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83?
2.	In which industries and services were these jobs created?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. Employment opportunities created through job creation programs are, for the most part, funded for periods of time ranging from several weeks to three years. Although many of the jobs created are not permanent, programs such as the Local Employment Assistance Program, the Canada Community Services Projects and the Program for the Employ-

October 31, 1983
Order Paper Questions
ment-Disadvantaged create jobs which are designed to continue when federal funding ceases.
The following numbers represent the estimated jobs created for the handicapped under the job creation programs of the Employment and Immigration Commission for (a) 1981-82 and (b) 1982-83:
1981-82	1982-83
Program for the Employment-Disadvan-		
taged	2,569	2,985
Canada Community Development		
Projects	1,747	1,700Local Employment Assistance Program	779	608Summer Canada	330	335Canada Community Services Projects	162	178Totals	5,587	5,8062. The number of jobs created by sector for the Program 1	the Employment-Disadvantaged is the following:	Industrial Sector	1981-82	1982-83Agriculture	62	80Forestry	6	7Fish and Game	3	2Mines-Oil Quarries	2	8Manufacturing	885	881Construction	93	122Transport	86	80Trade and Commerce	656	816Finance-Insurance	63	51Services	698	912Administration	0	1Other Miscellaneous	15	252,569	2,985
For the other job creation programs listed in 1 above, the number of jobs created is not available by sector.


Mr. Parker: How many persons in the constituency of Kootenay East-Revclstoke exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits in the first quarter of 1983?


John (Moody) Roberts: Unemployment Insurance statistics on individuals who exhausted their claim for benefits are not available on a constituency basis.
For the first quarter of 1983 then some 22,500 individuals in British Columbia exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Bradley: 1.	Is it a practice by the Department of Employment and Immigration to utilize courier services other than the Canada Post Corporation services to deliver correspondence to Canada Manpower Centres that are occupying space in the same building as Corporation services and, if so, what is the reason for
using courier service instead of what would appear to be the more convenient delivery system by the Corporation?
2.	What were the total funds spent in the fiscal year 1981-82 on courier services by the Department and what percentage of that cost was to offices occupying the same building as the Corporation?
3.	What was the total cost paid by the Department for postal services in the fiscal year 1981-82?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1. In some of the regions of the Employment and Immigration Commission it is a practice (i.e. occurs regularly) to use courier services to deliver correspondence to Canada Employment Centres occupying space in the same building as Canada Post services.
The reason for so doing is the faster delivery times provided by courier services (for urgent items) and in certain instances it is less expensive to deliver by courier than Canada Post.
2.	The total funds spent in the fiscal year 1981-82 on courier services by Employment and Immigration Canada was $1,072,354. Approximately 11 per cent of this cost was for delivery to offices occupying the same building as the Canada Post Corporation.
3.	The total cost paid by Employment and Immigration Canada for postal services in the fiscal year 1981-82 was $11,830,284.


Mr. Bosley: Was RCMP Officer D.R. Ewing transferred from Hong Kong to Amsterdam and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason (c) who paid for the transfer?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so far
as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned:
RCMP Officer D. R. Ewing was not transferred from Hong Kong to Amsterdam.
(a)	He was transferred from Hong Kong to Bangkok in July, 1978, then from Bangkok to Amsterdam in July, 1980.
(b)	In each case the reason for the transfer was to meet career rotational transfer requirements of the RCMP Foreign Services Directorate.
(c)	The transfers were paid for by the RCMP.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was a study done on behalf of the Department of Transport to examine the relative cost of bus and rail for intercity passenger services and, if so (a) who performed the study and at what cost (b) what was the purpose (c) what were the major conclusions and recommendations (d) what steps has the government taken to implement the recommendations?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: (a to d) A
Study is underway to examine the relative costs of bus and rail for intercity passenger services. The study is being carried out by Marshall, Macklin and Monaghan Ltd. of Toronto, on behalf of Transport Canada. The over-all objective of the study is to improve the efficiency of the Canadian transportation system by encouraging the use of the most appropriate
October 31, 1983

transportation mode for intercity passenger travel and to assist in the work under way in the Department to assess the long-term role of each mode. To achieve this, the study will involve an economic analysis to identify the most appropriate application for rail and bus services within the intercity passenger transportation system including traditional buses, high capacity buses and innovative types of buses.
The cost of the study is estimated to be $49,635. The study was started in May, 1983 and is expected to be completed in February/March, 1984. Upon receipt of the contractor's final report, the Department will be in a position to review the conclusions and recommendations and determine what steps, if any, should be taken for their implementation.


Mr. Neil: Was a party held at the Central Experimental Farm to celebrate the passage of the Canagrex Bill and, if so, what was the total cost?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. However, there was no cost to the taxpayer as the hospitality was provided through contributions.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 4,665 and 4,963 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 4,665 and 4,963 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What are the names of the chairman and members of the National Parole Board?
2.	In the fiscal year 1981-82, what amount was paid to each member of the Board, including the chairman, for (a) fees (b) expenses?
3.	What were the dates and locations of all Board meetings for the fiscal year 1982-83 to the date this question is answered?
4.	How many times per year is the Board required to meet?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beatty: I. Did Mr. J. Sward, Vice-Chairman Radio for the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, state before the Standing Committee on Communications and
Order Paper Questions
Culture on April 26, 1983 that "it is common for private FM broadcasters to be required to ensure that more than 60 different mathematical criteria are met for each broadcast day. Very few of these criteria pertain to Canadian content. . . almost all are explicit program content directives from the CRTC" and, if so, is the CRTC aware of the statement?
2.	Is it common for private FM broadcasters to be required to ensure that more than 60 different mathematical criteria are met for each broadcast day?
3.	Are some of the programming requirements that must be met by most Canadian private FM radio stations that (a) no more than 50 per cent of all musical selections broadcast can have achieved a "hit" status as defined by the CRTC (b) no single musical selection can be repeated more than 18 times in any seven-day period (c) a set minimum (up to 22) of the 15-minute periods each day must be programmed in what the CRTC refers to as "mosaic" format requiring at least 30 seconds spoken word content from "enrichment" categories as designated by the CRTC as categories 2, 3A, 4 or 5 (d) not more than 50 per cent of any broadcast day can have more than three songs in a row without interruption (e) not more than 120 minutes daily of advertising content and not more than 10 minutes in any given hour is allowed and, if so, in addition to these specific directives from the CRTC to private FM broadcasters in Canada, are these broadcasters required by the CRTC to commit to other programming criteria as a condition of licence for up to five years and do these other program criteria include (i) a commitment to approximately the amount of time and minutes which will be broadcast weekly in music from each of their defined music categories or types (ii) a minimum commitment to the amount of news broadcast by the station weekly (iii) a minimum commitment to the amount of public service messages including weather, traffic conditions, etc. to be broadcast weekly (iv) a minimum commitment to the amount of time for sports reporting to be broadcast weekly (v) separate commitments for the amount of spoken word in "enrichment" categories?
4.	Did Commissioner John Grace of the CRTC make the statement respecting the Commission's announcement earlier this year of revised programming requirements for FM broadcasters that "The majority statement leaves FM radio encumbered by excessively fine-spun regulations which allow broadcasters insufficient flexibility to respond alertly with their own professional initiatives to the changing tastes of audiences and to a diversity of markets" and, if so, does the CRTC concur with Commissioner Grace's opinion and, if not, for what reason?
5.	In the view of the CRTC, what is the role of programming personnel working for the private FM radio stations?
6.	Did the CRTC seek information concerning the (a) direct (b) indirect costs to private FM broadcasters of compliance with federal programming regulations and, if not, for what reason?
7.	Did the CRTC receive complaints from private FM broadcasters that excessive regulation (a) imposes unjustified costs (b) inhibits creativity and variety and, if so, what was the CRTC's response?
8.	Did the CRTC conduct a review of FM programming regulations and, if so (a) what was the cost to the taxpayer in terms of (i) person-years (ii) dollars (b) on what date did the review (i) begin (ii) conclude (c) does the Commission feel (i) radio station audiences (ii) radio station licences received substantial benefits from the review and what were those benefits (d) does the CRTC anticipate a further review of the regulations in the foreseeable future?
Return tabled.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary could somehow find time to answer question No. 1,741 placed on the Order Paper on November 20, 1980. That question involves the use or misuse of passes by Air Canada in giving directors of CNR Air Canada passes. I was wondering why that very simple information could not be obtained. It is the kind of thing that I think the public of Canada are entitled to know. Surely the use of free air passes given by an airline to other members of the bureaucracy in other Crown corporations is a matter that affects the profitability of Air Canada. I think we are entitled to have that

October 31, 1983
Order Paper Questions
information and there is no reason why that answer should not have been given in a three-year period.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, that is the first I have heard of this particular question but I will look into it immediately.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why questions Nos. 4,367, 4730 and 4,737 have not been answered. The first question I mentioned was placed on the Order Paper June 10, 1982 and all it asks for is a list of the legal firms that have been given Government contracts. The other two simply ask for the guest list for the state dinner hosted by the Prime Minister in honour of Her Majesty the Queen in Vancouver and Victoria in March of this year. I want to find out whether the Government sees Her Majesty as a servant of the liberal Party or all other Canadians too. It would be a very simple question for the Parliamentary Secretary to have answered.


John Leslie Evans: Once again, I will look into that but I can assure the Hon. Member that that is not the way to get additions to his fund raising list.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has answered my question No. 4,893 but I would like to ask where the answer to question No. 4,894 is. I asked that question on May 12. It deals with the Crowsnest agreement, which relates to the debate that we are trying to have. The question was: '
With reference to the 50,000 acres of Dominion coal blocks in the Constituency of Kootenay East-Revelstoke, have there been any applications from or discussions with mining companies for the development of these properties and, if so, what were the names of the companies interested in obtaining licences on these lands?
It is important to me that these answers be made so that I can debate the Crow legislation in a very constructive way.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I will attend to that right after Question Period.
Mr. Speaker, were the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Gamble:: Question No. 2,374 was asked by myself on April 10, 1981. It was a very simple question which took about two and one-half lines in Hansard. It asks:
Was the Prime Minister in New York on government business during the weekend of April 3, 1981 and, if so, what was the cost to the taxpayer?
I think it is rather significant that I should be inquiring about the answer to that question placed on the Order Paper over two years ago since the Prime Minister was again in New York last weekend for presumably the same purpose, and I should be asking another question with respect to that. Surely after two years we should have an answer by now to what is a very simple question.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. I have now five or six questions that have been put to me and I will get on to those right away.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, while the Parliamentary Secretary is looking into five or six other delayed answers, I would like him to check one for me. It dates back to November 18, 1981. The question is: "Did three Liberal Cabinet Ministers take separate JetStars to Winnipeg for the official opening of a firm in Winnipeg and, if so, in each case other than the Minister and the aircraft crew who was on the flight?" I understand these three flights were flying in Liberal campaign workers to work in the last provincial election in Manitoba.
I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could find out what is causing the delay in answering this question, which is almost two years old.
Also, 1 have had a question on the Order Paper since June 29, 1982, No. 4,387, with regard to the hiring practices of the RCMP. They are having difficulty in western Canada. Unilingual English Canadians are unable to join the RCMP and I would like to get the answer why they are unable to join the RCMP. This question has been on the Order Paper for well over a year.


John Leslie Evans: I will look into those as well, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motions Nos. 47 and 49 (Mr. Benjamin) and Motion No. 48 (Mr. Mazankowski).
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise in resumption of the debate on report stage of this Bill. I will not take the time of the House to give Hon. Members the benefit of the wisdom I accumulated after listening to several days of petitions, although it will be retained in my memory for years to come. What I prefer to do today is rather to present to the House a series of proposals that I believe would help improve the Bill and which would require unanimous consent.
We have had many days of debate and I think some very useful ideas have been proposed during that period of time. In light of those expressions of recommendation and concern, I
October 31, 1983

thought we might use this resumption of debate to put on the Table amendments which we consider from each of our own groups to be of importance and of significance in improving the Bill and therefore ensuring that we have the right to debate and ultimately vote upon such proposals.
On behalf of the Government I would like to present a couple of key amendments and 1 would do so by indicating that if Members of the Opposition also wish to present amendments that they would like to have debated, or would like to have on the Order Paper, then on behalf of the Government I would certainly be prepared to provide to them the same courtesy if they would also provide consent to the amendments that I am prepared to bring forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. For amendments to be considered at this stage, unanimous consent would be required.


Erik Nielsen: Let us hear the proposals before we seek consent, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Minister put forward his suggested revisions one at a time and we could deal with them individually.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 am quite prepared to accede to both those requests. I had intended to. The first one is to bring forward for consideration by the Elouse an amended version of what is now called "the safety net proposal". Members will recall that previously we had proposed a safety net to protect or provide assurance for farmers against an increase in their costs in relation to grain prices. That was ruled out of order by the Chair. I would now like to move that:
Bill C-155 be amended by striking out the heading "Part IV," preceding Clause 59 and substituting the following-
Then follows a new Part IV. It is a very lengthy amendment running to some two pages. I have submitted copies to the critics of the Opposition. Rather than reading the entire amendment, if they would allow me, I would precis the contents.
What we are proposing is a safety net brought in over a graduated period, beginning at a 4 per cent level in 1984, 5 per cent in 1985, 8 per cent in 1986, 9 per cent in 1987 and 10 per cent from 1988 onwards. The safety net previously proposed of a flat 10 per cent would start at 4 per cent on the implementation of the legislation on January 1. We believe that would provide immediate protection for farmers against any change in the price-cost ratio. I am prepared to read the whole amendment but Hon. Members have copies.
Contigent upon that is a requirement that a consequential amendment be moved as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 37 by striking out lines 37 to 43 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"(o) the estimated government commitment less an amount equal to the CN
adjusment in respect of that crop year, plus or minus the total of the interim
adjustment for the current crop year and the final adjustment for the
Western Grain Transportation Act
preceding crop year, plus the shipper share limitation adjustment for the
preceding calendar year, as determined under Part IV, by".-
1 will provide copies of that as well. I think Hon. Members will see that it simply follows upon the first amendment that I proposed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. In order that this make sense to anyone who wants to read it some time in the future, I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to put his amended safety net proposal on the record. It is two pages long but I think it is important that we have things in proper order so that they can be seen by anyone who may want to read them. 1 know that some Hon. Members have had the opportunity to look over the proposals because they were provided to us and we are grateful for that.
In the interests of completing the debate, however, I think it is important that the Minister put his amendment, get unanimous consent, then put his further amendment and get unanimous consent for that. In that way we would be quite clear on the process that was followed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We would have no objection to that. We are cutting into debating time, however, and we are under strict limitation of debate. The motion the Minister refers to has been submitted to the Table and I assume it will find its way into the official proceedings. This happened on a previous occasion when the Minister rose to submit a similar amendment in a somewhat modified form. It found its way into the official record of proceedings.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has a suggestion to make at this point. Perhaps the Hon. Minister could table copies of the amendments he seeks to introduce and some time later this afternoon they could be moved. It might avoid difficulties if the amendments were tabled and Hon. Members had a chance to look at them.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we have to await a decision on this, I would rather that the Minister read the motion into the record. Then we could dispose of it as the House Leader for the NDP has suggested.


Lloyd Axworthy: Following on that, Mr. Speaker, may 1 ask if Hon. Members would be prepared to give unanimous consent that I move the consequential amendment I just moved to Clause 37?


Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have a narrative on the original amendment which I found very helpful. The consequential amendment is very detailed and 1 would like to have a narrative on that from the Minister.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeking at this point is not consent to debate any amendment but merely consent to allow these amendments to be put on the Order Paper. If we have time we will debate them and vote on them.
What the Minister is seeking is unanimous consent to dispense with giving notice to put the amendments he is

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
talking about on the Order Paper, even though some of them were declared inadmissible in the past. By unanimous consent we could do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair was under a misunderstanding of the Minister's intention. Obviously, leave to put them on the Order Paper is very different from leave to introduce the motions. Is there unanimous consent for the Minister to put these motions on the Order Paper?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I think this procedure is becoming unnecessarily muddled. As I understand it, the Minister is asking for leave to have those motions listed for debate and for disposition at the end of the second day's debate. All we are asking is that if the Minister was simply to go back to his original motion and read it, we would then be able to give consent. He could then go to his second motion respecting Clause 37 and read it and we could perhaps give consent, then to his third motion on Clause 2 and read it, and we could give consent, and finally to his Clause 59 amendment and we could deal with that. I think we would then have what we want. He is asking for consent to have those questions recorded and put to the House for disposition along with the other motions that now stand on the notice paper.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the Government House Leader is saying. If we give unanimous consent to the Minister, those motions will be placed on the Order Paper. The only difference in reading them out is that they will appear in two places, once on the Order Paper if consent is given and once in today's Hansard. The latter is not necessary if we have them on the Order Paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Minister seeking consent to have these motions placed on the Order Paper?


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the Minister place the amendments he has in mind on the Order Paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I seek your advice on the point raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I provided copies to Opposition critics so that they would have a chance to read them. If they are put on the Order Paper they will then be on the record and would not have to be read. I am trying to expedite this because the motions are lengthy and we are under some time constraint.


Erik Nielsen: Just give a brief explanation.


Lloyd Axworthy: The brief explanation to the amendment to Clause 37 is simply that it relates to the formula by which the allocation of moneys is determined. The shippers' share limitation would have to be built into that if Part IV is accepted. It is simply a way of recalculating the formula.
I should also like to propose that the House give unanimous consent to placing on the Order Paper an amendment dealing with the review inquiry. It will appear in written form and it is very lengthy. Basically what I am proposing is that the review commission that is being established under the Bill and which will be reporting its findings should look at the whole question of the method of payment and the impact on various aspects of agriculture. Under the legislation as it stands, the report of the review commission would simply be tabled.
1 should like to introduce an amendment that would provide for a full day of debate in Parliament on the results of the review commission report in order to provide a clear connection between the commission's findings and the consideration by Parliament. This was discussed with a number of farming groups in western Canada and they felt it was important to ensure that Parliament was seized of the findings and that there was a full day's debate on them. This should respond to some of the Opposition's concerns.
I should like to seek unanimous consent to that particular amendment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We would agree to that, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether we are going through this step by step but we will agree.
Of course, we agree with the expectation that similar approval will be granted to four motions that we will be presenting. We hope that we can seek similar unanimous consent for presentation of these motions to be included on the Order Paper for debate and final disposition.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is the procedure which I am prepared to follow with other Hon. Members of the House. If Members on the other side wish also to present amendments for Order Paper consideration, our side is in agreement with that.
Finally, I have one final amendment which is again just a reintroduction of the amendment which was ruled out of order by the Chair during an earlier part of our considerations, some time back there in deep history. That has to do with amending Bill C-155, as follows:
That Bill C-I55 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 14 to 18 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
""grain" means any grain or crop included in Schedule 1 that is grown in the Western Division or any product thereof included in Schedule 1 that is processed in the Western Division and includes any other grain or crop grown in the Western Division . . . that the Governor in Council, by regulation made under paragraph 62(l)(b), prescribes as being included in Schedule 1;"
That is simply a requirement, Mr. Speaker, which is again contingent, I believe, on other matters which will be coming forward. However, it does give Order in Council approval for the inclusion of other crops under this schedule.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
October 31, 1983


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not the Minister was reading from his motion. However, he did not read what I have in front of me. I wonder if it was simply an oversight or whether he was just giving us a sort of outline of what it contains. He made no mention, for example, of the fourth last line, "... and any product thereof processed in the Western Division." He spoke only of the grain. I am concerned that perhaps he had overlooked it inadvertently.


Lloyd Axworthy: It would only be as a result of my failing eyesight, having examined these amendments many times in the past. It was simply an oversight. Line 6 should read:
-and any product thereof processed in the Western Division-
Therefore, with unanimous consent given to these four sets of amendments, Mr. Speaker, we would be very pleased to have the opportunity to consider them at a future date.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party, I will certainly agree, particularly to the last one since I have the expert on the definition of grain sitting at my side, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we also give unanimous consent. While I am on my feet, we also have some amendments for which we would like to seek consent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) rises on a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Official Opposition has the right of presenting its proposed motions at this particular time. I was simply granting unanimous concurrence from our point of view.


Erik Nielsen: That is all the Chair was asking for.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is all the Chair was asking for at that point in time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair tries to proceed with the best judgment in the circumstances. The Chair did recognize the Hon. Member for Vegreville for whatever purpose he desired to be recognized-


Erik Nielsen: Consent. It was for consent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did indicate at the very outset that we would be advancing similar motions and expecting the same concurrence. And the Minister stood in his place and agreed with that. I believe there are traditions, conventions and customs in this House. We found that out on a couple of occasions during the course of this debate. I believe, with all due respect, Mr. Western Grain Transportation Act
Speaker, that I have the right to present the motions on behalf of my Party at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor, if I recall correctly, and I-


Erik Nielsen: Only for giving consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is perfectly right. However, both Hon. Members concerned, who are reasonable men, will recognize the position of the Chair. The Chair recognized the Hon. Member for Vegreville and presumably recognized in the same spirit the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is technically right in stating he has the floor. There is no dispute about that. However, I suggest that perhaps the Hon. Member for Vegreville should be recognized to present his motions, then the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, because the expectation, whether rightly or wrongly, was that both sides were indicating their formal concurrence with the position of the Minister, and the Chair did assume that there would be a normal sequential presentation of amendments.
If the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wishes to press his point, he will recognize the very difficult position in which he places the Chair. The Chair cannot be a Solomon and please everyone. It can only attempt to dispense the best judgment in the circumstances.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We know what they think of the Chair. The way they treat the Chair, they should not even be recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain to defer and let the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) present his amendments. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain was recognized and he is on his feet again.


Erik Nielsen: Point of order-


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I hear the Hon. Member-


Erik Nielsen: I have a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon no doubt has a point of order. In the circumstances, I would like to hear just what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is proposing briefly, then I will hear the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: He is proposing a motion. I have a point of order before he proposes it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not know whether he is or not.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Erik Nielsen: I do. He has said so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has been recognized and the Chair has to concede that this is the case.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: 1 believe it would help us all, Mr. Speaker, if we reviewed briefly the sequence of events and the procedures which we are applying here. The Minister rose to put four proposals to the House and to seek seriatim the unanimous consent of the House to put each one of those four proposals. After each of those proposals were put, the Chair asked whether there was unanimous consent to put each of those four proposals. On each of those four occasions, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) rose and gave the consent of his Party, which is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this place, and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rose and in each four cases gave his consent-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, no.


Erik Nielsen: Well, on two or three of them, perhaps not all. Nonetheless, that is the process in which we were involved. The Chair in that mode was asking for unanimous consent at the request of the Minister for placing his four proposals on the Order Paper. Now you cannot, when you rise to give consent at the request of the Chair to the Minister's proposals, then smuggle in amendments in the course of giving that consent. The job of this Party in the House is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Any proposals to follow upon the Minister's, which are given first, naturally, by tradition, will be followed by proposals from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, not from the little red rump down there.


Ian Deans: Calm down.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The splinter Party comes third.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the interest of decorum in the House and the usual good humour which prevails at the beginning of a week, the Chair is respectfully asking the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain if he would perhaps concede that the Chair look to him for consent concerning the proposal of the Minister, and then allow the Hon. Member for Vegreville to move his motion, then recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, who undoubtedly also will have some matters to raise. The Chair appeals to the Hon. Member to accept this-


Mr. Yurko:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair sees everyone, but I am sure the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) will let the Speaker finish his remarks before he interrupts. The Chair appeals to Hon. Members to accept this, bearing in mind that it is not an easy thing to settle. The Chair is just
trying to exercise fair judgment. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring to your attention that there is an Hon. Member sitting in this House as an independent whose permission must be obtained when unanimous consent of the House is asked. I notice that you had not made any reference to this Member at all in any of your previous remarks. I wanted to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am quite pleased to offer my consent to the four proposals put forth by the Minister before this House. I will be considering seriously offering my consent to the proposals put by the Hon. Member representing the Official Opposition, as well as the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, provided that 1 also have the opportunity to put forth an amendment and receive the unanimous consent of the House for such a motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair wishes to assure the Hon. Member for Edmonton East that his rights as an Hon. Member will be scrupulously respected in every way. The Chair assumes, not having heard to the contrary, that there was consent. The Hon. Member always has the right to rise and express his point of view.
At this stage, the Chair would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) but the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is on his feet. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain briefly and ask that he defer to the express wish of the Chair under these circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had not finished my point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has risen on a point of order with regard to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Erik Nielsen: I have not finished it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think, with all due respect, we may be close to a solution, if the Chair is reading he situation correctly. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has been recognized only for the purpose of giving his consent with respect to the remarks and the proposals of the Minister.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the dilemma in which you find yourself, Sir, and I can well understand why Members of the Official Opposition want to grab the floor away from me given that they want to move an amendment in which until this point in time they had expressed absolutely no interest, an amendment that we have been trying to move since April last, and I therefore propose to move it now. I would ask that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, the Chair is not recognizing the Hon. Member for the purpose of moving a motion at this time. The Hon. Member has, however, made his point. I am sure
October 31, 1983

that it has been noted by everyone in the country who is watching the television broadcast of our proceedings. The proceedings as reported in Hansard will amply show the remarks of the Hon. Member who put his claim forward with regard to the amendment.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. You yourself said that you had recognized me and that it was appropriate for me to seek unanimous consent having been recognized. There is absolutely no requirement on the Chair to recognize the Hon. Member for Vegreville ahead of me at any time. The Chair is entitled, under the Standing Orders, to recognize any Member he believes he saw first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain for purposes of concurrence with the proposals of the Minister, and the Chair is now recognizing the Hon. Member for Vegreville for purposes of moving motions, and will subsequently recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain for purposes of moving motions. The Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 want to thank Hon. Members of the House for their indulgence, and I particularly want to thank the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko)-


Ian Deans: Point of order!


Stanley J. Hovdebo: He has a point of order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain continues to rise on a point of order although he has had ample opportunity to be heard. It is difficult to imagine that he has a point that he has not yet made, but he has the opportunity of expressing himself.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want you to tell me why it is that, having been recognized since you rose and indicated that I had been recognized and indicated not five minutes ago that 1 was entitled to move the motion, we are now having the rule changed because of the intervention of the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat? I am sure the Hon. Member, being a Member of some years' service and seniority in the House, will recognize that the Chair is in an impossible position-


Mr. Benjamin:: Which you got yourself into.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) please retract his remark?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Retract what, Mr. Speaker? I did not have the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There was an intervention made which was certainly reflecting upon the Chair. If the Hon. Member
Western Grain Transportation Act
consistently makes remarks reflecting upon the Chair, he knows the difficult position in which he places the Chair with regard to the Hon. Member and future proceedings of the House. Does the Hon. Member for Regina West care to retract his words?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, after hearing from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, and the Chair, I will be glad to retract the situation that the Chair allowed us to get into.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair appreciates the courtesy of the Hon. Member for Regina West. At this point, the Chair appeals to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. He has made his point concerning amendments that may or may not be forthcoming. He certainly has his rights as House Leader of a Party in this House, but the Chair at this point would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Vegreville for the purpose of putting motions, followed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain for the same purpose.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to thank Hon. Members of the House for their indulgence, and particularly the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) who has offered his concurrence for the submission of the motions that both the Minister and I on behalf of my Party will be presenting. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, I seek the same concurrence as was granted to the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), and there are three specific motions which I hope to be able to get unanimous consent to have inserted on the Order Paper. Regarding the fourth motion, I think there is a general disposition among all Members of the House to have it accepted, not only for debate but in principle as an addition to the Bill, which will resolve a problem with respect to the definition of the word "export".
The first motion I would like to present reads as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 43 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 24 the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the rate a railway company may
charge a shipper for the movement of grain for the period January 1, 1984 to
July 31, 1986 shall not exceed the existing rates in effect on August 1, 1983."
By way of brief explanation, Mr. Speaker, that would have the effect of retaining the existing statutory freight rate as it now exists until July 31, 1986. That would be the period of time in which the review would take place to look at, among other things, the ability of the producers to pay the economic assessment and the impact upon individual producers and upon the agricultural community as a whole.
The second motion for which I would seek unanimous consent-


Erik Nielsen: Put that one first.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Hon. Member for Vegreville wants to follow the procedures of the House as we have agreed to, he might at least allow us to pass judgment on the motions one at a time.
28524

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure the Hon. Member for Vegreville was prepared to cede the floor to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain for comment at this point, having introduced the first of his motions.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Vegreville is now asking the Chair to seek unanimous consent to permit the Hon. Member for Vegreville to put the motion, which he read and explained, on the Order Paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville is making the same request as did the Hon. Minister of Transport a short while ago. Under the circumstances, the Chair is asking for unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wish to be recognized on this matter?


Ian Deans: No, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and 1 would also like to thank Hon. Members of the House for granting that consent.
The second motion for which 1 seek the same unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, reads as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 58 by immediately adding after line 13 at page 34 the following therefor:
"58. (3) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, based upon the recommendations of the committee established under section 59(2) to examine the method of payment, the Governor in Council may, subject to approval by Parliament, make regulations prescribing the manner in which, and the parties to whom, payment of the government contribution, including the Crow benefit, shall be made/'
By way of a brief explanation, Mr. Speaker, that would provide for an enabling mechanism, pending the outcome of the review of the Commission of Inquiry established under Clause 59(2), for a modified method of payment, depending upon the recommendations that flowed from the inquiry, to be incorporated into this piece of legislation subject to the recommendations of the Governor in Council and subject to approval of Parliament. This deals with the distribution of the Crow benefit.
Under the provisions of the Bill, the total Crow benefit is paid directly to the railroads. If the Commission of Inquiry finds that there is a better system or way to distribute that payment, and a recommendation flows therefrom, this would enable that to take place.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to have that motion placed on the Order Paper for debate and further disposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vegreville seeks the unanimous consent of the House to have the motion which he has just read placed on the Order Paper for further consideration. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the third proposal concerns Clause 62 of Bill C-155. We are proposing:
That Bill C-155 be amended at page 35 by deleting lines 19 to 24 so that the clause would now read:
"62. Notwithstanding the Crow's Nest Pass Act, and any agreement made pursuant thereto, the Government of Canada, in the spirit of the Constitution of Canada which gives to the several provinces the proprietary interest in, and the right to legislate for, lands, minerals and resources within their respective provinces, shall, for greater certainty, confirm the proprietary ownership in all lands and minerals, including coal, within Parcels 73 and 82 of the Dominion Coal Blocks, to Her Majesty in right of British Columbia to hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with, as is deemed fit."
This particular clause in Bill C-155 as it now exists would see these lands revert to the federal Crown. We are suggesting here that these lands revert to the Crown in the name of the Province of British Columbia. Again, I would ask unanimous consent of the House to have this motion put on the Order Paper for debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member asks for unanimous consent of the House. Is there agreement?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, of course we will be happy to give unanimous consent to something we have been proposing since the day the Bill was introduced. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives had not joined with us earlier in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member gives unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have one more motion I wish to present. I hope the Minister and the spokesman for the NDP will follow this very closely because I think that, in addition to granting unanimous consent to have this motion put on the Order Paper, I believe there is general agreement that the motion I will be presenting has support of all Members in the House. It is something that we have wrestled with in the committee and on the floor of the House for quite some time. It deals with the definition of "export".
Essentially, the proposal that I have is:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
" "export" is respect of grain means shipment by vessel within the meaning of the Canada Shipping Act to any destination outside Canada and shipment by any other mode of transport to the United States for use of the grain in that country and not for shipment out of that country;"
As I said earlier, this particular definition has caused the committee and the House some difficulty, but I believe, in trying to meet all of the objectives and overcome some of the difficulties we have had with previous definitions, that this will more or less fit the bill. I hope that, in addition to receiving unanimous consent to have this matter brought forth for debate, we might also obtain unanimous consent for its acceptance at the same time.
October 31, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement for the Hon. Member to place the amendment on the Order Paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent of the House to waive notice and allow the following motion to be put on the Order Paper. The motion is:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 62 by striking out lines 19 to 23 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Government of Canada shall convey to the Government of the Province of British Columbia immediately upon the passage of this Bill all lands and the coal, mineral or other rights on such lands which it received pursuant to paragraph l(i) of the Crow's Nest Pass Act."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to present his motion for the purpose of placing it on the Order Paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to waive notice and allow the following motion to be put on the Order Paper and dealt with. The motion is:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 14 the following:
"(3) The Government of Canada shall provide the funds needed to rehabilitate to a level of utility allowing reliable year-round train services in reasonable circumstances those railway branch lines protected by order in council against abandonment to the year 2000, and such rehabilitation shall be completed by July 31, 1987."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to placing the amendment of the Hon. Member on the Order Paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the unanimous consent of the House to put forth the following amendment to Bill C-155 so as to relieve my anxieties with respect to this Bill which have, to a large degree, been lessened by what I have heard here today. I would like to ask the House to approve this amendment:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54( 1 )(b) on page 29 by adding after the words "31.1 million tonnes" on line 15, the words "which shall be increased annually by one per cent".
This is in recognition of the fact that the grain industry in western Canada is a growth industry and will continue to grow from year to year. This amendment recognizes this growth. Its purpose is to provide the farmers of western Canada, particularly the small farmers, the appropriate compensation for growing grain, and not only growing new grains but shipping their grains to market.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent of the House to have his amendment placed on the Order Paper for consideration?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify that we are simply waiving notice and not agreeing.
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent of the House to waive Notice and allow the following motion to be put on the Order Paper. The motion is:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 33 to 45 on page 30 and substituting the following therefor: change" means zero.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House for his motion to be placed on the Order Paper for consideration?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to waive notice and allow the following motion to be put on the Order Paper:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 13 to 16 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
"obtained by multiplying the total number of tonnes of grains and grain products moved in that crop year by the aggregate of'


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent of the House for his motion to be placed on the Order Paper for consideration?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), and my colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for the efforts they have put forward with respect to the definition of "export". When it is voted on, we look forward to having it included in the Bill.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to include another motion on the Order Paper. It has to do with the shippers' share limitation. The motion is quite lengthy. It is very similar, I suppose, to what the Minister moved earlier on. I would file it rather than read through the two pages. The basic difference is that it would put the price ratio limit per calendar year at 3 per cent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member's motion to be put on the Order Paper for consideration?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, now that we have had agreement to have these motions put on the Order Paper for debate, the question arises when, if ever, will we have a chance to debate these points, which I think are pretty fundamental and go to the core of the Bill? I think the safety net proposal with respect to the freeze and method of payment is certainly a fundamental component in this piece of legislation. If these

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
motions are simply going to be added to the Order Paper, the chances are they will not be debated.
Would there be a disposition on the part of the Members of the House to have these motions brought forth for immediate debate? If debate on them is concluded, then we could go on to the other motions appearing on the Order Paper. It would seem to me that we on this side particularly would like to debate these issues. I assume that other Members would see fit that that be done as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have an observation at this point which might be helpful. We have before us Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 on which debate has taken place but was not concluded. Would it be possible for the House to conclude its debate on these motions or stand them, if the House wishes? Is it possible for the House Leaders or representatives of the Parties to get together and come to some agreement which could be presented to the House as to how they wish to proceed at this point?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, assuming that is possible-I imagine we can find the Government House Leader-what the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is essentially asking is for the Chair to see if there is consent to go on with these fundamental items and stand the others so that there will be an opportunity to debate them.
1 will certainly take the initiative and seek out the Government House Leader and, along with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), see what we can do with the rest, but in the meantime perhaps all other motions could be stood and we could proceed with the Minister's safety net proposal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The suggestion of the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is eminently sensible. But there are one or two observations from the Chair. First, it appears that some motions are similar. It appears that they might be grouped for debate and it appears they might even be grouped for votes.


Erik Nielsen: Only one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, but other motions were presented today. These might well be details that could be ironed out in private discussions among the representatives of the Parties. The Chair suggests that until such time as there is agreement, perhaps we could proceed with Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49, and possibly dispose of them. Or we could interrupt the debate or set them aside until there is an agreement for an alternative way for the House to proceed.


Erik Nielsen: May 1 suggest, because of the fundamental nature of the amendments proposed by the Minister, the other two Parties and the independent Member, following the proposal of the Hon. Member for Vegreville, who has asked the Chair to reserve the matter, that we now proceed with the Minister's suggestion on the safety net and stand everything prior to that? There is only one amendment on the safety net. Let us proceed with that now. Let the House Leaders get
together immediately to determine how we should proceed with the other amendments introduced today.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government 1 am prepared to give consent that we now priorize the amendments that have been presented in order to focus debate on significant items.
I do think the Hon. Member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is slightly mistaken. I do believe the NDP also presented an amendment regarding a safety net. However, I suggest that if you look at the basic thrust of the amendments, aside from the one on export which the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster (Mr. McKnight) has presented, at which we are looking favourably, there are two issues being looked at. One is the ability to pay and how we provide some protection on that issue, and the second is the method of payment issue and how the review period can be properly and effectively used and ultimately recognized by Parliament in 1985-1986. Those are two key issues. It would seem to me that if we could group debates around those issues, it would stand the Canadian people in good stead to debate then before we conclude report stage. If that is what they want to hear about and if that is the kind of exchange they want to have, then I would seek a way, either by House Leaders or by myself, of meeting with the Opposition critics to see if we could find a way of debating, certainly over tomorrow, those two key issues centring around the amendments that were presented today. I think we could do a real service to the public by doing that.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we are not in a position to agree to that at the moment. We remember what happened to us on the day the time allocation motion was moved and how the Conservatives cut us out of the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: We would be reluctant to enter into any kind of an arrangement sight unseen.


An Hon. Member:: What a phoney!


Ian Deans: The fact of the matter is that all of the amendments that we have before us are important, all of the amendments, not only the most recent ones, but all of the other amendments which are standing on the Notice Paper and have been waiting there for some time for debate. We are prepared, as we always are, to move through, as expeditiously as possible the amendments as they appear on the Notice Paper. If, as and when we get to the most recent amendments, we will debate them in the most learned and knowledgeable way, as we always do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the New Democratic Party insists on debating frivolous amendments and leaving the issues, such as the very important issue of the producers' ability to pay and the method of payment, very fundamental issues, that go to the very central core of this legislation-


An Hon. Member:: You can't be trusted.
October 31, 1983


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -it appears the NDP simply wants to filibuster on frivolous motions and fight the Bill, not on the basis of whether it is going to be in the best interests of the agricultural community or the producers of Canada but on whether in fact it is going to be in the NDP's best ideological and philosophical interests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in the hands of the House. At this point there does not appear to be unanimous consent with regard to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for the Yukon. In the circumstances, the Chair suggests that we proceed with debate on Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is rising.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am happy to know that the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) called Motion No. 48 frivolous. I am happy to know that he is calling all his own motions frivolous.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. The Hon. Member will be recognized in due course and will have an opportunity to present his comments on what is taking place in the House.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that a point of order has to be a point of order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He hasn't got a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, my point of order is exactly the same as the one raised by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. He proceeded to complete all his remarks on a spurious point of order. I would like equal time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. gentleman for Vegreville is calling a motion-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that he himself has a spurious point of order? Is he saying himself that he is seeking the floor on a spurious point of order on the grounds that somebody else has a spurious point of order and succeeded? If that is the Hon. Member's argument, surely it is reductio ad absurdum. Surely he cannot expect the Chair to take that kind of argument on face value. The Chair suggests to the Hon. Member that the best course would be to proceed to a debate and, we hope, complete the debate on Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49, at which point the Hon. Member or some other Member of his Party can well reply to what he considers to be the allegations of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. But I suggest it is a matter of debate.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I assume we are back to Bill C-155 and Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49. To bring the House back to where we are in the debate, we have three motions facing us which make some amendments to Clauses 22 and 25. These are the clauses that deal with the way the House is proposing to handle recommendations from the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator. The Bill provides an opportunity for the House to discuss the proposed regulations of that agency and sets out the timetable and the time limits for such debate.
We are operating now under a form of closure under Standing Order 82 which allows for two days on report stage and a further day for third reading debate. The proposed change to the Act would provide for a one-hour debate under these circumstances. The regulations of the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator would go to the Minister who would file them before Parliament 15 sitting days after they had been presented to him. After having been filed and within five sitting days, either 15 Senators in the other place or 30 Members in this Chamber could cause them to be debated. The process of the debate would be that the regulations would be transferred to the appropriate committee where they would be dealt with fairly expeditiously and would be returned to the House or the Senate, depending upon where the initiation had occurred, and be debated for one hour.
The motions question whether the number of Senators and Members of the House should be the same or otherwise. In Motion No. 47 we are saying that it should take the same number of Senators as Members of the House of Commons to initiate such a debate and have it sent to committee. Also the Bill proposes that once the regulations have been put before the House or the Senate, they will automatically become law six months after being presented to the committee, whether or not they are returned from the committee, I presume, or 20 days after they were laid before Parliament by the Minister, if the House or the Senate chooses not to debate the regulations.
It is our contention that one hour is not an adequate amount of time, given the possibilities which could arise from these regulations. According to the wording of the Bill, the Administrator is responsible for laying out the awards and sanctions for all grain transportation participants; not only the railroads-and it may be changed as a result of some of the later votes-but also elevator companies, farmers, truckers, terminal operators, labour unions and perhaps even shippers on the seaway. Not only does he have the job of imposing awards and sanctions on the participants in the industry, he will be laying out by regulation the performance indicators, whatever they are. I presume they will be the basis for judging whether various participants have been doing a good job, whether it is adequate or inadequate, or whether a fine should be levied because it was judged to be inadequate. In short, we see some of the first regulations coming out of this process as being almost as complex and all-encompassing as the Bill. There could be a whole host of regulations going on for 30 pages or 40 pages. We do not think that that can be adequately dealt

October 31, 1983
Adjournment Motion
with even after committee work-and the committee is limited in its look at the regulations-in a one-hour debate.
The regular rules of Parliament should apply. The regulations in the Bill before us should be debated until the debate is finished. If the Government, whoever is in power at the time, thinks that time is being wasted by the debate, it has numerous ways of reducing debate. It can use Standing Order 82 which would limit the debate to three days, as is the case now, or one of several other Standing Orders and procedures to limit debate to as little as one day. However, nothing is as restrictive as the one hour in this piece of legislation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is closure in advance.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: As my colleague says, it is closure in advance.
1 am somewhat at a loss to understand some of the arguments of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party who have said that a three-day debate would be more adequate. For some reason three days has become an adequate length of time for debate. At the same time we heard a few days ago, when this debate was limited to three days, how inadequate it was. I think they are right when they say that three days is inadequate in cases where the proposal is very complex and all-encompassing. We say that the same rules should apply for debate on these regulations, which will virtually affect the entire transportation and grain handling system and the economy not only of western Canada but beyond.
These regulations are important enough to be worthy of full debate. Therefore we recommend that the House accepts Motion No. 49 that the question be debated until the conclusion of the debate and that every question necessary shall be put at the end of the debate. We hope Hon. Members will support that suggestion and see that it is the most democratic route to go, given that some of the sanctions, awards and performance indicators as a result of the regulations which will be proposed are so important that they may indeed require much more attention or as much attention as we have had to give to this Bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Erie (Mr. Fretz)-Customs and Excise-Establishment of duty-free stores in Ontario; the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Public Works-Surrey B.C. port of entry facilities, (b) Maintenance of security; the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-
Employment-Admission of workers to skill-training programs. (b) Plight of the functionally illiterate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motions Nos. 47 (Mr. Benjamin), 48 (Mr. Mazankowski) and 49 (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give what will probably be my last speech on the Crow debate. I realize that we tried hard in this particular debate but did not really accomplish anything which would basically protect the people I represent in the West. I feel this is very much like a last ditch stand, the last time one had something to say, something which could be very important. It will be appropriate if I could enlarge for a few minutes on the motion of a last ditch stand and how important it is, even if you did not win but stayed in the fight.
As we approach the month of November, in which people of many countries remember their dead, I remember in great detail visiting northern France a number of years ago on November 2, the annual day of the dead in France. The French people go to the old 1914-18 fronts to pray at the graves of their ancestors who died in that period. I had the opportunity earlier to join in a last ditch stand and visit that area of northern France, Flanders, with my father. I visited the old trenches and talked to the old soldiers who had been there at the time. They told about how they had built those early trenches. There was a front line trench and there was a position they fell back to.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I always enjoy listening to the Hon. Member, but with all due respect, I have to remind him that we are on Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 which pertain to Clause 22. It would help this Chamber if he could stick to that clause and those three amendments which were grouped together by Madam Speaker.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the Hon. Member has just said. At the same time I hope the Hon. Member will give me a few moments of patience. Something that is as profound and important to the western part of Canada where I live is sometimes more clear if we use a kind of parable rather than a lot of statistical facts. I am basically saying that what we have here, as with those early soldiers, is a falling back
October 31, 1983

trench by trench, trying in every way possible to stop what those opposite are going to do to the people whom we represent. Finally, 1 have come to the last ditch. I have no more place to fall back. The Elouse has put on closure. The deal has been made. We know what the final outcome will be.
When I speak to Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49,1 am basically saying that 1 have come to the last ditch, as others in my Party have done. I hope people will remember that as far as we could, we put up a good fight to save the Crow for the people we represent.
The motions now before the House are directed to the procedure for reviewing regulations proposed by the Administrator of the Grain Transportation Agency. A mouthful of words like that cannot mean very much to somebody who has not been following this debate word for word. Perhaps they would not mean much to somebody who has. The motions before the House are important. What they amount to is how this whole massive new Bill will operate, who will operate it, and who will call upon the Administrator to see that this Bill will be put into operation.
The motions before the House now deal particularly with the regulations and who can bring them in. As Hon. Members are aware, the first motion talks about the way the Bill is written to request changes in the regulations. It states regulations can be brought in by 15 Senators or 30 Members of Parliament. It is almost an insult to think that somebody would write a Bill like that.
Who represents the people of this country? Is it the Senators who got their seat by failing in a couple of elections, being a good fund raiser or for any of the different reasons that Senators get their seats, or is it the Members of Parliament, those who have gone out in the line, put up their name, stood and fought and presented themselves in such a way that a number of people in a constituency said that that is the person they want to represent them?
How could it possibly be that anybody writing a piece of legislation would make it sound as if a Member of Parliament only had half the wits of a Senator? I do not know what that means, half the wits of a Senator, but it is not very much. However, that is what the motion says. What we want to do in the motion is to make it equal, that 1 5 Members of Parliament would have the same weight in bringing about a request for reviewing regulations as 15 Senators would have. That would clearly be understood by all who understand the parliamentary procedure of our House of Commons.
The other motions have to do with the whole idea of closure and time allocation when the committee reports to the House. In Motion No. 49, my Party says there should not be closure. That has been demonstrated very clearly and very well by all Members on this side of the House and, in due course, will be demonstrated by Members of the other side. It is an insult to Members of Parliament that they do not have a place for debate. Closure will be automatically applied on debate. There will not be an open debate on regulations, which could be very complicated. There will be great complication in how the regulations will be put forward and how the procedures
Western Grain Transportation Act
regarding the regulations will be put forward, as well as the penalty that will be used in the grain trade when people do not keep to the regulations.
This is very complicated material. The Government is bringing in closure as a prearranged device to keep Members of Parliament who are responsible from debating the Bill in the House of Commons. I hope the Government will be willing to see that Motion No. 49 is carried, that the motion will be brought forward in such a way that this House of Commons will not plan closure even before the event has taken place.
My point in this last ditch stand is that it is a rather sad moment. I really felt in this process that the Government would see what the people of western Canada were asking for and would have some kind of feeling and sensitivity with regard to their request that this regulation, which we have come to know as the Crow, which is part and parcel of the lives of western Canadians, be respected. Like the warriors who have finally gone from trench to trench and put up a good fight but have not been able to carry the day and who are now in their last ditch stand, I hope that that will be appreciated and understood by the people whom we represent.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate on this. I listened to the Hon. Member's comments with some interest. This morning the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) raised the same issue, that only 15 Senators would be required to precipitate a debate whereas it would require 30 Members of the House of Commons to precipitate a debate. Irrespective of what the Members in the New Democratic Party feel about the Senate, we have to all agree that they are Members of Parliament. They have a function to play in Parliament. They play a very useful role as a Chamber of sober second thought.
Apart from that, we should recognize that after the current redistribution or changes which are now before us with regard to the number of Members of Parliament who are to be in this House, we will have 310 Members of Parliament. Thirty Members represents about 10 percent of the House of Commons whereas 15 Senators out of 104 represents 14 per cent of the Senate. If we assume that the Senate has a role to play then it seems to me that to require roughly proportional equality with regard to the number of Members or Senators who would be required to precipitate a debate would be fair. Indeed, the legislation bends over backwards and gives the House of Commons the right to a debate when only 10 per cent of the Members so require, whereas it requires 14 per cent of the Senators to precipitate such a debate. Contrary to the views that are being expressed by the Members of the New Democratic Party, the House of Commons is put in an advantageous position. Perhaps that is by virtue of the fact that we are elected Members and they are appointed, but it is easier to precipitate a debate on this issue under this amendment by the House of Commons than it is in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, 1 thought I would point that out to Hon. Members and perhaps

Western Grain Transportation Act
they could take that into consideration when expressing their views.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why bother with the Senate at all then?


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to add a few words to the debate this afternoon concerning Bill C-155 dealing with Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49.
I would like to say how disappointed I am that the Government chose to bring in closure on this particular piece of legislation which has become known as the Crow Bill. It is something we have always viewed as a right for the producers in western Canada. 1 feel that, as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) referred to just a few moments ago, we are in the last stages or in the last trenches. At this point we only have this day and one more to debate in report stage. There will be one more day at report stage and one day for third reading. So we have less than two and one-half days to go on debating Bill C-155 because of the closure the Government felt it had to bring in which does not allow adequate time for debate in this House on the many, many motions that we have.
In the short time I have been here I must say that it has been the most complex piece of legislation that has been dealt with by this House of Commons. I was elected in the February 18, 1980 general election. Since then there has not been any piece of legislation that has had the complexity and the impact on the people and the grain producers of western Canada that this one has.
in regard to Motion No. 47, we are asking to change the current way in which the sanctions and awards can be brought before the appropriate committee. In some cases it may not be the Transport Committee. The way it stands now in Bill C-155 it requires 30 Members of Parliament or 15 Members of the Senate to bring it before committee. We are proposing that it be either 15 Members of the Senate or 15 Members of Parliament, to give it some equality. 1 know that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) just described why it was that it should be 30 Members of Parliament and 15 Members of the Senate. One of my colleagues says it is because he wants to become a Senator. I think there is another explanation, and that is what he is describing as a system of proportional representation. If that is what the Liberal Government really wants, let us not play those percentages in the institutions of Parliament that we have now in regard to the House of Commons versus the Senate. Let us put in true proportional representation and have those people in the other House actually run for public office. If they can get elected, then let them deal with legislation that affects the grain producers and the people living in small communities of western Canada. As soon as those people in the other place get elected, let them start referring things to committee, but until that time I would rather not leven see it be 15 Senators or 15 Members of Parliament. My own personal preference is for the Members of Parliament to bring it before committee and not the people in the other place.
1 would like to say that in many ways these motions are attempting to expand the role of Members of Parliament in reviewing the awards and sanctions in Clause 21 that will be designed and implemented by the Administrator. We have to realize that the Administrator is an individual who is not responsible to the Canadian Wheat Board, the producers' organization, but a person who is responsible to the Cabinet and who will be affected by all the political whims that result from this piece of legislation and other matters that affect grain transportation in Canada. I do not think that is a good situation. The Administrator should have guidelines in Bill C-155 to state what those awards and sanctions are based on. He should have some measures whereby he can tell whether there is efficiency or more productivity in the system or whether somebody is not honouring their responsibilities in terms of grain transportation throughout the country. The Administrator has quite wide-ranging powers and because of the way this Bill is set out those powers could be applied to those not directly involved in the movement of grain.
We had hoped, throughout the debate and the many meetings that led up to this legislation that the Canadian Wheat Board would find the control it needs over grain transportation in this country. If the producers want to have an efficient system of moving their grain, I think they have to have some real control over getting their products to the ports and to the markets. We do not know what all the final clauses will be, but it appears that this Bill is going to be in place.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Heaven forbid.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Heaven forbid as the Hon. Member for Regina West has said. How can we tell whether those awards should be given or sanctions handed out? For the railways, there is a guaranteed annual income in this legislation, but what performance do they have to meet to get that guaranteed annual income? There is nothing in this piece of legislation that states what it is they have to do to get their guaranteed return of 20 per cent on their investment. Can the Administrator or the railways concoct some measurement of success a year from now and say, "Well, we have had a 1 per cent improvement in the efficiency of the grain transportation system"? Does that mean they get their 20 per cent return on their investment? Maybe the rail companies and the Government like that, but I do not like that very much. I would like to know what it is that the rail companies have to meet to get their guaranteed return.
I think it is an oversight role, but a very limited one, that Members of Parliament have. As I mentioned earlier, as the Bill now stands the Members of Parliament, or the Senate can refer a matter to the Transport Committee. When it comes back before Parliament we get one hour to debate it. That is shameful, Mr. Speaker. Even on the closure motion which the Government brought down on this piece of legislation, we had two hours of debate. Something as important to the livelihood of western Canada as the movement of grain, its main industry, making it one of the largest contributors to the balance of
October 31, 1983

payments and international trade in the country, is only to be given one hour of debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Closure in advance.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) calls it closure in advance, and that is exactly what it is. The Liberal Government and the Conservative Official Opposition know that when people in the agricultural industry find out the implications of this legislation they will be very angry regardless of which Party forms the Government of the country. This is a regressive piece of legislation. We want unlimited debate when it comes back before Parliament. If the Government does not like what we have to say and what the people of Canada have to say, then it can bring in closure. At least we will get two hours of debate under that system.
I see that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and that you are rising to your feet. I should like to ask for unanimous consent to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I see the Members of the New Democratic Party are glad to hear their Liberal colleagues. I may remind my honourable colleagues opposite that if we had not had this avalanche of motions during the last few weeks, the mood of this debate might have been a little more serene, which would have benefited all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I am supposed to speak today to motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 to amend Bill C-155. The content of these motions, and the speeches we have heard today and on previous days, give the impression that Opposition Members are extremely touchy about their democratic rights, to say the least. I said today in a motion under Standing Order 21 that Bill C-155 had been the subject of frequent discussion, had been debated in public, in the House and in Committee, and probably for the first time in the Parliament of Canada-nor is it usual in our Provincial legislatures,-proposed regulations may be laid before Parliament. I think that in their comments, Opposition Members have neglected to mention that proposed regulations to implement Clause 21(1) of Bill C-155 will be laid before each House of Parliament. In fact, the procedure is that proposed regulations are presented in this House. As soon as they have been presented, they may or may not be referred to Committee. I may refer the Members of the Opposition to Clauses 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of Bill C-155.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Therefore, as indicated in Clause 22, proposed regulations are laid before each House of Parliament. That is what the Clause says. Second, fifteen Senators or thirty Members of the House of Commons may decide that the proposed regulations be referred to Committee. I must agree with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council said earlier, when he said: All right, 1 realize that to the New Democratic Party, thirty Members may be a bit much if they happen to be the only ones to want a debate on the issue, especially since they cannot be certain about their Party's future. However, thirty Members is still less than 10 per cent of the full membership of the House. I repeat, to say that the Government is taking too big a slice of the pie is taking a rather exaggerated view of one's democratic rights.
Therefore, fifteen Senators or thirty Members of the House of Commons may refer to Committee-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 wonder if the Hon. Member would be kind enough to entertain a question at this time?


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have yet reached questions, and I would therefore like to finish what I have to say, and perhaps later I could answer one of the Hon. Member's questions.
I myself, although unfortunately I have not had occasion to do so, have a number of questions to put to the Members of the New Democratic Party, because when we went to British Columbia, we heard comments by mayors of municipalities of British Columbia who said they failed to understand how throughout the debate on the Crow, the New Democratic Party Members, and they were very clear about this, had neglected to defend the interests of the people of British Columbia just so they could read a series of petitions. Mr. Speaker, we would have to look at the text of the comments made by the mayors of four municipalities. I do not remember their names, when we sat in Vancouver in August, and then we could see, or possibly hear, but in any case we could see exactly what was said, and I am sure that all Members of this House would find it very useful to know the views of British Columbia taxpayers on the performance of the Members of the New Democratic Party.
In any case, what is also important in this Bill is that a committee to which a proposed regulation-
Here I am reading Clause 22(3) of the Bill:
A committee to which a proposed regulation is referred under subsection (2) shall forthwith consider the proposed regulation and report thereon to the Senate or House of Commons, as the case may be, within thirty sitting days after the referral is made.
Now, since this afternoon-I realize I may have missed some of the debate-all I heard Members discussing was this one hour of debate in the House of Commons. However, the

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Clause goes on to indicate that proposed regulations will be examined for thirty days before the Committee to which they have been referred.
1 think that once the debate on Bill C-155 is over, it would be extremely unfortunate if the first time proposed regulations are laid before the House or its Committees, we would again have to go through a full debate on the Crow in one or two or five years. In the West, we were told by interested parties, both in public and in private, that it took guts to make changes in the Crow rate. They were congratulating us, and perhaps if Hon. Members would give me a chance, I could find in the committee proceedings the part where they congratulated us, and 1 am not saying that everyone was, because you cannot please everyone, but they were congratulating the Government for acting as it did, because it was not easy to deal with the Crow rate.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think there has been abuse. In committee, all these amendments did not give rise to any lengthy debate among the Parties. They were discussed only for a few minutes.
Not knowing whether the debate will be resumed or not is not the worst. The worst problem with the debate on changes in the Crow rate is that we don't know what the Opposition parties will be thinking tomorrow.
The New Democratic Party showed some consistency in the matter, on Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 and in the entire debate. It showed some back bone, because at least its Members were opposed. I do not agree with them, but at least they were opposed from the start. The Progressive Conservative Party has been less consistent in its policy. I think it is an open secret that the Progressive Conservative Party and its Members, as far as Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 and the rest of the debate is concerned, have changed position four or five times since the debate began. My problem is not whether Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49 and the clauses of this Bill to which amendments are being requested would constitute a valid subject of debate in the future, my problem is, how many times does the Progressive Conservative Party intend to change its position? Not long ago, I read an article in La terre de chez-nous by Mario Dumais. It was an editorial, under the heading: The Conservatives and the Crow. One party, three policies. Subsequently, in some comments of my own in the House, said "One party, four policies", because the Progressive Conservative Party had one policy in Quebec and another policy in the West, but in fact, it has none at all. During the debate in committee, if 1 remember correctly, they changed policies twice, and according to what we are hearing today, the Progressive Conservative Party would have us believe it favors the status quo. However, even the present leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), during the last leadership convention, insisted that the Government was going in the right direction. He was discussing the changes in Bill C-155, tabled in May. He insisted that the Government was going in
the right direction. He said that the then Minister of Transport should perhaps be willing to compromise, but that he was on the right track with Bill C-155. Since then, we all know what happened. One evening, the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was sitting in committee, and he probably decided it was his party's official position, you never can tell with the Progressive Conservative Party, but it probably was, and he suggested maintaining the status quo on the Crow rate.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, and 1 would like to conclude on this note, I feel that as far as what has been said up to now about the motions before the House, there has been a marked tendency to ignore the fact that the Committees of the House of Commons would also have a function, and that these Committees would be asked to go through, to scrutinize proposed regulations, that they would be able to meet for up to thirty days-1 am referring to Clause 22(3)-and that in fact, the hour of debate that would take place here in the House of Commons would represent the official position of the Parties, considering that at the committee stage, it should have been possible to go through all the minor flaws that might be present in these proposed regulations.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Hon. Member now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Perhaps 1 should explain that it is not up to the Chair to decide whether the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville may put a question but to the Hon. Member himself to either agree or refuse to entertain the question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) mentioned that democracy is very important in our country. However, according to Bill C-155, to refer the regulations to Committee requires a notice signed by fifteen Senators or thirty Members of the House of Commons, and I would like to know whether there is not a difference between Senators and Members of the House of Commons, since the latter or elected by the people, by the general public, and Senators are appointed by the Prime Minister. That is not democracy at all. Does the Hon. Member agree that this clause is not a truly democratic clause, since Senators are not elected? Does he agree with the principle of elected Senators, or does he agree with an anti-democratic system?


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's comments are entirely beside the point, and that he should urge the Members of his Party to attend the meetings of the Committee on Senate Reform more often, instead of asking whether or not Senators, because they are appointed, should or should not have the right to refer proposed regulations to Committee. That is not the problem, since the New Democratic Party has, at the present time, more than thirty Members in the House-
October 31, 1983


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, indeed!


Gaston Gourde: -and, since they have more than thirty Members, this means that today, if the matter were laid before the House, Members of the New Democratic Party could refer proposed regulations to Committee, and 1 think that is very democratic. We must not forget that it is probably the first time in this House that a Government or Party has decided to suggest to the House that proposed regulations be referred to it and to committee, and this is entirely new and to the credit of the present Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question? No Hon. Members having risen in order to be recognized, I presume the House must be ready for the question, which is on Motions Nos. 47, 48 and 49.
The question is on Motion No. 47 (Mr. Benjamin). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79( 11) the vote stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 48 (Mr. Mazankowski).
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the vote stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 49 (Mr. Benjamin). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
Western Grain Transportation Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11) the vote stands deferred.
1 understand that Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53 have been grouped for debate. Motion No. 50 is to be voted on separately.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 50
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 14 the following:
"(3) A railway company shall, in a subsequent calendar year, invest in railway equipment and plant for the movement of grain an amount not less than the after tax cost of capital, after tax depreciation, and after tax constant cost portion of payments it received under section 55 for the prccecding crop year."
and by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette) moved:: Motion No. 52
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page 15.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 53
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page 15.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this group of amendments-Motions No. 50 and No. 53 in my name, and Motion No. 52 in the name of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer)-have been lumped together by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) as being frivolous I will not bother dealing with the motion of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette. I presume that Motion No. 58 is frivolous and the Hon. Members do not want the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) to debate that one.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would just call to the attention of the Chair that I understood we were debating Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster caught up. I will deal, Mr. Speaker, with Motions Nos. 50 and 53 and I will leave the other motion to the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette, and I hope that he can persuade his colleagues that it is not a frivolous motion.
Motion No. 50, Mr. Speaker, deals with what the railways will do with any profits made as a result of this legislation. We have submitted for a number of years, Sir, that the railways should not be allowed to make a profit on any public funds that are provided by way of investments; that if there is a profit, it should either be reinvested or returned to the inves-

Western Grain Transportation Act
tors. 1 leave myself open for criticism from my own Party for recommending this free, private enterprise, sound business practice. However, the investor is entitled to two things. He is entitled to have any profits reinvested in capital improvements or he is entitled to a dividend or interest, either one. He is entitled to a fair return on his investment.
In this case, it is the taxpayers who are putting up the money. It seems to me that the ordinary taxpayer is just as entitled to a return on his investment as he would be if he walked to his favourite broker and invested money as an individual investor. It seems to me the taxpayers are just as entitled to an opportunity to have a return. Through this motion, Mr. Speaker, we are saying that any profits made by the railways for the movement of grain not less than after-tax cost of capital, after-tax depreciation and after-tax constant cost portion be reinvested in capital improvements to the rail system. In other words, we would like to see that any surplus funds will not leak out to the private individual shareholders of Canadian Pacific Limited and will not leak out into investments in other things like more shopping centres or highrise luxury apartments in California or another nickel mine in Indonesia. We would like to see any surplus that the railways have reinvested in the railway plant.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Dividends.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Reinvestment is a kind of dividend, Mr. Speaker, that benefits the whole country. The taxpayers, representing the entire population of the country, have made that investment on their own behalf and on behalf of the country. Therefore, Sir, the best return on that investment is for those surplus funds to be reinvested in the expansion of the railway system in every part of the country, not only in the West. The system should be upgraded not only on railway lines or in tunnels but in signal systems, higher speed trains and new and advanced technology as it comes onstream. That reinvestment should be a continuing process.
We in the country, Sir, have seen a boom and bust cycle in investment in the railway transportation system as well as in other modes of transportation. A transportation system will go for 10, 12 or 15 years letting the plant deteriorate and falling way behind in new technology. Then, all of a sudden, when tracks are grown over with weeds and the capacity is insufficient, the railways want to again dip into the taxpayers' pockets. As the railways have been doing since 1881 and since 1923, if there are any surplus funds, the railways will run off with them and invest them in something else. When are we going to put a stop to that, Mr. Speaker?
Another motion that we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, is Motion No. 53. I am happy that the motion of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is worded in exactly the same as my motion which the Hon. Member for Vegreville has called frivolous. 1 hope he will explain that to the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, your comments are frivolous; that's what I meant.
October 31, 1983


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, this motion deals with confidentiality; that is that any information given to the Grain Transportation Committee or the Grain Transportation Administrator by the railways will be kept confidential. This Parliament, successive Governments since 1881, the Canadian Transport Commission, before that the old Board of Transport Commissioners and even before that the Commission on Telegraphs, Canals and Railroads, have all been denied access to information from the railways because of confidentiality. For Government agencies to get information has been like pulling teeth. Ten years ago when the railways applied to abandon the transcontinental passenger trains, the Canadian Transport Commission had a heck of a time getting information. Then when it did get information, that information had to be kept confidential. The Commission arrived at a costing order with which 1 am not sure even it was satisfied. In fact, 1 do not think it was. However, it was based on the figures of the railways which had to be kept confidential.
It has also been put to us by the railways for decades, Mr. Speaker, that those figures must be kept confidential in the name of competition and in order to keep private internal corporation information private so that competitors do not have access to it. What competitors are the railways speaking off? Canadian National and Canadian Pacific compete in name only. They will drop their prices at competitive points, but their prices always remain the same. The overwhelming majority of their shipping points and probably 75 per cent to 90 per cent of their trackage is located hundreds of miles apart. There is no competition; the shippers are captive.
I recall hearing about an incident that occurred regarding a potash mine in Saskatchewan back in 1969-70, a time when international prices on potash products went down the drain. Products that were going for $24 to $30 a ton had dropped to $9, $10 or $11 a ton. In any event, this new potash mine asked the railways for a rate from Colonsay to Vancouver. Officials of this mine waited weeks and months, and finally a rate was quoted to them from each railway. Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, the rate quoted from each railway company was exactly the same. It did not matter which railway the mining company shipped on. The price had nothing to do with miles. Officials of the potash company could not figure out how the railways arrived at that rate.
I will never forget hearing the general manager of that potash company telling me about the findings of the transportation and tariff experts at their company in Gallup, New Mexico. Those experts spent weeks trying to figure out how CN and CP arrived at that rate. The railways were competitive in this case; they both had a spur track into that same mine. Finally, one day, by pure accident, one of the experts opened a tariff book and happened to be going through the tariffs of the Santa Fe railways from Gallup, New Mexico, to San Diego. He found the potash rate there. The rate that was provided to the company by these competitors, CN and CP, which has to be kept confidential, was identical to the rate charged by Santa Fe from Gallup, New Mexico, to San Diego.
October 31, 1983

The rate was not related in any way to the number of miles travelled or to the nature of the terrain.
The excuse of confidentiality in the name of competition does not hold water. As it pertains to the railways, it has never held water. We can no longer let the railways use that excuse. It is another form of Blackmail. Officials of the railways say: "We will not give you the information unless it is confidential, and if it is not going to be confidential, we will not give it to you." Therefore, a member of a Government agency such as the Grain Transportation Administrator will be handcuffed when making decisions. The Senior Grain Transportation Committee will be handcuffed unless it agrees that the information is confidential and legislation will require that it be confidential.
The right of the public to have access to this information is involved here as well. There have been many contentious instances in the last number of years both here and in the United States regarding freedom of information, and when disclosure was finally forced, it really did not affect at all the competitive position of the companies concerned. That myth should be put to rest once and for all in this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Information should not only be not confidential but as well it should be mandatory that any information that the Grain Transportation Administrator or advisory committee want should be provided by the railways. It should be entirely up to the people receiving that information to decide whether any or all of it will be confidential. For that matter, the same provision should apply to the Canadian Transport Commission not only concerning railroads but other modes of transportation as well.
We believe that Motion No. 50 and Motion No. 53 meet the kind of criteria that are in place in many parts of the world for transportation not only of grain but many other commodities. It is in place among modes of transportation in many parts of the world as between different participants in each transportation mode as well as between the transportation modes themselves. Surely it is unnecessary to continue maintaining or adding legislation that perpetuates the past practices of confidentiality and the investing of surpluses from funds received from taxpayers. Surely it is time to put a halt to those practices which have been going on for the last 102 years.
The issue of confidentiality is no longer valid. It is no longer relevant to the duties that we place upon the agency established under this legislation. Similarly, it is long past due that surpluses which are made on money invested by the taxpayer should at least be re-invested in that plant. The two choices are to reinvest it or return to the taxpayers a dividend or interest on their money. I prefer the former option because we will need a minimum of $2 billion or $3 billion a year not just for the next decade but for the next 20 or 30 years in order to bring our transportation system, particularly the rail system, up to the level at which it should be.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, usually it is a pleasure to speak to legislation, but in some ways
Western Grain Transportation Act it is not a pleasure when one must deal with a Bill such as this and the amendments to it which are before us.
At the outset let me respond to the concern expressed by the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) about being frivolous. Certainly any amendment taken by itself cannot be considered frivolous. Certainly it cannot be considered frivolous if one looks at the Speaker's ruling on it. If they were frivolous, they would not have been allowed.
I suggest that it is all relative because when one considers the number of motions that have been accepted, some of them are much more important than others. The Hon. Member for Regina West has been talking about information to the railroads and other matters instead of using our limited time in the House as a result of the disgraceful closure on this Bill to talk about some very substantive measures in this Bill, such as a method of payment, the freeze, the $450 billion in the B.C. coal lands. If he believes that he is doing a good service to his constituents, the producers whom he represents, by talking about the information railways will be putting out, then I suggest that he is being frivolous in his actions in the House. That is precisely what the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was referring to.
Furthermore, of all the Members in that part of the House, the Hon. Member for Regina West should know that better than any one else because he was the only Member from the NDP on the committee during the summer. He is the one who should know what are the substantive issues in this Bill, and which measures are important and should be discussed here during the limited time available to us. His concern about being referred to as frivolous simply points out the nonsensical, frivolous, philosophical and ideological position that the NDP has taken throughout the debate.
Our Party has attempted, and in many ways succeeded, in improving a Bill that is very bad. It remains a poor Bill despite our best efforts to improve it. I do not take a lot of satisfaction in saying that the NDP, who represents areas on the Prairies from where I come, has not seen fit to take part in improving what we consider a bad Bill despite our efforts to improve it. The point is that when we should be discussing measures that are of substantial importance to the producers in the part of the country that I represent, the NDP is using the little time that is available to us to debate this Bill to talk about what are basically frivolous amendments when compared to the more substantial motions in this Bill. That is all I will say with respect to the NDP and the Member for Regina West.
1 will not use the full ten minutes allotted to me because there is little time to debate this Bill. Since we need to get on with it, the NDP should let us do so and stop putting up a speaker on every motion. Surely Members of that Party do not need to have the whole caucus talk about information being available from the railway. Surely they could simply put up one or two speakers so that we could proceed to debating the important amendments in this Bill.
Let me talk briefly about Motion No. 52. It simply states that Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 10 to 15. Those lines state:

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
(5) The members of the Committee shall treat in a confidential manner any information submitted under this section that is identified and treated as confidential by the railway company that submitted the information.
Surely if the Senior Grain Transportation Committee will be able to function, it must have access to information. This motion seeks to ensure that the railway company itself should not be in a position to decide what is classified and what is not. I understand that the Government will not accept our amendment. The Government is asking that members of the committee shall have access to the information. However, Clause 68 states that "Schedule I to the Access to Information Act is amended by adding thereto." Therefore there is a clause in the Bill that provides the access to information. But when we deal with the information that the railways should be making available to people other than those on the Commission, the railways will be allowed to decide what should be classified and what should stay with the members of the committee. That does not make sense to me.
1 also question why only the members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee should have access to this information. 1 believe that the Government is involved, including the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and the Governor in Council, as a result of the substantial sums of money provided for in this Bill. They are involved with respect to providing rolling stock for the railways. I do not understand why this section allows the railways to limit the information available only to the committee by simply saying that it is classified or shall be treated as confidential and therefore not provide it to anyone but members of the committee. At the very least, this information could be made available to the Minister.
I also believe that this clause is unnecessary. The exclusion of this clause would make the Bill much more straightforward and would make information more available to the public and producers. The Government's refusal to accept our amendment is another example of how this Bill is written for the railways' interest and not the producers. Surely it is the producers who will be paying increases in costs based on some of the costs the railways say they will incur. Therefore, it should be incumbent upon Members of Parliament who are establishing this legislation to ensure that those who will be paying those increases in the future have access to this information. I submit this would be a much better Bill, a much cleaner Bill, it would be simple to read and to administer and it would be in everybody's interest if Clause 5 were simply deleted.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to rise to participate in the debate on Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53. Motions Nos. 50 and 53 stand in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), my colleague. In addressing Motion No. 50, I just want to put on the record our amendment which reads as follows:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by adding immediately after line 45 at page 14 the following:
"(3) A railway company shall, in a subsequent calendar year, invest in
railway equipment and plant for the movement of grain an amount not less
than the after tax cost of capital, after tax depreciation, and after tax constant
cost portion of payments it received under section 55 for the preceeding crop
year."
and by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.
The intent of that amendment, to put it briefly, is to require the railroads to reinvest any surplus funds received from public moneys paid to them under the legislation.
The principle underlying that intent and our amendment is that public moneys should be put up to increase rail capacity and enhance the transportation system for grain. Public moneys should not be paid to the railroads to enhance their profit position.
I want to make it very clear that we do not have any argument with the proposition that public moneys or subsidies, in the case of retaining or maintaining an essential service such as the railways provided to many parts of this country, should be used not only to maintain those facilities but to protect the profit position of the railroads in doing that. Our objection is that unless there are adequate safeguards, it is not the purpose of public funds to further enhance those profits beyond what the railroads would be able to earn in normal circumstances in their operation. Protection, yes. Enhancement or expansion, no.
Let me deal briefly with Motion No. 53, which reads:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page 15.
The intent is to remove the provision of the legislation that would require the members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to treat as confidential any information declared to be so by the railroads.
The purpose is that the railroads should not have the right to impose secrecy on the committee. It could come to pass that public disclosure of information would be one of the most effective ways available to the committee to fulfil its mandate. Decisions on the confidential nature of its deliberations or the information available to it should be the prerogative of the committee, not the railroads.
In discussing that, I think it is fairly common knowledge that one of the major arguments for confidentiality when dealing with the activities of a corporation are normally that you protect that confidentiality in order that the corporation not have its information leaked in such a way as might benefit its competitors. I do not know whether the CPR is worried that I or some of my colleagues or anyone of a group of citizens will start up another railroad in competition with it. But clearly in terms of the railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway in particular, it is not a threat by its competitors of which they might make use to the disadvantage of the CPR. It is not one of the major considerations we have to be dealing with.
Seeing that there is no major reason for that confidentiality, particularly not confidentiality that would not immediately be perceived to place the company at risk by members of the committee exercising their duties, surely there is no other reason for writing a carte blanche exclusion for putting a window into the affairs of a corporation which, over the years, has been, is and will be receiving billions and billions of dollars
October 31, 1983

from the public purse. Unless there is a very compelling reason for secrecy, and if there is a compelling reason, members of the committee should be the first to see it, then the operating rules and the expenditures of public funds should be made known directly not only to representatives of the public but to members of the public themselves who should have the right to know on what their money is being spent. They should be able to judge for themselves, not just through the minds of their legislators whether or not those funds are being expended in the most wise and judicious manner.
That seems to me to be an argument that would be difficult to counter in any realistic way. 1 would hope that if the Government intends to vote against this amendment, which I think is exactly the same wording as Motion No. 52, the PC amendment, we would have at least some explanation other than a vote against our amendments from representatives of the Government.
In terms of the need of the public to know what is happening with respect to the expenditure of public funds and, further, as to whether or not public funds should be expended by the billions of dollars without some return coming to the public for its investment, I think it is worthwhile to take a look at some local experiences, not only within the West Kootenays but elsewhere: I hope other Members will look at the experiences they have had with the railways in their areas. All of us, at least in western Canada, have had experience from time to time with rail line abandonment applications. I know we have had two attempts to abandon a certain stretch of railway between Nakusp and New Denver in my constituency in 1974, 1975, 1976 and again in 1980-81. It has been interesting to take a look at what was demanded of the railway when ordered to maintain the line when the railway was ordered in the 1974-75 hearings to upgrade certain portions of it. In the intervening five or six years we were still left with a line to which, in the view of many of the participants in the 1980 hearings, virtually nothing of consequence had been done to comply with the orders of the CTC. If that is the continuing result-and I know from discussions with my colleagues that similar things have happened in areas right across the West and, I suspect, in the rest of Canada as well-then it is not enough to decide after the fact whether or not the taxpayers' funds that we turn over to the railway by the billions and billions of dollars have been expended for the purposes which not only were recommended but for the tasks which were ordered by the Government agency responsible. It is not enough to look five or six years later and say, "Did they do the job and did they expend the funds in the way that we told them those funds must be expended?" You need to have a mechanism. One of them is to ensure that you invest in equity for purposes of modernization and upgrading of the railways so that you have some direct voice. Hopefully, the voice will become more meaningful in the future than it has been in many cases in the past, especially in terms of the CN, to ensure that the purposes for which the public funds are expended are met and complied with.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Let me read from a submission of the Nakusp and District Chamber of Commerce to the abandonment hearings on September 19, 1980, where we find:
In our reviewing of past history, including the hearing of five years ago, it is evident that the CPR is continuing to defy past orders to improve this rail line plus they are trucking in fuel to the oil bulk plants and destroying what should be their own efforts to make the line pay.
It is just one example of the nightmare story of what has happened to the railways throughout the West over the past number of decades. They have made no effort to maintain many of their lines where for their own reasons they wanted to scrap or abandon them. As they did with passenger services on many occasions, they have done the same with freight lines. They have taken steps which tend to make rail lines look more uneconomic than they are so that they can be relieved of their proper responsibilities.
Surely it is an adequate argument to say that we must have access to the information and that we must be able to relay all information from investigative proceedings to the public we represent. Surely that is not too much to ask. We are being asked to spend billions of dollars of public money, tax dollars of hard working people, from one end of the country to the other. Surely we should insist upon having a direct voice in the management and decisions of the railways. Up to now many of their decisions have not been in the interests of the public. In fact, they have been diametrically opposed, especially when they have undermined in a very calculated way both the railway services and the communities they serve.
I hope Hon. Members opposite will give some explanation fairly soon as to why in certain circumstances they would be opposed to our amendments, unless of course they have had a change of heart and will support them.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) did not address himself to Motion No. 50 which, in this group of motions, is really the substantive one before the House.
In Motion No. 50 we are talking about the fact that the Bill provides a guaranteed income to railways but it does not guarantee particular services or reinvestment in railways. That guaranteed income is 20 per cent over operating costs, in laymen's language, and 20 per cent over the fixed and capital costs and return on investment, most of which we all know was made by taxpayers of Canada. In the case of CNR, all of it was made by the taxpayers; in the case of CPR, a major portion of it was provided by taxpayers.
Motion No. 50 puts some backbone into Clause 29 which deals with the ongoing capital investment of railways. Clause 29 requires that the railways indicate how much they will spend on improvements and capital investments during the next year. The Government is supposed to monitor this investment. Grain growers and taxpayers in Canada will provide a subsidy to the railways which, the implication is, they will use to increase the viability and quality of the grain transportation system. In this amendment we are asking for guarantees on

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
investments and on fixed costs or constant costs to be linked to the Government's request or requirement of the railways. In fact, guarantees of investment should be linked by the Government to the investment of the railways and the amount they are paid from capital investments. This is covered in Section 55 which requires certain payments to the railways, gives the Government power to hold back certain amounts of money from them and requires them to fulfil their commitments on track maintenance, branch lines or any other requirement to enable them to operate efficiently. We are asking that the investments the railways are supposed to be making should be established relative to the returns they receive from investments, capital maintenance and fixed costs.
Clause 29 of the Bill contains a nebulous commitment on the part of railways to fulfil the requirements to make their operations viable. Motion No. 50 spells out the amounts which can be reasonably expected of investment by the railways. Ordinarily we would ask why this would be necessary. People who have lived in the West and have dealt with the railways know that it is necessary for a specific amount to be included. Over the years a considerable amount of taxpayers' money has been spent supposedly for upgrading railways. For example, a considerable amount was designated specifically to branch line rehabilitation, much of which was never spent. A considerable amount was designated to improve rail cars, much of which was never spent. Consequently, we cannot trust that the railways will use taxpayers' money for the purposes it was given and demand this kind of guarantee.
Also it is important to recognize that statements of intent to invest are produced on a yearly basis under the Act, but they do not commit the railways to making any kind of continued investment. At the beginning of the year they can say that they intend to do something, but within the statement there is no guarantee that they will fulfil the commitment. Our motion suggests that we want a guarantee relative to the money they are obtaining in subsidies from the Government. That is what we call them. They are subsidies because they are relative to the amount of investments made in railways in the past. If they are paid to railways, we want a guarantee that they will be used to develop a good system for many years to come.
As the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) suggested, we will need several billion dollars a year for the next 30 years to be assured that we will have a railway system which is capable of moving grain and all other necessary products in western Canada over the next few years to develop the economy of the West to the extent we feel it should be developed.
The history of public aid to the railways, which Bill C-155 will perpetuate, will continue. The railways will receive continued aid and a guaranteed annual income. The money that flows to the railroads, which is supposed to be returned to the public, and services and guarantees of service do not necessarily occur. As it stands, Bill C-155 does nothing to improve this
position. We have put forward this amendment to improve that.
As a matter of history, let us put on the record the kind of public assistance that Canadian Pacific Railways has taken from the taxpayers of Canada in the last few years. The Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation said the Canadian Pacific received the following public assistance as of 1916: Railways and services completed by the Government, $37 million; cash aid, $66 million; value of unsold lands, $119 million; returns from the land sold minus cost of improvement, $55 million; for a total of identifiable aid in a matter of approximately 30 years of something over $279 million.
If you adjust that and other presentations to the CPR for longer periods of time to present value, those investments would be $8.3 billion. We feel very strongly that we must have some guarantee that further money from the taxpayers will be returned to us in some kind of service. If after having received $8 billion they still give the kind of service they do, there is no way that we can guarantee that we will not receive the same kind of service in the future unless we define very definitely in this Act the kind of investment they must make each year relative to the subsidies they receive. We are not asking them to take their own money and put it back in. We are giving them this money and we want them to use it on building up the railways so that they will be better and we can be guaranteed some kind of service.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this sitting of the House continue beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of considering the report stage of Bill C-155.
I move that under the provisions of Standing Order 8(4)(a).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion seems to be in order. I will put the question. Those Members who object to the motion will please rise in their place. There being no Members rising in their place to object to the motion, the motion is deemed to have been carried.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thank Hon. Members for allowing additional time to debate the very important substantive amendments that have yet to be debated, thanks to the New Democratic Party who denied earlier the House the opportunity of debating some of the very fundamental, integral and vital parts of this Bill.
Perhaps through the extension of time we will have an opportunity to debate the safety net, the method of payment, the farmer's ability to pay, the B.C. coal lands and other matters of that nature. We in this Party have come here to debate this issue to try to work toward a better Bill and a more satisfactory solution than that which is contained in Bill C-155. We hope that the people of Canada will recognize that throughout the course of our deliberations ours has not been one of obstruction and stonewalling, but one of constructive criticism and providing constructive proposals.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.
October 31, 1983


Donald Frank Mazankowski: October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Bill C-155 clearly discriminates against these groups by encouraging farmers, through its subsidy structure, to produce grain for the export markets. The biggest loser is the western Canadian agri-business. By paying the Crow benefit to the railways the Government deals a near-death blow to the existing future agricultural processing in western Canada. There are many reasons why this Bill is wrong. It does not provide an enabling device to change the method of payment at some future time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: ment insurance gets a few extra dollars or if someone owes a few extra dollars in taxes, they are liable to be taken to court and fined by the federal Government. It is not fair and it is not just, Mr. Speaker. It is an economic system that must be changed and it will only be changed if people, through Parliament, say to the CPR that the people of Canada are the boss and they want a transportation system that is run on their behalf. If they are going to give money to the CPR they should take equity in the railway. We do not have the liberty of throwing away the taxpayers' money on the CPR or any other large corporation in the country. For these reasons 1 appeal to all Members of the House to pass Motion No. 50. If we do not, the CPR will ask for more of the same.
1 have some very interesting statistics here from the annual reports of the CN and the CPR showing how much they have invested in railways in Canada in 1981. The CPR invested $511 million and CPR $317 million for a total of $828 million. Adjusted to 1983 dollars that comes to $ 1.33 billion.
The plan of the former Minister is called the "Pepin plan" in the west. It calls for less money to be spent now than was spent in 1981. For the CNR it is $491 million and for CPR $315 million for a total of $806 million. That is a decrease of 22 per cent for the CNR and a decrease of 20.5 per cent for CP. That is another reason for Motion No. 50. It would make sure that in the years ahead the railways would invest at least as much as they invested last year on improving the rail lines.
For these reasons I suggest that Motion No. 50 be adopted. It would make sure that farmers in all constituencies would receive a better rail service. I could name rail lines in the Melville area, in the Yorkton area, and in the Kamsack area and tell horror story after horror story about them.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I could go on and on giving concrete examples that would persuade you, as a big city Member of Parliament, of the necessity of passing Motion No. 50. It would assure my constituents of some value for the handouts they have given to that welfare bum year after year. It has taken more out of the pockets of my constituents than any other corporation or institution in the country. I am not going to stand for it, Mr. Speaker, and if you will give me extra time I am prepared to put on the record some examples of where that kind of money could be used in my constituency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Does the Hon. Member seek unanimous consent to continue, as he knows, his time has expired?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) to continue?


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-155, especially at this stage where we are discussing, more specifically, Motion No. 50, presented by the representative of the New Democratic Party. A careful scrutiny of Bill C-155 shows that in Clause 29, provision has been made for obliging railway companies to submit to the Canadian Transport Commission, to the Administrator and to the Senior Grain Commission, to the Administrator and to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, investment plans and programs by which users, that is, grain producers, will be assured of a sufficient number of railway cars and adequate railway facilities as such.
Sub-clause 2 of Clause 29 sets the criteria for monitoring programs and investments.
Mr. Speaker, sub-clause (2) was added to the initial Bill, following extremely useful and interesting discussions among Government Members, the Official Opposition and New Democratic Party Members.
I feel that all important points have been covered and that the railway companies are being asked to make a very serious commitment, looking only at the obligation to submit their investment plan for the current calendar year, to state subsequently what their results have been, while the Commission or Committee is to annually verify the investments requested, analyze the general investment plans and especially the expenditures incurred by these investments.
Therefore, I feel that adopting Motion No. 50 as proposed would be useless and redundant, since it adds absolutely nothing to the Bill itself, on the contrary, and I think that the real purpose of Motion No. 50 is to make the Members of the New Democratic Party feel they have achieved something. They blithely object to the fact that the Government of Canada, by helping the railway companies provide an adequate and necessary service in that part of our country is giving the railway companies a free ride. That is certainly not true if we consider the geography of our country, the enormous distances that must be travelled and the considerable cost to the railway companies if they are to provide the service required by their users, and, as we all know, since Section 262 of the Canadian Railway Act applies here, railway companies are obliged to provide that service.
As for confidentiality, this is referred to in Motions Nos. 52 and 53. I think it is a bit too much to demand that Members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee not be subject to the same rules of confidentiality as the Canadian Transport Commission. And especially, if we consider the quality or the importance of the members of the Senior Grain Transporta-

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act tion Committee. It consists of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, the chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission, the Administrator, Members representing grain producers from three provinces, including representatives of the Canadian Corporative Wheat Producers Organization and the United Grain Growers. Add to this representatives of the Canadian Wheat Pools, and all those engaged in the operation of grain elevators.
I think it is a bit too much to demand that documents or information submitted to this Committee, which is responsible for the management, administration and quality of users' services with respect to transportation of grain, not be subject to the same rules as the Canadian Transport Commission.
Mr. Speaker, it is 6:14 p.m., Monday, October 31, and I think that we are again debating a Bill that should have received the full support of Members on both sides of the House, if we consider the economic situation prevailing in Canada today and the commitment made by the Government of Canada and the railway companies with respect to the investments that must be made in the Provinces concerned, the thousands of jobs that must be created, that are being created by this Bill and by the funds that are being invested both by the Government and the railway companies, and when I consider the many hours that have been utterly wasted on motions and petitions presented by both opposition parties over a period of two days. And today, the Official Opposition has the audacity to ask us to sit beyond the normal time of adjournment of the House, which is 6 p.m. 1 just wonder how the Members of the Opposition, the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, expect people to take them seriously on this very important issue. We have lost a tremendous amount of time on this matter, and now they want to make up for lost time because everybody on both sides of the House is hoping that at last the House will be able to adjourn for a week.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that this Bill is extremely important to the railway industry, to the Government of Canada and even more so to railway users. And when Members decide to waste the time of the House in order to defend indefensible options which in some ways run counter to the public interest, I hope you will allow me to censure this attitude on the part of the Opposition.
As for the motions before the House, Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53, I think they add nothing at all to the Bill. On the contrary, Motions Nos. 52 and 53 weaken the Bill, and Motion No. 50 does not add anything as such and even diminishes the impact of the Bill through finicky measures that would require railway companies to provide details or information, as well as investments in proportion to taxes payable to the Government.
The Government of Canada has always invested enormous sums in railway transportation. The railways are part of our history, and Canada owes its present position on the international market, especially with respect to grain sales, to the
development of its railway network. Today, we must upgrade our railway facilities and ensure that Western grain producers get better service from the railway companies. This is a commitment that should be dear to the heart of all Canadians. By objecting to the passage of this Bill, the Official Opposition and the Members of the New Democratic Party are merely postponing measures that are necessary and indispensable for Western grain producers and for the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we shall get through this Bill this week and that Canadians will finally be able to take advantage of the benefits, both direct and indirect, of this legislation.
As I see it, this Bill was the result of a presentation made by a large number of Canadians and parties concerned by these measures, including grain producers, elevator operators, railway companies and railway users engaged in the shipping of goods other than grain. We all know that our present railway system is not adequate to carry all the commodities and consumer goods that must be transported, and I think today, more than ever before, after the many hours wasted as a result of the inconsistency or lack of judgment of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party Members, we should have the common sense to adopt a Bill that is absolutely essential to the Canadian economy.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53, I would just at this time draw to the attention of the House that now, because of a motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Vegreviile (Mr. Mazankowski), we are attempting to debate these motions and get to those matters which most people in Canada feel are at the crux of the problems with its legislation; that is, whether the producers have the ability to pay, what the social ramifications of the increased cost will be on the fabric of western Canada, how the method of payment should be distributed, and whether the contributions of Government to the railroads should be distributed directly to the railroads or distributed to the producers in some form. We would also hope to deal with the issue of the British Columbia coal lands.
If we are successful in dealing with those very important issues it will be because of the responsibility this Party has shown in trying to debate them in a reasonable way. These are the issues that the people in our ridings want to have resolved and want to make the Government aware of. By making the Government aware, we hope the Government will respond to the wishes of the people who will be affected by these changes that we on this side of the House are proposing to correct.
It is encouraging that there have been at least two speakers from the Government side today. Those two Hon. Members travelled sporadically with the Standing Committee on Transport in western Canada and other parts of Canada this Summer. I am sure that the translation of the speech of the Hon. Member from the Government side who just spoke was
October 31, 1983

accurate. She mentioned how much support there was for this Bill and how many people want it passed. She said that we should get on with it and create all of these great and wonderful things the Government is promising through this Bill. However I do not see that the Bill is very promising. The Hon. Member who just spoke should certainly be aware of the facts because she did avail herself of the opportunity to travel across Canada with the Standing Committee on Transport. I was there and 1 did not hear anybody demand that this Bill be passed in its present form.
When individuals appeared before that committee who represented interests other than interests of grain producers or the cattle industry in western Canada and who wanted to see a change in the statutory rate and wanted added railway investment they were asked: "Do you want it done on the backs of the grain producers and the cattle feeders and the processing industry in the prairie basin? Do you want it so bad that it should be rammed through the House of Commons? Without exception, Mr. Speaker, they answered: "No, not on that basis. We want the added investment but we do not want to harm the grain producers or the cattle feeders or the processors in the prairie basin." That is what every group that appeared before us said, even those groups that mildly or even enthusiastically supported added investment in the railway system in western Canada. Those groups want to see a change but they do not want to see it done on the backs of the grain producers of western Canada.
1 am sure that the Hon. Member who just spoke realizes that fact, and was for some reason supporting her Party; a party which at this time needs support. 1 suppose that is why she made the personal decision to support this Bill.
When I look at Motion No. 50 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), it almost appears to me to be a form of nationalization. It is a very cumbersome way of forcing upon two corporations-one a Crown owned corporation and another a privately owned corporation-investment decisions that may or may not be in the best interests of those corporations. However, what is striking, Mr. Speaker, outside of the nationalization aspect of the motion, is that this Party put forward an amendment to Clause 29 during committee stage which would make it fairly straightforward that the railways are at liberty to make all of the necessary investments for grain movement. We said that the Canadian Transport Commission would be in the position to monitor and verify those investments. The commission would be verifying annually and reporting to the Minister on the investments made in the prior crop year. It would analyse the investment plans for the present and subsequent crop years, and within 90 days submit a report to the Minister on the appropriateness of those plans to ensure an adequate, reliable and effective railway service.
Thus the railways would be at liberty to use those funds and make those investments relating to grain movement, but they would have to contend with the Canadian Transport Commission rather than with people who have studied railway
Western Grain Transportation Act
performance and shortfalls or with an American based consulting firm.
Under the amendment to Clause 29, Mr. Speaker, the railways would make investments which would have to be verified by the Canadian Transport Commission which is composed of very capable commissioners located in the City of Saskatoon in western Canada, people who are very familiar with branch lines and with grain handling lines located in the western part of the country.
We might wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we have problems with this Bill and what the concerns are of the people in western Canada. My friend, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, quoted from a summary of western perspectives of the Crow by the Canada West Foundation. Just for the interest of those in the House, the goals and principal objectives of the Canada West Foundation are as follows:
1.	To initiate and conduct research programs regarding the economic and social characteristics and potentialities of western Canada.
2.	To initiate and conduct informational and educational programs to encourage an appreciation of the Canadian heritage and to stimulate an awareness of the future throughout western Canada.
The foundation agrees that Motion No. 50 deals with one of the biggest problems in the Bill. The Canada West Foundation explains why that is a concern to the people in western Canada who are involved in the basic movement of goods. That is explained on page 6 of the report under the heading "Railway Performance Guarantees" and reads as follows:
The Issue: A lack of trust by westerners of both the Federal Government and the railways has been one of the most significant stumbling blocks to an amicable settlement of the freight rates debate. This issue amounts to an attempt to balance the need to free railways from their serious economic squeeze in order to ensure the necessary large scale investments are undertaken and the need to offer some protection to Prairie farmers who represent in many respects a captive market.
That, Mr. Speaker, essentially expresses in one paragraph the concerns that were expressed during the three months of travel of the Standing Committee on Transport in western Canada. That captive market is at the mercy of the railways that, under this Bill, operate under a cost-plus system in perpetuity. We do not feel that the Government has provided adequate methods for making sure that those railways will not continue to add cost and add cost and come back to the public treasury of Canada to have those costs again increased.
Returning to the report of the Canada West Foundation, under the subheading "Provisions of Bill C-155", it reads:
Bill C-155 requires railways to submit investment information to the Canadian Transport Commission for review. The legislation also lays the groundwork for a system of sanctions and awards to railways to ensure that improvements are made to the system. If the railway investments arc deemed inadequate, the Minister of Transport is empowered to withhold a portion of the subsidy equal to what the railways ought to have spent.
We are debating Motion No. 50 together with the next motion, Motion No. 58, which stands in the name of an Hon. Member of the Conservative Party, and deals with the accommodation for traffic which would satisfy what the Canada West Foundation calls the "Western Response" to the problem by forcing the railways to spend money properly. The report reads as follows:

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Although most groups appear to be in agreement with the general principles contained in the proposed legislation, they would support amendments to the Bill providing for somewhat stricter control over railway performance.
That comes about, Mr. Speaker, because of the way the Bill was designed. I am not saying that the Government knowingly attempted this. I do not see how any Government could knowingly, with knowledge aforethought, design a Bill that is so disastrous as Bill C-155. I am sure, leaving aside all of the inadequacies of the present Government, even though it has traded pallbearers around the casket by shuffling Ministers, that this Government would not have done that knowingly.
What it did was establish a system which it built up in consultation with people it felt were experts in the field. Those people happened to be of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway. While I admit they are knowledgeable in their field, they are not the ones that one would suspect to be the best at defending the interests of the grain producers, the livestock feeders and processors in the prairie basin region. The railways are very good at looking after themselves, and the Government has accepted that. It said it would allow the railroads to write a Bill that guarantees them a 20 per cent return. That is something every grain producer and every cattle feeder in western Canada would love to have.
Therefore, when we reach the other amendments in this Bill that will cause the Government and the railroads to provide service and carry grain you will see the determination of this Party to ensure a good return for investment on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are discussing at this time deals with the type of monitoring which will be done to make certain that railway commitments are carried through. We believe this is probably one of the more substantive motions that we are offering and concerns one of the most important parts of the Bill.
I am very disappointed when someone who is supposedly knowledgeable about transportation matters, as is the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), stands up while we are discussing this motion to say that the NDP is offering frivolous motions and wasting the time of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And frivolous speeches.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: What we are doing here with our frivolous speeches, Mr. Mazankowski-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Order, Mr. Speaker.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: -is pointing out the real problems with Bills such as this that are supposed to be aimed at improving the railway system and the investment climate of the country. I do not know how any body can support a Bill that allows the Government to dip into the public purse and the purse of the farmers of this country to such an extent without having some form of assurance that the railways perform. There is no performance guarantee in this legislation, only something that
is similar to the old ironclad guarantee that we saw with the pipeline of a few years ago which never went anywhere. It is a guarantee from the railway companies to the former Minister of Transport and the present Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin). It is in the form of a letter from CN and CP who wrote to the Minister on January 28 of this year with a so-called commitment to invest $807 million in the railway system in 1983 if the Government cancels the Crows-nest Pass freight rate. After major concessions by the Government the railways have committed themselves to invest, in today's dollars, less than they had invested prior to doing away with the Crow.
In 1981 CN Rail invested $511 million and is now proposing under this new plan to expend $491 million in 1983 dollars, which would be a reduction in investment in real dollars of 22.9 per cent. That is not an investment but a reduction in investment.
Similarly, CP Rail, which actually invested $317 million in 1981, is proposing to invest $315 in 1983 dollars. The total investment for the two railways represents close to 21.9 per cent less in real dollars than that invested in 1981. That is the kind of guarantee that has been proposed under this Bill.
Motion No. 50 attempts to make the railways more accountable and provide the kind of employment initiatives that the Government continually says it is applying with this policy. We hear much about this employment initiative. However, we have no guarantees about what the railways will invest.
The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) who just spoke pointed out that we can rely on the Canadian Transport Commission. He said that the Canadian Transport Commission will make certain that investments take place. Virtually every Member of this House from western Canada, if they have been watching what is happening in their ridings, knows that this does not happen. We all have branch lines in our riding that come under some regulations from the CTC.
While the railways have been receiving money to maintain those branch lines the funds have never been spent on the branch lines. For instance, in the community of Wishart Bankend in my riding, the railways received several hundred thousand dollars to maintain that branch line before it was finally given up and abandoned. None of that money was spent on the branch line although it was specifically for that purpose. This means that the CTC does not necessarily provide the answer.
Many examples can be given to show that the CTC may rule or monitor but has no way of enforcing construction to take place or saying how expenditures will be made. The railways simply ignore the CTC until such time as the line is in such terrible shape that equipment can no longer be used on the track. The railways then apply for abandonment of the line which is granted many times.
Again, 1 cite the Wishart case as an example. Clearly, the railways received the money for five years, did nothing with the line or the physical plant on that line and then applied and
October 31, 1983

received from the CTC a total abandonment. That line is now completely abandoned.
These are the kinds of ironclad guarantees 1 am talking about and the kind of thing the former Minister was attempting to get. Since these guarantees are not in the Bill we believe that Motion No. 50 would attempt to establish some of those guarantees in the legislation.
1 indicated that in the letter to the former Minister on January 28 the railways made very few written commitments, and those few only for 1983. At the time, the Minister had been telling the House that the railways would be investing $16.5 billion in the coming decade. But the railways reserved for themselves the option of reducing that amount. They made it quite clear at the committee stage that their plans were not being presented to the committee and that they were not making any guarantees beyond 1983. In fact, they said in their letter of January 28, which was tabled:
Variations from this expectation could lead to changes in the railways' capital plan during the period beyond 1983.
That was from Canadian Pacific. Canadian National wrote:
-CN will inform you quarterly of capital investment progress with particular emphasis on major projects in western Canada, and a final review will be made at the end of 1983.
That statement came from the Crown corporation, the railway, over which the Minister would be expected to have some control.
There are even fewer guarantees from CP. Canadian Pacific is the railway which I submit has basically been built with the taxpayers' money and maintained to a great degree with the taxpayers' money. We get virtually nothing back from CP other than the strips of steel across the country.
What does that cost us? The total identifiable aid in 1916, when a royal commission looked into the matter in 1917, amounted to $279.5 million. That included railway and surveys completed by the Government of $37.8 million and direct cash aid of $66.9 million. The value of unsold lands is estimated at $119 million. Returns from lands sold minus the cost of improvements amount to something over $55 million.
Assuming a 5 per cent return on capital at that time, the present value in 1982 dollars of that aid would be $8.3 billion. If you add the present value of the subsidies for operating branch lines of some $2.9 billion you will see that the total current value of aid from federal sources to the CPR exceeds $11 billion and comes very close to the total current value of the CPR.
This company's shares have increased with the announcement of the policy change by more than 40 per cent in just five and a half months. It seems to me the market is guaging the policy proposal more accurately than some of the parliamentarians. The market has decided that the cash incentive this Parliament will give to the railways will be translated very directly into increased dividend payouts, in fact almost dollar
Western Grain Transportation Act
for dollar. It is a direct transfer from the people of Canada to the shareholders of CPR.


Mr. Stan Scheilenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on these motions. I am a little astounded as I follow the remarks of Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), particularly about two things, one being aid to the CPR. When we were intensively trying to convince the NDP to support payment of the $651 million to the producers rather than the railroads we got no support at all from those Members.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: What is the difference?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Surely, if there is concern about how the railroads were spending the money, then the support ought to have come for the payment to the producers so the producer had some way of ensuring his product was delivered in a proper fashion.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You pay the producer and charge him ten times rather than five times. What is the difference?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Now we see the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre has moved a motion which will, in effect, destroy the Crow.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The Hon. Member's motion refers to the number of percentage points by which the freight-to-price ratio in that calendar year exceeds 3 per cent; which means the shipper should not pay any more than 3 per cent. I see the Hon. Member is getting a little agitated. I can understand why. He will have a lot of problems defending what he has just put before the House.
If you look at the statistics, Mr. Speaker, you will find now that the producer is not paying any more than 2.5 per cent. That is the Crow rate today, not 3 per cent. The Hon. Member for Humbodt-Lake Centre has just stood in the House today and moved a motion that in effect destroys the Crow. What is this Party saying? You should not destroy the Crow. The farmers can in no way spend any more of their money for moving grain. That is why we proposed the Bill be frozen for three years.


An Hon. Member:: That's an act of desperation.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: What is the Member proposing? The NDP Members felt they had to put some motions forward that were not frivolous. They ran out and quickly tried to draft a few amendments to put them before the House for unanimous consent. They did not even know what they were doing.


An Hon. Member:: They copied a Government amendment.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The NDP and the Government have been together for some time. It is no wonder the NDP would copy a government amendment and put it before this House.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Members of the NDP will have to go to their prairie producers and try to defend this action but they will not be able to so. You can see what is happening by now in the polls, and it is no wonder, when you consider the way the New Democratic Party has operated in this House on this Bill.
Let us look at Clause 29 of the Bill. The NDP is trying to amend that clause through Motion No. 50. You will find that in committee the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) moved a clause that would provide verification of railway investments of the $651 million. That clause was substantially amended by this Party and agreed to by all sides of the House.
The NDP now comes forward and says that we should have restrictions under Motion No. 50 that in effect would allow the railroads to have after tax constant cost portion of payments allowed for the movement of grain. That is very difficult to support. I agree the railroads have not been very good in expending moneys voted by this Parliament in the manner in which we voted them; for example, for branch line upgrading. Many Members have stood in this House and put forward examples of how moneys have been voted for branch lines and nothing has been done with those branch lines.
It is important that we have verification of investment by railways. This amendment says that the Canadian Transport Commission will have the ability to look at past expenditures and decide whether they have been made in relation to the movement of grain. It will then be able to give a report to the Minister. I have great difficulty in being concerned about confidentiality as far as the railroads are concerned.
At the time we got into branch line difficulties the railroads were saying they were not making any money moving grain from branch lines, yet at the same time the railroads were running on those branch lines moving fuels, lumber, hardware and produce into those farm communities. Then they got into the trucking business. They found that the profits, of course, were greater by truck than by rail along the branch lines. Immediately there was an end to investment in the branch lines, despite the fact the grain had to go out by rail. That is why I have so much concern and difficulty understanding this need for confidentiality.
In Motions Nos. 52 and 53 we are proposing that there is no need for confidentiality as far as the information being requested from the railroads is concerned. In fact, most of the information that would be secured would be about investments made in the past, and would probably be in the annual reports of the companies at any rate.
My second, concern is whether or not the money involved in the $658 million proposal will be spent in an adequate fashion. That money is taxpayers' money. The information about how it is intended that that money be spent should be available to the taxpayers. Therefore, there is no need to have Clause 29(5) in the Bill, which reads:
The members of the Committee shall treat in a confidential manner any information submitted under this section that is identified and treated as confidential by the railway company that submitted the information.
That information ought to be made available to the public.
1 always have a little laugh about the railway's concern about competition. In my area there is only one railroad. There is no other railroad competing. The railroad has control over most of the trucking companies that run into those areas. Very few other trucking companies can compete. I have great difficulty in being concerned about the corporate confidentiality of investments in those areas where there is a monopoly. Even if that line were not a grain related line with a federal subsidy going to it, I would still have some difficulty supporting a clause like that. But when this relates to a grain carrying line, whether or not it is supported by direct investment from the Canadian public, then I have a great deal of difficulty in supporting that clause. That is why I strongly support the motions put forward to delete that clause from this Bill. Hon. Members should consider carefully which of the two amendments they should support. I suggest they preferably support ours because it appears first on the Order Paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


An Hon. Member:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The situation is difficult for the Chair. Apparently Hon. Members are outwaiting one another-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: -in due course I will put the question.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems in terms of Hon. Members who are rising to speak that they are playing the cat and mouse game. I appreciate the fact that Members of the Conservative Party moved us into extended hours because there are many motions. With time allocation placed on us by the Government, it does not seem that we will be able to deal with many of the important motions we would like to cover.
In light of that fact, and coming directly to my point of order, if it is important for other Parties in the House of Commons, not just the New Democratic Party, to see the Bill disposed of, we would like the Chair to seek the unanimous consent of the House, in keeping with the spirit of covering adequately all the amendments and motions, to remove the ten-minute limit on speeches. Hon. Members could then fully express their concerns about the various motions they want to cover this evening. Would the Chair seek unanimous consent of the House to dispose of the ten-minute time limit and seek either a 20-minute limitation or, more preferably, remove the limitation on the length of time Hon. Members can speak on any motion with which we are dealing during the extended hours?
It is uncertain as to when the extended hours will cease. I imagine they will cease when no more Members rise in their places or when we have covered all the motions with which we
October 31, 1983

want to deal during report stage of Bill C-155. I ask the Chair to seek unanimous consent of the House to dispose of the time limitation on speeches this evening for the remainder of extended hours.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We certainly would not have any objection to that. However, 1 re-emphasize that the basic reason for our Party moving the extension of hours was simply in the hope we would be able to get to what we consider to be some of the very fundamental issues and points which have yet to be debated.
Mr. Speaker, if you have followed the progress of the Bill, you will know that in the course of committee consideration we were not able to deal with the subject of the safety net because it was ruled out of order in that it went beyond the Royal Proclamation or the intent of the Bill as expressed in the vote on second reading. We were unable to debate in a meaningful way the issue of the method of payment because it was ruled out of order. While the particular subject of the British Columbia coal lands was debated somewhat, we were constrained in debating it fully by virtue of the time deadline on the committee. Originally the committee was to report on September 12, and there was a two-week extension. However, we ran out of time.
These are the things we were unable to debate fully. I have referred to the safety net. There was also our proposal which would result in the maintenance of the existing statutory freight rate until the review process was completed; that would be July 31, 1986. Also there was the whole question of the commission of inquiry. It was another issue that was not debated in committee because it was found to be beyond the scope of the Bill.
The thrust of our motion for extended hours was the hope and anticipation that we would be able to deal with those very important matters. If Parliament is to discharge its responsibilities in an effective manner, particularly on this very important and contentious Bill, a Bill which enjoys relatively little support, if any, other than from the railway sector, it is incumbent upon Parliament to debate it. Canadian people, in particular those in the agricultural community, are expecting their representatives to debate these important issues. Within the framework of those thoughts, 1 would hope Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party would reconsider their tactics and allow progress to be made so that we can get to those issues and have the opportunity to debate them.
Just a few moments ago a member of the Press Gallery telephoned and asked me when we were expected to debate the amendment of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) concerning the safety net. I said that if it went to the bottom of the list it might never happen. We would like to debate it. We would like to hear what the Minister has to say. We would like to hear him elaborate on what is meant by the 4 per cent and the 5 per cent escalating safety net.
I hope NDP Members will reconsider their tactics. We would certainly support an extension in the time limit of
Western Grain Transportation Act
speeches, but I implore them to allow the debate to move ahead. Surely it does not require 30 Members of that Party to debate a motion such as the one proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I will not comment on whether or not it is important. I think that issue was well dealt with by an amendment which was accepted by the committee. Here we are rehashing a lot of the information which was dealt with, in some detail, in committee. Some Hon. Members of the NDP are really trying to get their feet wet on this Bill. During the course of committee hearings they had one "Lone Ranger" who really carried the whole burden. Now all these followers, these trained seals, are trying to get into the act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Both the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) and the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) will recognize that the Chair has attempted in every way to facilitate them so that they might proceed. However, at this point I think the Hon. Member is entering into debate rather than a point of order.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, this is the first we have heard of the proposal of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). There seems to be some disposition on the part of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), however 1 am certainly not in a position to give unanimous consent right now. If we could defer any such decision until we have had time to consult and decide exactly the form of the proposal, there might possibly be unanimous consent at a later time. Perhaps we could now return to the debate on the motions, and in the meantime we could discuss these issues and attempt to come up with something which is agreeable to all Hon. Members. Perhaps we could reach an agreement a little later.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It is very difficult for me to give unanimous consent to extend the time length of the speeches of Members beyond ten minutes. If a Member cannot express himself in ten minutes, perhaps that Member should not be on his or her feet. I do not think the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) should get away with sloughing off all the blame on the NDP. Between those two Parties, they wasted two full days on the presentation of petitions, procedural wrangles and putting up speakers on one frivolous amendment after another. Now they want more time in which to debate, after wasting two full days of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair did try to
facilitate what Hon. Members appeared to be interested in. A point of order has to sound like a point of order, not a particular debate or attack on the Government. Let us keep to a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find that I do have a point of order. If the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that the presentation of petitions, a time-honoured

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act and perfectly legitimate form of making representations on behalf of Canadian citizens, is out of order and he is imputing that we on this side have engaged in that in a frivolous manner, I suggest that he reconsider those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Are there any other Members who wish to address the point of order? Does the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) rise on the same point of order?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Yes I do, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I would ask the Hon. Member, now that we have reverted to a more reasonable application of the rules, to address himself to the point of order, not debate.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I did not think 1 was entering debate when 1 initiated the point of order. I was asking for unanimous consent that the time limitation on speeches be extended, not only the hours but the time limitation on speeches. This is the most complex piece of legislation that has come before Parliament in my time here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member should address himself to the point of order, not debate. If he wants me to put the question as to whether there is unanimous consent, I will do so. I know immediately that there is not unanimous consent. Would the Hon. Member take his seat please.


Douglas Keith Anguish: On a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will recognize the Hon. Member on a point of order as soon as I have completed putting the question.


Douglas Keith Anguish: It is on the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member may not speak twice on the same point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to take his seat while I put the question.


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 rise on a new point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake seeks unanimous consent of the House to remove the time limit of ten minutes on any and all speeches during this process of debate under Standing Order 8(4)(a). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I distinctly heard the Parliamentary Secretary rise in his place in this House and ask for time to consult with his Caucus. Subsequently you called for unanimous consent, although a
Member of the Government had asked for time to consult with his Caucus. I think it was very unfair to put that question to the House. If it had been on a different point of order, I suppose, or connected to that, they would have had time to consult and consider the wisdom of extending the time of the speeches.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I do not understand the Hon. Member's difficulty. There is no problem whatsoever in putting the same question to the House for unanimous consent later on. May I recognize Hon. Members for debate. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for ten minutes on the Crow debate. I have not spoken often in this debate. I want to speak to Motion No. 50. Before I do and as a preface to that, as a Member from Vancouver, British Columbia, I am against this Bill and the changes in the Crow rate. I admit there will be some benefits to railway construction and so on. However, those benefits would come about anyway. I am told by my colleagues who are doing a magnificent job of trying to block this change in the Crow rate that while we may get a billion dollars in investment down the line, our farmers will lose a billion dollars down the line.
I believe my colleagues. They are honest men. They are sincere. Unlike the Government, they know western Canada. They tell me that the whole way of life in western Canada will be changed as a result of this Bill and that a culture will be destroyed. That is serious. That is what makes this debate important.
1 listened to the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schel-lenberger). I thought what he said was in pretty bad taste. He referred to "the way the NDP have operated in this House". The NDP have operated in one way, consistently, unlike the Conservative Party. The NDP has consistently opposed the changes in the Crow rate. The NDP has consistently taken the position that this legislation is no good. The Conservatives, in proposing this debate, are basically, if 1 can use the expression, just trying to protect their asses in this debate tonight. They are trying to protect their inconsistent position and the fact that the people in western Canada are very disappointed with the Conservatives and the way they have conducted themselves throughout this whole Crow debate. They are not fooling anybody by pulling this act tonight.
Let me speak on Motion No. 50, which is why we are here. The way the situation is now, the railways can state their intent as to what they are going to do with investment each year. We say in Motion No. 50 that the railways should have to state the intent as to how they are going to invest in railway upgrading. We want to put a specific amount into the upgrading and investment so that a decade from now we will know that we will really have an upgraded rail system and that the investment was put to good use, not piddled away by the railways as they have done with public grants in the past. That seems to be reasonable. My colleagues in the NDP, especially the prairie Members, have made reasonable amendments
October 31, 1983

throughout. They have, unlike the Conservative Party, the branch plant of American Ronald Reaganism, been consistent.
Motion No. 50 puts some backbone in Clause 29 which deals with railway capital investment and Government monitoring of this investment in return for the subsidies which the railways will receive under this Bill. Specifically, we ask for guarantees of investment linked to Government payments to railways as outlined in Section 55. Section 55 gives the Government the power for holdbacks if the railways do not meet commitments for track maintenance on branch lines and investment in grain handling equipment. Our Motion No. 50 spells out the amount that can be reasonably expected in railway investment.
Why is this necessary? Because of the past and present railway statement of intention and investment. It is important that the country realize that railway statements of intention to invest are made on a yearly basis. The companies have made no statements committing themselves to the railway megaprojects that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) continually speaks of in this House. Second, there is a history of public aid to railways that Bill C-155 perpetuates. Money flows to the railways. The return to the public is always in the forms of regulations and guarantees of service and nothing happens with these guarantees and regulations. Bill C-155 does nothing to improve this.
Motion No. 50 sets identifiable levels rather than nebulous ones. It does not guarantee the public equity in the CPR that we would really like. At least it makes the company put its money substantially into grain-related items rather than nontransport, non-Canadian items which CPR has helped itself to in recent years, such as buying railroads in the United States.
That is what we are trying to do in Motion No. 50. Those of us who come from Vancouver-after all, the CPR got half of Vancouver as a result of the famous settlement to build the transcontinental railways-know that you have to keep close tabs on what they do with the public grants that they receive. The CPR has been the biggest corporate welfare bum in the history of Canada. Motion No. 53 deletes the provision of confidentiality. It is the same as Conservative Motion No. 52. I agree with what the Member for Wetaskiwin said on this.
Let me conclude with these two remarks. First, Motion No. 50 makes sense. It is a practical motion and a good motion. It requires the railways to put their investments where their mouth is. Finally, I take great umbrage at what the Conservatives have suggested to be the way the NDP has operated in this House. 1 have tried to make a speech in which I make a rational amendment and explain it in a practical way. I think that that is what we have been doing.
1 was at the Committee hearings in Vancouver. 1 could not go all across the country but I was in Vanouver and I saw the hearings. The NDP have been perfectly consistent. What you are seeing tonight is the Conservative Party trying to save their derrieres because they have been caught in the squeeze of offering an amendment to postpone the Crow changes for
Western Grain Transportation Act
three years. Either you are for the Crow changes or you are against the Crow changes. We are against the changes in the Crow because we are afraid that it will bring a tremendous cultural change and destroy the present prairie farm life. I can understand that cry from prairie farmers, even though I am from Vancouver. That is why I have supported my colleagues here tonight in this motion and in their general, consistent stand against changes in the Crow rate.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), and the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), have worked tirelessly and consistently on this Bill.
Tonight is a revealing evening. As we are coming closer to the end of this debate, it is the NDP who have made the greatest flip-flop in this House since Jack Horner joined the Liberals. Mr. Speaker, they and the Hon. Member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) say that this motion makes political sense, it makes economic sense, and it is consistent with the position the NDP have taken. Those are his words.
What does the motion say? It is as badly constructed as other motions by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I do not consider the Hon. Member for Regina West necessarily wanted to do this, but it again shows his lack of attention to detail. The NDP have been saying consistently that you cannot kill the Crow. They have been saying consistently no change. Today we have a motion which does just that. The NDP has moved an amendment which would kill the Crow, which would alter the Crow. They do not know what they are doing.


An Hon. Member:: Get a lawyer or learn to read.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member says get a lawyer. I think he is a farmer and I would think he also knows what the average price is that farmers are paying for the Crow.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He got a lawyer, you didn't.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: His amendment deals with the shipper share limitation adjustment, which in layman's language means what the average price paid for the commodity moved will be. Right now the average is 2'k per cent. What are they asking for? Three per cent.
Mr. Speaker, today they are asking for a 20 per cent increase to farmers to pay for the movement of grain.


An Hon. Member:: That is all the Government wanted in January.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They are as bad as the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: They are part of the Government.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I know some people would say that is impossible. I thought so too until tonight.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to debating with my colleague from Provencher (Mr. Epp) the motions that were presented today on which there was unanimous consent. He has yet to say a word about the motions that are in front of the House.


Erik Nielsen: Hurts, doesn't it?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since he and his colleague from Vegreville felt at liberty to complain about some of my colleagues' remarks, 1 would like to invite the Chair to invite the Member for Provencher to talk about the motions that are on the Order Paper which we are debating and not the motions-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They have the wrong one.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is endeavouring to speak on a motion which the House gave unanimous consent to be debated and which will be debated later. Would he mind saving that for later and I will be glad to take him on?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand the Hon. Member for Regina West to say that he does not want the Member for Provencher to get up in this House and debate his own motion? Is he so embarrassed by his own motion that he does not want the Hon. Member for Provencher to discuss his motion? Is that what he is saying?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Member for Portage-Marquette, 1 was inviting the Hon. Member for Provencher to debate the amendments that I have moved and also one which is from the Member for Portage-Marquette which the Hon. Member for Vegreville called frivolous. I am inviting him to debate our amendments and one of their own amendments.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Hon. Member for Regina West is attempting to take over the function of the Chair. It is the function of the Chair to make a decision as to whether or not the Member is debating the motions. It is not up to another Hon. Member to direct his remarks to a Member who is speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: After due consideration of the argument presented, the Chair is of the considered opinion that the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw makes considerable sense in the circumstances. I would invite Hon. Members to continue this important debate.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, you no doubt are perfectly correct about what the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw just said. Would the Chair now invite the Hon. Member for Provencher to quit talking about motions that were moved today by unanimous consent but which are not yet before the House and speak on Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Chair that Motion No. 50 talks about the after tax constant cost portion of payments. When you look at the
after tax constant cost portion or the tax cost of the capital and after tax depreciation as included in Motion No. 50, any contribution increases on behalf of producers that would be over the existing Crow rate, which is about 20 per cent less than the NDP amendment that my colleague for Provencher is referring to, he would be indeed referring to Motion No. 50 by talking about the safety net and the 20 per cent increase that the NDP have proposed.


Some Hon. Members:: Good point.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is a long bow.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 have been in this chair since 4.30 this afternoon. Perhaps Hon. Members will do me a personal favour and give me ten minutes without a point of order to get something to eat!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Wait until 4.30 in the morning.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will try to comply with your human needs and desires, Mr. Speaker. 1 find it interesting that we are debating the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West and he does not want us to debate it. His ill-conceived, ill-thought-out and badly drafted amendment would increase the price that farmers are paying for the movement of grain. No matter how you look at the amendment, the effect would be a 20 per cent increase. We will not support that kind of amendment. We are not going to do that to the grain farmers of the prairie basin.
The NDP should at least be consistent in their amendments with the words they are using outside the House. That is all we are asking. It is absolutely amazing that after all these months of debate in the House, in committee and back in the House again, Members of the NDP cannot see that.
The actual cost to the railways of the movement of grain has been a long-standing issue on the Prairies and it has always been difficult to find information on this. Many Members appeared before the Railway Transport Committee when applications were made for rail line abandonment. One of the frustrations of that experience is that the railways would ask Members if they wanted to spend taxpayers' money for secondary rail rehabilitation or maintenance against the amount of grain moved.
The last time I appeared was at the hearing on the Emerson Spur, a distance of 5.8 miles. It was costing taxpayers $ 140,000 per year to maintain that line. Before the last rail line abandonment hearing 1 contacted the CTC and the CNR to get a breakdown of where the money was spent, i wanted to know if it was on snow clearance, rail maintenance, ballast, locomotives or whatever. I never got that breakdown and 1 am sure almost every Member has had a similar experience. It is regarded as confidential, commercial information. The company claimed that the line was non-viable but that the taxpayers should pay up without asking questions. That is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I support our motion.
October 31, 1983

What our motion would do is put that information in the hands of those who need it to analyse whether the railways are performing the service and meeting the requirements under the law and that they are doing it under a financial structure which they say they need.
There is another matter on the Prairies that is difficult to analyse. During the past year when commodity transportation volume was down because of the recession, we had record grain movements. The railways always argue that they lose money on that so the financial picture is interesting for this year when they moved more grain and less of other commodities.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has been arguing that the amount of money that would go to the railways, which the NDP say should go totally to the railways, is greater than the railways have shown they need to maintain the railways, improve the system or the so-called short haul movement of grain. That is what these amendments would do.
By an ill-drafted amendment, the NDP is willing to increase the amount that farmers pay for the movement of grain by 20 per cent. They are ready to destroy the Crow, no matter what they say. On the other hand, this Party's amendment would result, without question, in the railways not only being forced to allow us to monitor their performance but also to monitor their actual expenses.
I say to all Members of the House, please do not kill the Crow as the NDP wants, but support the amendments that make sense across the Prairies, the amendments moved by this Party.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a few comments on the record regarding Motions No. 50, No. 52 and No. 53. I was very surprised to hear some of the arguments of the Conservatives to the effect that we want to kill the Crow. I can say unequivocally that the NDP has always stood for maintaining the statutory rate by which western producers move their grain.
I am particularly surprised at the Hon. Member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). 1 know him quite well and I have sat on committees with him. He is a member of the special committee set up to study Indian self-government and I have found him to be very conscientious in the work he has done on that committee. His comments on Bill C-155 surprised me when he maintained that the NDP would do away with the statutory Crow rate because we want the payments to go to the railways from the Government instead of the producers. The argument is that if the payments go to the producers, then the producers cannot put leverage on the railway companies for better movement of grain in western Canada.
This is something like the old story that Tommy Douglas used to tell about the elephant doing the dance among the chickens, Mr. Speaker. How could the farmers put pressure on the railway companies for the better movement of grain? Farmers do not have the means to pressure the railway companies that the Government has.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I could use a little parable about Members of Parliament putting pressure on the Government compared to farmers putting pressure on the railway companies for better movement of their produce. In the general election of February, 1980, not one Member of Parliament ran as an independent and was elected. If people are serious about getting elected and feel that they want to do something for their country, they would not run on their own but under the banner of a political Party. That is because there is strength in numbers, Mr. Speaker, in standing for policies, which most Parties should have.
However, it is becoming obvious this evening that there are no policies of the Conservative Party in regard to Bill C-155 because it keeps changing its stand on the statutory rate in Bill C-155 whenever it feels it convenient to do so in its best political patronage interest across this country. That Party finds itself slipping seven points in the Gallup poll and all of a sudden it becomes paranoid. It calls through petitions for the country to go to an election because that Party knows that if it goes on much longer it will not have the public support even to form a Government in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Keith Anguish: I believe that scares those Hon. Members somewhat. 1 can hear their nervous laughter over there. The Official Opposition and other Hon. Members of this House of Commons must make sure that the Government, whether it be Liberal, Conservative or NDP, protects the best interests of the producers in Canada. I want to dispel the argument that Conservatives are using here this evening that the New Democratic Party is opposed to the statutory Crow rate. We have unequivocally always maintained that the Crow rate is the right of the producers in western Canada and nothing that the Tories can say will detract from that so far as anyone who has followed this issue for any period of time is concerned.
The first amendment, Motion No. 50, which we are dealing with here, is a New Democratic Party amendment. It requires the railroads to reinvest any surplus funds received from public moneys paid to them under this legislation. Why would we want them to do that? I feel there are some very good reasons, Mr. Speaker. If one looks at the hisotry of the rail companies in this country, particularly Canadian Pacific, one will see that Canadian Pacific received over the period of time since it has been in existence some 43,962,546 acres of land. It has also received hundreds of millions of dollars to invest in the transportation system of this country, not only to haul grain, not only to haul manufactured products from other areas of the country, but also to tie the country together. It was part of the Confederation agreement. I do not care how many times Hon. Members of this House hear that. It was part of the Confederation agreement to hold this country together.
It is especially important for the people of western Canada who wanted that link with the great country of Canada as opposed to joining the United States of America. It worked,

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Mr. Speaker, but the cost was very high. Almost 44 million acres of land, hundreds of millions of dollars invested in rolling stock, in upgrading of branch lines, in upgrading of the rail beds across the country, particularly in western Canada, and grants when the railways said they were losing money. But they did not reinvest that money in the rail transportation system in this country. The decided to expand.
What are some of the companies which Canadian Pacific owns today which have reaped the financial rewards of that land and money which was given to them by the people of Canada to keep an efficient, modern transportation system? They are numerous, Mr. Speaker. They are Canadian Pacific Air Lines Limited, Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited, Canadian Pacific (Bermuda) Limited, Canadian Pacific Express & Transport Limited, CanPac International Freight Services Inc., Soo Line Railroad Company, CP Telecommunications, Canadian Pacific Enterprises, PanCanadian Petroleum Limited, Cominco Ltd., Fording Coal Limited, CIP Incorporated, Pacific Forest Products Limited, Great Lakes Forest Products Limited, The Algoma Steel Corporation Limited, Maple Leaf Mills Limited, Marathon Realty Company Limited. Marathon Realty Company Limited was not interested in Canadian Pacific in terms of upgrading the rail transportation system in this country. It was interested in selling off a great amount of that 43,962,546 acres of land in order to reap more profits for Canadian Pacific.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see Motion No. 50, put forward by this Party, locked into this Bill so that the money which Canadian Pacific receives from the people of Canada will be invested in the rail transportation system of this country and the agricultural producers will have much better movement of their products than they have had in the past.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: With all due respect, the Hon. Member is out of order at the moment. His time has expired unless he has the unanimous consent of the House to continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The other motion, Mr. Speaker, in which I am interested-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: Not having had unanimous consent to continue, I turn now to the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The only "no" I heard was from an Hon. Member on the Government side who was not in his seat. He was standing in the middle of the aisle. He said no, he would not give unanimous consent. No one else said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: To resolve this difficult issue in the most judicious way, I will again call for the vote.
Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to continue his address.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: I detect a certain no.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since the first vote was improper, unbeknown to the Chair, how could another vote on the same motion which was improper take place? You must have had unanimous consent on the first occasion because the only "no', came from someone standing in the aisle.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: The Chair was very mindful and respectful of the intentions of the Hon. Members of this House. The Chair did not hear unanimous consent having been proffered in order that the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake could continue. Could we have the next speaker, please.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to see that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) are very concerned about the developments in the last few hours, particularly in respect to the motions which they have moved relating to the statutory Crow rate. When one looks at the increases which that Party is proposing, Mr. Speaker, which are in fact 20 per cent, one finds it has in fact used exactly the same wording which was used by the Government in the Bill. The New Democratic Party has again crawled into bed with the Government and is facilitating increases which the farmers are very, very opposed to.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I had to point out earlier to the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), when we get to the motions to which unanimous consent was given earlier today, I will be glad to take that Party on those motions. With all deference, in the meantime, would the Hon. Member for Assiniboia address himself to the matter of the railways reinvesting their surplus money and would he address himself to the matter of confidentiality of information?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: I would endeavour to ask, in the name of civility, that all Hon. Members address their remarks to the motion at hand and I would ask the Hon. Member for Regina West whether he in all good conscience feels that his intervention was strictly a point of order. On that basis, I would again ask the Hon. Member for Assiniboia to continue with his remarks.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just pointing out the nervousness of Hon. Members of the NDP which was again manifested by a series of points of order that had been raised around the motions about which we are speaking as well as other incidents relating to Bill C-155.
October 31, 1983

We are dealing here with Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53. Two of those motions were put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West and Motion No. 52 was put forward by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). I think it is very important to realize that we are talking about accountability of the railways. We are talking about information that is submitted to the general public, to the farmers and to everyone involved with increases in freight rates.
I do not know how the Hon. Member for Regina West intends to interpret the issue, but what we are dealing with here in regard to rate increases does not fall under the category of information, nor does it fall under the category of accountability, which is really the crux of the whole situation. In fact, in regard to the primary producers and the prairies farmers, we have at this time a situation in which the Government has not fully inquired into the ability of the farmers to pay. We on this side of the House have not had any qualms about the development of the rail lines. We hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) constantly saying that we do not want to go ahead with the work of advancing the rail lines and we want to stop the job. That is not so. That has never been the position of our Party. Our Party has constantly said that the work should go ahead and that the double tracking in areas over the passes and ports and so on should be dealt with. Our problem is with the farmers' ability to pay and that is where we come to accountability and access to information.
The Hon. Member for Regina West was the only NDP Member who travelled constantly with the committee and informed himself of what was going on. I find it strange that Members of the NDP and especially the Hon. Member for Regina West should suddenly be so concerned about the fact that they have moved a motion to break the statutory Crow rate. The Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has said again and again in the House that the importance of the statutory Crow rate to western farmers relates to two things. One is the fact that we in the West are 1,000 miles from open water. The second is that the Crow rate is actually the Magna Carta of the farmers and the grain producers. Members of the NDP have broken down that statutory rate by moving in the House an increase of 20 per cent to the statutory Crow rate as it now exists. They are now arguing-


An Hon. Member:: They wouldn't support the freeze.


Leonard J. Gustafson: They certainly would not support the freeze which in fact was a retention of the statutory Crow rate.
1 shall deal more specifically with the motions, Mr. Speaker, as they stand before us in the House. The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is saying that he would delete these words from Clause 29(5) of the Bill:
The members of the Committee shall treat in a confidential manner any information submitted under this section that is identified and treated as confidential by the railway company that submitted the information.
The Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is simply saying that we will delete those words and we will make information
Western Grain Transportation Act
public in every way to the primary producers and to the general public so that they will know exactly what is going on.
1 dealt with the farmers' ability to pay a little earlier. 1 would like to make this point again, Mr. Speaker, because I think the most serious omission the Government has made in forcing closure in the House is in regard to the farmers' ability to pay. There has not been an up-to-date inquiry into that ability. The Gilson Report was made two and a half to three years ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It didn't look at the ability to pay.


Leonard J. Gustafson: That report did not deal with the farmers' ability to pay but looked at everything in a roundabout fashion. Those who sat in on the committee hearings in Regina, Edmonton, Ottawa, Winnipeg and so on were well aware that the one major point that the farmers and all other groups were making was that they did not have the ability to pay, they did not have the ability to deal with the freight rate increases that would be called for under this Bill. Now today, of all things, Members of the NDP have come along and have put forward the same type of program as the Government.
A Government that would move closure without really digging into the situation to determine the ability of those farmers to meet obligations is beyond our comprehension. Accountability of the railroads to the farmers is very important. It is also important for the Government to have some accountability and to look into the ability of farmers to pay the increases that they are asking them to pay. If I had more time, Mr. Speaker, I would elaborate upon what this type of action and this type of Bill could mean to the country and to the producers if the Government moves ahead with closure on a Bill that will have serious economic effects on the country and the producers.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member was asking for more time and I would like to assure him that if he needs more time, we would be glad to give him more time so that he could elaborate even further on his point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I certainly defer to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). He made an outstanding and brilliant speech, but I would simply say with respect to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that I think it is about time we heard from Members of the NDP about where they stand on this particular issue.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on that same point of order. It is not a matter of where we stand. The Hon. Member for Assiniboia, in the last seconds of his speech, indicated that if he only had more time, he could elaborate further. I can say on behalf of my colleagues that although we found his speech boring and completely irrelevant to what we are dealing with, we would gladly give him more time if he wanted it.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is evident that what I ought to do, with the consent of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia, is to ask whether there is unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue. From my position in the chair, it is clear to me that the Hon. Member is asking for that unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wanted to ask you, Mr. Speaker, how your peripheral vision is. I know that I sit very far to the left, but I wonder if your peripheral vision does take me in when I do stand.


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


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments with respect to the amendments that are before us at this time. I might say that I listened with interest to several Members of the NDP debating the amendments. Certainly, they wandered far and wide and tried to move away as far as possible from the amendment that their agricultural critic brought in today which in effect would be the first blow to kill the Crow.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Order. Which amendments are we debating?


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are dealing with Motion No. 52 and Motion No. 53. I recognize the ploy that the Member is involved in but perhaps he could dispense with that form of intellectual dishonesty.


Douglas Charles Neil: I hardly think that was a point of order. They talk about intellectual dishonesty. They have spent the last several months saying keep the Crow and today they bring in a motion, a proposed amendment that increases the rate paid by the farmers-


Douglas Keith Anguish: I rise on a point of order.


Douglas Charles Neil: It increases the rate paid by the farmers.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you are not going to keep the debate to the motions at hand, we want to know about the aspersions that the Tories are casting on anything the NDP has ever done to do away with the Crow rate. We have never moved any motion. We have never uttered words in this Caucus to do anything to alter the statutory rate. If you are going to allow these allegations to continue, either keep them to the point of the amendments we are discussing or have them tell us what the motion is so we can debate that motion on the floor of the House.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, as the minutes go by the voices of the NDP get louder and louder until the last speaker was almost screaming, because he understands what they did. They have effectively killed the Crow by their amendment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The man is in anguish.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Member exactly what motion and to describe the motion to us so that we know what is being dealt with. I see the Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) showing the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) how he can cover his argument that he has been making here this evening in his seat in the House.
I ask that you either keep the debate on the amendments or I challenge the Conservative Party to point out in the House where in fact that motion lies and to describe it to us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. I think it is perfectly in order for the Hon. Member to call to the attention of the Chair that relevance is one of the rules of parliamentary debate, but I do not think he ought to call upon the Chair to force one Party or Member to do or something. I am quite ready to do my very best to enforce relevance, although I would remind the Hon. Member that if I enforce it on one Member in the debate, I have to enforce it on all Members in the debate.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly on the same point of order. We on this side have confidence in the Chair to keep the debate relevant. 1 do not think it becomes the demeanor of the House at all to have Members from one particular Party getting up and using the judgment of the Chair in such a way that it would draw attention to their own Members' concern in this case. Speaking for myself and our side, I certainly have faith in and support the Chair in seeing that the debate at this extended hour stays as relevant as possible, given the circumstances.


Douglas Charles Neil: I just have one comment to make. If the Member for The Battlefords-Kindersley had been here earlier in the day he would have heard the motion that was proposed by his Party's agriculture critic.


Ian Deans: He was here before you were.


Douglas Charles Neil: And it was given unanimous consent to be set down for debate.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The Tories accepted it.


Douglas Charles Neil: As I said, if the Hon. Member had been here he would have understood what had taken place.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I was here.


Douglas Charles Neil: He would have heard the motion.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my recollection that in seeking unanimous consent, the Conservatives agreed to have the question debated, just as we agreed to have some questions that they proposed debated. I can only assume that by agreeing to have them debated they must have thought them worthy of some consideration.


Douglas Charles Neil: That is an interesting comment. 1 will not comment further on the matter. It does not warrant any comment.
October 31, 1983


Ian Deans: You cannot think of any.


Douglas Charles Neil: 1 can certainly think of many comments.


Ian Deans: Why don't you think? Why don't you make them?


Douglas Charles Neil: I am going to talk about the amendments we are debating right now.


Ian Deans: Come on, big mouth, make them.


Douglas Charles Neil: A few moments ago the Hon. Member was saying that I was out of order in my comments-


Ian Deans: I am saying you are irrelevant.


Douglas Charles Neil: Now he is inviting me to make comments that would not be in order. I would not waste my time arguing with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Come on, show us how much you know, Moose Jaw. That is an interesting name for a guy like you.


Douglas Charles Neil: I would like to make my comments with respect to the motions we are debating at the present time.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Do you know what they are?


Douglas Charles Neil: Certainly I know what they are.


Ian Deans: Tell us about them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They partly reflect the NDP flip-flop.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is an indication of the fact that the NDP are very nervous when they will not allow a Member to continue to debate.


Ian Deans: Tell us about them.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is relevant and I will be very brief. Earlier, the Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) referred to the Member for "The Battlefords-Kindersley''. Since there is no such riding I am not sure to whom the Hon. Member is referring. 1 want him to know that there is no longer any such constituency in the Parliament of Canada represented in the House.


Douglas Charles Neil: If I said The Battlefords-Kindersley, it was an error. I meant The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.
With respect to the motions that are before us, particularly Motion No. 50 put forward by the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), I would suggest that our Party was successful in committee in amending Clause 29(2) which basically does much of what the proposed amendment of the Hon. Member does. This amendment to Clause 29(2) in committee, which was approved by all Parties, strengthened the CTC position to monitor and verify the investments to be made by the railway. Consequently, we do not believe we can support Motion No. 50.
Western Grain Transportation Act
Motion No. 52 and Motion No. 53 are identical. They delete Clause 29(5) which requires the Members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to treat any information submitted under the clause by the railways as confidential.
The taxpayers of Canada will be contributing well over $600 million annually to the railways. In addition, the producers of grain will be called upon to pay double and up to five times the present rate. Under these circumstances I believe it is important that the investment plans of the railways should be made public. They should not be held in confidence because the taxpayers are providing a substantial amount of money and the producers are paying a substantial amount of money. 1 suggest that to treat the information with respect to the investment by the railways as confidential removes the possibility of the public and the taxpayer of being critical or capable of analyzing what are the investments of the railways. It seems to me with respect to Motions Nos. 52 and 53 that these are amendments in the interest of the taxpayers. They are in the interest of the producer and they are certainly amendments which should be supported by all Members in the House.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53. I would like to deal first with Motion No. 50 and try to encourage some Members on the Government side and some Members on the Tory side to respond in some relevant way to this motion. It is really not that difficult for them to deal with. It is a requirement to put some backbone into Clause 29. Motion No. 50 simply states that the money raised through the changes proposed in Bill C-155 must go back in terms of reinvestment into either main-lines, port development, branch lines, grain facilities or something related to the transportation, storage and movement of grain.
1 would like to start with a few facts to which 1 would like to hear Government and Tory Members respond in terms of figures obtained in recent years from public accounts. First I will speak with respect to what has been given to the CPR for the movement of grain and what has happened over the years.
Let me start with 1958. According to public accounts it was given, in present 1982 dollar values, $15.9 million. Ten years later, in 1968, this amount had jumped to $107.9 million, by 1978 to $190.3 million, and in 1981 it had jumped to $253.7 million. Indexed, the total present value of public aid in dollars has been $13.5 billion. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) pointed out, CP was given 44 million acres of land which has been used for oil and gas development, for various real estate and other development proposals. What we do know is that the total equity ownership by the public in CP Limited is zero, absolutely zero.
One of the themes that we have been trying to pursue, and I know there is a great deal of support in the country for it, is that when you are involved in giving money, whether it is to a Crown Corporation or to the private sector, you get some kind of equity back. I know that is not supported by the Tories or
28556

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
the Liberals. They like to open the barrel and give all the money they have to their friends. A lot of their friends sort of run off into the hills with it and do whatever they fancy.
What we are trying to do in Motion No. 50 is to bring some kind of legitimacy and have some kind of framework whereby those hundreds of millions of dollars which go each year to the railroads are at least brought back and reinvested. 1 do not think any Members in this House need to go too far for information. The parliamentary Library is here and the recommendations of Mr. Justice Hall's Royal Commission are lying there waiting for any Liberal or Tory Member to read. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall points out what has happened in terms of the very pale and weak legislation that has been passed historically by the House, the failure of the House of Commons in terms of public accounts to make sure that moneys from the public Treasury are used to rehabilitate branch lines or used to maintain the main-lines.
A lot of Members, particularly on the Government side, including the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) in particular, have taken to saying in the House in recent weeks and months that if Members on the Opposition benches would stop slowing down passage of Bill C-155 there would be a half a million more jobs in Canada. We are speaking directly to that in Motion No. 50. The Government is not being entirely open and honest when it says that, once Bill C-155 is passed, suddenly there will be hundreds of thousands of jobs. My constituency is a case in point. There is over $100 million in rail line upgrading going on right now in terms of planning. But I know that when Government Members are talking about the Prince George to Prince Rupert line they always say that if Bill C-155 is passed, there will be upgrading. That is sheer poppycock. Upgrading is going on now and the railways planned it a long time ago.
I would be interested in hearing from Government Members why they oppose having some teeth put into Clause 29 which would require public money and money from producers, that has been duly paid for the transportation of grain and some specialty grains either to Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Churchill or the Lakehead, why those moneys-if there are moneys left over each year and if there are additional moneys that have been raised-should not go back into reinvestment in the rail lines. 1 have heard nothing from the Tories or from the Government Members as to why they do not support that. I will come back to Motion No. 50 in a moment.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) this evening has taken to saying that this group of amendments, Motions Nos. 50 and 52, is frivolous. 1 am sure the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) is interested to know that. One of the amendments is his. Perhaps the Tories could get their act together on that. I think the amendment put by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is identical to that of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I think this is something that Members in the House clearly should support if one can reflect on recent speeches made by all Parties in this House on access to
information. I think any Canadian who wanted to go back and read those debates would think there is something quite different going on from day to day in this House depending upon the politics of it.
Motions Nos. 52 and 53 are identical and are really quite simple in their intent. It is to remove the provision in the legislation that would require members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to treat as confidential any information declared to be so by the railroads. There are three principal arguments for that. One, the railroads should not have the right to impose secrecy on the Committee. I think all Members in the House would support that. Second, it could come to pass that public disclosure of information would be one of the most effective ways available for the Committee to fulfil its mandate. I think that is clear in any case. Information should go out to the public whether it concerns the damming of a river or, as in this case, the hiding of information about what is really going on in the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, because the producers cannot mobilize themselves politically and ask questions of their Members or direct questions to this House unless they have access to that information.
1 know this side of the House at least is united on Motions Nos. 52 and 53. I think Canadians have a right-1 know we will not get it-to hear from the Government side why it opposes these amendements, which are really access to information. The third point in support of Motions Nos. 52 and 53 is that decisions of a confidential nature on the Committee's deliberation or the information available to it should be the prerogative of the Committee, not the railroads. I think again that speaks for itself.
I would like to touch briefly on the points made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville when Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53 were just coming up. The point the Hon. Member was trying to make was that somehow Motion No. 50-and I know other Members of the Opposition have tried to make this point-is breaking the Crow. Tory Members should come clean. The public record is clear. The Hon. Member for Vegreville, as Minister of Transport, in fact started the changes to the Crow rate. He was the implementor of Bill C-155. The Tories at least three years ago decided they were going to kill the Crow. They support Bill C-155 but are trying various parliamentary manoeuvres to try to make that seem to their constituent not to be the case. But the Tories want a review after the fact. I do not know if anybody goes to visit physicians very often, but you do not ask for open heart surgery and then have a heart specialist check to see whether or not you needed it after the fact. The problem with Bill C-155, as producers know, and as Canadians generally know, is that the impact on farmers, whether it will bankrupt 30,000 or 40,000 farmers in Canada, is still a bit of an unknown. For the Tories to say, "We do not want five times Crow until three years from now", sure, farmers will grab at that, but the fact is the Tories want a review after the legislation is passed. They expect to be Government. They may not be but they expect to be Government. 1 think they would do this House a great deal of credit, as would Hon. Members on the Government side, if they
October 31, 1983

would deal with Motion No. 50. Why should CN, CP and the other railroads not be required to reinvest the dollars they obtain from this? If the Government has some good reason, I would like to hear it.
In terms of freedom of information or access to information, I would like to hear the position on the Government side. It is pretty clear that the entire Opposition in the House is in favour of accessing information from the Senior Grain Transportation Committee. I would like to know the reason for its position.
I would like to refer to another point, the one which the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) attempted to make. I encourage him to stick around for a few hours tonight because the kind of intellectual dishonesty he contributed to the House is something I do not accept. I dealt with him while I was the Constitution critic and did not find that to be part of him then. I would be interested in hearing his comments later tonight to see whether or not there has been a serious change in his character.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will speak again, if you want.


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member is trying to paint a picture of the NDP position which is not fact. Canadians out there know what it is.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is a 20 per cent increase.


James Ross Fulton: His blustering and flustering in the House will not change what is known across the country as our position in maintaining the statutory Crow rate.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate tonight, but first I must make a couple of comments on remarks made by certain Members of the House in the debate so far, as 1 think it is only appropriate.
The last speaker indicated the intellectual dishonesty which exists in accusing certain Hon. Members of the House. I will point out some intellectual dishonesty which I hope he and his colleagues will consider. The Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) said that farmers did not have a way to put pressure on the railroads and that if the money were paid to farmers, they were not capable in any way of running their own business; that is basically what he tried to tell Hon. Members of the House of Commons. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, and a couple of Members from British Columbia went on to state very emphatically that the payments should go directly to the railroads. On the other hand, they turned around and talked about the railroads, particularly CPR, as being the biggest corporate welfare bums that exist in Canada today. However they voted against a motion in the House which indicated that we would give farmers the freedom to take the money directly from the Government or we would give farmers the option to pay to the railroads. They said "No, you have got to pay it to the
Western Grain Transportation Act
railroads". That is where the intellectual dishonesty comes from with the New Democratic Party.
How can Hon. Members of the House representing the New Democratic Party stand and decry on one hand the corporate welfare bums and flail away at them unconsciously and on the other hand turn around and say to little individual farmers, "No, we are not going to pay you directly. We are going to make sure that we pay it to the railroads because we cannot trust you to handle your own money"?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 know that the Hon. Member would not want to mislead the House. He indicated that at some point in time we voted in the House on a matter which he has now raised with regard to the payment schedule and the method of payment. There was no such vote, ever, during the entire time that this matter has been before the House. Quite clearly the Hon. Member is lying.


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Kempling:: Withdraw.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do you have no respect for the Chair? It is the old NDP disregard for the parliamentary institution.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They have done it again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his words, please.


Ian Deans: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, what exactly was it that you wanted me to withdraw?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You wouldn't know the difference between the truth and a lie if somebody put it in front of you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. This is a debate on extended hours. Perhaps we are all becoming a bit tired. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) knows very well that I wish him to withdraw the words "lying".


Ian Deans: Withdraw the words "lying"; you mean withdraw the word "lying".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Ian Deans: Obviously the Hon. Member was not telling the truth, but of course I will withdraw the word "lying". However, I would not want to leave the impression that I thought he was telling the truth.


William James Kempling: Isn't that smart?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Whatever happened to the old CCF tradition?


Ian Deans: Whatever happened to truth?

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will do my best to sense the mood of the House. I personally do not regard that as a satisfactory withdrawal. On the other hand, I recognize that Hon. Members have sometimes been called upon to withdraw a word and have used phrases something like that. I think it is a marginal situation. My hope is that the Hon. Member will give second thought to using such an expression.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the rules of the House, of course I withdraw the word.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the Hon. Member-


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to suggest to the Hon. Member that, in making his speech to the House, reference to any vote having been taken with regard to the method of payment is quite untrue inasmuch as there has been no such vote taken. For him to rise and to say such a thing is an attempt to mislead the public.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now you are getting back into trouble; you were doing so well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. For very understandable reasons, the debate is emphatic, but it seems that the best way for Hon. Members to proceed is not to have the debate on points of order. Where there is a disagreement, there is nothing prohibiting Hon. Members on various sides of the House from standing up and entering the debate. If Hon. Members persist in doing it on points of order, which are not points of order, then I will have to become somewhat more difficult in applying the rules of relevancy.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) reacted in the way he did. Obviously he does not know that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), as a representative on the committee at its 66 meetings-and 1 doubt if the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Mountain attended one of them- voted on behalf of his Party against-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not one meeting, and that is the truth.


Ian Deans: A point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Would it not be possible for Hon. Members to underline their differences in debate rather than in points of order?


An Hon. Member:: No.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is wrong again. 1 wish, if he is to make allegations, he would be accurate in what he says.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I indicated to the Hon. Member and to all Hon. Members that I will have to be more strict in terms of what constitutes a point of order.


Jack Wendele Shields: I suggest the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain talk to his colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West, and find out how his colleague voted on behalf of the New Democratic Party during the hearings when the question was put and the amendment was put concerning the freedom of choice option. He will find that the record is clear. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain looks at the record, he will find that the Hon. Member for Regina West voted against the freedom of choice option which would allow the farmer a little control over his own destiny.


Ian Deans: Now you weasel out.


Jack Wendele Shields: It was not the Big Brother approach of the New Democratic Party, which is consistent with its philosophy. The little guy, the individual on the street, according to the NDP, does not have the knowledge or the brains to handle his own business; they as Big Brothers have to do it. Now I would like to turn to Motion No. 50.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Chase them out of the House, Jack.


Jack Wendele Shields: Yes, they have to get their marching orders from the union bosses. There is no doubt about that, as Hon. Members have indicated. Motion No. 50 seeks to amend Clause 29 by adding:
"(3) A railway company shall, in a subsequent calendar year, invest in railway equipment and plant for the movement of grain an amount not less than the after tax cost of capital, after tax depreciation, and after tax constant cost portion of payments it received under section 55 for the preceding crop year." and by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.
That creates a whole new department within the Department of Transport, a Department of about 100 people, including accountants, lawyers and good socialist hacks who will come in, sit down, go through the books and spend hours and hours on reams of paperwork. That is the Big Brother approach.
We put through an amendment in the committee hearings that was accepted by the NDP, accepted by the Government and, of course, accepted by our Party. The position was very straightforward, one that was accepted by the NDP. It it exactly what the NDP wants in their Motion No. 50. However, the NDP is using politics. It is making some noise, saying to the farmers that it will look after them, that they cannot look after themselves. 1 read basically the amendment as was put forward in committee:	.
The railways are at liberty to make the necessary investment for grain movement.
We put an amendment during the committee hearings, a successful amendment to Clause 29(2), which strengthens the Canadian Transport Commission position to monitor and verify its investments by, first, annually verifying and reporting to the Minister on investments made in the prior crop year, and second, analysing the investment plans of the present and subsequent crop year and within 90 days submitting a report to the Minister on the appropriateness of those plans to ensure an adequate, reliable and effective railway service. The rail-
October 31, 1983

ways, under this approach, are at liberty to make investments related to grain movement, but it will be the Canadian Transport Commission, not American-based consulting firms, that will determine their appropriateness as it relates to grain movement.
Those are just some of the comments I had to make. I am sorry that the New Democratic Party Members are using the time of the House in a frivolous manner. I am sorry that they continually stand up, Member after Member, and decry the corporate welfare bums, pointing out that they have millions of acres of land, millions of dollars in rolling stock given to them, millions of dollars in branch lines, on and on and then turn around in the next breath and say that they will not give the farmer the option of payments, that they cannot trust the farmer, that he cannot handle his now affairs.
They are saying to the same Government that they want it to pay the railroads, the same corporate bums, as the NDP would put it. Motions Nos. 52 and 53 are the same. The one before us is the Conservative motion. All we are asking for is freedom of information.
I see that you are signalling that 1 have one minute, Mr. Speaker. 1 will try to wrap up. We are signalling to the Government, which brought in and passed recent legislation on freedom of information, that the farmer has to pay the shot the way the Bill has come down now because the majority Liberal Government is forcing the farmer to pay more. There is a clear understanding and a clear commitment that this money will go to upgrade the rolling stock of the railroads and the transportation system, yet we have a clause that does not allow the information to go to the farmer as to where his money will be spent. That is a shame. It should be looked at. I hope Hon. Members will consider that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53. Basically those motions say that when the railways reap the benefit they will reap through the legislation being debated today, that money must be put into the improvement of the transportation system in this country. That is an important and necessary motion.
Many of us who were brought up on the Prairies remember the history of the CPR. As we have heard many times over the last few months, the CPR was given acres and acres and millions and millions of dollars to build the railway system for which the Canadian taxpayers paid. In return for that, they were to maintain a proper railway system in this country, but as we all know, the Canadian taxpayers are always paying to upgrade the rail lines of this country.
What has happened with the profit of the CPR in the past and what will happen with the new profit of the CPR under this legislation is that the money will leave the railway system, and sometimes even leave the country. One need only look at the corporate structure of the CPR to realize what a great Canadian company CPR is.
I only have a few minutes to speak, so I will list only one or two of the great Canadian Pacific companies. Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited is wholly owned and incorporated in
Western Grain Transportation Act
Great Britain. Canadian Pacific Bermuda is wholly owned and incorporated in Bermuda. What happened is that Canadian Pacific is not even a good Canadian corporation.
How can they be trusted to take the money they will receive under this Bill to maintain the railway system in this country? If we do not specify this, they will go back to the history they have had since day one. They will reap the benefits but not reinvest them in Canada or in the transportation system. We say the amendment is absolutely necessary to the integrity of the transportation system in Canada. If we do not have it, we run the risk of, five years down the road, having another Bill basically the same as this Bill which will provide more money to the railways in one shape or another in order to maintain the rail lines.
It has been the history of the last 10 or 15 years that we have had to fight with both CP and CN to maintain those tracks. In my riding of Churchill, more Government money comes in than CN money to maintain those tracks. Year after year CN tries to discontinue service throughout the North. How can we trust one Crown corporation and one private enterprise corporation which have in the past so often betrayed the people they are supposed to serve? They have often neglected the communities concerned, cut out passenger rail systems, discouraged the use of freight, and cut back on the use of express service for the transportation of goods. Even when it is the only means of transportation, which happens so often in northern Manitoba where there are no roads to a community and people must rely on the rail passenger and freight traffic, the company has talked about taking out the rail system altogether, both the transportation system for passengers and the freight service.
If we are to be responsible legislators, we must provide protection for the farmers and for the consumers of our railway system under this Act. As I said earlier, we have a history in this country of having one Act after another which gives money to the railways in one form or another. That is the very purpose of the Act which we have in front of us today which is going to kill the Crow rate. Why do we continue to give them money without any real control of the future of the transportation system? One hundred and two years is a long time to keep dumping money into the CPR. It is a long time to be maintaining what is a private enterprise system. It is a long time to be paying for something that we have paid for time after time. I wish we would not pass this Bill but if we do pass it we should put an end to the charity that we have allowed to exist when it comes to dealing with the CPR and the CNR.
The second motion, which is supported by both the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, is basically a freedom of information motion. It says that the profits of the CN and CP cannot be kept hidden from the public. If CN and CP provide information to the Senior Grain Transportation Committee, that information can be made public. It does not say it must be made public; it says it can be made public. If the Senior Grain Transportation Committee feels that that

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act information is what the public, the consumers and the farmers need to know, then I think they should have that ability.
We are passing a Bill which is going to give a lot of money to the railways. We do not know what their corporate profits are. We do not know how much it costs them to maintain their lines. We do not know what the conditions of the contract between VIA and CN is. In this country we have so much secrecy, especially when it comes to the rail lines. I, as a Member of Parliament, cannot find out how much CN charges VIA and how it determines the actual costs. Why not? The reason is that we have had similar clauses in past Government legislation. The public has been denied the ability effectively to challenge CN, CP and VIA when they ask for freight rate increases, to abandon lines and for increased tariffs. I suggest that if we are to give more money to the railways, they will have to use that for maintaining the railway system in this country. Second, we must also find out what the real profit and cost structure is in the railways, otherwise it is useless for us to be discussing and debating legislation about whether or not they are profitable and whether or not they need the money to improve the railway system in this country. The public and the House of Commons have a right to know, and without that knowledge it is ironic that in time of freedom of access to information we have spent so many months here without having the very information before us that we should have had prior to the introduction of this Bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the principle involved in these amendments. When I read Motion No. 50 and apply it to Clause 29 as it is to be applied, it appears that the amendment and the section illustrate in a very definite way the difference in approach to this problem between the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party.
The amendment states "shall invest". The NDP wants the Government to tell the railways how they are going to spend the money, where and when. When I look at how the Government spends money in Canada Post and several other places, I am not sure we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire. That is the approach of Members of the NDP, and I give them credit for it. Dictation is part of their philosophy. They tell the people what is good for them and run the people's business. This motion is in line with their philosophy. I would go one step further and say that the motions that have been presented by the Progressive Conservative Party are in line with our philosophy which is accountability. We are not telling them how to spend the money once the money is theirs. It shall monitor the program, annually verify the investment, analyse the general investments and audit the expenditures. In other words, they are responsible.
There are no two clauses in the Act that illustrate the two philosophies better. One, dictation, the other, accountability. If we are going to have free enterprise in this country, whether for the CPR or the small entrepreneur or farmer, the Government has to keep its nose out of it. If we want to have dictatorship and nationalization, then the Government puts its nose right into it and runs it. That is the difference between
the two Parties. The people across this country will have to decide which Party they want.
Section 55 gives authority to the Government to pay for certain expenditures. If that work has not been done and the year's crop was not transported satisfactorily, the Government should never have paid that money, and it is responsible. We want accountability for the money being paid to the railways. We do not want simply to hand it to them as in the past. People across the country are saying, "Is the CPR the Government of this country?" Sometimes they think it is.
The Canadian Transport Commission decided that it would close a branch line in the Province of Alberta. One of the lawyers found that an Act of Parliament had authorized that line to be operated in perpetuity. That was brought to the attention of the prairie section of the CTC, so they shrugged their shoulders and ordered the line abandoned. I made representations to the Cabinet that this was wrong, that CTC has no authority to defy an Act of Parliament. If the Act is wrong, rescind it, but certainly civil servants have not that right. The Government condoned the action of the CTC. It did not look into it. It could not have because its lawyers would have informed it that civil servants have no right to rescind laws passed by this House. Only this House has that authority. We took it to the Appeal Court of Canada and that court said that the CTC had no right to order the abandonment under that Act. The court ruled properly, but the Government went along and did it. That is not accountability, nor is it accountability if under Clause 55 we pay $600 million or $200 million to the railways, unless they have earned it. If they have, then we cannot tell them what to do with it. The next thing, we will be telling the farmer how to spend the money we give him for his crops-that he cannot buy liquor or take his wife to Hawaii. Once you earn money, it is yours. That is our way of life. We are not living in Moscow, although sometimes I wonder. We are not supposed to be living under a communistic Government. When we earn money, it is our own. If I want to take a trip on my own money, that is my business. If a farmer wants to buy a car for his wife or his son, nobody has any business telling him that he cannot.
That is the principle at stake here, Mr. Speaker. Once the CPR has earned the money, it is theirs. If the Government is just handing the money to them anyway, then the Government is at fault and it should be accountable to the people. That is what Clause 55 is all about, and that is what the motions proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) and his team mean-accountability. We are not going to dictate to the railways how they should spend their own money. They are accountable for certain things for which the money was paid to them, and that accountability is included in the Act.
I do not support Motion No. 50, Mr. Speaker. It is in line with the NDP philosophy but it is not in line with mine. 1 do not believe in the Government telling me how to spend the money I have earned and I do not believe in the Government
October 31, 1983

telling the CPR how to spend the money it earns, although the Government has a responsibility to make sure that it earned the money before it is paid.
I do not understand how we can have two amendments that are word for word the same, one proposed by this Party and the other by the NDP. Surely one amendment should have stood the test without another being put. 1 do not know how that happened and I know it did not happen in provincial politics.


An Hon. Member:: You didn't have the NDP.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We had one or two Members, but not very many. The motion comes down to a definite principle-whether accountability is going to be secret or public, whether things are going to be done under the table or above the table. The amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer) provides that it be done above the table, not under it. We want to know what is going on. The principles involved in these two clauses illustrate what the Progressive Conservative Party is trying to do in this Bill. The first is that you pay only when money is earned; the second is that you hold the receiver responsible; and the third is that you keep everything above board.
Can anyone tell me that the Government will not support those three principles? We are in a more serious position than I thought if the Government is going to oppose those three principles which are the heart of the Progressive Conservative action.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the arguments put forth by my colleagues in connection with these motions and to deal with some of the arguments from the Members of the Conservative Party. The Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper) suggested that if we oppose freedom of choice, the farmer should have the choice of taking the money-


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Peace River has not spoken tonight but I have. If the Hon. Member is referring to me, I would prefer that he use my constituency.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) said that we oppose the so-called freedom of choice because we were getting orders from union bosses. I want to tell him that I probably have as many railway workers and railway union locals in my constituency as any Member, and 1 have not had a single request, let alone an order, about what 1 should do. While I have lots of union members, I have very few farmers in my constituency and he has many. It was the prairie pools, which represent more than 50 per cent of all grain producers of western Canada, that opposed freedom of choice. If the Conservative Party wants to put forward freedom of choice, it is entitled to, but its Members should not argue that people who disagree with them, and not just Members of the NDP, are somehow being unpatriotic.
Western Grain Transportation Act
If I had known that the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) would speak tonight 1 would have brought in a copy of Hansard for the day some months ago when he made a speech about CPR in which he was as critical of it as any Member of this Party has been. 1 could have read that speech into the record word for word and taken the credit for it myself. Yet today, in a roundabout way, he seems to be defending the CPR.
The Hon. Member suggests that the Conservative Party stands for free enterprise, that it must not be controlled, directed or dictated to and that this Party stands for state ownership of everything. 1 find it interesting that in Alberta for years the Conservative Government and the Social Credit Government, in which the Hon. Member was a member of Cabinet, either on its own or in partnership with the private sector, has been involved in business much more than the NDP Government of Saskatchewan has ever been.
That proves that when you get into the real world, this concept about the great free enterprise system which must not be directed or controlled but must be allowed to operate freely, just does not work. 1 do not have time to put on record all the corporations in which the Government of Alberta is involved, but one good example is Pacific Western Airlines which, as far as I know, is still 100 per cent owned and operated by Government. That is something which none of the New Democratic Party Governments which we have had in recent years in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have attempted to do. We had a very good example of how Governments get involved in the last month or so in Atlantic Canada where the privately operated fishing industry was in fact bankrupt. The only thing which had not happened was that the banks had so much out in loans they could not afford to call in their loans, the way they do with the small businessmen and farmers. So what happened, Mr. Speaker? The Liberal Government got together with the provincial Governments of Atlantic Canada, the Conservative Government of Newfoundland, the Conservative Government of Nova Scotia, and they worked out a deal whereby the Liberal Government and the provincial Conservative Governments got together with the private sector to refinance and reorganize the industry.
I point that out, Mr. Speaker, simply because it proves again, as we have learned so many times in the history of Canada, that if the people of Canada are to be served, if their needs are to be met, it can often be done only by the Government or only by the Government in partnership with private interests.
That is the real lesson, Mr. Speaker, in the history of this country. Motion No. 50 says that the public's money, that is, the money which comes from the taxpayers of Canada, should be put up only to increase rail capacity and to enhance the transportation system for grain, and that money should not be paid to the railroads to enhance their profit position. We are not talking about some small corner grocer. We are talking about the largest corporation in this country, whether it is

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Canadian Pacific Railways or Canadian Pacific Investments or Canadian Pacific Enterprises or any of its many corporations. They are much too large and too many for me to list them all tonight. The Canadian Pacific, Mr. Speaker, is not only into the transportation business, as has been indicated by one of my colleagues. It is not only in the rail business. It is in the air business, and shipping, and probably in bus transportation. It is in real estate, in mines, in forest products. It is in every field in which it can make money.


An Hon. Member:: Good.


David Orlikow: Precisely. That is good. That is what it is in business for. No one faults the railways for that. However, when the people of Canada help that company-or any other company-make money they are entitled to receive a return. How did the Canadian Pacific become the largest corporation in Canada? Did it become the largest corporation because investors put their own money in? No, of course not. It became the largest corporation because the Government of the day, 100 years ago or more, believed, quite properly, that without a transcontinental railway, there would be no country. Therefore, beginning with the Conservative Government under Sir John A. Macdonald, and continuing ever since, Liberal and Conservative Governments have given to the CPR cash grants, loan guarantees, hundreds of millions of dollars, and millions of acres of land. Way back, Mr. Speaker, in 1917 a Royal Commission on Railways and Transportation estimated that the CPR had received the following public assistance as of 1916-almost 70 years ago: Railroad and surveys completed by the Government, $37.8 million; cash aid, $66.9 million; value of land, $119 million; return from land sold minus the cost of improvement, $55 million; a total way back then, Mr. Speaker, of $279.5 million.
Those grants to the CPR-and there have been many since then-have made the CPR the largest corporation in this country. This corporation has made hundreds of millions of dollars of profit over the years. What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, in Motion No. 50 is that we want to ensure that the people of Canada have the right to say to the CPR, "When you get money in the form of subsidies for moving grain, we want you to invest that money to improve the system." They are not asking CPR to invest some of its own money. That is a separate matter. At least CPR should invest all the money it receives from the Government in the form of subsidies in improving the railway system. I do not understand why this upsets the Conservative Hon. Members so much. It seems to me to be something natural to want to achieve.
Having heard the speech of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) a few months ago in which he was so critical of the CPR, which is pretty unique for a Conservative Member of Parliament, I am surprised he did not greet our amendment with enthusiasm. We are not trying to tel! the CPR how to run every facet of its operation, although it needs to be told to do many of the things which it ought to have done and which it has not. What we are saying is that we want to ensure that at least the money it receives in the forms of grants
for improving the system will be spent on that improvement. As I indicated, the CPR did not just grow like topsy. It grew because it was able to use the money which it got from Governments for railway improvements and so on, and divert it into other forms when it thought it was profitable, into a steamship line, into the airline, into real estate, into mining, and so on. It has not always been successful in what it decided to do. In the last week or so I-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have been trying to indicate to the Hon. Member that his time has expired. Perhaps he might like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to continue.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 would like to thank you for allowing our Hon. Members to get some practice in the Chair. I am sure they will reciprocate after the next election. I had some encouragement this evening when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) sat down in the House Leader's chair. I thought maybe there was going to be another switch in Cabinet.


An Hon. Member:: What a funny man you are.


Thomas Scott Fennell: We have heard common sense, finally, when the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) talked about these amendments. He has been around in politics a long time and he got very basic points across about these amendments. I notice a lot of noise from the Liberals. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the last three hours there have been no speakers from that side. That indicates there is no one over there who knows what is going on with this Bill. No one over there understands the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. No one over there wants to understand it.
After listening to the debate on this Bill and having an opportunity to speak, I know what this Bill is. It has nothing to do with the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. It is a Crowsnest Pass tax. If this tax does as much damage to central Ontario as the National Energy Program tax has done to central Ontario, I believe we had better bring a Bill up next to give central Canada a bit of a chance.


Jack Wendele Shields: Relief.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Well, we do not need relief. That is one thing that we do not need. I do wonder, Mr. Speaker, what Liberal Members have against western Canada. Obviously they are really mad at western Canada because the two most dreadful Bills that have faced the House in the last four years have been the National Energy Program and the Crowsnest Pass Tax.
I will address myself to Motion No. 50 which has been proposed by my colleague from the New Democratic Party. It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that early in the evening NDP Members were making a great deal of noise. Their
October 31, 1983

numbers are falling, but if you think their numbers have fallen now, Mr. Speaker, wait until after the next election. They will be lucky to have six Members to form a Party. They can hoot and holler all they want. I do not understand why they are hooting and hollering about this motion.
Dealing with this motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that once we in the Conservative Party form the Government, because of this motion the CNR will be forced to have the Auditor General do a comprehensive audit. That covers half of the problem they are talking about. If they were to bring in eastern auditors at $125 to $150 an hour, that would create a further burden on the taxpayers of Canada, and in particular those of western Canada. The auditors in the country do not need any more business. Some auditors exist only to analyse and justify Government expenditures.
I do not understand why Hon. Members of the NDP brought forward such a convoluted motion. Even a tax lawyer could not understand that motion. Why would they try and bring forward this amendment when there has been a logical amendment accepted by the committee, and agreed to by Liberal Members, already before the House? That motion simply relates to analysing the investment plans for grain movements. That is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker.
Members of the NDP keep on talking about CPI, Canadian Pacific Investments, which has nothing to do with the CPR other than common ownership. Even if they had their way, they could not touch all these companies they are talking about because it is the railway sector of CPR that would be dealt with because only it relates to the grain movement. Furthermore, if the railways want to take in more depreciation, they can take in depreciation on hotels and aircraft through this particular amendment. If you look at the converse, Mr. Speaker, it is a stupid amendment.
I shall now turn to Motions Nos. 52 and 53. One of the thorns in our side is the absolute difficulty we have getting information out of the Government. We as the Official Opposition represent a large portion of the Canadian population. At this point, we represent the majority of Canadians. We should have the right to know what is behind these Bills and what information is discussed in secret. When we go to a Ministry today, we are boondoggled with bureaucratese. We are not given any direct answers on any subjects. It is time that the Government accept the Freedom of Information Act in the spirit in which it was considered and in the way it was put through the House in the first place. Keeping a secret from the people is wrong. It is not fair to the people.
Just as an aside, Mr. Speaker, 1 am from Ontario. I should be standing here defending the farmers of Ontario. However, the farmers of Ontario are self-sufficient. The grain growers in the West will be relegated to being only grain growers. 1 would like to know what the Government is thinking when it is not giving the fifty-fifty option to the farmers and the railways. What will happen to the livestock industry? What will happen to the grain processing industry in the West? Those are serious questions, Mr. Speaker. What may possibly happen is what happened to the drilling industry in the West. The National
Western Grain Transportation Act Energy Program killed the oil drilling industry in western Canada. This program will kill the secondary industries in Canada.
We need to broaden our manufacturing base. We need to convert more raw materials into finished products. I cannot think of any more logical approach than feeding cattle in the West, butchering them and sending them in refrigerated cars to Ontario, at which point they would be perfectly tender, edible and ready for market.
It is wrong for the Government to have taken so much away from the farmer. If the Government would give half the amount involved in this Bill to the farmers it would then be giving more to the farmers than ever before in the past. As far as the railways are concerned, I shall not shed a tear for them. They have been subsidized and looked after for long enough. This Bill provides a further subsidy to the railways.
I really must return to the point that the manufacturing sector in central Canada is very important. If money is taken out of the hands of the farmers, then, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), those farmers cannot buy another car. That is what we in central Canada make. We make cars and refrigerators and stoves and consumer products of all kinds. We manufacture textiles for use throughout the country. If those funds are removed from the farmers through a tax, we are hurting the rest of Canada.
I do not think the Government really understands the implications of this. I think it should go back and review what has transpired since the National Energy Program was implemented. 1 think this additional tax is a burden on all of the taxpayers of Canada because it is paid for by the farmer. Thus it takes money out of his pocket that he could spend on finished products.
1 trust that somewhere down the line the Government will come forward with a provision to alow the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), who is answerable to Members of this House, to be provided with information. Members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee at this time are all Liberals. I am worried that when our Party forms the next Government that committee will still be composed of Liberals. Then when the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) tries to get information from them they might refuse it. That would not be right, and we would be hurt by it. The country would be hurt by it and nobody in Government would know. Perhaps the present Minister of Transport, who may not be in the House then, may be able to get that information, yet the Hon. Member for Vegreville might not be able to get it.
This entire Bill must be re-thought. The Minister of Transport employed a very clever and intelligent man to do a study on this subject. He came up with a solution that was acceptable to all Canadians until it hit the Liberal caucus. The Liberal caucus stopped that proposal from going to the House in the way it was originally conceived. That is inequitable and unfair. 1 plead with the Government to return to the House with more amendments which, if fair to the farmers, we will not debate but will accept very quickly.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the motions now before us are Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53. I began my remarks with those words because I want you to know right from the start that I know what motions we are talking about.
Bearing in mind that we are dealing with Motions Nos. 50, 52 and 53, I would like to tell you, Sir, that the bottom line is the question of trust. What frightens me most about this whole proposed legislation is that the New Democratic Party has found it necessary to put some motions before us. In essence, they are saying that if we follow the Minister's policy by which all the money goes to the railway with no competition in the transportation system on the Prairies, and competition is eroded to the point where there is only one mode of transportation, we will need an enormous bureaucracy so the Government can control that system. This would result also from the present motions. I submit that it is a dangerous precedent for us to set.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You better read Motion No. 58 before you go on.


Arnold John Malone: What the NDP ought to do is to make their own speeches instead of coaching mine.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Read the motion.


Arnold John Malone: Would the Member from Mount St. Helen's quit blowing his top. Calm down for a moment.
We are faced with a situation in which enshrined in the amendment is the whole question as to whether we are to have a bureaucratic structure telling the private sector in the country how to run its business. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) says that we are not dealing with a corner grocery store. He says that we are dealing with one of the largest industries in all of Canada. I say to him, so what? There is a principle of business. When one deals with principles one does not deal with the cost of money or whether a business is large or small.
The NDP claims that it is for small business. Let me tell the truth about the NDP. It is for small business until such time as those businesses become successful. Because the NDP has that kind of hate legacy for anything it deems to be big it does not like them. The NDP likes smallness because it can control it. It is against anything that is large because it competes with its ideology of Government control. NDP members believe that the Government should control, and therefore do not follow business practices but introduce motions which dictate to the private sector how it should spend.
One of the amendments to this legislation would offer freedom of choice in the system of transportation. Consequently, if the railways do not compete as the public feels they should there are competitive modes of transportation available. This means there are other modes of transportation competition, such as the use of trucks, which would then make the railways chase the dollar. When they have to do this in order to make money, since their profitability lies in the farmers, the
railways must perform in order to get that dollar. Therefore they will function in a way that is acceptable and in accordance with business practice.
The NDP does not want that. It wants to allow the railways to concentrate on one mode of transportation and then throw the bureaucracy of Government on top, laden with layers of performance tests, bureaucracy to make sure they spend the right amounts on the right things and another layer of Government to run out to the Prairies to monitor the hopper cars. The NDP do not want to see competition. As the Member for Winnipeg North said, "We are not dealing with the corner grocer, we are dealing with the biggest industry in all of Canada."
If business principles are followed and the money is put into the pockets of the farmers, and they are allowed to make their choice as to how to deliver their grain, there would be no need for the bureaucracies that the Liberals and the NDP would find necessary to build. Furthermore, the country would be on the road to efficiency if those principles were to be used. We would be on the road to finding a way to move our grain. This would make us competitive in the world and enable us to earn money in terms of our balance of payments, money that otherwise would be sucked up by governments with their many layers of bureaucracy. It is incumbent upon all Canadians to demand efficiency. This is especially important to demand of the Government which only practices fiscal responsibility by borrowing until responsibility is total irresponsibility.
The issue concerns the difference between the approach taken by Motion No. 52 and Motion No. 53 and the concept of freedom of choice by the producer. That freedom of choice on the Prairies would include choosing between CP and CN for grain transportation. A producer could haul his grain a further distance to a different line and this would give competition between the railways. When that takes place we would then have the business principles being exercised by the producers throughout Prairie Canada, thus forcing companies as big as CN and CP to perform in order to chase the dollar to get the business.
1 submit that we are going to end up with something I fear; the Government favouring one mode of transportation. Since it would favour and pay that one mode, it would need the bureaucracy to support it. Even before this Bill has passed third reading or has been enacted, there are amendments on the books providing for that very occurrence. It is a principle that you need to have bureaucracy to control and direct how the money is spent, and that is a sham.
Since there is a more efficient and profitable way to do it, why should Canadians believe that this socialist, left-leaning aberration of economic principle, could ever lead to anything except more debt, higher taxes and less money in the pockets of Canadians, once the grain has been delivered to port and sold to other nations?
The sale of grain is the greatest contributor to Canada's federal coffers of any single commodity. The sale of grain has contributed $6 billion and provides money for the Canadian economy in a way that no other product can. For that reason I
October 31, 1983

believe that this legislation does not only represent a western Canadian issue. The question of the Crow rate is a Canadian issue, because when farmers in western Canada receive extra money for the sale of their crops they can spend that money. They can buy commodities such as refrigerators, automobiles and farm machinery, all of which are probably manufactured in central Canada. The money which comes into Canada from the export sale of grain to the tune of $6 billion means that this is not purely a western issue. The grain industry is a major economic contributor to this country and one of the engines of growth. We should not be foiled by the examples of Motions Nos. 50, No. 52 and No. 53 which set forth false pretenses of economic principle that would burden us with more layers of bureaucracy that are totally unacceptable.
I conclude therefore by saying that these motions are unnecessary because of the provision for freedom of choice. They would be a burden upon us in terms of paper, bureaucracy and layers of Government becoming involved in the private sector. These motions would have the Government run the private sector and breech the principles that business has a right to manage its own affairs.
Sir, that might be the NDP way to say that Government has the right to tell business how to run its business. That is not the accepted way of the majority of Canadians. They believe there is a position in this country for the individual. They believe-the majority of Canadians-that there is a place in this country for families and businesses to run in accordance with the law that allows them to do with their money that which they believe they should do. But not the Liberals or the NDP. They think Government should be able to dictate to business and say what business should do with its money.
I simply say let us open this up to competition, to different modes of transportation. Not only will it be more efficient, not only will it mean we do not require Governments meddling, it will mean that commodity markets on the Prairies, which do not normally export but want to have value added within the Provinces, can ship their barley to feed lots, to poultry barns-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). One could spend all of one's allotted time just going through his remarks and picking up some of the errors and correcting him. Let me deal with a few.
The Hon. Member suggested that the amendments before us, Nos. 50, 52 and 53 are all socialist amendments and interfere with the free enterprise system. I wish to remind the Hon. Member that Motion No. 52 is a Conservative amendment. It is a Conservative amendment which requests that the
Western Grain Transportation Act
information given to the commission by the railways be not kept secret.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is why it is a good amendment.


Simon Leendert de Jong: In other words, this information should be public. Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are almost identical. One comes from the New Democratic Party and one from the Conservative Party. There are some Members in the Conservative Party who realize that this information should be public and should not be secret. It is true Canadian Pacific Railways is a private company. But there are some Members in the Conservative Party who do believe that information should be public because the decisions of the CPR do have a tremendous effect. Because of the tremendous public effect this company has the public should be aware and have access to that information. It is the friends of the CPR across the way, the Liberal Party, the Liberal Government, who are opposed to making this information public.
Essentially what we are asking for in amendment No. 50, to which the Conservatives are so opposed and about which the Liberals are essentially dead silent, is that we guarantee in legislation that we get what we pay for.
I am amazed when 1 listen to Members, like the Hon. Member for Crowfoot, who talked as though the CPR were just an ordinary private company carrying on its business and that our amendment really interferes with the operations of that private enterprise and therefore we should not do this. Does the Hon. Member not realize that what we are asking for is that public moneys given to the CPR be spent in a way that benefits the public, that those moneys given to the CPR be spent in the way they are supposed to be? Does that not really make more business sense? I am surprised that Members of the Conservative Party and Members of the Liberal Party, who pride themselves in being good business people, should feel that the public, giving money to this private corporation, should not have the right in legislation to determine that the money indeed gets spent in the way it is supposed to be spent. In other words, that the public gets what it pays for. That is all that we are asking for.
Is this such an outrage to free enterprise? I fail to see it, Mr. Speaker. I think it is irresponsible of a government, whether Liberal or Conservative, to hand out moneys and not ensure that those moneys are spent in a way for which they were paid. To do otherwise is truly irresponsible. Essentially what the Liberals and the Tories want is a blank cheque written for the CPR.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Read the motion.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Liberals want a blank cheque for the CPR. Our good Conservative friends want a blank cheque for CP trucking. The CPR wins both ways.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Baloney.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The CPR wins both ways.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is more baloney.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Simon Leendert de Jong: One of them is supporting one section of this CP enterprise and the other supports the other section.


Gordon Edward Taylor: More and more baloney.


Simon Leendert de Jong: This Party has consistently taken the same position, over and over again. Let me explain it as simply as I can to both sides of the House.
We claim that the Canadian public throughout all these years has paid for a transportation system, the CP Rail. In 1982 dollars the public invested through various subsidies, grants, et cetera, close to $13.5 billion in CP Rail. We insist that that rail system be used for transportation of grain, that we do not splinter that system. We insist that CP Rail start doing what it was paid to do, that is all. Is that so complicated? Is that an outrage against private enterprise? If it is, I think we are lost. This country is lost. It does not matter really whether it is the Liberals or the Tories who are in power, they will just continue handing out money; one to CP Rail and the other to CP trucks. The Canadian people and the taxpayer will continue to be losers.
Our Conservative friends charge that we are against "the free choice." If you start allowing massive trucking in western Canada you will end up with two systems of hauling grain, both inadequate. You will have a trucking system which depends on public subsidies for roads and the maintenance of those roads, and you will have a railway system which will start making the claim that there is not enough traffic moving along certain lines. This will accelerate branch line abandonment.


Jack Wendele Shields: Big brother knows.


Simon Leendert de Jong: You will end up with two inadequate systems. Our friends in the Conservative Party say this is dictatorial.


Jack Wendele Shields: Big brother again.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Hear the Member crow. It is "big brother", he says.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is "big brother" to ask the railroads to do what you pay them to do. He calls that being big brother.


Jack Wendele Shields: You want the whole thing for the railroads.


Simon Leendert de Jong: The logic escapes me.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You haven't studied it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I think it escaped those Members a long time ago. Can those Members not get it into their heads that if you start paying it all to the farmers you will fracture the railway system, fracture the transportation system?


Jack Wendele Shields: Big brother knows best.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Surely every study that has been done, as well as the recommendations of various provincial Governments,
including Conservative Governments, ask this Committee and ask this Parliament not to allow a system that will fracture our transportation system. Hon. Members on my right are so adamant about this, even though the largest producer organizations-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, while we address the entire question about the accountability of CPR to Canadian taxpayers, in face of the large amount of moneys that were transferred from the pockets of taxpayers to that corporation over the years, it is worth while to take a look at the history of the Crow rate, in particular.
In 1881 the CPR syndicate accepted from the people of Canada land, cash, rail lines and other benefits in exchange for a commitment to "thereafter and forever efficiently maintain, work and run the Canadian Pacific Railway". Clearly Parliament intended that the vast land grants and other benefits were to permit the syndicate to finance the railway's ongoing operation. In general terms, the Crow rate is one half of an indivisible national policy dating back to Sir John A. MacDonald to provide tariff protection for central industry and low cost transport to develop the eastern and western regions.
I have no doubt that the House will be interested in what another Member of my caucus will have to say about past Conservative policy on rail transportation. He managed to find, I believe in a used bookstore in Montreal, a 1882 policy document of the Conservative Party which had been used in an election campaign at that time. I am sure the House will be interested in the historical significance of what my colleague will have to say later in the debate.
Specifically, the Crow rate was agreed upon by CPR and the Government of Canada and remains a valid and binding contract. Sir Clifford Sifton, party to the negotiations that established the 1897 Crow rate agreement, said in 1929:
I remember when as a young minister in Laurier's cabinet, Van Horne and Shaughnessy said a line into the Kootenay mining district would not be considered for fifteen years. Also I remember that within six weeks the same two gentlemen came into my office and said that they had to build this line and wanted a large bonus for doing it, that the CPR was on the verge of bankruptcy.
He went on to say:
We gave them this bonus against the public sentiment of two-thirds of the people of Canada. They built the line and the Kootenay mining development-
Of course that was the nucleus of Cominco:

saved the CPR and saved a good many other things in Canada.
October 31, 1983

In 1925, Parliament put the Crow rate into statute when the railways offered to keep grain on the Crow rate if they could be relieved from the agreement for low rates on other commodities. At the time CPR made it clear, and again 1 quote, "we are not asking for any change in the conditions established in 1897 in regard to grain and grain products".
A member of the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transportation, A. R. Gobeil, at the time said:
-the grain rates were not imposed by Parliament. They were not only freely accepted by the railway but were offered by them as an inducement to persuade Parliament to lift that part of the agreement which pertained to westbound rates on other commodities.
At no time in 1925 was there ever a suggestion by either party that the agreement of 1897 was being terminated. The Crowsnest Pass Agreement is a binding contract, and if CP wishes to be relieved of its obligations under the Agreement it must also relinquish the benefits.
The benefits have been rather substantial over the years. Government statistics clearly show over the years the subsidies paid to CPR with taxpayers' dollars. The amounts of money have been rather substantial. I am sure that the House would be interested in hearing what the subsidy levels have been.
For example, in the fiscal year beginning in 1958 the amount was $4.6 million. In 1982 dollars that would equal some $15.9 million. In 1959 the subsidy from Canadian taxpayers was $5 million, and in 1960 it was $12.9 million. In 1961, it was $32.3 million; in 1962, $32.5 million; in 1963, $31.6 million; in 1964, $31.9 million; in 1965, $37.8 million; in 1967, $52.2 million; and in 1968, $38.7 million. These were subsidies paid to CPR by taxpayers of Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Corporate welfare bums.


Neil Young: David Lewis, former Leader of the New Democratic Party, was absolutely correct in making charges against some of those corporate welfare bums.
To continue with the figures in 1969, CPR received $33.5 million; in 1970, $27.8 million; in 1971, $32 million; in 1972, $35.5 million; in 1973, $54.9 million; in 1974, $61.1 million; in 1975, $93 million; in 1976, $84.6 million; in 1977, $112.8 million; in 1978, $129.1 million; in 1979, $186 million; in 1980, $221.6 million; in 1981; $232.7 million, for a total, in the years between 1958 and 1981 of some $2,919.8 million from the pockets of taxpayers.


J. Michael Forrestall: Who wrote that?


Neil Young: This is detailed research on which I have worked over the past several months, since my colleagues in the New Democratic Party first brought to my attention what the Government and the Conservative Party were trying to do to western Canadian farmers, and indeed farmers elsewhere in the country. It was because of their eloquence that I decided to dig in and do thorough research. I am glad I did. It has an edifying process. I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your attention.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, earlier today I thought we had come to the end of the discussion on this Bill and that that would be the last time I would have to speak. I am glad that the motion put forward by my colleague in the Conservative Party to continue without interruption has made it possible to say a few more words on this most important piece of legislation to those people in western Canada whom I represent.
Historically, as has been mentioned by some, this Bill has been part and parcel of the lives of Canadians since the time of Confederation. That is why I believe it is important that we consider seriously in great detail each of the motions before the House at this time.
It has always been a thrill to realize the vision of the forefathers of our country when they were able to stop at nothing to see that Canada would be a united country. One of the great historical works that took place within this land was the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was, as we know, a joint effort between private enterprise and government.
As such, with the vision of the founders of this nation, it tied together this country from one sea to the other. I do not believe that people today have that kind of vision. The people at that time with the materials and machinery available built something that historically would still have to be one of the great human endeavours of Canada.
As that was being done, and as funds were being found in this country, and in foreign investments from Britain and other places, there had to be built into the structures of the railroad's operation system a means of financing that would continue to keep that railroad alive, make it operative and working in such a way that the purpose for which it was built would continue to be met. It was built to give a viable life line to all parts of Canada so that Canadians could live as a family, grouped together, able to communicate and travel back and forth.
One of the ways in which this lifeblood was pumped into the CPR was through public moneys which, as my colleage just said, came in the form of public subsidies paid to it by the people of Canada through the Government. In Motion No. 50 which we are now discussing, proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), we would change the legislation in Clause 29 paragraph 3, which reads as follows:
A railway company shall use Canadian goods and services in carrying out investments in railway equipment and plant for the movement of grain and more particularly shall use goods and services from the region where the investment is being made to the full extent to which they are procurable, consistent with proper economy and the expeditious carrying out of the investment.
My Party believes that that is not clear enough. It does not specify clearly, surely and without doubt that the moneys that will be received in public subsidies will be put into the construction and the maintenance of the railroads so that the purpose for the railroad, the carrying of goods and in this case the carrying of grain so international markets, will continue

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act without flaw. We are proposing under Clause 29 that paragraph 3 read as follows:
A railway company shall, in a subsequent calendar year, invest in railway equipment and plant for the movement of grain an amount not less than the after tax cost of capital, after tax depreciation, and after tax constant cost portion of payments it received under section 55 for the preceeding crop year.
We are simply saying that the railroad is bound to put into railroad equipment and maintenance of the system the amount of money that comes to it that year by the subsidies that are paid to it for the carrying of the product. That makes perfectly good sense. The subsidy is given to keep the system operating and functioning. It is directed toward the railroad company to see that the machinery, locomotives, cars railways and necessary maintenance to keep the operation mobile and moving is there and in place. We are asking that each year the railroad use the subsidies that have been given to it during that calendar year to put it specifically into upkeep, maintenance and carrying out of the cost of the running of the railroad. Those who have travelled know that because Canadian Pacific Railway is such a huge company with such vast holdings in many different areas that is not always taking place.
We hope that this motion will carry when we come to vote on it so that each year the moneys that have been procured by the public subsidy will be put into the care, upkeep and maintenance of the railroad and not into some other sector of the company's business. For that reason, we have, in union with our colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party, asked in Motions Nos. 52 and 53 exactly the same basic thing, that this information become public information, that it not be something that could be restricted by railroad companies and kept from the public. Motion 52 as proposed by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) reads:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page 15.
That simply says and 1 quote:
To remove the provisions of the legislation that would require the members of the Senior Grain Transportation Committee to treat as confidential any information declared to be so by the railroads.
In exactly the same words, the Hon. Member for Regina West has proposed the same amendment, and I quote:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 10 to 15 at page 15.
It was a surprise to hear the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) speak against the Motion. I could not understand why he did that. He was actually speaking against the motion put forward by one of his colleagues. The Motion was exactly the same as that of my colleague from Regina West.
It is important to have this Clause amended in that way so that this cloak of secrecy that the railroad company wants to impose upon the Senior Grain Transportation Committee about its operation, where the funds and subsidies have gone, will not exist, that it will be public information for all Canadians, including the farmers, taxpayers, those in the Maritimes and in the rest of the country. They put their money into the system and they should know exactly where it has gone. No
railroad company should be given the power to keep that secret from the public.
I trust that the Government will hear very loud and clear that the Opposition Parties, both the Progressive Conservative and the New Democratic Party, have put forward the same two Motions, numbers 52 and 53. I hope that the Government hears what is being said by those on this side of the House, and that when the vote is called on the motions they will pass. That is what the people of Canada have a right to have. They should know what has happened to the subsidies.
I see that you are signalling me, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to have had this opportunity to speak, for which I thank you very much.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to add something new to the debate.


An Hon. Member:: That will be a change.


Ian Deans: I listened with interest to my good friend and colleague, the Bard of the Conservative Party who muttered sotto voce "that will be a change." I want to suggest to him that perhaps if he would listen he would understand that the arguments we are putting, though similar, are intended to complement each other in an effort to change the Government's mind.
I want to say that the amendment we are proposing is fundamental to the contract which was entered into between the Government of Canada and the builders of the railroad. It was never intended that the railroads would have access to public funds without explaining fully how those funds were to be used. I would go further and say that it was never intended that the railroads would have access to public funds at all other than through grants for the purpose of building the railroad.
I know you were probably around at the time the railroad was built or maybe just shortly thereafter, Mr. Speaker. You will remember, if not from personal recollection, certainly from your study of history, exactly what took place back in the late 1800s. I can recall reading the history of elections at that particular time. There was a booklet put out by the Conservative Party for the purposes of the election of 1882. At that point in time the Conservative Party, under perhaps the greatest Conservative leader ever, was trying to explain to the electors of Canada the facts. He called it "A record of the Conservative Administration, Claims of the Government for the Support of the People". I intend to quote just two or three paragraphs from this.
I make reference to this because it bears very heavily on the debate we are having here today. The Conservative Party of the day back in 1882 put forward policies as follows:
A national policy for the encouragement of Canadian Industries, Agricultural, Manufacturing, Mining.
A Pacific Railway from ocean to ocean, on Canadian soil, for the development of our Great West and the building up of Canadian commerce.
October 31, 1983

They went on to put on as their third initiate the "British Connection. A determined opposition to everything calculated to weaken the tie binding us to the Mother Country".
As you look at those headings you have to think of how far the Conservative Party has wandered today. 1 must say that Sir John A., resting as he no doubt is, and watching the proceedings here, is probably twisting and turning with anguish as he sees what has happened to his Party.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I used that this morning and it was a lot funnier.


Ian Deans: Let me read what the claim was in those days and you will be able to see quite clearly why I contend that this particular amendment is an essential part of any redefinition of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the railroads of Canada in terms of how they will serve the economic needs.
On page 15 of that book it says:
The Canadian Pacific Railway
The Opposition-
The Opposition in those days, of course, were the Liberals.
-describe the contract entered into with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to construct the Pacific Railway as the "Giant among Swindles," and as "the most disastrous public contract" and "the greatest railway swindle of the 19th century."
I want to stop at this point because-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Agreed.


Ian Deans: -their opposition was clearly misguided. That can happen. 1 want to suggest that just as their opposition was misguided then their opposition to what we are proposing now is equally misguided. Just as the opposition to the development of the railroad system back in the late 1800s was a misguided opposition, their opposition to our demand that the railroads be clearly accountable publicly for the expenditures that they undertake using public funds is misguided today, as it was in those days.
The Conservative brochure goes on to defend their position. They say:
At that time both parties agreed that it should be built by a company, aided by subsidies of land and money-
And this is the catch.
-but so as not to increase the burden of taxation.
In our presentation we suggested that there was a clear betrayal of the original agreement. The railroads had been given, in return for their commitment to build what was deemed at that time, and undoubtedly was in the national interest, a link between the West and the central and eastern parts of Canada, substantial amounts of capital by way of grants, and they were given substantial numbers of acres of land by way of outright deed. But they were not to be given public subsidy out of the tax dollars, what we are saying today is consistent with that particular principle.
Western Grain Transportation Act
We are saying that if the railroads are to be provided with additional funds, as they have been over the last number of years in order to enable them to live up to their commitment, surely it is not too much to expect that in return for those funds they should be prepared to provide an accurate dollar accounting of how the funds are spent.
I heard the Conservatives moaning and groaning over the course of the last four hours about the inconsistency of our position.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hear, hear! Right on.


Ian Deans: They say with some degree of glee "hear, hear".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Hear, hear, with a hell of a lot of glee.


Ian Deans: All 1 can assume is that that particular response is out of ignorance. Quite frankly, if they were to be true to the original tenets of the Party they belong to, they would appreciate that those people who entered into this agreement in the first place quite clearly entered into it with an understanding that there would be no public funds made available on an ongoing basis out of taxation.
Since that point in time no doubt a number of changes have taken place. The one thing that is reasonable to ask is an accounting of how the money is going to be spent. I cannot understand why we cannot gain the support of the House of Commons on a matter such as this. I hear Conservative Members rising one after the other and speaking about the right of the company to maintain its secrecy, to maintain the confidentiality of its affairs. Mr. Speaker, confidentiality has a place, but there is no place for confidentiality if there is the involvement of public expenditures.
I can see that you are on the edge of your seat, Mr. Speaker, and you probably want to make a speech in support of my position. I simply want to ask Members of the House to consider this carefully. 1 say to the Tories, do not leave your roots; hang in there; you were right in the first place. 1 say to the Liberals, you were wrong in the beginning; you are wrong again; hear what we have to say.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, after such a forceful presentation on such an important position one would not want to make a judgment without having slept on the topic. In light of that very sound and sober advice that we need to cogitate, reflect and assess with the proper degree of sobriety and clearheadedness that such an amendment requires, I wonder if the House would like to consider the means by which we could expedite our business so that Members of the Opposition could allow me to give this the consideration they so devoutly wish.
I should like to respond to the concerns they have expressed. They may want to spend at least tomorrow's proceedings examining some of the amendments that were brought forward and placed on the Order Paper today that deal with the fundamental issue of ability to pay. I wonder if we could gain

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
the consent of the House that the safety net amendments which I introduced this afternoon might now be considered. In that way we could use our time very well in examining the debate that has passed, at the same time using the time left in report stage debate to examine items of great seriousness and concern to the western farmer, namely, how we can provide protection during the time of the cost-price freeze that we all face. I should like to ask for consent for such a judgment by the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair suggests that there might be a disposition to dispose of the amendments currently under discussion and then, with the unanimous consent of the House, the House would be free to adopt any other amendments for consideration. Would Hon. Members care to comment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the point raised by the Minister of Transport. This Party is on record as early as this afternoon as expressing a willingness to debate those fundamental issues. The Minister referred to the proposition of the safety net. We would certainly have no objection to moving that forward for debate as it is very central to the Bill. We have not had an opportunity to debate it in committee or indeed to consider it in any form, since it was considered out of order.
I hope that in the course of consideration of the concept of the safety net we would be allowed to consider some of the motions we have advanced today, namely, the proposal to freeze the existing freight rate structure at least until July 31, 1986-that is this Party's version of a safety net-until such time as a review and study of the farmers' ability to pay and the impact upon producers, can be conducted. Second, we hope that we will be able to deal with the motion that was put forward with respect to the method of payment. Third, there is the motion dealing with the issue of the coal lands. As I indicated earlier today, it was only considered in a rather cursory fashion in committee because we ran out of time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We moved an amendment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, we did consider an amendment but the guillotine had been imposed and it was not dealt with in detail.
Subject to those conditions we would be prepared to move on to the amendments suggested by the Hon. Minister of Transport.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly clear what the Minister of Transport was asking. Does he suggest that we should now move on to other amendments tonight? I have no objection to moving on to the next set of amendments. We have been dealing with what I consider to be a vitally important matter, the question of accountability. 1 do not think any Member of the House would disagree with that.
The next set of amendments to be called in the order set down by the Speaker will deal with another vital and important matter. I do not doubt that by five o'clock or six o'clock tomorrow afternoon we will be reaching the point of dealing
with other important matters. We are prepared to sit continuously for as long as it takes to deal with the Bill in total.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, to clarify this, I recognize the noble spirit of debate expressed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). If we look at the record of debate during report stage-and the pattern has not changed during today's proceedings-we will see that the possibility of encountering the 30 or 40 amendments still on the Order Paper by five o'clock or six o'clock tomorrow afternoon is highly unlikely.


An Hon. Member:: You should have thought of that before you moved closure.


Lloyd Axworthy: The issue that I raised is not simply that of proceeding seriatim to allow the House to reorder its priorities by consent-not to dispose of any amendments but to reallocate the order in which we would deal with them. 1 suggest that in order to give full attention to the central issue in the time allotment available to us-the ability to pay issue which focuses around the safety net amendment-it might be brought forward as the next order of business when we conclude the group of amendments that we are dealing with.
1 suggest this in the interests of debating the issues which are of critical importance. Members from western Canada know that when they go back to their constituencies there will be no issue of more importance. The Government believes that it is answering that issue through the amendments introduced this afternoon. I think it would only be fair for the Opposition to be in a position to respond and have an exchange of views across the floor of the House.
If we go according to the time pattern established by Members of the Opposition in the way they have conducted debate, the chance of our getting to the point of examining the matter within the time allocation, no matter how long we stay, is remote. In the interests of serving the right of the public to know where we stand on this issue, I would like to see if there is some way of arriving at an agreement.


Ian Deans: Now I understand more clearly what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister clarifying the matter for me.
If we continue as we are and it gets to 5.45 p.m. tomorrow afternoon and we have not yet dealt with this matter, we would be quite happy to extend the sitting to accommodate whatever additional time is necessary to deal with any amendments at that time outstanding.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief but I want to refer to the hallucinatory intervention of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He alluded to a number of things in the course of his speech. In the course of reading a speech prepared by one of his researchers he gave a history of the evolution of the Crowsnest Pass rate.
October 31, 1983

1 want to recall to the House that I believe it was Mackenzie King who said that there really was no difference between the Liberal Party and the CCF Party, that the CCF Party was really composed of Liberals in a hurry. After listening to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, I must change that particular observation because the last three or four speakers of that Party have been dealing with the 1880s, the 1885s and the 1887s. The New Democratic Party are making the Liberals look like people who are full pace runners in comparison. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), pointed out quite accurately some time ago, the NDP are really the true reactionaries of our time. It has never changed its point of view. It repeats and repeats the catechism which was originated with their Party under the tutelage of the trade union movement in 1961: never an original thought. Do not address the issue before us but stay with the same old-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Order, please. Is the Hon. Member speaking to the motions?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It sounded good to me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am pleased to hear that. Will the Hon. Member please proceed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is why, Mr. Speaker, you hold high office. You are so observant. You are able to see that I am dealing in relevance with this particular set of motions in pointing out the fact that in terms of the approach which the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party take with respect to these particular amendments, they are the true reactionaries. You, Mr. Speaker, understand the relevance of that because you have been subjected to their various speeches. They like to go back in history. I can go back in history, too. I can refer to the fact that the Crowsnest Pass rates are regarded as part of the Magna Carta of western Canada. In fact, I looked at that Magna Carta just to make sure and refresh my memory as to the relevance of that document to the debate today.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, because you will understand that what we are dealing with now is the question of accountability of the railways. One of our amendments was in fact accepted in committee. It was a very important amendment which forced the railways to have an accountability before the CTC with respect to its operations under the provisions of this Act. The Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party have raised some examples of past history, so I thought I would look back to the Magna Carta itself to see whether or not if we went back to 1215 in the time of King John and the barons we could find out exactly what happened then which may have had an influence on the accountability of the railroads.
I am fascinated at the relevance of this document, Mr. Speaker. I draw to the attention of the Minister that the Magna Carta says, and I quote:
Western Grain Transportation Act
No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.
The Government should listen to what the Magna Carta says as to the basic rules of our democratic system in the British tradition, because what it is proposing with this legislation is very much like taking the farmers' corn without payment. 1 quote again:
No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.
The Minister should listen to this because that is what the Government is doing with the transportation vehicle-the railways-with respect to the grain producers in Canada today. I quote again:
No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.
I would like to say one thing, Mr. Speaker. If one looks at the railways today and the obligations they put on towns and persons in our society with respect to maintenance of their railways, their crossings, the snow removal obligations these agents, in the case of the CNR, the Crown, puts upon towns and persons in our society, one can understand that the barons who went up and demanded equal rights, justice and democracy from King John knew what they were talking about. It is too bad that the Government does not understand the relevance of the Magna Carta as it affects this particular legislation.
I want simply to deal with the provisions here because we are talking about the obligations of the CPR and the railways to the people of Canada under this particular legislation. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and other Members of the New Democratic Party have made reference to the fact that they are the protectors of the Crowsnest Pass rate. They say that they are not working hand and glove with the Government. They do not support the Government in any way in this regard. When one looks at the question of how much the railways are going to be receiving with respect to the transportation of grain, and at the whole question of accountability and how the profits are to be applied in the amendment which is brought forward by the New Democratic Party, one has to consider the full implication of what that Party did today. That Party brought in its own amendment with respect to the safety net.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They said that the Crow must go.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Members of that Party did not even have the good grace, Mr. Speaker, to use their own typewriter. They took the Government motion which is tabled. They went to a photo copy machine and copied exactly word for word the proposal of the Government with respect to the safety net provisions.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain will probably not understand this because he attended exactly zero of the hearings with respect to this matter of the Transport Committee. He never appeared. He never showed his face once. At least the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper)

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
came to have his picture taken with the committee once and attended for 15 minutes.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may surprise the Hon. Member who has just spoken to know that not only did I attend hearings, but 1 read every word of the proceedings. As the House Leader, that is my job.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder what the consequence is of the amendment which the NDP brought in today, that so-called defender of the Crow rate, these Hon. Members who have been trumpeting their dedication to the statutory rate. By using exactly the same amendment as the Government presented with the exception of blocking out part of Subsection (a) of Motion No. 59 which deals with the number of percentage points of the freight rate price ratio, they removed the graduated scale and put in their own maximum of 3 per cent.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Three per cent! That is a 20 per cent increase.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This is an amazing thing, Mr. Speaker. Here it is, the Liberal-NDP coalition, reading from the same song sheet! They have different figures, but these people are talking about precisely the same thing. What they are talking about is the destruction of the Crow rate. They know they are as guilty as the Liberal Government with respect to the destruction of the Crowsnest Pass rate. I challenge them to stand up in western Canada with a straight face and suggest that they have anything-


An Hon. Member:: Any time you want it, Ray.


Simon Leendert de Jong: You are getting red in the face. You must be lying or something. Are you not telling the truth? Why are you blushing like that?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that if the Hon. Member is reading a motion, he should give the proper interpretation to it. The safety net is a ceiling, not a floor. It provides a very adequate protection in the event-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order. The Hon. Member is not making a point of order, he is entering into debate. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) will continue his brilliant remarks.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let me just say to the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), Mr. Speaker, that 10 per cent is a ceiling as well. I can tell him that 15 per cent is a ceiling and 50 per cent is a ceiling. Three per cent is a ceiling. The Hon. Member knows, Mr. Speaker, in the situation today, that if we were to take the figures right now in terms of half a cent per tonne mile, it would be the equivalent of a 2.5 per cent figure. The NDP Members are suggesting that they are going to raise this to 3 per cent. That is a 20 per cent increase.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are getting ready to stand up and compliment me on my acute observations. However, I would just like to conclude my remarks with one sentence. The NDP Members have declared their true feelings with respect
to this matter through this amendment. What they have now proposed is the destruction of the Crow rate. 1 say to my hon. friends in the House of Commons that 1 will not let western Canadians forget this during the course of the next election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 50. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(1 1), the recorded division on the proposed motion will be deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 52. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(1 1), the recorded division on the proposed motion will be deferred. A vote on Motion No. 52 disposes of Motion No. 53.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 55
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 33 by striking out lines II to 43 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"for the purpose of moving grain and the Minister shall take every reasonable initiative to ensure that an adequate supply of rolling stock will be provided for the efficient, reliable and effective movement of grain.
(2)	The Minister may enter into agreements with the owners of lessees of railway cars.
(3)	The Canadian Wheat Board shall administer and control any railway cars acquired or leased by the Board or by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty.
(4)	The Canadian Wheat Board may, in respect of railway cars under its administration and control, enter into agreements with the railway companies respecting the operation of the railway cars."
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 33 by striking out lines 24 to 30 at page 16 and renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.
October 31, 1983

He said: Mr. Speaker, when dealing with Motions Nos. 55 and 56, we are dealing with another serious and fundamental issue in this proposed legislation, namely, the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and its jurisdiction over the allocation of railway cars that have been purchased by the taxpayers, let alone the railway cars that the railways own. There gets to be fewer and fewer of those cars every day.
Several speeches have been made by my hon. friends from the Official Opposition on a motion which we have not dealt with as yet. I only want to say, Sir, that a 3 per cent cap on a safety net means that if, as and when grain prices go down, we could end up in a situation where the railways would even have to refund money. I invite my colleagues from the Conservative Party to go back to the drawing board and take another look at that 3 per cent cap.
The Government's motion regarding the safety net refers to 4 per cent, 5 per cent, 6 per cent, 7 per cent, 8 per cent, 9 per cent and 10 per cent. Our motion would mean that 3 per cent is the maximum forever and a day. Since grain prices will probably keep going down as they have over the last three years, I invite my Conservative colleagues to take another look at that before they start shooting off their mouths about breaking the Crow rate.
The truth of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that Members of the Conservative Party to this day have yet to say that they are in favour of keeping the Crowsnest Pass rate as is. In fact, they are in favour of doing away with it. However, they are not in favour of doing away with it today as are Liberal Members. Oh no, they are speaking about three years and then two and a half years and now they are speaking about two years. But they are still in favour of killing the Crow.
I have in my possession some Conservative literature from the last provincial election in Saskatchewan.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Who won?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Well, talking about false pretences, the literature read:
The Crow Rate must remain!
The shortfall must be paid for by the federal government.
We oppose any plan to use Saskatchewan dollars-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must call to the attention of the Hon. Member the rule of relevance. Remarks made at report stage of the Bill, as the Hon. Member well knows, must be strictly relevant to the amendments before us.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Exactly, Mr. Speaker, and when dealing with Motions Nos. 55 and 56, keeping the Crow rate means keeping the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. On my right is the outfit that is in favour of decreasing the powers of the Wheat Board in cahoots with the Liberals. The Tories said: "Let's keep the Crow rate, vote PC in Souris-Cannington, vote for Eric Berntson; a Progressive Conservative government will say that the Crow rate must remain." That comes from their literature, Mr. Speaker. Keeping the Crow rate means keeping the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and we cannot separate the two.
Western Grain Transportation Act
I could go on and read some more Tory literature about keeping the Crow, but Members of the Conservative Party in the House and outside of the House have yet to say unequivocally that the statutory grain rate must remain in place. It must remain in place not for a year and a half or for two years or for two and a half years or for three years: it must remain in place for western grain producers.
During the committee hearings we heard from officials of the Canadian Wheat Board, from officials of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee, from Mr. Charlie Gib-bings, former Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board for some dozen years or more, and from the prairie Wheat Pools. They all said the same thing, Mr. Speaker. 1 invite my colleagues who were on the committee to refresh their memories. I am quoting Mr. Jarvis:
The board, like any other sales organization, must control the shipment of its own product in order to ensure performance. For these reasons, the board has always held the view that overall control of the system as it is developed in co-ordination with the total of the grain industry should be administered by the board.
Motions Nos. 55 and 56 retain the control of the railway cars that have been purchased by farmers and taxpayers in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board. For the reasons given by the Board and by the Board's Advisory Committee and for the reasons that we gave when dealing with earlier amendments for facilitating sales, knowledge of the location and grades of grains and protection of the block system, these cars must remain under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Motion No. 56 takes away from the Government or the Grain Transportation Commissioner the ability through Order in Council to transfer any administrative control over those cars away from the Canadian Wheat Board. Throughout the history of this legislation, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Crow's Nest Pass Agreement and the Canadian Pacific Railway Act, it did not matter if it was a Tory government, Liberal government or the CPR because their word was no good. A deal is a deal. We specifically know why the Conservatives in the last couple of weeks are interested in going along with the Liberals to do away with the statutory grain rate. The reason is that Canadian Pacific Limited doubled their contribution to the Tory and Liberal Parties last year. They raised it from $25,000 to $50,000 each.


An Hon. Member:: Do you have proof?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, thanks to the Chief Electoral Officer and thanks to the fact that during a minority Parliament we were able to have legislation on election expenses passed which allowed us to get this information.
Furthermore, Mr. Burbidge, President of CP, did not give the Tories anything but gave the Liberals $221.68.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, he does appear to be straying from the amendment before the House. I would invite him to return to the amendment.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, we already know but 1 am trying to have the Chair understand why the Liberal Government and the Tory Opposition are prepared to weaken the Canadian Wheat Board and orderly marketing. They want their friends in the CPR and the private grain trade to further decrease the powers of the Wheat Board and its ability to allocate cars in a proper proportion to the elevator companies that are owned by the farmers in order to give more cars to their friends in the Winnipeg commodity exchange and James Richardson and Son. I see the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). He is in bed with Otto Lang. That is a strange couple, or maybe not so strange.
When we tried to get the mineral rights which was given to PanCanadian Oil in 1881, approximately nine million acres of oil and gas rights, I could understand why the Grits and the Tories were not very happy about that. While it was not a great sum, the Tories received $1,200 and the Liberals received $650 from PanCanadian Petroleum. That is a totally owned subsidiary of Canadian Pacific Enterprises. I think PanCanadian bought banquet tickets from the Tories. That is how they fill their banquet halls. The Liberals and Tories have the corporations pay for the tickets and then hand them out to their friends.
We know why the Conservatives have yet to say that they want to keep the Crow rate and stop this legislation, which they could have done weeks ago. The Tories have moved all these motions on unanimous consent which they will debate if we are lucky and then vote on. But they will vote against the Bill. It may look good but they still do not want to stop the Bill. They never have.
The architect of the legislation was hired by the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). We must have an idea of what is happening since the Liberals kept him on the payroll. The architect of the legislation refused to accept amendments No. 55 and No. 56 in the committee on behalf of the Government.
The control of the railway cars by the Canadian Wheat Board is essential because the sales, marketing and transportation of grain are inextricably linked and cannot be separated. We believe that control must remain with the Canadian Wheat Board and will not tolerate any sell-out to the contributors from Canadian Pacific Limited and this unholy alliance between the Conservatives and Liberals to get rid of the Crow rate. That has always been agreed to and accepted by the Tory Party here, if not in Saskatchewan.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) talk about those steps he intends to take. At the same time, however, his Party has moved an amendment, after our amendment which would keep the Crow for three years, which in effect demolishes the Crow rate immediately. Their amendment moves the rate from 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent. I find that hard to believe.
Members will have noticed that the Member for Regina West did not really debate the motions at hand. He talked at great length about other issues because the motions which he moved are not very strong, and when one does not have a strong case, one does not debate it. I can understand why. The authority of the Canadian Wheat Board to allocate cars existed for some time. It has had control of the placement of cars in the Prairies.
When we came to Government in 1979 everyone in the industry recognized that the system was not efficient and there was not an orderly movement of grain from the delivery point to the ports. The solution was obvious since it was used years ago, during the war, when it was essential to get food to the ports. It was decided that a neutral arbitrator should be in place, someone who could decide where the responsibility for decisions should lie in a neutral way.
That was the reason for establishing a co-ordinator and at that time a task force went across the nation, particularly in the Prairies where it was essential to get the information and to gather the facts. Most in the industry expressed the view that a co-ordinator should be put in place and that among other responsibilities he should act as a neutral arbitrator to help resolve problems that often lingered in that area at that time.
When that recommendation was made, the co-ordinator was not established to allocate cars only to the pools on the Prairies because they are not the only organization that has the producers' interest at heart. There is the United Grain Growers, which is also a co-operative, as well as Pioneer Grain Company, Parish and Heinbecker and Cargill. There are many other producer companies. For instance, there is the terminal that was built at Weyburn by producers who had difficulty getting cars, even though they built one of the most modern facilities on the Prairies, to deliver the farmer's product to the market.
Another fact which was made clear was that while the Canadian Wheat Board had the producers' interest at heart, it was basically in a conflict of interest with itself in regard to the allocation of cars. Obviously, its job was to sell grain in the export market and therefore it had a desire to get as much of that grain to the port as possible using the number of cars it had in the system. Therefore, rather than allocating cars as well to a very important domestic producing and processing industry, it would want to put cars into the export market. This is where the conflict arose. No one in the Wheat Board could make the arbitrary or neutral decision.
That is why the co-ordinator became so important in 1979. 1 think the co-ordinator is important today because a decision must be made about the use of cars in the system for delivery into the domestic market and the export market. While it might not be efficient to have a surplus of cars, there would be no difficult decisions to make because the Wheat Board could have control over the cars for the export market if there were more than needed. But that has never been the case. It is a very expensive storage program if we have too many cars in the system. It would be far better, given the number of cars that are necessary in the system, to use them in the most efficient manner. One day a greater turnaround means a
October 31, 1983

greater number of bushels over a year that can be delivered to port. I have just forgotten the figure.
I can understand why the Hon. Member for Regina West did not debate his two motions too strongly. I do not believe there are very many people on the Prairies who would agree with his motions. The co-ordinator has operated very well in the past. The new Bill suggests that that institution remain, that it be given the powers to see that cars are allocated in an efficient manner and that efficiency continues to operate in the system.
I conclude by saying it is no wonder the Hon. Member who just spoke tried to tie into the Conservative Party, because when you look at the motion the NDP just moved, that Party is trying to get Members who are now debating off their motion and on to other areas. We will not forget very quickly the motion that the NDP moved by unanimous consent to destroy the Crow.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to enter into this debate and to know that the people who are watching, or who read the proceedings later will know that the comments made by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) are, like most of what the Tories have been putting on the record, just a lot of hot air.
The two amendments which have been proposed by my colleague from Regina are very important, particularly for constituencies such as mine or for elevator systems. The most modern and largest grain elevator being built in Canada, one of the largest in the world, is in Prince Rupert. As most Members know, it is by far majority controlled by the Saskatchewan and Alberta Wheat Pools. I know the position of those two pools. They do not like Bill C-155. They have managed one way or another to take some of the Tories to task for the flim-flam position they are taking. I am sure they will take them to task for the same flim-flam that they are putting up about this proposal tonight to try and get some press and try to get the message out that the NDP are planning to break the Crow. Any farmer or producer on the Prairies who reads our amendments, who reads any of our speeches or who speaks to any of us, knows that the one thing we stand for fundamentally in terms of the overall legislation is no change to the Crow. The Tories are in favour of change. None of them dispute it. They are in favour of five times Crow. They should be standing up in the House and saying that rather than doing what they are doing, which is trying to use smoke, mirrors, rhetoric and falsifying various pieces of information which they bring forward in the House about what their position really is. I think they should really tell the truth, Mr. Speaker.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) just said that Members of the Tory Party falsified information. I challenge him to document that. I dare him. 1 doubt that he could at all make the claim-
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. He will shortly be recognized for purposes of debate. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


James Ross Fulton: That is right, Mr. Speaker. When I say the Tories have been using false information in the House, people know it is true. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) is trying to deny that through the back door.
The two amendments that are before the House are very important in terms of the allocation of grain cars. I think it is important that perhaps some Members on the Government side explain why they will vote against them. I think Canadians have some right to know where Members of the governing Party are coming from in voting against all of these amendments that will come before the House tomorrow.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) has come up with various proposals, again trying to use his own smoke and mirrors in western Canada by saying he is proposing some kind of a safety net. One part of a safety net which the Government could support and which the Tory Party could support is contained in these two amendments. Let me take a moment to go through both of them. As anyone can tell when they read them, they dovetail. They intend to achieve the same purpose.
The first amendment. Motion No. 55, is to give control over railroad grain cars and the allocation of them to the Canadian Wheat Board. We know that the Liberal and Tory tag team are attempting to take away historic control over grain car allocation from the Wheat Board to provide it either to the Minister or to the Administrator, so that the private grain trade can get more cars and the entire nature of grain movement and grain transportation in Canada can be shifted more quickly into the hands of a few people out to make a quick buck rather than give it to people interested in the producers. They do not think about the enormous value grain production and its export has for Canada and our balance of trade.
There are a number of argument for control. The chief of these is that the Canadian Wheat Board, for reasons given by my colleagues on many former amendments, including myself, in terms of the facilitation of sales, the knowledge of the location of grade of grains and the protection of the block system, should have these cars under its control.
Motion No. 56 flows directly from that. This amendment would remove the ability to transfer the administration and control or the ownership of those grain cars presently owned by the Wheat Board to the Minister of Transport. I would be interested to hear from these two Parties who claim to be the great front runners for free enterprise in Canada. For example, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) knows a little bit about cars, used cars in particular but cars in general. Would he like his own personal car transferred to the Minister of Transport so that the Minister could drive around and use it? The Hon. Member for Vegreville pays the insurance, pays for the purchase of the car, pays for the new tires, greasing and any motor work that has to be done. But who actually uses the car? The Minister of Transport.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
The producers in Canada are not naive about some of the deals being made by the Liberals and Conservatives in the interests of the private grain trade, the Cargills, the Otto Langs and certain people in the Winnipeg commodity exchange and so on who want to make more money for themselves. They consider themselves to be entrepreneurs out of the grain business. They want to get that money for themselves. Those cars the producers have paid for one way or the other, whether through a process of not getting as much payment per bushel or per tonne for their grain for a few years while buying grain cars. Now those hopper cars are all over the country. But what the Minister of Transport, the Liberals, along with their Tory friends are saying now is "That is fine. Those cars have been paid for".
These two Parties claim to stand for property rights. They have the audacity and the pomposity to stand in this House and say that, and then go across the country and say they stand for property rights. Those two Parties have brought in almost every expropriationary power in Canada. In my own Province of British Columbia the 48 major expropriation powers that are there were brought in by the Tories, the Liberals and the new coalition called the Socreds. In this case, those farmers, whether in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia or Manitoba, who have paid for those cars are now being told that the use made of those cars, where those cars are going to be, their availability and so on, will be determined outside of their control, outside of the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is expropriation. That is blatant rip-off of something that someone has earned the money for, paid for and now is being denied the right of use.
I do not wonder any more why Liberals and Tories do not get up to speak. What they want to do is create illusions outside the House of Commons about what they are really doing. It is difficult in a forum such as this to get a message out. We in here can see. We listen to the debates. We watch the Minister of Transport go and sit with the Hon. Member for Vegreville. They chat nicely and titter, titter, titter. Then the Hon. Member for Vegreville goes to the Minister of Transport and they make various proposals to help each other.
I think producers in the West are waking up pretty damn quickly as they see no Liberal Member speaking and they see Tory Members telling stories that are total fabrication, that all of a sudden the NDP has today decided to completely change its position.


An Hon. Member:: It has. Read the amendment.


James Ross Fulton: What a lot of rubbish! 1 hear someone say "Read the amendment". I know exactly what is in that amendment.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Explain. You don't understand it.


James Ross Fulton: I know what the purpose of it is. The Members are saying explain. We will have plenty of time to explain in this House. You can stand up and use your little tricks to say: "Well, now the NDP has changed its position".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member realizes his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


James Ross Fulton: I am always glad to address my comments through the Chair. However, 1 want to return to the key point in Motion No. 56. I want to hear the Hon. Member for Vegreville and the Minister of Transport put on the record their position so that Canadian producers can sit down at home and read it. Then they will discover why the man who claims he wants to be Minister of Transport and the man who claims he is the Minister of Transport would not support those cars for which the producers have already paid staying under their control through the Canadian Wheat Board. I think they have a right to know that the Tories and Liberals think that the Administrator is just a kind fellow who happens to be putting all the cars out for Cargill and moving the grain down to the United States with Canadian-owned cars that were paid for by the sweat off the brow of Canadian families working on the Prairies and that these two groups consider themselves to be free enterprisers who can make another special deal for CPR.
In conclusion, 1 would like to refer to a quote of Sir Clifford Sifton when the Crow rate was agreed on by the CPR and the Government of Canada made various statements about it. Mr. Sifton, who was party to the negotiations that established the 1897 Crow rate agreements, aid in 1929:
I remember when as a young Minister in Laurier's Cabinet, Van Horne and Shaughnessy said a line into the Kootenay mining district would not be considered for 15 years. Also I remember that within six weeks the same two gentlemen came into my office and said they had to build this line and wanted a large bonus for doing it, that the CPR was on the verge of bankruptcy. We gave them this bonus against the public sentiment of two-thirds of the people of Canada. They built the line and the Kootenay mining development-
Of course, this was the nucleus of Cominco:
-saved the CPR and saved a good many other things in Canada.
This is quite a different debate. The producers and people who are knowledgeable about the debate in western Canada are opposed to what the Liberal/Tory coalition is doing. I wish the Minister of Transport and the Hon. Member who thinks he should be the Minister of Transport would listen and tell Canadians why they do not support Motion No. 56.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) as spoken. I have never heard so many lonesome neurons in all my life. What we heard was a bombast of words which meant nothing.
We are dealing with Motions Nos. 55 and 56. Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party are saying that the Canadian Wheat Board must be preserved. Those who believe in good would quickly have to agree, including Canadian farmers. The fact is that their warrant and premise does not lead to the proper conclusion. This has nothing to do with the strength of the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact, the Canadian Wheat Board has come to the realization that when the transportation and allocation of cars is in the hands of another agency, much of the flak against the Canadian Wheat Board is removed and
October 31, 1983

it is left to its proper and just role, the sale of grain in the international marketplace.
What did the Hon. Member for Skeena try to make us believe? He said, "I no longer wonder why the Tories do not speak". We had some 66 committee meetings across the Prairies. All told, there were 86 Members days for the entire New Democratic Party caucus. All 31 of its Members showed up for a total of 86 Member days. Two of our Members were there for 138 days. The Hon. Member for Skeena places himself on a high pedestal. He claims that he is knowledgeable about grain transportation. He is the great wheat farmer from Skeena! The great wheat farmer from British Columbia never showed up for a single committee meeting, according to the minutes of the Standing Committee on Transport.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. For the sake of the record, I would like to inform the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) that I am the environment and northern development critic, not the transport critic.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to know that he is the critic of something for his caucus. The point is that he hallucinated here, trying to make the claim that he no longer wonders why the Tories do not speak. Two of our Members were present for a total of 138 Member days, whereas the entire NDP caucus present for only a total of 86 Member days Their record in terms of what they do in the House is simply unbelievable.
I would like to return to Motions Nos. 55 and 56. The NDP position that the Wheat Pool should have control of the grain cars is interesting. Also it is interesting to note that 2,000 of those cars are owned by the Canadian Wheat Board and 12,000 are owned by the provincial Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Members of the NDP would like us to believe that the situation is such that somehow they need to protect the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. Canadian farmers have found that when they have a transport agency to which they can go with transportation difficulties, they have been able to pinpoint and resolve their problems faster than when they go to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board was comprised of people who were busy carrying out Canadian Wheat Board activities. They were involved in selling and international negotiations, and they were frustrated part of their day by looking after the car situation. Farmers believe that there was more efficiency in the measure brought forward by the Conservative Government in recent history when the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was the Minister of Transport. From that time to the present we have seen a more efficient movement of grain in terms of the availability of cars.
NDP Members would like to steal away the successes we have accomplished and return to a system with an agency that principally works with the sale and marketing of grain rather than getting back to the nuts and bolts of fixing up the railways and getting the cars in place. Anyone who deals with the Canadian Wheat Board today will tell us that its credibili-
Western Grain Transportation Act
ty was enhanced when it did not have to take the brunt of looking after the organization of cars. I notice Mr. Speaker is nodding; 1 appreciate your approval of that argument. Hon. Members of the NDP are always taking the position that if we try to establish another agency for the movement of grain, we diminish the power of the Canadian Wheat Board. 1 appreciate the fact you understand, Mr. Speaker, that by taking away the heat from the Wheat Board, we enhance its credibility in the eyes of the farmers.
Turning to the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), my goodness, he is a great Member because he attended 45 days of meetings. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) attended 17 meeting days. That is the end of the Party's list. Two of them had an incredible record! The next highest is six meeting days, the highest of the next three NDP Members on the list. Let me read the first seven Members of our Party-60 days, 63 days, 62 days, 66 days, 54 days, 28 days and 25 days. The NDP would like the whole country to believe that somehow they travelled all across the country listening to farmers defend their views. Now they are defending the Canadian Wheat Board.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: 1 made four speeches.


Arnold John Malone: The Hon. Member says she gave four speeches, one right after the other that day. She is here now speaking on one of the most important issues ever to affect western Canada and saying, "1 gave four speeches on that one day; 1 want all the credibility you can give me because I was there fighting for my country, four speeches that afternoon". They make a mockery out of that. The truth is that what we want in this country is an efficient transportation system. It is not a case of trying to salute whether or not it is the Wheat Board that is the great Magna Carta of the universe. It is not a case of trying to pick out some agency. It is a case of trying to put together a system that works. If the Wheat Board can handle its principal job of sales, if an agency can handle the principal job of allocating the cars and if we do not have to have a mismash in the farmer's mind concerning who does what and who hawls out the other for not fulfilling his responsibilities, that makes more sense.
Because the New Democratic Party politically recognizes that farmers appreciate the Wheat Board, it thinks that everything it has done in the past must be preserved, irrespective of some improvements we might make for the future. Because it uses that simple form of argument to find that which is labelled "good", then anything associated with it it calls good and tries to say it is on the side of the farmers. That Party is simply wrong. There is nothing to prove that better than the speech of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). What an interesting speech. What a loathsome speech. It said and meant nothing. It had nothing to do with transportation. He said we falsified our data and could not give any evidence of it. The best evidence we can give as to their credibility is the fact that, all told, they gave 86 Member days to the committee and two of our Members gave 138 days.

Western Grain Transportation Act
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are grabbing the arms of your chair, either in suspense, because you want me to go on, or because you want to tell me that my time is up. As 1 presume it is the latter, I will resume after the NDP has put up some of its speakers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on the motions before us tonight. There are two basic proposals here. Motion No. 56, which is second in the way it is presented here, proposes to delete a clause of the Bill which outlines the powers of the Minister respecting the operation of railway cars. It would delete subclause 33(3) which reads:
Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act of Parliament, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, transfer the administration and control of any railway cars held by the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of the Government of Canada from the Board to the Minister.
That is what the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is proposing to delete in this motion. He is proposing to add to the Bill something which would have the effect of amending Subclause 33(1). It would drop the portion that now requires the Minister to take control of the supply of rolling stock and to ensure the adequate supply of rolling stock. He rewords that to say that the administration and control of any railway cars so acquired for the purpose of moving grain, and I quote:
-and the Minister shall take every reasonable initiative to ensure that adequate supply of rolling stock will be provided for the efficient, reliable and effective movement of grain.
It goes on further to say:
The Minister may enter into agreements with the owners or lessees of railway cars and the Wheat Board shall administer control of railway cars acquired or leased by the Board or by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty, and the Canadian Wheat Board may in respect of railway cars under its administration and control enter into agreements with railway companies respecting the operation of the railway cars.
These changes are consistent with the changes we have been trying to bring to the Bill. We have been trying to stop the change to the rates which erode the bargaining power and the spending power of Canadian farmers. We have also been attempting to stop the erosion of the Canadian Wheat Board, which shows up in several instances in this Bill. This is a case in point.
The Canadian Wheat Board has, as part of its duties, the job of allocating the cars to various points where the correct grades of grain are located. It uses the block system of shipping. Basically what happens is that the Wheat Board determines what grain is needed one month hence at which ports. It sets out a scheme of determining from the railroads how many cars are available in that period of time. Each week it takes the allocation of cars that the railways have available to the Board and sends them out so many hundreds of cars per block. Within the block, the elevator companies that have gathered the grain have orders from the Board for the various kinds and grades of grain.
They look at their stocks around the block and get their percentage of cars based on the amount of business they have done over the past year. They allocate their percentage of the
cars to those elevator points that have the correct grade and kind of grain so that that grain gets delivered at the appropriate time to the ship. It is a system that works very well. It is crucial to that system that the Board have some control of what happens to the cars.
In 1977-78 there was great difficulty getting any cars to move grain. At that point in time the Board determined to start purchasing cars with producer's money. Some 2,000 such cars were purchased. In addition, some of the Provinces were persuaded to make arrangements to add to the car fleet as well. Also, the federal Government was sprung for a little more money and it supplied a few more cars. It is an interesting statistical exercise. If you wish to take the increase to the hopper car fleet from that time and look at the increased amount of grain that is shipped, it works out almost in exact proportion.
We have been able to set a new record for exporting and shipping grain this year, almost exclusively because of our ability to have more cars made available. The fact that we increased the fleet provided most of that necessary extra capacity. There was perceived to be a political problem in 1979 as to how the allocation of cars was made. The Conservative Government of that day thought that the Wheat Board was not being entirely fair. It was listening to some of the private grain traders who had received a few years before the right to market feed grains through the open market rather than have the Wheat Board supply the domestic markets, as had been the case for many years before. The power of the Wheat Board was broken down further with the domestic feed grains policy.
Some people who were new in the open marketing of feed grains were charging that the Wheat Board was not fair to them and they were not getting their amount of cars in order to move grain. In fact, the Board was taking great care to make certain that volumes of grain in storage at all the pertinent places were kept at a high level. They were monitoring the volumes that the private trade did have in storage and they were allowing those volumes to remain in storage at a considerably higher proportion to sales than what the Board itself considers efficient within its organization. They were allowing far more storage to take place under the private system than had been imposed upon producers and the Board by the former Transport Minister, Otto Lang, who had carried on what had been begun by the current Member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He had begun the deterioration of the Wheat Board by permitting feed mills to buy their supplies from outside the Board.
It is not because we are paranoid that we are concerned about the further erosion of the Board. Farmers, Members and residents of western Canada have seen the deterioration of the Wheat Board with policies brought in by the Progressive Conservatives and expanded and carried even further by a Liberal Government. We see some of the proposals in this Bill, particularly Clause 33 that has the effect of further eroding the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. We would stop that
October 31, 1983

erosion with the movement and inclusion of these two motions by taking away some powers that the Bill proposes to give to the Minister and giving back some powers to the Wheat Board.
One of the major necessities of completing a sale is being able to assure your customer that you can in fact deliver the grain. A major part of being able to assure that delivery is to be able to have as much control as possible over the mechanism that provides that delivery, in this case hopper cars. If the Wheat Board has control and management of the hopper cars, it has a very vital trump card to play when negotiating with the railways for delivery service because it has control of the cars. All the railways have to do then is to supply the locomotive power. There is no complaint about lack of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Weatherhead):: Order. Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate. I do not know whether it is the late hour but I could understand the misconceptions of the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) regarding Bill C-155. I know he was handed a prepared text and he went on about the ownership of the cars purchased by the producers, people who own Canadian Wheat Board permit books. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), who attended several meetings, went on in the same vein about cars owned by the producers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I said "controlled by the Wheat Board".


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I would like to draw to the attention of both those Members who spoke that for all the good intentions of the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase the cars, the holders of the Canadian Wheat Board permit books did pay for those cars. But the legal ruling is that we do not own them. They belong to the Government of Canada. They belong to the Crown. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre has a Canadian Wheat Board permit book and he should know. When the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) in committee was asked the question, did the Canadian Wheat Board as a separate entity own those cars, he answered, no, the Canadian Wheat Board is for all purposes an agency of the Government of Canada, so in fact the Board by law purchases those cars on behalf of the Government of Canada. It owns it because it is the legal entity that can own property. Mr. Speaker, those cars are owned by the Government of Canada. They are not owned by the producers or by the Canadian Wheat Board.
When you look at the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), you see it is the same amendment that he put forward in committee which was ruled out of order and the same amendment that the Hon. Member said would not affect the allocation of cars. I probably made a mistake in drafting this because this section does not pertain to the allocation of cars. The Hon. Member for
Western Grain Transportation Act
Regina West put forward the same amendment here that was found in order. When you look at the Bill it shows that it has absolutely nothing to do with the allocation of cars.
The Hon. Member for Skeena could well have talked to some of his colleagues who attended some committee meetings and he may have been brought more up to date. We look at Motion No. 56 put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West. This motion has absolutely nothing to do with allocation, and what he wants to do is to take away from the Minister the authority, by regulation, to transfer, administer and control any railway cars held by the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of the Government of Canada.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if we follow this through we will find out that the Minister is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to help the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). The control of the Canadian Wheat Board is under the Secretary of State in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board who is in the other place. All we want to do is to keep these grain cars under the control and administration of the Wheat Board. We are not talking about administration.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: That should be taken as given, but I think you will find, if you read the word "responsibilities", that the Secretary of State for the Canadian Wheat Board is an assistant to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is their problem.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Minister has an assistant. I am not too sure how much assistance that Minister in the other place would give any Minister of the Crown, but that is not the problem that we have on this side. But the Minister is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Minister being in charge of the Wheat Board he would, in turn, have control of all the cars that are under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is an agency of the Crown and that Minister is responsible. So we have here one motion by the Hon. Member that wants to remove any responsibility by regulation, transfer, administration and control of any railway cars held by the Canadian Wheat Board out of the hands of the Minister, but then he wants them left in the hands of the Minister because that Minister is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I find it difficult to decide what these amendments will do for grain producers in western Canada. How can we have an amendment that does not recognize that the Canadian Wheat Board, therefore the Government, owns the cars even though the producers may feel that they pay for them? A lot of people questioned the Canadian Wheat Board when those cars were purchased. Those people were condemned as being against the Wheat Board. The Board is strong enough in western Canada and has the respect of farmers there so it can withstand criticism. Although it is well managed in most cases, it is not

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act without fault. The Board does not deny that there was some problem with the purchase, but it did it out of necessity.
One amendment would take powers away from the Minister and then transfer them back to the Canadian Wheat Board and the other deals with the control of cars that are already owned by the Government.
1 hope that the NDP will debate these motions quickly. They must have motions that they feel are more important than these. I think we should be able to do something to enhance the Bill. The Minister is here, he is interested in the debate and we should be able to persuade the Government to take a closer look at amendments put forward this afternoon.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak on these amendments although I confess I am not an expert on the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. The Bill has been a tremendous education to us all and we see what it means to be a Canadian. At first I think many of us felt that the Bill had particular significance only to farmers on the Prairies and to the whole agricultural economy there.
As critic for this Party on the status of women, last night I spoke to farm women and I was interested to hear their concerns about the Bill. Often farm women maintain a home, work on the farm in partnership with the family and are forced to go to work in the community in order to bring in more money. The increase in the freight rates will make it even more difficult for them and their families to manage.
These amendments have a particular significance for British Columbians, particularly for the Port of Vancouver.
Motions No. 55 and No. 56 are concerned with the role of railway cars. 1 do not think the Minister has made it clear why the Liberals want to change the authority for control and distribution of the railway cars. I am not aware of any reason for concentrating power in the Minister or why the Canadian Wheat Board would not have control. I can only conclude that, as usual, the Liberals are more interested in centralized bureaucratic control than in having it closer to the producers. One wonders whether they want to give more control over to the railways as well.
One could ask whether there is a dispute between the Minister in the other place and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) in the House. Whatever the motivation, the Minister offered no explanation.
The NDP has a very clear and distinct reason for disagreeing with Motion No. 55 and for proposing Motion No. 56. We want the Canadian Wheat Board to be more powerful, and to be able to coordinate the transportation of grain through the system to the point of export, which in my riding is the Port of Vancouver. This means that they must be able to call out whichever type of grain is needed at a particular time, whether it be wheat, barley, oats, etc.
Regarding Motion No. 55, it simply says that the grain cars to which the Canadian Wheat Board now has title should be transferred in title to the Minister of Transport at his pleasure. These cars were purchased from the pool account maintained
by the Wheat Board. That means they were purchased from the farmers' money. The amount of money distributed to farmers from the sale of their grain was reduced by the amount that it cost to buy these cars. To simply transfer the ownership of these cars to the Government without any recognition of this fact or the payment of any compensation would be, at the very least, an injustice. It really constitutes a special tax by the state on farmers. All the hoary traditions of British democracy, such as it is, militate against that sort of thing.
It could be pointed out that the question of Government spending on grain cars was itself a controvertial issue and spending by the Wheat Board for this purpose even more so. The argument, at the time, was why should others assume the burden of this capital cost that properly belongs to the railroad. However, the producers, knowing the job had to be done and faced with the intransigence of the railroads, made the investment. This, of course, was good for the country. Should they now be penalized for that? Should they be double-taxed? I believe that view was presented in committee.
I should like now to refer to a letter issued by a very famous statesman, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


An Hon. Member:: What?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: He appears to be an expert on this whole question. This Member has a valuable ability to produce a constant flow of information. I wish Members to my right could get on his mailing list.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I already subscribe to the National Enquirer and all the joke books.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: In a letter to constituents he wrote:
Greetings: I just reviewed some of the earlier letters that I sent to you, and I see that this October 4th I promised to explain, "next letter," the reason why it is so important to maintain the Wheat Board's control over the allocation of grain cars. The pressure of events here caused it to slip my mind.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That was my reaction.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Remembering the pressure of the event on that particular day I cannot help but smile a little, Mr. Speaker. I will continue:
-it is very important that the Wheat Board retain control of the allocation of grain cars. As Justice Hall pointed out, the concentration of knowledge in the offices of the Wheat Board makes for a very efficient system of moving our grain to export position.
This Bill would tamper with that and would do our country no good.
So said the Hon. Member for Regina West. As I understand this whole issue, Mr. Speaker, having the control of grain cars under the authority of the Wheat Board-and we are talking about control, not ownership-would make for a much more efficient system of moving grain to export as it is needed than we have had in the past. In the port of Vancouver, for example, one of the big concerns which we constantly have is that we look out at the English Bay and we see 10, sometimes 20 ships sitting there, moored in the outer harbour, from ail
October 31, 1983

over the Pacific rim. Of course, we know that the demurrage cost of keeping these ships moored while waiting for their cargo to be loaded, in this case, particular types of grain, is very costly. An unfortunate myth also is that people tend to blame the longshoremen for the fact that these ships are waiting in the port. As I understand it, very often it is the fact that there has not been an efficient grain transportation system for that particular type of grain which a particular ship wants for a particular country at a particular time. It is not there when that ship comes into port. As my hon. colleague says it can get worse if the system is not improved.
The whole marketing of the grain as I understand it, requires control over transportation. The movement of grain must be co-ordinated by the chief marketing agency, which is the Canadian Wheat Board. Therefore, the Wheat Board should allocate the cars according to the type of grain which is needed at a particular time for export; in this case, as I mentioned, the port of Vancouver. Cars must be delivered to coincide with shipping requests.
1 recently visited the port of Vancouver in relation to this Bill. Many of the port officials, as well as the waterfront unions, were very concerned that the motion which the Conservatives brought in would make it very difficult for the port of Vancouver to maintain exports through the port. Many of these were going to be transferred to Seattle. I saw the whole process of moving grain from the grain cars through the wheat elevators to the ships. It is a very complicated system, indeed. I can appreciate as a lay person, Mr. Speaker, that it is extremely important that we improve the co-ordination of this whole system. As pointed out by my hon. colleagues, certainly with much more expertise than I, the best way to do this is through the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to her has expired. She may continue only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, as you are
aware, at this moment we are discussing Motions Nos. 55 and 56, both of which have been proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). These motions have to do with a very important part of the whole Bill, as are all of the motions from my hon. colleague. In general, I would say that the whole debate from the very beginning until now has been that the New Democratic Party has insisted on continuing to try to protect the income of the prairie farmer and at the same time protect the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. Motion No. 55, to begin with, has been inserted into Clause 33 so that the clause would no longer read as it now stands but would read as follows;
Western Grain Transportation Act
The Minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty, acquire or lease railway cars for the purpose of moving grain and administer and control any railway cars so acquired or leased-
The amendment to be included is:
-for the purpose of moving grain-
And continuing:
-and the Minister shall take every reasonable initiative to ensure that an adequate supply of rolling stock will be provided for the efficient, reliable and effective movement of grain.
Those of us who grew up in the Prairies would naturally know that the movement of grain is extremely important. It is the very heart and life of the farming economy of the Prairies. Those of us who grew up in Prairie towns will know that the whole system of movement has improved a great deal over the last 25 or 30 years by a technology which has been brought in in the use of grain cars. These cars have been basically designed by the farmers themselves, by the railway companies and by the engineers. The original grain cars which were used to carry produce on the railroads, and which had originally been planned to carry all kinds of materials of any shape whatsoever, were the old square boxcars which had side doors. I can remember well as a young person at home when one or two cars would come into the local siding. The elevator operator would bring out a kind of special pry that they had for moving the car back and forth a few feet without the use of an engine. The next thing which would be necessary is that they would have to put inside the car door a wall which was made out of slab material. The grain had originally been shovelled in by the farmers. Later it would be piped in out of an elevator. However, the whole formation of the car was not made for the carrying of grain. It was a very inconvenient way of carrying grain. When it finally arrived at the port or elevator where it was to be dumped, the workers had to break that whole wall down which was holding the grain in the cars, and the lumber was just wasted. The Wheat Board bought the new steel cars which are now commonly seen carrying grain across the Prairies, although they are owned by the Government of Canada, as has been pointed out very clearly in the debate. The efficiency of putting grain from a prairie elevator into a car, moving it to the port and dumping it quickly, has been greatly improved with a new design. That is extremely important. It has been a great step forward. The particular amendment which we are talking about ensures that this control would remain with the Wheat Board which saw that it would have to have the proper kind of rolling stock to move the grain. My friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Kind-ersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), has indicated that Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party were unnecessarily concerned about this and that we were wrong in the fact that we were saying that the Wheat Board owned the cars. Unfortunately, my friend was misinformed about our position because that is not true. We understand that the cars are owned by the Government of Canada. However, the important thing about the amendment is that the Canadian Wheat Board shall administer and control the use of the cars. That is where the very heart of the argument is.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
The Canadian Wheat Board is the organization which has been set up by prairie farmers to be an agency which will protect, guide and direct the sale of grain from the moment it is collected at a certain point and shipped to the port at the time when it will be available to sell to a certain part of the world which needs that grain at that particular time. It is a long, complicated, intricate problem which has to be solved if the economy of western Canada is to continue to grow. That is why our amendment, Motion No. 55, which will be spoken about now, insists upon the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board shall administer and control the railroad cars, whether they be leased or owned.
I appreciate the fact that the former Minister of Transport would have liked to have had that power in his hands. That Minister of Transport and I were actually engaged in an election together and I know him quite well. The present Minister of Transport will, I believe, unfortunately meet the same fate as the Minister of Transport of whom I have spoken, the one I had the privilege to run against during an election. Probably one of the Hon. Members in the front row, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), or the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who plans to be the next Minister of Transport if that happens to be the fate of the country, will meet the same fate. On the Prairies, it is a very difficult and dangerous job to be the Minister of Transport and move the grain that makes the economy of that part of the world operate.
Again, I would say very clearly and specifically that the reason the Hon. Member for Regina West has proposed Motion No. 5 is that it clearly indicates that the Minister will not be taking over the control but that the control will be administered by the Canadian Wheat Board as it is now, so that we can be certain that those cars are in the right place at the right time because the people who want to move the grain at that particular time to the markets are calling for it.
Motion No. 56, also proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West, is intended for the purpose of protecting the administration and the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. The reason again, very simply put, is that this is the key to the whole system. The key to the system is who is in charge of the cars when they are needed and where they will be going with the product that is needed at port at that particular time.
I would just like to go on record, Mr. Speaker, along with my Party, as asking the Government and my colleagues on the Conservative side to support us in Motion No. 55 and Motion No. 56. We would like to make the point clearly and precisely that we want the control of cars to remain with the Wheat Board and not be transferred into the hands of the Minister. That transfer would create a whole new infrastructure of power and a whole new bureaucracy necessary to administer and control the system. As far as we are concerned, it would upset a system that is working properly at this time and should not be interfered with.
There will be plenty of problems down the road with this new Bill that is being pushed through the House. There will be plenty of difficulties, plenty of questions and plenty of regulations to be looked at without tampering with one that is so necessary and so much at the core of the matter as is the control of the transportation system and the cars. That control should remain with the Wheat Board. So, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for being allowed the opportunity to address this subject.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Saskatchewan spoke this evening about the movement of grain. Mr. Speaker, the movement of grain is the core for our Canadian Prairies. It is very important to the life of people in Western Canada. The Member for Saskatoon-East (Mr. Ogle) spoke from experience and he spoke with a passion for the West; he knows Western Canada and we should listen to what he said.
Motion No. 55 is an amendment aimed at making a Bill more like the kind of legislation we are in favour of. We in the New Democratic Party are opposed to any changes in the Crow rate because that would mark the end of farmers in Western Canada. My colleagues from Manitoba and Saskatchewan have told me that farmers can not afford the new rate. Now I realize that Quebecers understand the need to preserve a culture. That is the problem here. We must preserve and conserve the culture of Western Canada.
1 want to ask one question. Is it right for an anglophone Government to change the culture and life of the Province of Quebec without representation from Quebec? Here, the same thing is happening. A Government in Eastern Canada is proposing to change the culture of the West without any support from the people of Western Canada. I say it is not right. This evening, we of the New Democratic Party are proposing amendments. On this Bill, the Progressive Conservative Party on my right is not taking a strong position, no more than it has on any other issues in the House. It has no position at all on the Crow. We in the New Democratic Party said that the Crow must not change if we are to preserve the culture of Western Canada. And although 1 may not be very articulate in French, I must speak a few words of French to explain to Quebecers why this is so important to us in Western Canada. We hope that this amendment will help farmers in Western Canada. In it we are proposing that present system for moving grain, remain unchanged.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I tried to say as best I can in French that this in fact is a Government of the East without representation from the West that is making a fundamental change in the culture of the west. I do acknowledge that there is one Member over there who is from the West. I have a great deal of trouble understanding why in fact
October 31, 1983

the Government is doing this without a great deal of representation and support from western groups.


Arnold John Malone: No support.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No support as far as I can see. As the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), who knows the Prairies much better than do 1 and much better than do a lot of Government Members, so eloquently put it, Motion No. 55 is simply a motion that would see that control of these cars and the movement of the cars remain with the Canadian Wheat Board so that cars can be in the right place at the right time for the movement of that grain. I think this amendment makes sense and I invite the Government to adopt it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank you for allowing me the opportunity to enter into the debate on the motions that are now before us. These are motions which were introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), Motions Nos. 55 and 56. The essential intent of these amendments is to preserve the position of the Canadian Wheat Board. As we stated earlier, many provisions in Bill C-155 attack the main tenets of western Canadian agriculture. We believe that it is an attack on the statutory Crow rate, obviously, and an attack on the Wheat Pools as well as the Canadian Wheat Board.
We have previously argued that the role of the Administrator and the Senior Grain Advisory Committee should not infringe on the job which the Wheat Board has been doing so well. The role of the Canadian Wheat Board has evolved from a lot of thought and consideration and experience which has gone into it. This bill, and particularly Clause 33, represents a further erosion of the powers and responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. That responsibility which is being transferred to the Senior Administrator is in essence under the control of the Minister and his Department.
I have stood here and pointed out on other occasions that the Department of Transport does not have a marvelous record and has made some major blunders in the past. I have cited such recent examples as the airports at Mirabel and Pickering as being major billion dollar estates made by the people in the Department of Transport.
We in Saskatchewan feel very unsure about giving more power to the Department of Transport over our lives in Saskatchewan. We simply do not trust the Department and certainly do not see any need for the functions of the Wheat Board to be transferred to the Administrator and, in essence, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy).
The Wheat Board has done a tremendous job in serving western agriculture. It does this job without much money from the public purse. The Wheat Board exists entirely on what the producers pay into it. This means that when the Wheat Board sends a delegation to China, for instance, to negotiate a new grain agreement, they are not being paid by the Canadian taxpayer but by the farmers of western Canada. The Canadian
Western Grain Transportation Act
Wheat Board has done extremely well selling grain and moving it without a cost to the Canadian taxpayer, yet this clause of the Bill shows that the Government is adamant about interfering in an area in which it has no competency at all.
I am somewhat surprised by the lack of position which some of my Conservative friends have taken today. That lack of position is quite different from the position they took in the committee. In fact, when I read the committee records, I discovered that what they said on that occasion is quite different from what they have been saying in the House. To be sure, they have not said very much about this particular amendment. After reading the minutes of the committee I was struck by the fact that the Conservatives were quite surprised that those hopper cars which were bought by the producers were not in fact owned by them but by the Canadian Government.
Let me quote as follows from the minutes of the committee hearing held on September 13, 1983, at page 132 : 58:


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Chairman, is the assumption of about 150,000 grain producers in western Canada, that they own the cars because they paid for them, in fact a fallacy? Is that what you are saying?


Mr. D. Lefebvre:: To the best of our knowledge, that is right.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: 1 think there are going to be a lot of people terribly disturbed about what you have just said, Mr. Lefebvre. I happen to be one of them, because I helped pay for them. So did Mr. Gustafson; so did Mr. Mayer; so did Mr. Althouse.
Later on Mr. Mayer says:
1 guess, Mr. Chairman, that totally makes us a socialist country. Everything the Government has is its. I mean, everything we have is the Government's, and by the grace of the Government us poor peasants are allowed to keep whatever we can keep.
First, the Conservatives in this committee were very surprised to learn that the producers in fact did not own these cars that they had paid for. Second, they were quite outraged at this. In fact, the last quote I will read into the record is of the Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who said:


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I would like to support this amendment.
That was the amendment introduced by my colleague from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) that would have prevented the Government from taking over those cars which the producer had bought. He went on to say:
1 just wonder what would have to occur since the cars are now owned by the Government of Canada. You would have to do some title switching here to ensure that they were not transferrable. Could you, Mr. Kroeger, or Mr. Lefebvre outline what steps would have to be taken to achieve the spirit of Mr. Benjamin's amendment?


Thomas Lefebvre: I think the words he is suggesting, except those 2,000 or the railway cars purchased with that money, would keep it with the Wheat Board-
In other words, the Hon. Member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) was saying that the amendment of the Member for Regina West would keep those cars in the control of the Wheat Board. Therefore, they would be in the control of the producers themselves.
That was the position taken by the Conservatives in the committee. I wonder what has happened since then? We have seen a lot of switches by our friends on the right.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Benjamin: More switches than the railways have.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Indeed, I think he is quite right. On the one hand, the Conservatives in the committee were outraged. They wanted to change the situation and ensure that the title would not be switched to the Minister of Transport. However, from what we understand today, and interpret their remarks to be, they are quite prepared to see the title of these cars being transferred to the Minister of Transport. 1 am surprised that those Members, particularly the ones from Saskatchewan who should be protecting the role of the Canadian Wheat Board together with us, are quite willing to see the Canadian Wheat Board's role being diminished. If that is their position and the deal which they had to make in their own caucus at least to get the unified front, they should have the courage to stand in the
House and be honest with us and to say exactly what their position is in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Gurbin:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I think it is appropriate that tonight, just prior to twelve o'clock, the House recognized, along with other Canadians, that while we have been sitting for 13 hours now we are just coming to the end of Halloween day, which many Canadians have observed. I think the Chair might find some sympathy in the House if we agree to seek unanimous consent to waive notice to have pumpkins included in the preferential rates under the Crowsnest Pass Agreement.
[Editor's Note: For continuation of proceedings see Part II.)

Monday, October 31, 1983
The House continued its sitting.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member who just spoke has shown that the Tories are in for tricks and treats. They have brought us into these extended hours because they want to show sincere concern for the producers of western Canada but at the same time, when we are only partially through all of the motions and amendments, we see a Member from the Conservative Party rising in the House asking that we close down debate on this very important issue for the people who represent constituencies in the West.
I intend being heard this evening, until we get through all of these motions, about the very serious nature of this Bill and the effect it can have on grain producers in the communities of western Canada. It shows that over the years the Liberals and the Tories have been exactly the same. One can look at the $50,000 a year contribution they each get from Canadian Pacific. It shows over many years, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberals and Tories are exactly the same whether you look at the $50,000 a year contribution which they each get from Canadian Pacific or whether we look back to the times of earlier elections, in the early 1800s.
I want to quote for the record from "A Record of the Conservative Administration 1878-1882" in preparation for an upcoming election campaign. Reference is made in the Toronto Telegram as follows:
It is all very well for the chief organ of the Reform party to appeal to former friends to come to the rescue of the party now, and save it from annihilation.
This is the case here today. The quote continues:
But in many quarters the appeal will not be met with a ready response. The organ has been abusing these people for years, and can hardly expect them to swallow all its abuse and meekly turn round and do its bidding. After the rout of September, 1878,-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair questions the relevance of the Hon. Member's quotation to the specific amendment before the House.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, it may not have been when you were very alert in the House this evening. I am speaking at twelve o'clock in the evening. I am quoting from a document which has a lot of relevance to the issue we are debating this evening. I think you should listen very closely. You can look at the "blues" tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair is listening very closely indeed and having even greater difficulty in determining the relevance. Can the
Hon. Member demonstrate how this question is relevant to the debate?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly see how you can interrupt me during a quotation in a debate in this House before I have finished the quote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member please resume his seat. The Chair has an obligation in presiding over the House to call to the attention of Hon. Members the rule of relevance. It is perfectly in order for the Chair to call to the attention of Hon. Members the rule of relevance. It is perfectly in order for the Chair to do this and it has done for a number of Members this evening as the Chair does now for the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). Will he please indicate the relevance of his quotation to the particular amendments before the House?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the relevance is that I am quoting from a book entitled "Facts for the Electors A Record of the Conservative Administration 1878-1882." Many of the facts in this booklet concern the program of the Conservative Party and its condemnation of the Liberal Opposition at that time. The facts that are contained in here had to do with the building of the rail system in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not discussing the two specific amendments before the House. If the Hon. Member persists in being irrelevant, the Chair will have no alternative but to recognize another Hon. Member.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On behalf of the good electorate of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, to which my riding is twinned, I would like to support very much your call for decorum, your call for order, your call for relevancy tonight. We feel in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake it is the least we can expect in this House.


An Hon. Member:: You were speaking for the only Liberal in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has invited the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake to indicate the relevance of the matters he is quoting to Motions Nos. 55 and 56, which are currently before the House at report stage of this Bill. Will the Hon. Member please indicate the relevance to these amendments?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I hope this is not coming out of my ten minutes allotted time to debate this very important motion. But the relevancy and the bottom line of it is that

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act people in Canada and the rail companies bought boxcars even back in the regime of 1878 to 1882, as they do now. Back in those days at least the rail companies purchased the cars to transport the commodities throughout the country, whereas now the rail companies do not buy the cars any more. I am sure you are aware of that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is making an historical point. The amendments before us are very specific, amendments Nos. 55 and 56. If the Hon. Member has not read the amendments before the House, the Chair is quite prepared to bring them to his attention to assist him in focusing his argument. But in fairness to the House, the Hon. Member is under some obligation to demonstrate how what happened a century or so ago is relevant to this specific amendment proposed by his Party at this point.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the rail lines in Canada came into existence during this time. It was the era preceding the setting of the statutory rate which we are reviewing in this House now, a rate we view as our historic right. I do not see how you can-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is making general comments and is not dealing with specific amendments. The rule of the House is very clear. Hon. Members at report stage are invited to speak specifically to the amendments before the House. The Hon. Member refuses to do so. If the Hon. Member will not deal with the amendments, the Chair will have no alternative but to recognize another Hon. Member.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, it is a question of control over the rolling stock, over the boxcars and the hopper cars that should be under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board and are not now. I do not know how much more relevant I can be than to quote from a document which was the forerunner to the setting of the historic freight rate which the farmers, the producers in western Canada have appreciated for a long period of time and view as their right. Thus I referred to the document. I will not continue the quotation. I will accept your ruling. I also state that there are facts in that document from which 1 would like to quote that are relevant to this debate on Bill C-155. 1 would say with all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not need to be told what the amendments are.
I represent an agricultural riding, where agriculture is the number one industry. The amendments we are debating here are both put forward by the New Democratic Party. The reason we put them forward is that the railway companies no longer buy boxcars or hopper cars. In fact, I am not sure which rail company it is, but the last time either the CNR or the CPR bought boxcars was in the early 1950s. The other company has not bought boxcars since the late 1940s, prior to this Member being born. It is no wonder that we are concerned that these amendments must be put in place. Who has bought the boxcars recently?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Hopper cars.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Who has bought the cars for the movement of grain in western Canada? My colleague has just brought to my attention it is not boxcars but hopper cars. Of course, I know that. But hopper cars are fairly new on the scene, Mr. Speaker. We did not have hopper cars in 1951. But who bought those hopper cars?
First, the federal Government bought some hopper cars, not the rail companies in Canada. It sure was not the Conservatives under an administration of theirs that forced the railway companies to meet their obligations, nor under the Liberals. Both of those Parties have been negligent; a curse on both their houses. The taxpayers of Canada purchased those hopper cars. More hopper cars were purchased. The Government of Saskatchewan purchased some hopper cars. The Government of Alberta purchased some hopper cars because it knew the vital interests that farmers played in the economies of those Provinces. They bought those hopper cars so the producers could move their grain to markets, to ports, because the rail companies failed to meet their obligations.
There is a third group which has purchased hopper cars in recent years. This is the real thrust of our amendment. The people who have purchased those hopper cars are the producers themselves through the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board purchased the cars because they thought that if the producers at least purchased their own cars, the rail companies would have a great deal more obligation to haul the grain out to markets where it could be sold. But it has not seemed to work that way.
The Conservatives did not do anything when they were in power to ensure that the grain would move better. The Liberals have not done anything to ensure that grain will move better now that they are in government. Even if the two of them together formed a coalition tomorrow, which they should because they are the same Party, I doubt whether the two minds coming together could move the grain any better than it moves at the present time, Mr. Speaker.
The thrust of our amendment, Motions Nos. 55 and 56 to Bill C-155, first is to give control over railroad grain cars and the allocation of them to the Canadian Wheat Board. If they have the responsibility to deliver that grain to the ports, as the farmers really do because they produce it and the Wheat Board orders it, they must also have the authority to make sure that those cars are in place when the farmers need them to move their grain to where it should be located, or to its final destination.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member. He was allowed three and a half minutes extra for the interruptions and he has had a fair allocation of time. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, we now have Motions Nos. 55 and 56, proposed by the Member for Regina-West (Mr. Benjamin), and these two motions are very important to us in Western Canada because according to
October 31, 1983

Bill C-155 and Clause 33, the federal Government, by regulation, has given considerable powers to the Administrator over the future of this Committee.
Mr. Speaker, in Clause 33, sub-clauses (4) and (5), it is said, and 1 quote:
Where the Administrator administers and controls any railway cars at the direction of the Minister, the Administrator may enter into agreements with the railway companies respecting the operation of the railway cars, subject to any agreements respecting such operation that have been entered into by the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, it has often been said in this debate that it was very important to Western Canada to have, with the Canadian Wheat Board, the power to organize the grain transportation system in Western Canada, to organize transportation systems because this will be a very important factor. And last summer, more specifically in September, Mr. Jarvis, Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, appeared before the Special Committee dealing with this legislation and made the following statement, and I quote: "The Canadian Wheat Board, like any other sales organization, must control shipment of its own product in order to ensure performance. For these reasons the board has always held the view that overall control of the system, as it is developed in co-ordination with the total of the grain industry, should be administered by the board."
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Mr. Jarvis, as Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board, must see that the administration and control over the grain transportation system rest with the Canadian Wheat Board.
But if we have a bill as well as a section such as Section 33, there is not much difference, for the Administrator must exercice many powers over the allocation of railway cars.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Canada has given the CPR a lot of money since 1881.
I have here some very important figures taken from the CP Rail and CN annual reports showing that we gave CP Rail direct subsidies totalling $13.5 million in 1982 dollars. For example, in 1960, we provided a direct subsidy of $12.9 million; in 1961, a subsidy of $32.3 million. Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why the government should have more powers over CP Rail, because for many years now, we have been most generous for railway companies.
I remember quite well that during the election campaign, CP Rail gave huge amounts not only to the Liberal Party but also to the Progressive Conservative Party. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) who is here tonight has surely received a lot of money from CP Rail for his campaign. I am sure that his federal party received a lot of money. However, it is a good investment for CP Rail, Mr. Speaker, because the company received $31.6 million from the federal government in 1963 and $31.9 million in 1964. In 1965, $37.8 million from the Canadian Government; in 1967, $52.2 million from the Canadian Government. Mr. Speaker, I am shocked because the money we have given to the railways
Western Grain Transportation Act came from the pockets of my constituents, farmers, workers, small business employees and what not.
And it goes on and on. In 1968, $38.7 million were paid to CP Rail. In 1970, $27.8 million were paid to CP Rail. In 1971, still under a Liberal Government: $32.0 million; in 1972, $35.5 million; in 1973, $54.9 million; in 1974, $61.1 million; in 1975, $93 million; in 1976, $84.6 million. But from 1977 on, we went over the $100 million mark: $112.8 million went to CP Rail in this country.
Mr. Speaker, this is quite a big handout. We have been playing Santa Claus for a long time to CP Rail. This is why CP Rail must have this change to the Crow rate. In 1978, another very large increase, we once again went over the $100 million mark to $129.1 million. In 1979, $186 million were paid in grants to CP Rail. That was under a Progressive Conservative Government, not a Liberal one, headed by the Honourable Joe Clark as Prime Minister, and the same thing happened again, a huge grant was awarded to CP Rail. Perhaps it comes to the same thing.
But three years ago, in 1980, we spent $200 million, a massive grant of $221.6 million, and in 1981, $232.7 million.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt you now understand why CP Rail is very supportive of the Liberal Government in this country, because they will change the Crow rate. This is good for CP Rail. It has been getting a lot of money coming from the taxpayers in your constituency of Ottawa West, in my constituency of Yorkton-Melville, in Vancouver-Kingsway and from everywhere else in this land of ours.
That is why I have decided, or rather we in the New Democratic Party have decided to fight every inch of the way against the Government of Mr. Trudeau and the Progressive Conservative Party to stop the movement aimed at doing away with the Crow rate. Mr. Speaker, that is why I hope that the Progressive Conservative Members and the Liberal Members will join us and support Motions Nos. 55 and 56 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
I should like to point out another thing, namely that the Canadian Wheat Board is very important for the producer in Western Canada. It is very important to have an organization like that, a collective organization for Western farmers similar to a union for workers, or a medical association for physicians, or an association for lawyers. It is very important for the farmers. I remember quite well when I was a little boy and my grandfather spoke about the time here in Canada when we had a wheat board and only the Winnipeg Exchange, the Chicago Exchange, the Richardson Grain Exchange and others where the price of grain, the price of wheat and the price of other commodities were set by a few capitalists throughout the world.
28588

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a serious point of order if I could have about two minutes. It has been over two hours since we commenced the debate on Motions Nos. 55 and 56. That means that we are using one hour per amendment. There are 174 amendments on the Order Paper, of which we have considered 56. That leaves 118 amendments remaining. If we divide 24 hours into 118 motions, it comes to five full days. In other words, we will require ten full days to complete the debate. I suggest we are not being fair to Canadians when we spend all this time on one or two amendments. Surely Hon. Members can get to the point in a reasonable amount of time so that we can cover all amendments. If we do not accomplish that, the New Democratic Party will be just as guilty as was the Liberal Party in bringing in time allocation, because it is stopping us from debating some very important motions.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) made an excellent point. However, why did his party waste a whole day preventing debate on Bill C-155 by presenting petitions which could have been tabled?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members are not making points of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I sympathize with him. We are not moving swiftly through the amendments, but they are very controversial matters. Adequate time has to be taken to deal with them. I am hopeful that by tomorrow, Wednesday or Thursday we will have reached the amendment in which he is particularly interested, but in the meantime he has to show some patience.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has heard a number of interventions which were not really points of order. If the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) really has a point of order, the Chair will hear it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the last point of Order so that Your Honour can rule on it. It seems to me-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has ruled that no one has really raised a point of order. The Chair has listened patiently to Hon. Members, but it is convinced that no points of order were raised. If the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a point of order, the Chair will hear it.
The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant).


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, you did not say that with any great deal of enthusiasm.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is a little late in the day. The Chair does its best. The Hon. Member has been recognized.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I am well aware of that. I will do my best as well. I welcome the opportunity to speak once again on a group of amendments to this very important piece of legislation before the House of Commons.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You don't have to tell us ten more times; you have already done it 20 times now.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I especially thank Hon. Members of the Conservative Party for providing me with an opportunity to rise at 12.30 in the morning of November 1 and debate this piece of legislation. I point out, however, to the Hon. Member from dinosaur that we in the New Democratic Party are not especially greedy. If they want to take their turn at debating the legislation-


Gordon Edward Taylor: We do not want an opportunity to say the same thing over and over.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for the purpose of debate on Motions Nos. 55 and 56. I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the fact that this is report stage and that debate should be strictly relevant to the motions before the House.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, if you could keep this gaggle of geese over here quiet, I could deal with the amendments before the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Get your hands out of your pockets and stand up straight when you speak to the Chair.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: We are debating Motions Nos. 55 and 56 which have been moved by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Motion No. 55 reads in part:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 33 by striking out lines 11 to 43 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor;
"for the purpose of moving grain and the Minister shall take every reasonable
initiative to ensure that an adequate supply of rolling stock will be provided
for the efficient, reliable and effective movement of grain.
It is time the Government got around to requiring the railways, or indeed some agency in the country, to live up to the mandate of moving grain for the benefit of producers and farmers.
I am not an expert on farm issues. I did not grow up on a farm. The town in which I grew up and still live in is not really a farming community. There are some farmers in the surrounding area, but its main source of income was for many years a Canadian Air Force base and a large fishing industry. I did not grow up with farming in my blood as have some of my friends in the House. However, I represent a constituency with a good number of farmers. In fact, some parts of it have a number of grain farmers, many of whom are concerned about this piece of legislation. One thing I learned before getting into politics and realizing where events were taking me and that I would have to apprise myself of the concerns of the Selkirk-Interlake constituency was that for many years the railways in
October 31, 1983

this country had been allowed effectively to break the law. As was poined out in debate earlier by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), the railways have not bought any new rolling stock since the late forties or early fifties. Under Article 262 of the Railway Act, they are required to provide adequate rolling stock. They are required to provide boxcars, engines, etc. to be able to move grain effectively to the ports of this country. They have not done that for many years.
For the last 15 or 20 years, the Government of Canada has been buying hopper cars. In recent years, farmers have been buying them through their pools. In more recent years, we have seen the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta buying rolling stock because the railways refused to do it.
I listened to the radio show "Morningside" this morning. A professor from the University of Manitoba was talking with Peter Gzowski about the Crow issue. He put it very well, to my mind. He said that the railways had in effect been on strike. For a number of years they simply refused to live up to their obligations and to honour their contract to move grain to port. We are finally, in this piece of legislation, calling on the Minister to take every reasonable initiative to ensure that an adequate supply of rolling stock will be provided. This has been the law for these many years.
The amendment carries on to say that the Canadian Wheat Board shall administer and control any rail cars acquired or leased by the Board. Over the last few days when we have been debating these amendments most Members of this Party have pointed out that it is absolutely essential for the Canadian Wheat Board to have control of the entire grain handling system. It simply does not make any sense not to have this control. We debated earlier an amendment about the powers that will be given to the Administrator of the grain transportation authority. At that time Members in this corner of the House expressed their amazement and puzzlement at why the Government would want to take power away from the Wheat Board or why it would want to put yet another regulatory step in the whole process of moving grain.
After all, is it not the Wheat Board that is familiar with the system? Is it not the Wheat Board that makes the sales, knows where the grain is needed, when it is needed at such and such a point and where it is located when it comes into the elevators? Is it not the Wheat Board that is familiar with the grades and what grade is needed where, at which port and at what time?
Why do we want to break down a system that has been working very well in this country for years? There is no denying that the Wheat Board played a very important and major role in western Canada. Why do we want to break it down?
In Motion No. 56, we talked about removing the ability to transfer the administration and control from the Wheat Board to the Minister of Transport. This provision of the Bill causes a great deal of concern. For years farmers have learned to look at various Ministers of Transport with less than complete
Western Grain Transportation Act trust. They have seen Ministers of Transport who have diminished the authority and effect of the Canadian Wheat Board. Many years ago we had a Minister in the Diefenbaker Conservative Government who took domestic feed grains away from the Wheat Board. This process was continued until a former Liberal Minister of Transport, to whom the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) earlier referred and had the great pleasure of defeating in 1979, diminished the power of the Wheat Board and its effect on the Prairies.
We heard from the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who for a period of time was Minister of Transport. He is now a great defender of the Crow rate. In the few months that he was in power, he started to put into process the very moves we are now going through. He started to put steps into place that would have led to the scrapping on the Crowsnest Pass freight rates, probably much earlier than we are dealing with them today.
The Minister of Transport before this Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) when visiting western Canada promised he would not move on the Crowsnest Pass freight rates until such time as there was a consensus on the Prairies. The committee found out this summer when it travelled across the Prairies that there is anything but consensus on how the changes should be made.
The successive Ministers have all betrayed the trust of farmers. Now we want to move the control and administration of grain cars away from the Wheat Board, the body that farmers have learned to trust over the half century that it has been in existence, and move it into the office of the Minister of Transport. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the present or any future occupant of that office, but farmers with good cause-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I have an absolutely brilliant speech to carry on, if the House will agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has already been given an extension beyond the ten minutes normally permitted.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motions Nos. 55 and 56 to amend Clause 33. Railroaders call this hour of the night the graveyard shift. That is exactly what it is. I am pleased to be here to speak to this amendment to the Bill because it goes to the very root of what this legislation is about.
The original Crow's Nest Agreement stated that the railways would supply the equipment, cars and rolling stock for the handling of grain. That was not done. Throughout the years, the railways kept getting out and getting the Government more involved in putting in the money. The Government has put literally hundreds of millions of dollars into rolling stock. It has now started leasing it out. The railways have gone to the Government asking it to release those cars from the Wheat Board and the pools which are leasing to it and have

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
this looked after by the Minister. What a set up! We have the Minister dancing to the tune of the railways, using the taxpayers' money to build equipment and lease it. The Government now has the gall, when it is going to change the Crowsnest Agreement, to say it should be taken away from the Wheat Board and other groups which lease it and put under the control of the Minister.
We in the New Democratic Party know exactly what is going on. While the Conservatives sit here and take their $50,000 in donations a year from Canadian Pacific and the Liberals take theirs, they are allowing these kinds of things to take place. They have had 14 speakers this evening and we have had 21, yet their House Leader calls them the Official Opposition.
1 want to go on with what is happening with this railway equipment. 1 worked for the railways for over 35 years and I know how the system works. 1 know how they had the Canadian taxpayers build new cars to supply their demands which they would not live up to. They also had literally hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade their own equipment, and this was done in a shabby way, not really having done what was supposed to be done to meet the needs. The Wheat Pools and the Government of Canada had to come into the system and start building the cars in order that the demands could be met.
In my riding of Kootenay East-Revelstoke, CP Rail signed an agreement with a Japanese company for the sale of coal. How quickly they obtained their equipment and rolling stock and got ready to meet that demand because it suited their needs and their profits! We in this Party realize there is more to Canada than just shipping coal and lumber. Grain is a very important part of our economy, and the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that the administration of these cars will come under the Wheat Board.
If it ever gets to the point where the Minister handles it and administers it, what is to stop the railways from leaving the cars on sidings for weeks on end and then coming back to the Government and saying that they need more cars? I guess the Government of Canada will have to build more cars. When is this going to stop?
If we are speaking about legislation that is going to have some impact on the shipment of grains in Canada, then we must have the group involved in the sale of wheat and the production of grain and other commodities onstream and able to administer. They must have the authority to carry out their plans to meet their needs at very specific times.
The Conservative Party sits there with its one hundred and some Members, and only 14 of its Members showed concern for the farmers. Early in 1982 I was a Member of the Transport Committee which travelled across Canada. We heard the concerns of many of the farmers with regard to the allocation of cars. The former Progressive Conservative Minister of Transport, the Hon. Member for Vegreville, was there. He openly bragged about the cars and the equipment that he had made available for grain transportation during his administration. His administration lasted exactly nine months, but he talked about all the boxcars that he had built and the
equipment that he had upgraded in order to meet the needs of the grain farmer. It takes a lot longer than nine months to carry out that kind of program, build that equipment and get the various groups involved. The ones who took the initiative were not in the Conservative Party. It was the grain growers, the Wheat Board and the Wheat Pools. They realized what had to be done and took the initiative to ensure that it was done. Therefore, for them to try to take that kind of credit is shameful.
For us to be discussing the leasing of this equipment which will be taken away from the control of the Wheat Board and put into the hands of the Minister is absolutely ludicrous. We on this side know that these amendments will not have a chance to be properly discussed, let alone voted on by the Liberals. They have told us there will not be any more amendments passed. These amendments are not going to pass because the Liberals have already made their sweetheart deal with the railway systems in Canada. We have to be able to speak about this. For that reason I am pleased we have had some extra hours so that we could speak on each one of these clauses and about these amendments. It is important to get it on the record to show exactly who is fighting for the Canadian farmers and the Canadian people. If we do not do that and allow this kind of legislation to go through we will find the prairie farmers going bankrupt five to seven years in the future, and we will see the Government of that day coming to the House looking for help for the farmers. After giving it all to the railways the Government will return five years from now to say that it needs help for the farmers. The taxpayers of Canada will have to provide the extra money to help the farmers. We will see the old see-saw back and forth between the railroads and the Wheat Board.
This is very serious legislation. No Member should say that we should not be debating it. The amendments go to the very root of what is being discussed in the House. Each of these amendments is very important to our Party and we will make sure that everyone in the country knows exactly what is happening.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member allow a question?


Sidney James Parker: 1 would be happy to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has a minute and a half for the question. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Before asking the question I should say that I was quite impressed by the enthusiasm with which the Hon. Member addressed this issue and I welcome him to the debate which has taken place. In view of the fact that he has strenuously put forward his personal position with respect to this legislation, and has done so with force and effect in the debate on this occasion, and in view of his great interest in this legislation, would he explain why he attended none of the
October 31, 1983

hearings of the Transport Committee when we spent the whole summer considering this legislation, or is it that he just wants to come in the middle of the night to make a speech and then go back to bed?


Ian Deans: That was very, very clever.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, 1 assure you that 1 have no intention of going back to bed. I also want to answer his question. The fact of the matter is that 1 travelled with the Transport Committee across Canada in 1982 for over two and one-half weeks going to such places as Regina-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Not 1982.


Sidney James Parker: 1 said in 1982. We went to such places as Regina, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. That is where I spent my summer of 1982.
1 want to say that I had full confidence in our Members that sat on that committee and I have been briefed on everything that took place.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, 1 had no intention of taking part in this debate on Motion No. 55 and Motion No. 56.


Ian Deans: That is quite obvious.


Jesse Philip Flis: But since the Hon. Member did take part in this debate specifically on these two amendements, I would like to take a few minutes to draw to the attention of the House what the committee heard when it was in British Columbia.
There was a group of mayors who appeared before the committee. One mayor, Mr. Colgur, had this to say and 1 would like to quote him. The Chairman said:
Yes, I think it is fair that you should have an opportunity to respond, Mayor Colgur.
Mayor Colgur: Mr. Chairman, 1 think it is necessary, because the member of the committee has distorted the question and the comment I made.
What I said, Mr. Chairman, is that our Member of Parliament, Sid Parker, has not fully represented our position. He has been-he has had representation made to him by all of the Mayors and Councils that you see sitting before you from the southeast today. He has chosen to present in the House, on the other hand, petitions on behalf of two or three farming groups-


Douglas Keith Anguish: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: -in the Province of Saskatchewan-


Douglas Keith Anguish: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member resume his seat. The Chair was about to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the rule of relevance. Again, the Chair is having difficulty relating the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's remarks to amendments No. 55 and No. 56 which are before the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member first allow the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to respond to the charge of being irrelevant which the Chair has made.


Jesse Philip Flis: I think it is very relevant, Mr. Speaker, because it is important what constituents have to say on this Bill, and specifically Motion No. 55 and Motion No. 56.


Sidney James Parker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Jesse Philip Flis: The mayor went on to say-


Sidney James Parker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Jesse Philip Flis: He has chosen to present in the House-


Douglas Keith Anguish: A point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member will be a little more polite, he will be recognized. The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish).


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have been very patient and have tried to be as polite as I can with you this evening.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member resume his seat, please. I am quite prepared to recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a similar point of order. I believe there is a parliamentary rule which says that we cannot question the right of a Member to represent his riding. I think this is not only irrelevant but it questions the fact of the Member representing the views of his constituents. That is unparliamentary and out of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is quoting a document. The Chair is trying to understand how the document relates to the debate. That is the first problem. If Hon. Members will just bear with the Chair, it will try to resolve that.
If relevance is not established, the same rules will apply to the Parliamentary Secretary as they will to any other Member of the House.


Sidney James Parker: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, all I am doing is quoting from the minutes of the committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member says that he is quoting from what?


Sidney James Parker: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: From the minutes of the Transport Committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is quoting from the minutes of the Committee on Transport. The Hon. Member

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) says a point of order.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, the Member has quoted my name when reading, and that is my point of order. I suggest he should have recognized me as the Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This has always been a difficult problem in the House when a committee report or document of the House is quoted in which a specific reference is made by name. The Chair is not prepared to recognize that as a point of order at this time. It is a grey area that creates problems for the Chair.
At this point the Chair would like to hear the rest of the statement of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis), bearing in mind the admonition that his comments must be relevant to Motions No. 55 and No. 56.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from page 117:176 of the minutes of the Transport Committee. We spent all summer on this Bill. This is a direct quote from the minutes of the committee, and this mayor went on to say:
He has chosen to present in the House, on the other hand, petitions on behalf of two or three farming groups in the Province of Saskatchewan, rather than represent the position of his constituents.


Ian Deans: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: That is our concern, Mr. Chairman. We are therefore not at all assured by our member's representation-


Ian Deans: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: -that our view will be heard-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: A point of order.


Ian Deans: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: -and that, Mr. Chairman, is why we are here today.
Meaning the mayors of B.C.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Ian Deans: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) rises on a point of order.


Ian Deans: I certainly do, Mr. Speaker. You asked the Member to indicate the relevance of the minutes that he was quoting to the particular amendment we have before us. 1 now challenge the Member to indicate whether or not the mayor was specifically referring to the allocation of coal cars during that particular intervention. If he did not and if he was not, then I demand that the Member withdraw what he has said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is not making any point other than that which the Chair has made. The Chair is trying carefully to follow the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary in terms of relevance. The Chair can only do this if Hon. Members will at least give the Chair the opportunity of listening, just as Hon. Members extend to Members of the group at the far end the opportunity of speaking so that we can come to some understanding as to whether or not they are relevant.
There appears to be some reluctance to hear the Parliamentary Secretary. The Chair would like to hear a little more on the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain about relevance.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Let him put it on the record.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member from British Columbia was representing the views of British Columbians on this Bill and on any amendments or motions that pertain to any attempt to change this Bill or improve it.


Ian Deans: He was not.


Jesse Philip Flis: How relevant can you get? We heard the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) posing to represent the views of Canadians in British Columbia on this Bill and on all of the amendments that were discussed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do these relate to Motion No. 55 and Motion No. 56?


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am just remarking on the comments made by the Hon. Member on Motion No. 55 and Motion No. 56.


Ian Deans: That is not true.


Jesse Philip Flis: I am commenting on what he said. 1 will leave the minutes since this seems to have hit a soft spot.


Ian Deans: No, it hasn't.


Jesse Philip Flis: I will go on to quote a headline from letters to the editor in The Daily Townsman of Friday, June 10. It is under the heading-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A point of order. He is out of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: A point of order.


Sidney James Parker: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: It is under the heading "Parker's position on Crow Reflects outdated thought".


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: A point of order.


Ian Deans: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: This is the problem with the position of the NDP.


Ian Deans: A point of order.
October 31, 1983


Jesse Philip Flis: Their whole position-


Ian Deans: Are you deaf?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Jesse Philip Flis: -reflects outdated thought. There are other mayors. There is the union of British Columbia Municipalities-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Jesse Philip Flis: They made a resolution.


Ian Deans: A point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: That resolution reads as follows-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has listened-


Ian Deans: A point of order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: One way for the Liberals; one way for the
rest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will Hon. Member please be seated.


Ian Deans: I am not sitting down. You cannot sit there and ignore us. Who the hell do you think you are? Take your seat. You cannot allow this kind of garbage. Who do you think you are, Francis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please be seated?


Ian Deans: No. 1 have been on my feet for two minutes asking for a point of order and you have damned well refused to listen. You sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please be seated.


Ian Deans: I bloody well will not sit down. Who do you think you are? You cannot allow this garbage to take place. You may think you are God up there but you are not.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Withdraw, Speaker.


Ian Deans: 1 rose on a point of order and by God I will be heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) be seated.


Ian Deans: 1 will be heard on this point of order. Don't pussyfoot around.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please be seated.


Ian Deans: I will be heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain please be seated?
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Deans: No. I have been attempting to gain the floor on a point of order and you ignored me intentionally.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain please be seated.


Ian Deans: No. I have been rising on a point of order. I will be recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain please be seated ?


Douglas Keith Anguish: He has a right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mr. Deans, I have to name you for disregarding the authority of the Chair.


Ian Deans: Well, you bloody well go right ahead. But you are going to have a problem. You cannot ignore me when I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 invite the Hon. Member to withdraw from this place.


Ian Deans: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to parliamentary practice, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy);
That the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) be expelled from the House for the remainder of this sitting.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the bells having been rung:


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure you will be aware that Citation 25(2) of Beauchesne's

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Fifth Edition indicates that prior to the House making its judgment I am entitled to make a statement. I wish to exercise that right now, with the approval of the Chair, of course.
1 regret the episode which occurred this evening. 1 regret it most profoundly. I have been a Member of the legislature of the Province of Ontario and a Member of Parliament for a total of almost 17 years. Never in my time as a Member representing the people of Hamilton have 1 been expelled from either of the two Chambers.
1 rose on a point of order. It is my understanding from reading the rules that a Member is entitled so to do. Also it is my understanding from reading the rules that it is the requirement of the Chair to recognize a Member rising on a point of order. That did not happen. I want to apologize to you in advance for what occurred, but I believed at the time-and I still believe-it was within my right to request the floor on a point of order, and I was not given the floor according to the rules of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is apologizing and taking this opportunity to explain himself. However, 1 do feel that if we are to comply with the rules of parliamentary procedure, we have no other choice but to proceed with a vote, because the explanation he has just furnished, in accordance with paragraph 25.2 of Beauchesne, indicates clearly that this must be done before I can present my motion. Paragraph (3) reads as follows and I quote:
If the Member satisfies the House by an apology, no further action is necessary. If the Member's statement is insufficient, it is the duty of the Government House Leader to present a motion proposing a suitable penalty.
It would therefore seem that these explanations should have been supplied immediately after the Hon. Member was named by the Speaker.
Therefore, I think that it is a noble gesture on his part to provide an explanation and to apologize. However, from a procedural standpoint, I think that, regrettably, we have no other alternative but to proceed with the vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried. I have to direct the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to withdraw in compliance with the order that the House has just made.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
And Mr. Deans having withdrawn:


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to rise on the same point of order as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I want you to consider four different citations, if you will be so kind as to do so, from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. They are Citations 233(1), 233(2), 235, 237 and 239(1). I would like to take one moment to elaborate. If you look at Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, you will find that Citation 233(1) reads:
Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business and may be raised at virtually any time by any Member, whether he has previously spoken or not.
(2)	A question of order concerns the interpretation to be put upon the rules of procedure and is a matter for the Speaker or, in a committee, for the Chairman to determine.
I think the person has to be heard before determination can be made. Second, I refer to the Chair to Citation 235 of Beauchesne. I quote part of the citation:
Any Member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order. He may interrupt and lay the point in question precisely before the Speaker. He should do so as soon as he perceives an irregularity in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House.
In rapid conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer Citation 237 of Beauchesne's. I quote:
A point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The Hon. Member was recognized for the purpose of debate. He is raising a point of order. The Chair would ask the Hon. Member if his point of order relates to the proceedings that have just been completed in this House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No.
October 31, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If it does not, then the Hon. Member certainly has permission to proceed. The Chair is having difficulty grasping just what is the purpose of the Hon. Member's point of order. Which point of order is he making?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I refer you to two citations of Beauchesne's.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not permitted to reflect on a decision of the House or a decision of the Chair. Is that what the Hon. Member is doing at this time? He appears to be reflecting on a decision of the Chair and a decision of the House. That is not in order. I will hear the Hon. Member out.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Only one point of order can be entertained at a time. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) is being heard on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) must realize that he cannot interrupt on another point of order. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville cannot raise the same matter which the House has just decided.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I refer you, then, to Citation 239(1) of Beauchesne's which reads:
The Speaker decides questions of order only when they actually arise and not in anticipation.
I suggest, with great deference, that you cannot anticipate-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is reflecting on a decision of the Chair-The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has made an intervention? I hope I did not hear it right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was not on my feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) must realize that he cannot reflect upon a decision of the Chair. He was recognized for the purpose of debate. He made reference to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans)-


An Hon. Member:: Oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All right, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary had the floor. He was making a speech before he was interrupted by the proceedings which took place in the House in the last hour or so. I am now trying to make the same point of order that the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) wanted to make but was unable to make. I want to make sure that I can make that point of order and that is why I am quoting citations of Beauchesne for your consideration. Citation 239 states that one cannot anticipate what I am going to say.
Western Grain Transportation Act
To get back to the argument I was making, Citation 237 reads:
A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place.
I think that these four citations to which I have referred you, and with some research and a bit more time I could surely give you more citations and more precedents, should convince you as to why I should be recognized at this time for a point of order. My point of order and the point of order of the Hon. Member from Hamilton Mountain, if he were recognized, was going to concern the speech that the Parliamentary Secretary was in the process of making. He was making a speech in this House on Motions Nos. 55 and 56. What the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wanted to do was to make a point of order under the citations of Beauchesne-the Standing Orders of our rule book-suggesting that the speech he was making was not relevant to the motions before the House. Since he was not allowed to make the argument, I want at this time to make the argument that the remarks that he was making were not relevant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair was attempting to establish relevance. The Chair had called the attention of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the question of relevance, as the Hansard record will show, and the Chair was doing its very best to determine relevance. The problem the Chair had was the constant interruptions and, therefore, the Chair could not hear what the Parlaimentary Secretary was saying.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question or relevance has been raised many times in the debate regarding statements by Member of the Party to which the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville belongs. The Chair in every case listened, and listened attentively, with regard to relevance. In the case of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Chair had the greatest difficulty. At a point which the Chair considered absolutely crucial in the argument, it was almost physically impossible for the Chair to hear.
Therefore, with the greatest respect to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville, the Chair is quite prepared to rule on a question of relevance of any speech. It is not an easy matter to rule on relevance. It is not easy at all. But the Chair was certainly raising the point and had cautioned the Parliamentary Secretary more than once about the rule of relevance. If the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville is making the point that the Chair should have called the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the matter of relevance, the Chair will readily agree that it was considering that but had great difficulty hearing the Hon. Member for that purpose.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My whole point, Mr. Speaker, is that I wanted to be heard on a point of order a few minutes ago, but because of proceedings that I thought might happen because of certain precedents that were set, I wanted to make sure that I quoted four citations from Beauchesne's to point out that I

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act have a right to rise on a point of order. Under Citations 233, 237, 239 and 235 of Beauchesne, I am bound to do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Certainly the Hon. Member has a right and an obligation to raise points of order. That is conceded. The problem the Chair has to recognize is that when many Members are on their feet at one time, all claiming points of order, and another Hon. Member is making a speech wherein the question of relevance has been raised by the Chair, the Chair has to make a decision. In this case the decision was to hear further statements of the Parliamentary Secretary before calling on another Hon. Member on the grounds that the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was out of order.
The decision in this case was to hear further statements of the Parliamentary Secretary before calling on another Hon. Member on the grounds that the Parliamentary Secretary's speech was out of order. The Chair was in the process of doing that when Hon. Members, a number of them, were on their feet screaming, "Point of order". It is physically impossible for more than one Hon. Member to be recognized at any one moment in time. The Chair could not recognize six Members at once on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Nobody asked you to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There were six Members of the Hon. Member's Party on their feet at once.


Douglas Keith Anguish: There were not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: They were all screaming "Point of order".


Douglas Keith Anguish: There was one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure that the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) will do me the courtesy of checking with the transcript which is provided by Hansard for the House and he will recognize the fact after the event. From where the Chair observed the proceedings, there were a number of Members seeking to be recognized on a point of order all at once. It is physically impossible to recognize everybody at once.
The Chair made a decision to attempt to hear further statements from the Parliamentary Secretary before calling relevance again. The Chair had already cautioned the Parliamentary Secretary on a speech that appeared to be irrelevant to the Chair, and I was in the process of making a determination.
Now, if the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has anything else to add to the record, the Chair would be pleased to hear him. But there is no dispute about the need for relevance in this House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker. I would also like to thank him for saying that a Member has an obligation to raise a point of order. I am very glad to hear that. That was what I was trying to do. You allowed me to do that
and I thank you for that. I am glad that no dangerous precedents have been set tonight and I am glad we can get back to the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members about to raise points of order at this moment?


Some Hon. Members:: Debate.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Are you a mind reader?


An Hon. Member:: Button your lip for once.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my wife called me this evening and said that she had just seen the Air Farce on television in which they used as their theme the House of Commons debating the Crow rate. She said that they did a very good job and it was exactly what she sees in the House every day. That is what our public thinks of us. That is a very unbiased opinion by my wife.
In any event, I am very glad to rise to speak to these two amendments. The reason for these amendments is the fact that sales and transportation are inextricably linked and therefore it is very important that the Wheat Board have the kind of authority over the movement and placing of cars that it has had in the past and should continue to have. Because it is necessary to protect the block system, it is necessary for the Wheat Board to be able to call out the kind of grain it needs when it is needed. It is very necessary for the Wheat Board to act in a proper way and have the authority to act. Therefore, it is necessary to have these two amendments pass which will make the difference in this Bill.
Besides that, we in this Party want to stop the erosion of the Crow which the Official Opposition and the Government are attempting to bring about, or are in the process of doing. They have not quit attempting to do it. They went through this farce of going out West listening to the people, but made no changes to the Bill. There is change made to the Bill. They added 86 amendments, but the basic Bill did not change. The effect on the farmer is exactly the same as it was when they went out west. We wasted all that time. We wasted time and dollars to find out, and then did nothing. It is what the bureaucracy decided. This is an individual group of bureaucrats who have governed this Government, who have put the words in the mouth of this Government, into the mouth of the Department of Transport, for the last 20 years. They have continued to do it and are still doing it. The bureaucracy decided what it thought was good.
If you had attended the hearings during the summer, Mr. Speaker, you would have seen exactly how much the Government and, to a great extent, the Official Opposition were guided by the officials who are the bureaucracy. They never made a decision on their own. Every decision was a decision of the bureaucrat who was supposed to be an expert, but an expert who had been trained by this particular administration, hopefully, except that none of these people were there then.
October 31, 1983

You have to go back probably to the Minister of Agriculture in the Diefenbaker Government to find the basis for the training that was here. He was the Member from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, 1 believe. A Minister of Transport in this present administration, at one time the Member from Sas-katoon-Humboldt, has since been rewarded and is now the Vice-President of Pioneer Grain. In the last Conservative administration we had the present critic for the Conservative Party, who was the then Minister for a very short period of time. All of these Ministers either contributed to or took orders from the bureaucracy which has now decided we should no longer have the Crow rate, and in the process they decided the Wheat Board should be denigrated as much as possible.
During successive administrations we have had a feed grain policy which reduced the effectiveness of the Wheat Board. We have had an open market system established which has reduced the effectiveness of the Wheat Board. We have had a Grain Transportation Co-ordinator who reduced the effectiveness of the Wheat Board.
It has been very interesting this evening to listen to Members who have spoken. Unfortunately, I cannot criticize Members on the Government side because they have not spoken. 1 can criticize others, and 1 do not think you could rule me irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, because you never ruled any of these fellows irrelevant. Earlier, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) spoke of the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy that is going to be established. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Crowfoot that the Alberta Government, a very strong Conservative Government, has more bureaucracy per capita than any of the other western Provinces. Where does the bureaucracy develop?
The Hon. Member for Westaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) said that the best situation we ever had was when we put the Grain Transportation Co-ordinator in place. He forgot to mention the effectiveness of the Grain Transportation Coordinator did not really have too much to do with the PC's and, after three years of operation, they went back to the original system which was the Wheat Board operating entirely on its own. The Grain Transportation Co-ordinator is now just somebody there. He takes a little bit of heat but he has nothing to do with the block system and he has nothing to do with the presentation of cars, or the dividing of cars. He is not used. The Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin also forgot to mention the fact that the success of the system depended upon 12,000 cars that were suddenly made available to the Grain Transportation Co-ordinator. He did not mention that after three years the Co-ordinator's ideas all went by the board and we went back to the original system.
The Wheat Board, in its presentation to the Transportation Committee, suggested that although the Grain Transportation Co-ordinator did not get in the road very much, he was really of no value to them. The WJieat Board put up with him and he did take some heat, but as Tar as the operation of the system was concerned, he was of no value.
1 learned a new word tonight from the Hon. Member for Crowfoot who said that there was an "illucination", or was it
Western Grain Transportation Act an hallucination, that the Canadian Wheat Board would have some effect. Again, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot neglected to say there were 12,000 cars in place. That is why anything the Co-ordinator did was going to be better than it was before, but the system there is the system that is working the best now and it has nothing to do with an Administrator being appointed through this Bill, or the Co-ordinator that was appointed by the past administration.
I wonder why the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) would put so much trust in a witness rather than in a Member of Parliament. Does the Hon. Member understand the motive of the mayor who made the presentation? He suggested it was relevant. That particular mayor is to be the candidate for the Liberal Party in Cranbrook. In a couple of weeks the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) are going out to crown him-to make him the candidate.
We must look at Motions Nos. 55 and 56 and say that all of these things which are relevant, which these fellows have said are relevant to this, do not really have very much effect.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member on a matter of relevance, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this morning to debate what I think is a very important amendment. I think this amendment protects the autonomy of the Canadian Wheat Board and prevents the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) from taking over a very important aspect of rail transportation for the movement of grain. Rising tonight in the House reminds me very much of what my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in British Columbia have been doing over the last couple of months, trying to prevent government by exhaustion and legislation by exhaustion. That is exactly what the Tories and Liberals are putting this House through tonight on a very important Bill which has a great deal of significance for the prairie grain farmers in particular.
We are dealing with legislation which will change the whole rural community in our central Provinces. I can now appreciate just what kind of effort my colleagues in British Columbia have been going through to prevent the coalition Government in British Columbia implementing its revenge package, which includes wresting away the power of local school boards, hospital boards, removal of collective bargaining rights, the right to fair rent, and the right to an adequate human rights commission. We are dealing with legislation here in the same manner, presented in the same manner, without any careful consideration on the part of the Government or the Official Opposition as to what this particular amendment would mean.

October 3!, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act The coalition in British Columbia, which was formed in 1975, and which was a Conservative, Liberal and Social Credit coalition, had some very important things to say about rail car upgrading. As Members in this Party will recall, the New Democratic Party in 1974 entered into the production of box cars in a plant in Squamish. That plant was the most modern rail car plant in Canada, in fact in North America. It employed over 300 people. It could produce over a box car a day and had orders for years in advance. The Social Credit Government in one of its first activities, the Conservative-Liberal coalition called Social Credit, decided that it did not want those 300 jobs, that it was government intervention in free enterprise, and 1 suppose that was their rationale for closing down the plant. We still have no rail boxcar plant in British Columbia. We have no opportunity to have one because all the equipment in the original plant was sold because of some philosophical aversion to government involvement.
The Bill before us and the amendment which the New Democratic Party is moving would see some of the Power of the Minister taken away and put back into the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board where it rightfully belongs. Motion No. 55 replacing Clause 33 would do the following. It reads:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 33 by striking out lines 11 to 43 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"for the purpose of moving grain and the Minister shall take every reasonable initiative to ensure that an adequate supply of rolling stock will be provided for the efficient, reliable and effective movement of grain.
That is an admirable attempt. The Motion continues as follows:
(2)	The Minister may enter into agreements with the owners or lessees of railway cars.
(3)	The Canadian Wheat Board shall administer and control any railway cars acquired or leased by the Board or by the Minister on behalf of Her Majesty.
(4)	The Canadian Wheat Board may, in respect of railway cars under its administration and control, enter into agreements with the railway companies respecting the operation of the railway cars."
It seems that the Canadian Wheat Board, which is responsible to the producers of grain, should have the responsibility of determining what boxcars, grain cars, are available for the transportation of grain, and should be responsible for acquiring or leasing appropriate cars, taking that responsibility away from the Minister of Transport who has other responsibilities toward the Canadian wheat industry. If this does not happen, I can see the possibility of the Minister of Transport taking the same narrow attitude toward government involvement in the production of railway cars as the Socred-Liberal coalition in British Columbia in 1975-1976.
It should really be up to the Canadian Wheat Board to determine who should purchase those cars and from where they should be purchased. That it not happening. It did not happen in British Columbia. I suspect the same attitudes would exist at the federal level, whether it be a Liberal or a Conservative Government in the next couple of years, that is, before the New Democratic Party rightfully assumes its position as the Government of Canada some time in the near future.
If the Liberal-Conservative coalition continues to approach the grain industry and farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba in the manner it has, certainly it will lose a great deal of support. Because of its inability to enunciate clearly its real position on the Crow to the people in the Prairies or in British Columbia, it will lose a great deal of support in British Columbia. No one understands what is its position. No one will find out what is its position, by the looks of the debate in the House tonight. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives want to participate in the debate on these very important amendments.


Arnold John Malone: Do you still wonder why you are at 16 per cent?


Edward Allan Miller: We will see the Tories at 16 per cent again.


Arnold John Malone: It will be 116 per cent.


Edward Allan Miller: That is wishful thinking on the part of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) who finds himself having slipped seven points in the poll last month. Four months like that and they will be in their rightful position, and the race will be on for government at that time.
The people of British Columbia want to know what is the Tory position. Hon. Members of the Conservative Party want to have it both ways. They want to pretend to grain producers that they are in favour of a three-year delay in changes to the Crow. At the same time they want to see massive subsidies going to CP and CN. By the looks of it, they want to see the British Columbia coal lands remaining in the hands of the federal Government. That is not an adequate position for the people of British Columbia who, at the moment, are in the throes of fighting a very repressive Government which is basically comprised of Liberals and Conservatives. Their Government is attacking not only the civil rights of the entire population, but at the moment it is putting the entire province into economic trouble as a result of a possible strike in the public sector within the next 40 minutes. That Government does not respect the views of the community.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: The Chair would very much appreciate it if the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) could restrict his remarks to those which are relevant to the important debate at hand.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think the type of Government representing the people is very relevant. I was just making the point that the Government will take control of the acquisition and leasing of rail cars as a result of this Bill. The Government does not respect the view of farmers who are saying that the Canadian Wheat Board should control the distribution of cars. Therefore 1 think my remarks are very relevant. Hon. Members must appreciate the intent of the Bill. It will take control over the acquisition and leasing of rail cars. We have seen the Government in British Columbia take over the control of a rail car plant, a plant which could have provided boxcars for the
October 31, 1983

shipment of lumber and other commodities to eastern Canada and back to western Canada. In conclusion, let me indicate that the Bill before us is important. Also it is important that the Canadian Wheat Board maintain control over the distribution of cars.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue debate on the amendments which have been put forward by the New Democratic Party. The intent of the amendments before us at this time is to protect the integrity of the wheat shipping system in Canada. We are concernend that there is only one group within Canada that has the expertise and the knowledge to look after the allocation of grain cars. We believe that that group is the Canadian Wheat Board. More than any other group it has an understanding of the grade of grain and a knowledge of the location of various grains, as well as some knowledge of the different ways of facilitating sales.
With that in mind, we do not understand how the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), whether it be this Minister or any other Minister, can be the one who makes adequate decisions with regard to the allocation of rolling stock. Many grain cars are already owned by the Canadian Wheat Board. They have been paid for by the farmers of Canada. This means that the Act, in its present form, would confiscate the property of producers. It is very important to remember that fact.
These cars, the allocation of which would be taken away from the Canadian Wheat Board, were purchased by farmers by reason of the fact that they received less for the grain they sold in the past. At present the Government is participating in a form of expropriation. One of my concerns is that the Bill gives the Minister of Transport another role in addition to the ones that he already holds in the shipment of grain. It will really increase the number of different levels of people within the bureaucracy.
I mentioned earlier in the debate on a previous amendment that one of the problems faced in western Canada was that VIA had a contract with CN and CP. This creates a problem because we have one Crown corporation, VIA, looking after passenger travel, and another corporation, with its private enterprise like CP, or its public enterprise like CN, having control over the rolling stock, train schedules, et cetera. For that matter, earlier today I pointed out that even the master agreement between CN, CP and VIA was something about which we have no real knowledge. For example, CN can say that its costs are at a certain level for the movement of cars and charge VIA proportionately. In other words, VIA has no right to know why it is being charged so much, or whether or not it should really be paying those rates.
I can see the same problem existing if we have a system wherein the Canadian Wheat Board has a certain level of responsibility and there is someone in the Minister's office- we all know that it will not be the Minister-or someone working with the Government who will have a special office and will also make decisions that may be quite different from
Western Grain Transportation Act those of the Wheat Board. There should be a centralized control of the shipment of grain within the country.
1 have argued before in the House that one of the problems at the present time is that there is no interchange agreement between CN and CP.
1 would like to refer to the Port of Churchill, if I may. Grain in the northeastern part of Saskatchewan is closest to the Port of Churchill. However, because CP does not have tracks going to Churchill and CN does, the grain crosses the CN line and goes to Thunder Bay, many more miles away. However, at the present time there is no interchange agreement. Therefore, CP controls that grain, even though it would be much better for farmers if they could go to the nearest port. For that matter, only once in history has CP given up its right to take grain over its own tracks.
My concern is that the system will continue to be a hodgepodge. Instead of giving one person or one agency responsibility for the transportation and sale of grain, which 1 believe should be the Canadian Wheat Board, the Government will add another level of inadequate decision making.
We face a similar problem in many different areas. The Government just wants to create another group to share the blame, and not really share the burden. It will create more of a problem without solving the problems which are already faced. We cannot really accept that. For those reasons 1 urge the House to vote in favour of the amendments of the New Democratic Party because we are trying to ensure that we have an efficient and comprehensive transportation system in Canada for the exportation of grain.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the wee hours of the morning, especially following Hallowe'en. This night of the year seems particularly appropriate to the shenanigans which have taken place in the House of Commons over the last few hours.
Before getting into the meat of my remarks on Motions Nos. 55 and 56, I would like to deal with the scenario which developed when the Conservatives came to the door of the New Democratic Party yelling, "Trick or treat". We did not feel it was appropriate to move to their last minute, out of order amendments, and therefore we denied them that permission. At that time we did not think that their under-performance in defence of the people of western Canada and the farmers of the prairie Provinces really warranted a treat, so we said, "trick", and they did. With their usual lack of imagination, the trick to which they resorted was basically the old one of overturning the outhouse. Unfortunately, as they tipped it over, they fell into the hole. Now they are desperately groping around, trying to climb their way back out of the hole they created.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: Order, please. I believe we are talking about rolling stock, not that other type of utility.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member who has the floor just made a mistake. He said

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
that we tipped over the outhouse; he meant to say that we tipped over the "Althouse".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: Do I understand that the Hon. Member is naming another Member of the House?


Arnold John Malone: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Peterson):: We will have no more of that tonight in this House.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you treated the Hon. Member's intervention with the dignity it so obviously deserved. It was really a pleasure to hear that. Whether they want to roll in it or climb out of the hole, that is up to them. Hon. Members of the Conservative Party have done a very effective job so far of digging themselves into a hole, especially on this issue, i will wait with some interest to see how they manage to rise from it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We do not have it all over our face, anyway.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is surprising, because they certainly spend a lot of time trying to stand on their heads. However they manage it, it is up to them.
I will return to Motions Nos. 55 and 56 because I know Mr. Speaker wants me to be relevant. Of course Motion No. 55 stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). The intent of this Motion is to give control over the allocation of railroad grain cars to the Canadian Wheat Board. For the reasons of facilitation of sales, knowledge of the location and grade of grains, protection of the block system, et cetera, the Canadian Wheat Board should have these cars under its control. We think the purpose of this amendment is rather self-evident. Some of the ground referring to it has been covered in previous discussions.
Motion No. 56 also stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West. The intent of this amendment would be to remove the ability to transfer the administration and control of grain cars owned by the Canadian Wheat Board to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). If we transfer the administration and control of these cars, effectively we are transferring the ownership of the cars. It is our contention that the Canadian Wheat Board should have control over the shipment of grain and the allocation of cars. Therefore, these cars should remain under the control of the Board.
These cars were paid for out of the producers' pool fund. In other words, grain producers received a smaller payment for the grain sold on their behalf by the Canadian Wheat Board because some of the revenues derived from the sale of their grain went to the purchase of these cars. To transfer administrative control of these cars from the Canadian Wheat Board to the Minister of Transport is effectively to expropriate them from the producers without compensation or, viewed in another way, to levy a discriminatory tax on producers that has not received the approval of Parliament.
Our friends on the Government side and in the Conservative Party might want to ask themselves whether they want to set a precedent whereby the Minister can expropriate or levy taxes through regulation. Today I would ask, if it is the Canadian Wheat Board that is having its cars effectively expropriated without any compensation, and expropriated by regulation and not by any deliberate act of Parliament, then who is next on the hit list? There are hundreds of cars owned by forest product companies across Canada which they have had to purchase because the railways were not doing their job. Will they be next at some point? Will it be the cars owned by B.C. Rail? Who is next on the list?
What kind of precedent are we establishing by allowing the Government, through this legislation, to expropriate without compensation, and to expropriate without legislation because it is all to be done by a regulatory process? You have to wonder if the new Liberal and Conservative slogan is that extremism in the pursuit of avarice is no vice. How far are they going to go in this kind of grab over what the farmers of western Canada have paid for, such as cars? They have indirectly paid for them. To be sure, they have been paid for by their labours over years and years. It should have been argued before.
That case has been made not only by members of this Party, but by many other Hon. Members over the past number of years, that it was the Government of Canada and the railways that should have purchased these cars in the first place. Because of the failure of Governments and the failure of the railways in this country, whether it has been cars of the Canadian Wheat Board or forest product companies or whoever, that has not happened. Now we are going to make some kind of illegitimate power grab to seize something that we have not paid for, and to seize something for which we are not even providing any legislative framework. We are allowing a bunch of bureaucrats to seize by regulation something that does not belong to them.
We in this Party believe that that kind of action is wrong. It is illegitimate. Even though it is the day after Hallowe'en-I think it is called All Saints Day-I suspect that this kind of trickery and chicanery will not be forgiven. As sure as last night was Hallowe'en, the great pumpkin will indeed rise from the pumpkin patch and wreak his vengeance on Members to our right and on Members across the way as well.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, 1 expect a little bit of enthusiasm from my colleagues. Certainly we have not seen much enthusiasm from the Tories this evening. It is rather ironic that they should call for an all-night sitting and yet, on important amendments, they have been silent. This reminds me very much of their blood brothers in British Columbia, the B.C. Social Credit Party, who called for an all-night sitting of the Legislature. They rammed through legislation without even bothering to speak on it. Their leader can only make such speeches before the television cameras rather than appearing in the legislative assembly to defend his legislation.
It is important to note that, as a result of that hasty ill-considered legislation in British Columbia, in approximately
October 31, 1983

25 minutes from now the employees of the Government of British Columbia will be declaring their contempt for that whole process and going on strike because the legislation was rammed through with no consideration for the real economic or social interests of the people of British Columbia. 1 believe there is a direct analogy between that kind of legislation that we have seen in British Columbia and Bill C-155, which is really a sham in terms of trying to deal with the problems of the people of western Canada.
I would like to speak in support of Motions Nos. 55 and 56 which were moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Before I begin, I wish to quote a couple of lines from one of the great American poems of the fifties, written by Alan Ginsberg. It is entitled "How". It begins with the lines:
Boxcars, boxcars, boxcars,
I have seen the best minds of my generation destroyed.
Perhaps Ginsberg was a bit prophetic of the Crow debate. I do not know whether it is destroying any minds or not.
This Crow debate is certainly having an adverse effect on the economy of western Canada. The Tories have asked for an all-night sitting, but where are they tonight?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I rise on a point of order. One of the reasons the Tory Party asked for an all-night debate was to have the opportunity to debate some of the more important and substantive amendments that have been offered by our Party.


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


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is indicating with his spurious point of order, which was an intervention, is that the Tories have no regard for the Canadian Wheat Board. That is basically what these two amendments are about. They seek basically-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The fact is that this Party has a lot of respect for the Canadian Wheat Board, but we are not going to engage in a game of smear and fear.


James Douglas Manly: You have it smeared all over you right now.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You are smeared from head to toe. You do not know the difference between a Wheat Board and a Fish Board.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 would appreciate a bit of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair appeals to Hon. Members. Bearing in mind the hour, perhaps they should refrain from exaggerated eloquence and speak to the motion before the House.
Western Grain Transportation Act


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 certainly agree with you that we want to try to restrain ourselves and not give way to vile passions.
Motion No. 55 seeks to give the Canadian Wheat Board control over railway cars for the purpose of moving grain. This is where control belongs rather than being transferred to the Minister.


Arnold John Malone: Why?


James Douglas Manly: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) asks why. 1 think he will recognize the expertise of the Canadian Wheat Board. They know the grain growing potential in the different regions in the Prairies. They know the specific needs of their customers. They know how the different qualities of grain can be brought together to meet the needs of their customers. Therefore, they should have the opportunity and the responsibility to control and administer the railway cars for the sale of grain.
The Hon. Member for Crowfoot feels that this whole thing is irrelevant. That simply indicates that they do not understand the basic purpose of these amendments. I fail to understand why the Conservatives do not wish to support the Wheat Board instead of seeking greater control in the hands of the Minister.
Motion No. 56 would eliminate Subclause 33(3) which reads:
Notwithstanding anything in this or any other Act of Parliament, the Governor in Council may, by regulation, transfer the administration and control of any railway cars held by the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of the Government of Canada from that Board to the Minister.
1 am sure Members are aware that these cars that are presently held by the Canadian Wheat Board were purchased with money that was held back from farmers at the time that they sold their grain. In effect, these cars belong to the farmers. They are being administered and controlled by the Canadian Wheat Board. Our Party asks what justification there is for this power going to the Minister. Why should it not continue to be administered by the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of the farmers when it is the farmers and producers of the grain who paid the costs of those cars?
This transfer is a form of robbery. It is a special taxation being imposed on the farmers. If the Hon. Member for Crowfoot feels that this kind of robbery in the name of efficiency is okay, and if that is the philosophy of the Conservative Party, I just hope the Canadian people understand what they are really saying, that robbery in the name of efficiency is no vice.
The cost of these cars should have been borne by the railways initially, yet we find that the railways are always crying poor. They always have their hand out. It is a rather surprising fact that the railways in Canada, after all these years, always seem to be losing money and are always asking for more. Yet the people who own the railways seem to be getting more and more rich while the railways are crying poor. The fact is that the railways have a responsibility to purchase those cars. They did not meet their responsibility. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot and the producers on the Prairies

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
recognize that it is important that, in order to move the grain, they have a system by which they purchase cars. Now the Government wants to take them over. We believe that the power and the control over those cars should continue to rest with the Canadian Wheat Board where it belongs.
Our Party would like to see this entire Bill defeated. We make no secret about that. The Government seems determined to forge ahead with it, regardless of opposition. Earlier the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised there would be no change in the Crow rate unless there was some clear consensus about this on the Prairies. There has been no consensus. In fact the developing consensus is that Bill C-155 is completely unsatisfactory to the people of western Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allocated to him has expired.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to the two motions, and to point out that we in this Party, and there are several of us who hold Canadian Wheat Board permit books, do not need lectures from that great wheat grower from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) with his phony, trumped up sincerity about the Canadian Wheat Board. I suspect he does not have a clue what the Canadian Wheat Board is all about. If he had followed the proceedings of the committee, he would have understood that even the Pools were basically in favour of some of the things he is talking about. The point is that a lot of the things that have been referred to by Members of the New Democratic Party had nothing to do with the amendment.
I wish to quote from the Grain Transportation Agency Administrator brief to the committee, as follows:
The Pools accept the formal establishment of a Grain Transportation Agency Administrator with co-ordinating functions and powers.
Nobody is talking about taking anything away from the Canadian Wheat Board. We understand the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board. We understand what it does, what it has done in the past, and what this does. If the Hon. Member had followed the committee proceedings he would have understood what happened. Even the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who at least was in the committee as the "Lone Ranger" of the NDP, understood what was happening.
I do not think the Member even attended a committee meeting. All of a sudden he is an expert.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Arnold John Malone: He just woke up.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I do not appreciate the Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) saying I just woke up. I have been awake for several hours, trying to participate in the debate which the Tories initiated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. If he has one, will he please make it?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is, with all due respect, that you have ruled on the terms of relevancy many times this evening. I would like you tell me anything that was in the present speaker's contribution to this debate that was relevant to the debate itself. There was no relevancy there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is the impression of the Chair that the most recent remarks of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) were strictly relevant to the amendment. I am sure the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Mead-ow Lake (Mr. Anguish)-


Douglas Keith Anguish: You were on edge.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake like to be quiet for just a moment? In the view of the Chair, the most recent remarks of the Hon. Member are strictly relevant to the amendment, and I invite him to continue.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I will not prolong the debate for any length of time. I think we want to get to the next motion which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Kindersiey-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). However, I simply wanted to point out that our record at the committee does not bear out any allegations made by the NDP about this Party's attitude at the committee with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact, it was the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schel-lenberger), who was very modest in his speech, who was part of the special task force-along with the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the Member for Kindersley-Lloyd-minster-responsible for setting up the Grain Transportation Agency in the first place. Its record speaks for itself because since the time when the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was Minister of Transport, Canadian farmers have enjoyed records every year and are increasing the amounts of grain for export.
In closing, let me repeat how nonsensical the NDP has been in terms of this amendment. I do not believe that the Conservative Party can be faulted for anything it has done with respect to the Wheat Board. In fact, we recognize its value, and many of us have dealt with it. I have had a Wheat Board permit book since I was 18, which is close to 30 years. We on this side know the value of the Wheat Board, and I suggest the House would be better off spending its time trying to help the individual producers move more grain for export, earn more dollars, and meet their commitments to their bankers and others so they may stay in business on an ongoing basis. 1 believe that would be much more useful, rather than engaging in that phony sincerity like the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, the great weed grower, not wheat grower, and the trumped up sincerity he tries to bring to this issue in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
October 31, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 55?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the Motion
please say yea?


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), the recorded division on the proposed Motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion 56. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the Motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed,


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 79, the recorded division on the proposed Motion stands deferred.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, could you tell us what amendment we are going to discuss next.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now be discussing Motion No. 58. Shall 1 dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Motion No. 58
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 43 at page 16 the following:
Western Grain Transportation Act


&quot;ACCOMMODATION FOR GRAIN TRAFFIC
[Stage Direction]
34.(1) The Company shall,
(a)	furnish, at the place of starting, and at the junction of the railway with other railways, and at all stopping places established for such purpose, adequate and suitable accommodation for the receiving and loading of grain offered for carriage upon the railway;
(b)	furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying, unloading and delivering of grain;
(c)	without delay, and with due care and diligence, receive, carry and deliver all such grain;
(d)	furnish and use all proper appliances,' accommodation and means necessary for receiving, loading, carrying, unloading and delivering such grain; and
(e)	furnish such other service incidental to transportation as is customary or usual in connection with the business of a railway company, as may be ordered by the Commission.
(2)	Such adequate and suitable accommodation shall include reasonable facilities for the junction of private sidings or private branch railways with any railway belonging to or worked by the company, and reasonable facilities for receiving, forwarding and delivering grain upon and from those sidings or private branch railways, together with the placing of cars and moving them upon and from such private sidings and private branch railways.
(3)	If in any case such accommodation is not, in the opinion of the Commission, furnished by the company, the Commission may order the company to furnish the same within such time or during such period as the Commission deems expedient, having regard to all proper interests; or may prohibit or limit the use, either generally or upon any specified railway or part thereof, of any engines, locomotives, cars, rolling stock, apparatus, machinery, or devices, or any class or kind thereof, not equipped as required by this Act, or by any orders or regulations of the Commission made within its jurisdiction under the provisions of this Act.
(4)	Such grain shall be taken, carried to and from, and delivered at the places aforesaid on the due payment of the toll lawfully imposed by this Act.
(5)	For the purposes of this section the Commission may order that specific works be constructed or carried out, or that property be acquired, or that cars, motive power or other equipment be allotted, distributed, used or moved as specified by the Commission, or that any specified steps, systems or methods be taken or followed by any particular company or companies, or by railway companies generally, and the Commission may in any such order specify the maximum charges that may be made by the company or companies in respect of any matter so ordered by the Commission.
(6)	Every person aggrieved by any neglect or refusal of the company to comply with the requirements of this section has, subject to this Act, an action therefor against the company, from which action the company is not relieved by any notice, condition or declaration, if the damage arises from any negligence or omission of the company or of its servant.
(7)	The Commission may make regulations, applying generally or to any particular railway or any portion thereof, or may make an order in any case where it sees fit, imposing charges for default or delay by any company in furnishing accommodation, appliances, or means as aforesaid, or in receiving, loading, carrying, unloading or delivering grain, and may enforce payment of such charges by companies to any person injuriously affected by the default or delay; and any amount so received by any person shall be deducted from the damages recoverable or recovered by such person for the default or delay; and the Commission may, by order or regulation, determine what circumstances shall exempt any company from payment of any such charges.
(8)	The railway companies shall afford to the carriage of grain a level of accommodation equal to that afforded to the carriage of other traffic and failure to provide such a level shall be remedied by such orders as the Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
(9)	(a) Where the Administrator is of the opinion that reciprocal and other arrangements between railway companies are required to facilitate the efficient, adequate and reliable movement of grain on behalf of, and in the interests of grain producers, the Administrator shall apply to the Commission for such order or orders as may be required to achieve the necessary reciprocal and other arrangements between railway companies, and the Commission may
[Stage Direction]
October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
make an order granting in whole or in part the Application of the Administrator.
(b)	If the special circumstances of any case so require, the Commission may exercise any of the powers given to it by Sections 59 and 71 of the National Transportation Act and may thereby make an interim ex parte order or orders.
(c)	Any railway company or person directly affected by an interim ex parte order made pursuant to paragraph 9(b) may at any time within ten days after becoming aware of such order, apply to the Commission to vary, amend or rescind such order and the Commission shall thereupon, on such notice to other parties interested as it may in its discretion think desirable, hear such application, and either amend, alter or rescind such order, or dismiss the application, as may seem to it just and right.
(d)	Any interim order made pursuant to paragraph 9(b) shall apply for a period not to exceed one hundred and eighty days but any such order may, within the said period, be converted by the Commission to a permanent order.
(e)	If railway companies affected by any order requiring them to provide reciprocal and other arrangements are unable to agree as to compensation each should receive or pay, the Commission may, by order, fix the amount of such compensation but in no instance shall such compensation exceed the variable costs associated with the provision of such reciprocal and other arrangements.
(10)(a) For the purposes of this section, the Administrator may, on behalf of any grain shipper or group of grain shippers, commence any proceedings before the Commission or the Courts to secure any of the remedies herein provided.
(b) Where any remedy, against a railway company, other than the remedies provided herein, is available to shippers pursuant to this Act, the Railway Act, or the National Transportation Act, the Administrator is deemed to be a shipper and he may pursue such a remedy or remedies and any remedy or remedies he obtains, shall to the fullest possible degree, apply to all grain shippers."
and by renumbering the subsequent Clauses accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise after a considerable time to speak in this debate. It is now 3 a.m. and, while that is not actually important, if Members of the NDP had been a little slower in their haste and had knowledge of Motion No. 58, 1 think they would have recognized that Motion No. 58 fulfils many of the wishes that they seem to have in pieces, parts, and jibs and jibes, in their motions preceeding Motion No. 58.
This motion is basically accommodation for grain traffic. Part of it has been taken directly from the National Transportation Act, Section No. 262.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We knew that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I am glad that the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) knows that. 1 have heard him speak quite often about that Section of the National Transportation Act. 1 presume that he would be in full support of this motion. As a matter of fact, he has launched cases using that Section of the National Transportation Act, although I hestitate to ask who his counsel was because I understand that he was not successful in those cases.
Basically, this motion, if accepted, will force the railroads to carry grain. If the railroads are going to receive the benefit of the taxpayers' dollars and the producers of grain will have to continue to pay increased costs for the shipment of grain, when it comes time to vote on this motion we hope it will be part of the Bill because it will leave absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone reading this legislation in the future. It will not give
the railroads the opportunity to say that they are not being adequately compensated for the movement of grain, which is the argument they have made in the past to prevent being forced under Section 262 to move grain.
Our amendment states that the railroads must furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for carrying, unloading, and delivering the grain. This would be of assistance along with Section 2 for the protection of private sidings and private branch lines of any railway belonging to or worked by the company. What that would do would facilitate the use and the maintenance of sidings and facilities that have been abandoned by railroads when abandonment has been allowed by the Canadian Transport Commission. It would maintain those sidings. It would force the railroads to provide the facilities that would allow producers to use producer cars, to establish their own elevator system, or their own private railway line.
Any time there is any talk at present under the existing legislation of producers getting together and forming their own railroad and running a right-of-way it appears the railway companies refuse to co-operate. This amendment would force the railroads to co-operate.
The other protection we see in this piece of legislation is that it would rely on the Canadian Transport Commission. I know there are some Members in the New Democratic Party, 1 have heard them, not all of them, but some of them, who speak of the inability of the Canadian Transport Commission to meet the needs of producers in western Canada. 1 would like to say that those of us on this side of the House put a great deal of faith in the Canadian Transport Commission. In fact we put more faith in the Commissioners established in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, when it comes to the abandonment and protection of branch lines and the movement of grain in our area than we do in the whole of the Canadian Transport Commission, I am sure.
As you come along and look at the Bill, under this Section the Commission may order that specific works be constructed or carried out, or that property be acquired, or that cars, mode of power or other equipment, be allotted. That would force railroads to repair branch lines that are in disrepair, and to repair bridges that may not be adequate, to provide rolling stock when it is in short supply, and to provide cars when they are in short supply. There would be no excuse for railroads to say they do not have enough diesel power, because this amendment would cause them to purchase that power. Then we move into other segments of the Bill. In Motion No. 58, 1 quote sub-paragraph (8) which reads:
The railway companies shall afford to the carriage of grain a level of accommodation equal to that afforded to the carriage of other traffic-
That simply says that the railroads would not be able to differentiate as they have in the past, and probably under this Bill will in the future, between the movement of grain and of those other commodities sharing the same lines.
Again, the Commission would be able to force the railways to carry grain and take appropriate action under the circum-
October 31, 1983

stances as the Commission sees fit. In sub-paragraph (9) it mentions the Administrator. We know that some Members of the Committee believed the Administrator was given too much power. We had an earlier amendment to this Bill which would cause the railroads to enter into reciprocal agreements if it were in the best interests of the grain producers. In sub-paragraph (9)(a) it states:
Where the Administrator is of the opinion that reciprocal and other arrangements between railway companies are required to facilitate the efficient, adequate and reliable movement of grain on behalf of, and in the interests of grain producers, the Administrator shall apply to the Commission for such order or orders as may be required-
When we brought in that amendment by itself earlier on it was supported strongly by Members of the New Democratic Party, and 1 am sure was even supported by some Members of the Government Party, because the reciprocal arrangements are so important to producers to move their grain. We have heard the bleating and the cries about Churchill. This is something that would facilitate and require the railroads to enter into agreements that would be in the best interests of the producers.
There is also a part in this amendment dealing with the need for the Commission to act quickly. There are times when the movement of grain is delayed and, if the railways refuse to co-operate or refuse to enter into discussions, the delay can cause the producers of that grain a considerable loss of income. It is very simply put in this Motion. It reads:
9(6) If the special circumstances of any case so require, the Commission may exercise any of the powers given to it by Sections 59 and 71 of the National Transportation Act and may thereby make an interim ex parte order or orders.
That simply means the Commission can go ahead without having the railroads present, without any of those parties being present, and make an order to remedy whatever circumstance they may need to remedy.
The other thing we do is fairly civil. I think the railroads are treated in the right way, the appropriate manner.
In sub-paragraph 9(c) the motion reads:
Any railway company or person directly affected by an interim ex parte order made pursuant to paragraph 9(6) may at any time within ten days after becoming aware of such order, apply to the Commission to vary, amend or rescind such order and the Commission shall thereupon, on such notice to other parties interested as it may in its discretion think desirable, hear such application-
It does not say they have to, but it says they may. That is only fair.
I come down to another fair and reasonable portion of this motion. It reads in sub-paragraph 9(</):
Any interim order made pursuant to paragraph 9(6) shall apply for a period not to exceed one hundred and eighty days-
That is only reasonable. We would not want it to continue forever in that period of limbo. It goes on to read:
-but any such order may, within the said period, be converted by the Commission to a permanent order.
We think that is consistent with the desires of the producers of grain in western Canada, the people who require the service of the railroads.
Western Grain Transportation Act I had a friend who reviewed this. He felt that sub-paragraphs 9(a), (b), (c) and (d) would, in his opinion, cause corporate convulsions in the boardrooms of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. I think that is probably the intent. There is not any reason they should be denied the right to worry about what would happen if they did not perform. The producers have to worry about what happens to them if the railroads do not perform. Therefore, we think we have found a way in this to satisfy all parties.
When you come to the close of the last paragraph which is found in sub-paragraph 10(a), it is a change from Section 262 of the Railway Act, and it reads:
(10)(a) -the Administrator may, on behalf of any grain shipper or group of grain shippers, commence any proceedings before the Commission or the Courts to secure any of the remedies herein provided.
(b) Where any remedy, against a railway company, other than the remedies provided herein, is available to shippers pursuant to this Act, the Railway Act, or the National Transportation Act, the Administrator is deemed to be a shipper-
In closing, I would like to read the definition of shipper that we sought and had accepted in Bill C-155. A shipper means any person, partnership, corporation or organization that enters into a contract with a railway company for the movement of grain.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, may I say I think the Hon. Member mentioned there were a couple of clauses that would cause consternation in the boardrooms of Canadian Pacific Railway. The last time the Conservatives caused consternation in the broadrooms of Canadian Pacific Railway, I think the only time, was when it was revealed that Sir John A. Macdonald was taking money from Canadian Pacific in the Pacific scandal in the last century. The Conservatives are still taking money from the Canadian Pacific Railway. They are not about to upset the apple cart.
This amendment is a piece of fluff. That is what it is. It is a piece of fluff. It, in many ways, exposes the Conservatives' approach to the Crowsnest Pass rate and to Bill C-155. When you cut through all the verbiage, it does nothing to the Bill. In fact it changes nothing in terms of the existing legislation.
The provisions contained within this Conservative amendment on the responsibility of the railroads to provide service are already covered under the National Transportation Act. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) admitted that in his speech. It is already covered under that Act. The amendment shows up the Conservatives' approach to this legislation. It is all form and has no substance.
Faced with an aroused electorate-and perhaps we should explain this to some of the Liberal Members across the way so they know what is happening here tonight-on the Prairies that is adamantly against changing the Crow rates, the Conservatives have a position that is essentially the same as the Liberals when you really get down to it, and the Tories are reduced to moving amendments of this nature. It is all fluff and no substance. Because they have nothing to say, they end up saying basically nothing at all. Instead of addressing them-

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
selves to the critically important areas dealt with in Bill C-155, the Conservatives have chosen to deal with the window dressing with this amendment. That is what they mean when they talk about their responsible approach to the legislation. In fact, the irresponsibility of their approach is shown when you look at this amendment.
The responsible approach, I submit, is shown by the New Democratic Party which has stood firm, united, and consistent for the interests of their constituents and for the country as a whole. Its stand is basically change in the Crow rate-three-year option, no flim-flam as in this amendment. The thrust of all our amendments has been basically to eliminate changes to the Crow rate.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that serious people should not focus on the irrelevant. People who have something to hide often do. We should not be diverted by this rather trivial Tory amendment. Whether you vote for it or not is really fairly irrelevant. We should get it over and get on to some of the more important NDP amendments which deal with the real guts of this issue, namely, how we are going to preserve the culture, the historic rights in Confederation of the western farmer, and how we really are going to bring the railways, including the CPR, in tow and force them to upgrade rail lines while keeping the viability of the prairie farmer through the existing Crow rate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard from the joker from Vancouver-Kingsway. What a joke. It was hilarious to listen to that expose. It is an embarrassment to his colleagues, and it is an embarrassment for anyone to be sitting in this House listening to the comments just advanced by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. He is suggesting that everything that needs to be contained in this Bill to protect the farmers and the grain producers is contained in Section 262 of the National Transportation Act. I think everyone knows that Section 262 of the Act has not been adequate and sufficient to date. It is certainly not improved with the passage of this Bill.
If the Member can show me in any one instance where the Act signifies the interest of the grain producer, or even mentions the word grain, then perhaps I would at least partially share some of comments he has made. But for him to suggest that this amendment is trivial, that it is nothing but fluff and has no substance, clearly shows up the lack of knowledge which this Member has about this Bill, or the lack of his knowledge about the history that producers and groups have experienced when dealing with Section 262.
Perhaps it all goes to show that this particular Hon. Member was handed a speech prepared by his researchers. He read it into the record. His knowledge would have certainly been served far better if he had engaged and participated in some of the committee meetings during the course of last summer. I know that the Hon. Member appeared before the committee hearing in Vancouver. He stayed for a short period of time, made an intervention, and left. That was the sum and
substance of his interest in Bill C-l 55, yet he rose tonight and promenaded as the great defender and great saviour of western Canadian grain producers.
I compliment the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydmin-ster (Mr. McKnight) on his comprehensive and thorough amendment. Yes, it was patterned after Section 262, but it is strengthened in many areas and is tailored specifically to grain. That is the important part, and that is the point which the rookie from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) overlooked. Furthermore, it is consistent with our commitment to improve the Bill in terms of its relationship with producers.
The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster just handed me a quotation from which I would like to read. At page 93 of the committee proceedings, No. 132, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is quoted as saying:
Mr. Chairman, as one who has had two bitter experiences in trying to get the CTC to act under Section 262, in the case of several farmers who tried to act under the provisions of Section 262, those farmers were turned down because they were not called a shipper. The courts turned them down because they were not classified as a shipper. It was a board grain.
We certainly addressed that matter in the course of the committee proceedings by defining a shipper. He went on to
say:
Now, if the GTA is not a shipper, he can complain all he likes to the CTC and he can go to court: he is not a shipper, he is out of court. I tried it with grain cars, I tried it with livestock cars, and all the CTC did was respond to me, after the railroads and I went back and forth two or three times each, that the railroads were making a reasonable effort to provide suitable accommodation for traffic offered under Section 262.
In the words of the Hon. Member for Regina West, Section 262 is not adequate. The Hon. Member for Regina West, the "Lone Ranger" who sat through the committee proceedings, has a fair knowledge of the contents of the Bill and of transportation in general. Certainly we may disagree on a number of approaches to transportation, but I would never suggest for a minute that the Hon. Member does not understand transportation. However, I would suggest that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway should spend some time with the Hon. Member for Regina West and learn a little about transportation. Then he could contribute in a much more positive manner to this debate.
As I indicated, this particular comprehensive motion goes a long way toward strengthening the accountability of the railroads in terms of what they will be called upon and expected to do in the area of providing service. Quite frankly, it charges the railway, under a legal obligation, to provide adequate service and adequate accommodation to move grain. As I said earlier, the motion is designed to incorporate grain and to incorporate grain producers.
In dealing with this Bill, and from the various exchanges which have taken place, we know that the railways are indeed obtaining a sweetheart deal. They will be receiving well over $1 billion per year for the movement of grain. During the course of committee proceedings the impression was left with us that the railways did not think that that amount was enough. As a matter of fact they are still complaining, notwithstanding the fact that the Government has been very
October 31, 1983

generous in terms of the funds which will be provided for the movement of grain, and very harsh in terms of the additional freight rate increases which will be imposed upon farmers.
Therefore, it is very important that Subparagraph (8) be looked at very carefully. It goes a long way toward spelling out clearly the following:
The railway companies shall afford to the carriage of grain a level of accommodation equal to that afforded to the carriage of other traffic and failure to provide such a level shall be remedied by such orders as the Commission deems appropriate in the circumstances.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway called that fluff. One of the reasons that is important is because we know that the apportionment of contribution to constant costs in this particular Bill is calculated at a figure of 20 per cent.
1 have a document in my hand which I am sure all Hon. Members received from CN. It outlines some of the pros and cons of this particular piece of legislation. It made the point that the contribution to constant costs is not sufficient and that, in its presentation to Snavely, it made a case for a contribution to constant costs of 35.3 per cent of volume and line related variable costs. Also the document dealt with the cost of money.
We know that that particular figure was calculated at 20 per cent for the last crop year and that it is 18.5 per cent for this year. That component is taken into consideration in determining the cost of moving grain. They left that at 18 per cent, whereas CN and CP are arguing for 30 per cent. Snavely set it at 25.43 per cent. I urge Hon. Members to look very seriously at subclauses (7), (8), (9) and (10) because they go a long way towards strengthening the kind of legal obligation which should be imposed upon railways to discharge their responsibilities in the interests of moving grain efficiently, reliably, effectively, and in the interests of producers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to allow the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) to continue his remarks. This is a major motion on the Order Paper. I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) would be willing to allow the Hon. Member to continue his remarks. I would suggest that the Chair should seek unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) wish to have the consent of the House to continue his remarks?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would be very happy to continue, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this provides me with an opportunity to elaborate further on the subclauses to which 1 referred earlier. I have already dealt with subclause (8). Now 1 would like to deal with subclause (9)(a) which significantly
Western Grain Transportation Act
points out the incorporation of the Administrator in terms of holding the railways accountable and providing a legal obligation for them to discharge their responsibilities and to provide adequate accommodation for traffic.
Subclause (9)(a) reads:
Where the Administrator is of the opinion that reciprocal and other arrangements between railway companies are required to facilitate the efficient, adequate and reliable movement of grain on behalf of, and in the interests of grain producers, the Administrator shall apply to the Commission for such order or orders as may be required to achieve the necessary reciprocal and other arrangements-
Earlier we had some discussion on a motion wherein we moved an amendment to obligate the railways to enter into reciprocal arrangements, if necessary, and in the best interests of producers. Here we have a repeat of that same provision, and here again the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway calls it fluff. I am startled and flabbergasted that he would make such inappropriate comments on a motion which was advanced in a comprehensive manner by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. This particular motion goes to the very heart of performance objectives and the assurance that the necessary service will be provided.
Throughout the course of committee hearings and, indeed, throughout the debate on this Bill in the House of Commons, we heard from producer groups and organizations, particularly as we travelled throughout the country, and in the letters we received, that there were not adequate service and performance guarantees. While there are provisions contained in the Bill in terms of awards, sanctions, and what not, in terms of the individual shipper who is being aggrieved or is not provided with a service which he deems appropriate, enabling devices which would allow him to seek redress were certainly not provided in this piece of legislation. This particular amendment goes a long way toward answering that particular problem.
Turning to subclause 10(a), it gets into the real meat of the particular motion. It provides a means by which a senior Government officer may, on behalf of a grain shipper or shippers, lead the way toward the recovery of some sort of remedy for a shipper or group of shippers. When we look at the cost of litigation, I think this is a very important component for producers. I am sure the Hon. Member for Regina West could tell us about the costs of litigation. It is extremely expensive, and it is a very difficult burden to bear for small operators.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the Hon. Member for Regina West wants to speak, I will yield the floor to him. I wish he would stop his mumbling, bumbling, bickering and snickering. These guys are just like a bunch of chickens. They yap, yap, and yap. There is a bunch of chickens at one end of the Party and there is a bunch of fox terriers at the other. It is the most rude group 1 have ever seen in a debating forum.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was simply supporting the Hon. Member for Vegreville. I was

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act agreeing with him about court costs. 1 would like an opportunity to indicate how we managed to collect some. 1 was supporting what he was saying. I do not know what he is complaining about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In any event, subclause 10(a) would provide a very major benefit to shippers and, indeed, to farmers. I will read it into the record:
For the purposes of this section, the Administrator may, on behalf of any grain shipper or group of grain shippers, commence any proceedings before the Commission or the Courts to secure any of the remedies herein provided.
(b) Where any remedy, against a railway company, other than the remedies provided herein, is available to shippers pursuant to this Act, the Railway Act, or the National Transportation Act, the Administrator is deemed to be a shipper and he may pursue such a remedy or remedies and any remedy or remedies he obtains, shall to the fullest possible degree, apply to all grain shippers.
Our friends in the New Democratic Party have criticized and ridiculed the role of the Administrator. I would suspect, in the course of addressing this particular motion, they would saddle up very closely to the Administrator because here again the Administrator can act on behalf of grain shippers and provide a valuable service.
I would hope that in the course of this debate we might hear from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). He is a fair person. He recognizes that there is a very heavy obligation imposed upon the taxpayers of Canada, indeed upon the farmers, to pay for the service that we hope will be discharged by the railways.
He will recognize, as we have recognized throughout the course of our hearings and the course of this debate, that the producers want the assurance that they will have service and performance delivery. They want assurance that their grain will move on time, that there will be the right grain at the right time, at the right place at the right time, that they will be freed from heavy demurrage charges and losses of grain sales. If in the event that this does not occur, there should be some recourse by the producer. In this case the Administrator can act on behalf of the producer.
The Government will probably say that it covered this particular provision by including the provisions of Section 262. As has been pointed out previously, certainly by the legal counsel to the committee, in terms of the movement of grain Section 262 is not very effective. We have heard from the Member for Regina West and other Members who have sought recourse against the railways under the provisions of Section 262. It simply has not been an effective vehicle.
As we enter the final stages of this debate I hope that the Minister of Transport will have a serious look at this particular provision. If there is some wording that might be changed, I am sure that could be accommodated with unanimous consent. I genuinely commend Motion No. 58 to the Minister for consideration. I ask him to consider it seriously. I believe it would alleviate a lot of fears and suspicions that may very well rise in the minds of the producers. I am sure it is paramount in the minds of the producers because of the bad
experiences they have had. Hopefully the Minister, or his Parliamentary Secretary, will enter into this debate. They have had some opportunity to consider this particular provision. I hope they will reconsider it and look at it in a positive light. It will certainly go a long way toward improving this Bill, incorporating a provision that would apply specifically to grain, grain shippers, and producers. It could be a major benefit to them in future years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted that we have reached this major motion of the Conservative Party. I say to my hon. friend and colleague from Vegreville that he transposes in Motion No. 58 what is already in the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act. I am sure my hon. friend will agree, from bitter opposition as a Member of the Opposition, and as the Minister of Transport trying to straighten out all that had been going on in past years, that whether through the Canadian Transport Commission or the Courts, we have never succeeded in getting the provisions of those Acts enforced.
1 have carefully read through Motion No. 58 moved by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) who, I hope, will speak more on this. What is incorporated in this amendment is the same motherhood stuff we have had since the MacPherson Commission of 1965-66. Members of Parliament of that day, and maybe my friend from Dart-mouth-Halifax East will remember because he was here before I was-


J. Michael Forrestall: And don't you forget it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Members of Parliament of that day thought that the new National Transportation Act, which came about as a result of the MacPherson Royal Commission, would solve the problems which the Hon. Member for Vegreville has mentioned. We have been trying to do this for 25 or 26 years. I made two or three submissions to the Canadian Transport Commission under the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act to try to get enforced some of the very things that are in this amendment.
What did the CTC tell us? They thought the railroads were living up to a reasonable expectation. It did not matter that the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) could not get enough stock cars. That did not matter. It did not matter that potato growers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island could not get enough railway cars to ship their products. What do we get here? We get an amendment supported by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). We can vote for it. It is motherhood. There are no teeth in it. This is the kind of legislation that Liberal Governments have introduced.
If the Hon. Member for Vegreville, who in his visions of grandeur is going to be Minister of Transport, is going to put the same damn thing in the legislation concerning the Crows-nest Pass rate that is already in the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act, that is why my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway said that it is fluff. 1 say it is window dressing.
October 31, 1983

If the Hon. Member for Vegreville means business, he will have his colleagues move some subamendments in order to put some teeth in this amendment. All he wants to do is repeat what is already in the legislation. I do not know if he has any experience trying to have the present legislation enforced. If you try with this amendment, you will be no better off than you are under the legislation already in place.
I have here a couple of pages from the National Transportation Act. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to read it. Then read through the amendment which is two pages long, written by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. It is amazing how much of the wording is similar, identical to, or fits in with what is already in the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act.
There is nobody in this House who will complain about the objectives of the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. We will not complain about that. His objectives are beautiful. We agree with those objectives. When are the Tory Party members going to put their actions where their mouths are? When are they going to put, in this kind of amendment, how they can compel the railways to live up to the law? No Government, Liberal or Tory, since the National Transportation Act, the Railway Act, or even the old legislation under Telegraphs, Canals and Railroads, has ever been able to enforce the law. If the Government had the political will and the popular support, and any Government has the popular support to enforce the present law, we would not need this amendment which is supported by the Hon. Member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wonder if the Hon. Member would permit a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) accept a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to entertain a question from my hon. friend. I assume from that that you will allow a minute and a half extra for my speaking time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will need the unanimous consent of the House to extend the Hon. Member's time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for Regina West finds so much fault with Motion No. 58, is he satisfied with the provision that has been incorporated in this Bill by the Government, which really states that the provision of Section 262 of the Railway Act shall apply? 1 take it, since he has found fault with this and found it inadequate, that he finds the provisions of 34(4) acceptable. Is that correct? Would I be correct in assuming that?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is the Hon. Member talking about Motion No. 58?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Clause 34.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In response to the Hon. Member's question, maybe he has been involved with Section 262 as well as
Western Grain Transportation Act
myself. I have certainly been involved with Section 262 before the Canadian Transport Commission on at least two, or maybe three, other issues. We lost every time. I am objecting to a repetition. He has put, in different words, what is already in the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act. Every time a group of farmers, shippers or consignees tried to get protection under the present legislation, they were defeated. Where does Motion No. 58 make any damn difference from what is already in place?
The Hon. Member for Vegreville should get a couple of his colleagues to move some subamendments to put teeth into this so that it becomes something more than, and different from, what is in the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act. Under Section 26 the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat is perfectly aware of a case that we took to the CTC about livestock cars. Even though we proved that the railways were destroying and scrapping their equipment, the CTC said that it thought the railways were making a real effort. Instead of 1,100 stock cars, we got 500.
We went to the CTC under Section 262, which the Hon. Member for Vegreville just mentioned. There were numerous submissions, letters, and phone calls. The CTC said that its interpretation of Section 262 of the Act was the same as what is in the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. It said that the railroads were making a reasonable effort. However, the time is long overdue. We should give the railroads two choices in the provision of service to shippers, either compulsory or "they have to".
I know that this will appeal to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). Let us visualize his version of a fully private enterprise, free, and open market government in this country, where all the railroads were privately owned but would not provide suitable accommodation, which is in the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Would the Hon. Member for Bow River make it compulsory? Would he interfere?
When will the Tory Party make up its mind? A public, common utility that everyone must use directly and indirectly is the railway. It is the same as a sewer line and water line, and at the moment our rail lines are like sewer lines. However, everyone must use them. It is not possible to reconcile a public utility under an amendment such as the one supported by the Hon. Member for Vegreville. It has not worked the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act. He is simply duplicating them without putting much teeth into it. This indicates to me that, should the Hon. Member ever become the Minister of Transport again-and I wish him well- if he is going to incorporate legislation which has nothing more to it than this amendment, then he will lose. He will lose just like five of his predecessors have lost. I remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) about a previous Minister of Transport who said to him and me behind the curtain in this House that someone should tell the railroads that they are not running this country.

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, by dealing with this motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) we have finally arrived at an amendment which deals with some of the very serious concerns of the producers and shippers of grain. It is interesting to note in connection with the term "accommodation for grain traffic", that the last two speakers for the NDP, the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) and the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), went to great lengths to point out how frivolous this amendment is, in their opinion.
However, I would suggest that finally in this debate, at ten minutes to four, we have arrived at some substance. The Hon. Member for Regina West has been talking about what is wrong with this Bill, but it was he and his Party who did not support a grains co-ordinator when, in fact, the grains coordinator was trying to bring together that which was not being carried out by the railroads.
I wish to point out some clauses in the motion which are specifically important. They deal with the loading of grains, and the receiving of grains. We have producer cars on the Prairies. This means that a primary producer can order a car and load it at a siding where the railroads service the cars, deliver them and make accommodation available for the producer to do the same. I suggest that this is an area which could be improved, that is, splitting a producer car. While this is not addressed in this motion, it is certainly an area of concern and the Minister should consider this matter at some point when enhancing the position of producers loading cars on a siding. This is quite permissible and happens quite often in various areas where the producers do not load through the elevator or a grain company but choose to order cars on their own.
This Bill deals with this situation, but the NDP consider this frivolous, instead of being concerned with the situation that faces the producers. Of course this is due to the fact that many NDP Members are not permit holders or farmers and do not really understand the intricate workings of the grain system and the problems faced by the producers, the shippers, and those who load cars. In this case I am talking about cars that are spotted as producer cars.
Another area which I do not believe has been dealt with concerns Clause 34(4) which states:
Such grain shall be taken, carried to and from, and delivered at the places aforesaid on the due payment of the toll lawfully imposed by this Act.
Under our freeze provision, this would mean that the statutory Crow rate would remain in place at least until 1986. Of course the Hon. Member for Regina West did not deal with that specifically, but circumvented our freeze position. That, of course, is most important to the farmers and producers because it would guarantee a freight rate until some sanity
could prevail on the Government side. I make that comment to the Government with respect to the ability of the producer to pay. I began to speak about this issue earlier this evening, that this ability would be upheld by this Clause 34(4) and our freeze provision. I think it is most important to consider the ability of the producer to pay.
I already indicated this evening that the House should understand the position of the Progressive Conservative Party in regard to this Bill. We are in favour of the development and the work proceeding. We do not like to hear the Government saying that we want to stop jobs or stop development. That is not true. Our contention is simply over the ability to pay. We are saying that the Government of Canada should accept the responsibility of paying the railroads for the enhancement and for the upgrading that the producers do not have the ability to pay for at this time of falling world prices and an increase in freight rates.
The Canadian producers are facing a very difficult situation when one considers the competition they meet as a result of subsidies that are paid in other countries around the world. These countries include the United States, the European Common Market countries, and Argentina, where the freight is completely paid for, and Australia where the grain growing areas are close to open waters. These situations are taken into account in Clause 34(4). Of course our provisions would also include the freeze which would open the door for the primary producer to achieve what I believe is possible for Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is my speech.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The Hon. Member for Regina West says that that is his speech. A new Canada could emerge.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the advice of the Chair. Is there any way that another Member of the House of Commons can sue a colleague for plagiarism? He is making my speech over again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. I call to the attention of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) that his time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few short comments on Motion No. 58. I am sure you would sympathize with me when I say that it is certainly one of the longest motions we have seen in this debate during the last few weeks, because you had to read it earlier this morning.
I would certainly support the motion. I would assume that most Members on the Opposition side would do so. I predict that all Members on the Opposition side would support the motion. The Government could also support it. My research on this motion tells me that almost everything that is said in here comes under either the Railway Act or the National Transpor-
October 31, 1983

tation Act. Maybe the Hon. Member feels that a number of these provisions should be repeated. If that is so, being such a good friend, I think we will support it. However, it is probably not an important amendment in terms of making any new points.
However, the Hon. Member covers and reinforces a number of points that are important in terms of transportation. That is why we have the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act.
This motion outlines a number of things the company should do, including ensuring an adequate and suitable accommodation for receiving and loading of grain, in terms of loading grain onto the railways. That is important. There are many examples in my riding over the years where we have had problems in terms of adequate facilities for loading grain onto the railway cars. But that is already covered in the National Transportation Act. I think the provision is strong enough to be enforced in that Act, even after the Liberal Government has abolished the Crow as it is determined to do.
This amendment simply reintroduces something that is in the National Transportation Act. It states that the company shall furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying, unloading, and delivering of grain. It says that this must be done without delay, with due care and diligence.
Almost all of the points made in this amendment already exist in the National Transportation Act or the Railway Act. The Conservatives are attempting to incorporate references to the Administrator and the new Senior Grain Transportation Committee. As I have said, for that reason I believe it is probably wiser to support Motion No. 58 and it would be to oppose it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, vote against it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have been invited to vote against it. 1 find that a very strange way to lobby on behalf of farmers. You put a lot of work into something and you have some researchers-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Isn't that awful? Do not support it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am the only one so far who has been complimenting what you put before the House. I am trying to be nice and generous. I am sure the Member who moved the motion, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), would not react that way. He has a bit of grace and a bit of respect and decency. I am sure he appreciates a little bit of extra support for this motion that is before the House. I am surprised at the attitude of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. Maybe it is because of the wee hour of the morning. If it is, maybe he should go and get a bit of sleep.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is because of your claptrap.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Well, there is an expert on claptrap, if I ever saw one, sitting across the way.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask Hon. Members to remember the decorum of the House even though the hour is late. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).


An Hon. Member:: Let the Hon. Member himself go back to sleep.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), if he wants to speak, can get the floor a little bit later on.
A number of the things I mentioned are very important. I suppose the reason they are is that they were reiterated by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and he wants to make sure they are covered, because the retention of the Crow is very important to our having a good transportation system in this country.
The Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) was making a few points earlier that a number of us have made before, that other countries around the world do subsidize their grain producers. The Argentinians subsidize freight rates. The Australian producers are all very close to sea ports. There are massive subsidies in the European Common Market. We are all aware of that. You could spend a long time putting on the record the subsidies that are paid by the European Common Market.
I had a chance, with the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), and the Minister of Trade, to go last November to the GATT meeting in Geneva. It was a real eye-opener for the three of us and the officials accompanying us to see and hear the kinds of arguments going on between the Europeans and the Americans about subsidies, and to learn about the kinds of support which other countries were giving their grain producers. I would like to suggest to you that the support offered by our Crow rate in return is not an exaggeration in any way whatever. The Crow rate gives us an opportunity to be competitive with other countries around the world. Their subsidies are massive indeed. I remind you that their producers are a lot closer to a sea port than ours.
I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, coming from the Toronto area might not be aware that the farmers of Canada, particularly those in the Province of Saskatchewan, are farther away from a sea port than any other farmers in the world. That is why it is so important the transportation system be efficient and that it be there at the cheapest possible rate per bushel, or per tonne, for our farmers so we can be competitive with farmers around the world. Since we have to go farther than the others, it is important that we keep the Crow.
The Americans have the Mississippi and the Missouri River systems. The Europeans are close to the sea. The Argentinians are close to the sea. The Australians and the New Zealeanders are close to the sea. We have a long way to get to a deep water port. It is therefore important that we have a very efficient transportation system. It is an important reason why the Wheat Board must remain the sole authority in terms of organization of the system and in terms of allocating the box

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act cars, in terms of making sure that the system runs on behalf of the farmers of this land.
Motion No. 58 is a reference to a whole series of things. It talks about the Commission and the regulations that can be made and can be applied. You can go on and on and on. I refer to the many different items in detail that are repeated here in the motion that is before the House. As I said before, many of these things, not all, are referred to in the Railway Act or the National Transportation Act. I suppose that is why the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), learned lawyer that he is, said this amendment is really a piece of fluff.
I guess he means by that it is fluff because it is padded and is a repetition of something that is already in the statutes of the land. I guess that is also why he said in many ways it exposes the Conservatives' attitude toward the Crow. They are trying to have it both ways. They are trying to make believe they are actually fighting for the Crow, but they are not really doing much to protect it.
When you cut through all the verbiage in this amendment, you find that it does not really change anything in terms of existing legislation. 1 think, because my Conservative friends come from the Prairies and have put forth in a small way the arguments of the farmers, I will certainly will be voting for and in favour of Motion No. 58. I see you are being very polite, Mr. Speaker, and signalling that my time is up. Rather than make you stand up at this hour of the morning and call me to order, 1 will sit down.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I want to say. First, I want to deal with a few of the interventions made by the NDP and to dismiss them as quickly as I can because this is an important amendment and I want to get to the parts of it that are most important. I am pleased to see the Minister is here. I hope, when I have finished speaking, the Minister will be aware of some of our concerns and why this amendment was moved by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).
When the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) called this amendment fluff, I would like to point out to the House that he managed to attend parts of one afternoon Committee meeting in Vancouver and he made three interventions. The Chairman ruled on one of them that the question put did not have to be answered because it was really a political question. If anyone was fluff in terms of his participation respecting this Bill when it was in committee, it was certainly the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. Anything he may say may be dismissed as fluff, based on the kind of performance he showed in committee.
With regard to what we just heard from the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), when he said that we want to have it both ways, I would like to ask him or his Party to explain why, on the one hand, they say they are in favour of keeping the Crow and, on the other hand, move an amendment that, in effect, has the purpose of dismissing the Crow. As soon as the NDP agree to a safety net above the level of the Crow, to my mind at least it means the NDP has changed its tune or
position. Members of the NDP are the ones who are trying to have it both ways.
That is enough about the NDP except to say, when they stand up and bemoan not having a Liberal Government or a Tory Government that will ever do anything on behalf of the railways, and when we see their performance here tonight and how sad it is, we can understand why the NDP will never be in a position to form a government. If the performance of the Members of the NDP is any indication of what would happen if the NDP were in government, we have to be thankful that the prospect of the NDP forming a government is very, very remote, and slim indeed. That is something we have to be thankful for during this late evening.
Let me speak about the motion. I think the Minister will agree with me that a preferable way to proceed with this Bill would have been to make some of the money available to producers so they could put some efficiency into the system themselves. But that is not the case. Given that fact, and because we deal with a regulated industry-any of us who sat in the committee this summer could not help but realize what a regulated and totally controlled industry it is-surely it becomes incumbent upon the Government to see to it to the best of its ability that the railways that are regulated to perform, do the kinds of things this Bill intends and instructs them to do. That is what this amendment does.
In many respects the railways should not be able to have it both ways. They should not be able to live freely in a regulated society. They should not be able to get money without expecting to have some regulations by which they have to live. In fact, that is what Motion 58 does. The NDP can talk all it wants about its similarity to Section 262 of the Railway Act. There are a lot of similarities, except that what this motion does is to collect parts of the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act that are applicable to grain, and translate them into language that is specifically applicable to grain. I would argue in this respect it should be more effective than Section 262 of the Railway Act. When we have a regulated industry, of which the railways are a part and the Government is a part, surely the railways should expect some regulations to be put in place to see they perform.
Second, when we do have so many regulations, and all the money is going to the railways, I would also suggest that it is incumbent upon us to see that the amount of money that is going to the railways is as lean as possible. What you are going to have is inflationary costs borne by the Government and the producers. That inflationary increase will be based on the initial amount of money with which we start. In many ways that was the fault of the Gilson process.
The people at the Gilson meetings, to my mind, were more concerned than they should have been about some of the things that came about after the agreement. There was not enough concern about the producers initially, and about the Government's share of the money. Everybody was concerned about getting a piece of the pie. The bigger amount of money they could pile on the table and which the Government was going to commit-and we have to give the Government credit
October 31, 1983

for putting a large amount of money on the table-the more money there was to be shared, everyone thought part of that money was going to go to the producers and, the more you started with, the more would be spread among producers. We know now that is not going to happen. When you start from a position where all of the money goes to the railways, I think it is incumbent upon us to see that the railways perform and to see their bill is as lean as possible.
When you get to a situation in subsequent years, just to make my point, say in the 1986-1987 crop year, when producers are asked to pick up a share of the increase based on the initial amount of money, which is the $651 million, taken roughly-it is not quite exactly that-as their increased cost goes up as time goes on, the phased in contribution to constant costs will be $165.61 million. That figure is the Minister of Transport's figure. At the same time, the producers' payment, if there was no increase in Crow, would amount to almost the same amount, it would amount to $168.2 million.
We are dealing with a lot of money as far as the producer is concerned. I am just talking about the share of the money the railways will get as a result of this Bill, and which is their contribution to constant costs. That will be almost equal to what the producer would be paying in 1986-1987 if there were no increase in the Crow. In fact, that is the Crow rate. That is a lot of money.
Again, when the producer is going to be asked to pick up his share, and the Government, and the taxpayer, then it is incumbent that we write as many regulations into the Bill as possible to see that the railways perform. If they do not perform and we have an inefficient system, and the costs are higher than they should be, and there are not proper regulations to ensure that the railways perform, everyone will lose. Then the producers will pay more because they will be financing an inefficient system, and because the Government is going to be picking up the inflationary costs over 6 per cent in 1985-1986, the Government stands to lose as well. That means the taxpayers lose. Despite the fact that I do not like regulations and I would much sooner see some inefficiencies in the marketplace through paying some of that money to the producer, we feel that because of the Government's position on this, whereby all the money goes to the railways, we need regulations.
To me that makes a certain amount of sense, Mr. Speaker. 1 do not understand what the problem is. If the Government chooses to pay all the money to the railway, why would not the Government see to it that there are adequate stipulations in the Bill to ensure that the railways perform? We are asking that the CTC do this.
To the best of our knowledge, the CTC is the one neutral body we have in the country. Admittedly it is an agent of Government, but we know that it has acted in the past not necessarily in accord with the Government. The Government has disagreed with the Commission and, on occasion, has had to overrule it, but basically it is an independent body. It has
Western Grain Transportation Act some very good people in the western division in Saskatoon. By the way, we managed to get a definition in the Bill which defines the western division based in Saskatoon. We are not asking that the railways or the Government administer this. We are asking that a well-respected, independent agency of Government administer the amendment contained in Motion No. 58. That makes good sense to me.
I notice the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is listening to my comments. I appreciate that very much. All the money goes to the railways. There is no room in the Bill, as I see it, for efficiency in the marketplace because some of the money should go to producers. I think the Minister would agree with that. He has indicated as much. He indicated that there will be a review process, immediately upon the Bill being passed, to look at the method of payment. Because of those things and because producers will be forced to pick up part of the increased costs, as time goes on we think that in order to guard producers and taxpayers as much as possible we need many teeth in the Bill to force the railways to perform. Very simply that is what the amendment indicates.
The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) dealt with the guts of the specific subclauses in the motion, as did the Hon. Member who introduced it. I have attempted to outline broadly the initiatives which we say would flow from this amendment and how they would benefit producers, the Government and, therefore, Canadian taxpayers. To my way of thinking it is an eminently reasonable amendment which I hope the Government would look favourably on and support.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate on this particular amendment I have received several entreaties from Hon. Members opposite to respond and to comment on Motion No. 58. My participation comes at a late hour, as we all know. I suppose 1 could say that I have taken proper account of nocturnal submissions. However, there are one or two submissions which are very sensitive to the proposals in this motion.
One of the last points of the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) concerned the ability to pay, and that there was a government choice. I remind Hon. Members that that is not totally accurate. If he recalls the various proposals put forward during the committee hearings, he will remember that there was no consensus because major prairie producer groups, the Pools in particular, were prime proponents of payments to the railroads. If Hon. Members opposite are asking us listen to the voices of producers, this is a very clear example of us responding to the voice of some 60 per cent of them in the prairie region, and the Pool organizations, both of which were very adamant.
The Hon. Member made a very important corollary, that with the elimination of the producer payment under the 50/50 system there has to be a somewhat different form of discipline to ensure performance because the market system would no longer have the same application, force or leverage it would otherwise have. We believe that the requirement for the use of Section 262 under the Railway Act was a proper recognition of that need. We felt that the clear obligation arising from it

October 31, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
would provide the performance requirements which were the concern of many of us who appeared before the committee. Of course these requirements have been raised this evening. However, I have taken note of the very strong arguments made by Hon. Members of both opposition Parties.
Perhaps the simple mention of the obligation under Section 262 is in itself insufficient, in particular in relation to precedents which have been set, and perhaps the more extensive or elaborate wording of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) should be and could be a more comprehensive set of criteria which would impose performance obligations upon the railroads. 1 am prepared to consider that suggestion. However, I would point out that during the course of committee proceedings there were some fairly lively and difficult exchanges between legal counsel as to the implications of accepting the amendment. Counsel for the Department was of the strong opinion that Section 262 was sufficient and that to accept the whole wording of the proposed amendment might create some further legal complications. This raised some question marks.
I want to return to the offer of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). He recognized that there may be need for some re-working of the language of this particular amendment in order to eliminate what might be complications perhaps resulting in contrary decisions being made in relation to the Railway Act, under the Bill. We want to have some degree of harmony and to eliminate contradiction. Of course that takes time. I think all Hon. Members would recognize that we cannot expect legal counsel to be available at 4.22 o'clock in the morning. I know that public servants are very diligent and responsive to the command of their political Ministers, but at this time of the morning it would be too much to expect them to be on call.


An Hon. Member:: Why not?


Lloyd Axworthy: They are not exactly a 24-hour hamburger service. In order to obtain the sharp, pristine legal judgment we require, we would expect them to have a proper night's sleep, unlike Members of Parliament who, we presume, are able to function, even if they have to attend Cabinet meetings at eight o'clock in the morning.
I will take into account Motion No. 58, but obviously 1 would like the time to consult with legal counsel. Perhaps at that time I would be in a position to respond to the concerns of Hon. Members of the Opposition or to determine if the complications are too overwhelming to accept. Perhaps some other wording might be accepted, or adapted, which would incorporate the reference to grain requirements throughout the Bill without getting into the contradictory propositions mentioned by legal counsel during the committee hearings. I think Hon. Members opposite would understand my concern as the Minister responsible for the Bill. I cannot require us to come back with further amendments which would not be harmonious with legal principles.
1 would be prepared to take a hard look at Motion No. 58, but 1 would want to be able to give it the kind of assessment it
requires. Obviously we would require some time in order to determine the possibilities. Knowing that Hon. Members opposite are anxious for us to proceed with such an examination, 1 would like to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That the House do now adjourn.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being after eleven o'clock a.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 11.33 a.m. on Tuesday, November 1, 1983 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, November 2, 1983