1983-10-18

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 17, 1983 consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motions Nos. 39 (Mr. Gustafson) and 40 (Mr. Benjamin).
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned last evening at six o'clock, 1 still had a few minutes left and 1 would like to put some additional comments on Motion No. 39 and No. 40, specifically Motion No. 39, on the record of the House today.
A number of us who have been involved in this debate for some period of time have some concern this morning as to what actions the Government might take today in parliamentary procedure form in terms of this debate. Our spokesman on this debate, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski), and a number of my colleagues who participated in the committee, in the earlier debate and in the debate at report stage, have always been concerned, because of the major impact this Bill has on the western economy and, therefore, on the Canadian economy, that these motions be debated fully, and not only that they be debated fully, but that the public understand the reason for the very full debate.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have followed the lead of the Hon. Member for Vegreville: we express our points of view and have endeavoured to utilize the parliamentary time as best we could in order to do just that, not only for the western Canadian farmer but for the Canadian economy. One cannot separate the Canadian farmer and the Canadian grain producers as separate entities from the rest of the economy. For that reason we are entering into this debate this morning with some concern that the Government will take steps today which will jeopardize the positive debate which we have been attempting to carry on in the House of Commons.
Motion No. 39 is a motion which will not only protect the function of the Canadian Wheat Board, but also will allow the Administrator to carry out his or her functions. It seems to be
a given in this House, Mr. Speaker, that anyone in this House who comes from the Prairies automatically must, and does, pay his allegiance to the Canadian Wheat Board. Throughout the years I have been here listening to various speeches on this subject, it appears to be almost as if one tries to outdo the other in terms of their loyalty to the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that point has not escaped you as well, although you do not come from the Prairies.
There is no question that Canadian wheat farmers support the Canadian Wheat Board. They do not want it dismantled. They do not want to see its powers reduced. The farmers want to maintain orderly marketing. They want the Canadian Wheat Board to maintain its ability to get into international markets and to sell grain. That is not our argument. That is not the narrow argument which the New Democratic Party should restrict itself to on this motion; it should look at the issue more broadly. There are other areas of sales potential which possibly the Canadian Wheat Board might not be able to tap or might not have the same contacts with as other agencies. That is the point. We want to utilize every opportunity available not only for the sale of western grain, but to receive the optimum price for the Canadian producer.
I believe this motion, Mr. Speaker, could help in this objective. That is the point we are trying to make in this motion, which stands in the name of Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), and the principle which we are putting forward is quite clear. The Canadian Wheat Board should not only continue its function as it has before; we hope it will have even greater success than it had in the last crop year and that its powers will not be diminished, while realizing at the same time that there are other realities on the Prairies which can be utilized by farmers and the Administrator. We have seen various examples in areas which can only grow feed grains or course grains where farmers have taken risks in the last number of years with high-risk crops.
[DOT] (ino)
Why have they done this? It was not only for diversification but because of cash flow. Therefore if everything was under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board, all farmers would be tied into the quota system or block system. In fact, I suggest it would reduce some of the opportunities that farmers and others have opened for themselves on the Prairies. Therefore, I hope that when the NDP study this motion they will not only see that the Canadian Wheat Board will be protected in all its functions and that those functions would in fact be enhanced, but that there are opportunities which could be taken advantage of as well.

October 18, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act There are a number of people here who are not only Members of Parliament but farmers as well. A number of them have diversified in this manner because they are progressive farmers. Since they know they must meet the financial needs of their farming operations, they cannot only be restricted to one agency. I commend this amendment to them and to Government Members. I have not yet heard whether the Government supports the amendment and I hope someone from the Government will rise in his or her place to say that they support not only this amendment, but the Canadian Wheat Board, the Administrator and the need for extra potential and development on the Prairies. If that were to take place and that spirit was shown, I am sure they would agree with this amendment and we could see its passage before this debate ends.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of Motion No. 39. I become a little tired of some of the things I hear from the NDP. Those Members are forever arguing against multinational and large corporations. They say that there is nothing good about them. However, when it comes to one of the largest corporations in the country, everything about it is perfect. I do not believe that a government monopoly is any better than a private monopoly. While there is a place for government monopoly, we have seen how a monopoly such as the post office has operated. It has come to the point where the post office does not want anyone to compete with it, including the couriers. The post office is now entering the courier business itself. So while there is a place for government corporations, they too can become large and bureaucratic just like any other corporation.
While I support the Canadian Wheat Board, I do not appreciate some of the things it has done. It has not always worked on behalf of the producers and in fact has prosecuted producers. I support it but I do not think that everything it does is right. I believe its actions should be scrutinized carefully to ensure that it will not become a bureaucratic, giant monopoly that will ride over the farmers just like any other corporation.
I have an example of this happening. I hope this is the last time it will happen with the Wheat Board. There was such a large bumper crop in Alberta in 1978 that there was no room in the granaries for the grain and the trains could not handle the shipments. The trains finally moved some grain to make room in the granaries. But the Wheat Board said you cannot use those granaries; you cannot put the wheat in the granaries because that would be overstorage. There was a bumper crop in the area and storage was short; much of it was vital grains. What did the local farmers do? They went to the Alberta Wheat Pool elevator agent. They said: "You have a lot of room in your elevator; how about taking our grain?" He replied: That seems sensible; we can store it and you can pay a monthly charge for the privilege". However, the Canadian Wheat Board said that any grain in the elevator over and above the quota is an overage, which means any grain in the elevator above the quota.
The elevator had lots of room, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Wheat Pool was prepared to take it and the farmer was prepared to pay the charge. What was the alternative? The only other thing farmers could do was to dump their wheat on the ground, which meant a complete waste of up to 10 per cent. The farmers bought the storage tickets. The tickets were issued, they paid the charge, and the farmers put their wheat in storage. But the Wheat Board came along and said: "That is an overage; you do not have quota". It would be better if the wheat were stored outside and 10 per cent of it was wasted.


Mr. Bloomfield:: Shame!


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is what the Wheat Board said. The farmers said that is not sensible. The elevator agent said it is not sensible. The farmers paid for the storage. They weighed all the grains in the elevator. But what did the Wheat Board do? It started proceedings against the producers.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Shame!


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Hon. Member talked about a giant monopoly. The Wheat Board in this case acted just as bad as or worse than any giant oil company acts. The Wheat Board charged these farmers. The Alberta Wheat Pool supervisor verbally told the agent that he was at liberty to issue grain cheques for the grain because the offence had already been committed. Over 70,000 bushels of barley was not paid for. What did the Wheat Board do? The Wheat Board sent the RCMP to confiscate those tickets issued for the storage of barley in the elevator. That barley belonged to the farmers, to those producers.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Even if the action were correct, the barley still belonged to the producers and they should have been paid for it. But it took the Wheat Board months before it let the farmers get their pay for the barley. In the meantime the Wheat Board forced the farmers into a court case. Many farmers cannot stand that kind of expense. They are producers. They are grain growers. The farmers had to hire lawyers. Some gave in and said: "We will simply plead guilty and pay the fine". One farmer said: "Not on your life. I am not going to give in. I am right. I am not going to destroy my wheat." The Wheat Board came into existence for orderly marketing on behalf of the producers.


An Hon. Member:: Tell the whole story.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The NDP is shouting at me. Its Members do not want the producer looked after. They want the corporation looked after.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am talking for the producer. Whether that giant corporation is a Wheat Pool or Imperial Oil, I am going

October 18, 1983
to be for the producer and the common man, and the NDP can like it or lump it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Members of the NDP can keep on hollering; it doesn't bother me a bit.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? The case went on month after month in the courts. One farmer stood the costs and what did the court find? Finally, the court made a decision. The farmer got an absolute discharge. The judge said it was a sensible thing to do. The Wheat Board was condemned.
This is one case and I hope it never happens again. 1 support the Wheat Board, but everything the Wheat Board does is not lily white. When they start to pick on the producers who created them, it is time for someone to step in and take some action.
I believe in the work of the Administrator. I believe in the resolution of the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). He knows the score. He lives on the farm. He knows the good and the bad. He knows the black and the white. He still supports the Canadian Wheat Board but he wants this amendment included, and I want it included. We want to give the Administrator every possibility to do his job so that producers are looked after. I say again for the benefit of the NDP: "Look after the producers; forget about the corporation, it can look after itself".


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Motions Nos. 39 and 40. I am not sure that has been the case this morning up until now, having listened to the remarks of the previous speakers. Basically we have a choice before us as to which set of wording will make clear in the new Act that the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to have power to allocate cars and to pick up the grain it needs to fill its marketing programs. It buys grain from farmers, finds markets for it overseas and connects the shipping in between.
On the surface the difference between the two amendments is not that great. There is a very real technical difference which leads us to recommend Motion No. 40 over Motion No. 39. Motion No. 39 simply makes a motherhood kind of statement. Motion No. 40 refers directly to the Canadian Wheat Board Act and is very specific about which powers it wants to retain with the Wheat Board as opposed to leaving some doubt as to whether the powers go to the Administrator. I think we should opt for the most explicit motion.
The effective clause in Motion No. 39 which was put forward by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) reads:
-the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make available the quantities and types of grain necessary to achieve sales commitments on behalf of. and in the interests of, producers.
Western Grain Transportation Act
It is rather vague. The Speaker said that Motion No. 40 will be dealt with only if Motion No. 39 is defeated. It refers specifically to the powers in the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
It reads:
The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act,-
Section 21 (k) allows the Wheat Board to provide for "the allocation of available railway cars for the shipment of grain at any delivery point, other than cars placed pursuant to a car order book, to any elevator, loading platform or person at such delivery point." It very specifically indicates that the Wheat Board has the power to allocate cars to the exact points where they will find the grain required to fill their markets.
In light of the speeches and the comments in the House, perhaps it would be in order, since we are dealing with the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, to review why these powers are necessary, what farmers have done to get us to the point where we have the existing Canadian Wheat Board, and why it is important to maintain those particular powers within the Board so that it can continue to do the job it was designed to do.
Very briefly, early on in the settlement of the West it was clear to farmers that they had to do something about the marketing of their grain as opposed to the dumping they were forced to do at the outset. Initially the railways put in rail lines. They decided which elevator companies would gather grain from those lines.


Mr. Fisher:: What about the topic?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: This is very much on the topic. Read the amendment. Because of that monopoly in each area, there was much political agitation by the farmers to get the Manitoba and Canada Grain Acts. Once they had a system under the Canada Grain Commission of guaranteeing they would be paid for the kind and grade of grain which they delivered, they focused on the elevator system.
Even though the elevators had a grading system in place according to the law and regulations, they very often did not obey those regulations and were mis-weighing and mis-grad-ing. Therefore, there was a lot of pressure put upon the provincial and federal Governments to establish a Government elevator system that would be a further appendage to the Canadian Grain Commission. That was very difficult to bring about.
In some of the provincial elections around 1910, 1911 and 1912, provincial Governments were elected on a platform of introducing government elevators. We had a typical response from the Liberal Party elected at that time on that platform. They put it in as a platform because they needed the votes. They also had a philosophy which they made very clear in the election. It was that governments cannot run business enterprises as well as business enterprises can. After the election, they began to implement their promise of having government

October 18, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
elevators. In those days governments did implement their campaign promises, at least in some manner.


Mr. Pepin:: John A. Macdonald?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: No, this was the provincial Governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and they were Liberal Governments. They contacted all of the elevator companies asking them to sell their weak and lame elevators to be used in putting together a government elevator company. The companies sent along their poor elevators and even sent along the poor managers who made those elevators such low volume points. They put the worst delivery points and the worst management into one company. The result was a government-owned operation that was not as good as the businesses around it. It was almost a failure, so much so that the farmers finally took the elevators over as co-operatives and they became a success almost overnight.
The first Wheat Board was introduced as a wartime measure during World War I. It was a compulsory Wheat Board. It bought and sold grain to the advantage of the farmers. The main difference with the Wheat Board idea over the private grain market was very noticeable then, and it is still recognized by most farmers. It is that the grain is bought at an initial price at the elevator and resold. The main difference is that the surplus from the reselling does not go to the shareholders of the grain company, as it did under the old system, but to the producers. That is what the final payment has been all about to this day. It is taking the profit extracted from the careful marketing of the grain and returning it to the man on the land who produced the goods.
To that extent, it is a slightly Marxist concept and one which some Members of other Parties have some difficulty with because it is a return to labour. It is the old labour value theory which is sometimes seen, even after 50 years of operation, as a very radical concept.
For that reason, I believe, after the First World War was over, government dropped that organization like a hot potato but farmers began agitating for a continuation of it. The government did not seem willing to do this so it went the co-operative route and set up the Wheat Pools with contracts that the producer signed saying that he would sell all of his grain through the pools for five years. That worked well until the 1930s when the grain market collapsed and the pools almost collapsed.
I believe that all of us remember that during the 1930s there was a Conservative Government under Mr. Bennett. In the dying gasps of his administration, he decided that since he was going to go out to face the people and since he had not had a very good run during his years of power, he would introduce a voluntary participation Wheat Board. This was done in 1935. Producers had the option of selling to the Wheat Board or not.
In 1942, again during wartime, we returned to a compulsory participation Wheat Board. Quotas were installed during that
time and by 1946 and 1948 barley and oats were included in the operations of the Wheat Board as well.
The only other events of historic consequence occurred in 1959 and 1960, again under a Conservative Government. Wheat Board participation had been compulsory for quite some time and marketing through the Wheat Board was compulsory. There was a move afoot, I think for philosophical reasons, to reduce the power of the Wheat Board over selling feed grains. During that era the Hon. Member who now represents Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), and who was at that time the Minister in charge, freed up part of the authority of the Wheat Board and put the selling of feed grains within provincial boundaries back on the open market.
Some years later, from 1969 to 1971, Otto Lang, who was then the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board, made it possible to sell-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to rise to speak to Motions Nos. 39 and 40, the former being introduced by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) and the latter by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), has indicated, the two motions are quite similar but we believe that the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Regina West is clearer and more certain, and I would hope that Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and the Government will support that motion.
I was very happy to have been afforded the opportunity this morning to listen to the historical background of the Canadian Wheat Board, because I think it is extremely important as we discuss each of these amendments that each Hon. Member of the House has a grasp of the historical background of the subject we are dealing with. I feel that when dealing with legislation that will change a historical reality in the country, it is extremely important that all Members who will vote on that legislation appreciate what they are dealing with.
To digress for a moment, I feel, for instance, that if a person is not completely aware of the historical background of a subject, he will ordinarily make very bad decisions about the present issue. I will return to the motion in a moment, but as a case in point, much of the American policy in Central America right now is based on the fact that the Americans have no concept of the history of the region. I bring that point up because that is the same kind of mistake that can be made with a Bill like this if one believes that history began yesterday afternoon at 3.15.
Oftentimes when a government makes profound judgments about the future, those judgments are out of context because
October 18, 1983

that government does not understand the historical background of an issue. That is why the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre mentioned to our colleagues on the Government side and the Progressive Conservative side the historical background for the reason we feel the motion of the Hon. Member for Regina West is so extremely important for this Bill. It protects in a very clear and specific way the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I have a feeling that very shortly Progressive Conservative Members will join up with the Liberals and cancel this motion out. That is why it is so important that we tell all Hon. Members what is going on and what will happen.
Yesterday I was surprised to hear my good friend and constituent, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), who has the intelligence and the foresight to live in my constituency of Saskatoon East-


Mr. Nystrom:: "Red" Ray Hnatyshyn.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Don't ask him how I vote!


Robert Joseph Ogle: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West made what 1 consider to be a very blatant attack on my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West. I understand the process of debate, Mr. Speaker, and I realize that if one has a good point to make, there is no reason not to make it. However, 1 felt that the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West had nothing to do with the speech made by the Hon. Member for Regina West. The best thing that 1 could say about the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West is that they were a lot of hot air.
I do not know how to reprove my friend, colleague and constituent, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, but I feel that I shall have to speak to his mother because his mother has always-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That's taking it too far now!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member is stretching the rule of relevancy beyond on all bounds and limits. I would invite him to return to the two motions which are before the House.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall return to the motions before the House. However, I really feel that what I have just said is relevant and 1 think the Hon. Member's mother is relevant too. She must get in on this.
In any event, the question of orderly marketing is at the core of what we are discussing today. I shall go back to the historical remarks made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre. The question of orderly marketing is essential to the whole question of grain transportation on the Prairies. If anything is done to weaken the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board with its guarantees to see that orderly marketing would proceed, then we are in for trouble on the Prairies. There is no question about that. The process of
Western Grain Transportation Act orderly grain marketing is essential to western Canada as distinct from other wheat growing areas in the world.
For instance, India actually grows seven times as much wheat as Canada but there is not that basic problem of transportation of grain because the people of India use the grain themselves. Our economy and our lives as western Canadians depend upon the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is able to gather, transport and sell our grain in an orderly way to the grain markets around the world. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, pointed out, it is extremely important that this facility is preserved. Motions Nos. 39 and 40 are working in that direction.
I would call upon my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party and in the Government Party to support Motion No. 40 which protects in an absolute way the reality of the situation. That is what Mr. Jarvis insisted upon in the committee hearings. I would like to put on record what Mr. Jarvis asked for at the committee hearings. He said:
"It is an economic fact in the grain industry... transportation and sales are inextricably linked; but transportation must effectively serve sales needs. The current system with the GTA making the initial splits in cars has not become too cumbersome. But a danger exists.
Policy makers-and we say this to you-
He is talking now to members of the committee last summer.
__should be very careful in not separating further the vital link between
transportation and sales.
Motion No. 40 would guard, finally, totally and into the future, the rights of the Canadian Wheat Board to protect that link between transportation and sales.
Mr. Gibbings happens to be a neighbour of mine from Rosetown, Saskatchewan. I have known him for many, many years. He first served as a member of the co-op board in Rosetown when I was a student working at the store. He has also been president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and has been a Wheat Board commissioner for the last 12 years or more. He also insists that the separation not take place but that the rights of the Canadian Wheat Board be protected. He has said:
It is imperative that grain sales and grain transportation not be separated. The Canadian Wheat Board must be able to arrange the transportation of its own product or it cannot fulfil its obligations to western grain producers or their customers overseas. The board's marketing success, meaning sales success, depends on its ability to make day-by-day or even hour-by-hour decisions on grain movement. Its flexibility must not be compromised.
We believe that unless it is clearly written into the Bill that that power cannot be changed, the power would be taken away, and the transportation of grain on the Prairies would be in jeopardy in the future.
I appreciate that many Progressive Conservatives are worried about this debate. That is why there are very few of them in the House and why few of them speak on it. There is a tension in the Party. I should like to ask my friends to my right-and many of them are talking to me in loud voices-

October 18, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
why they do not invite the Leader of the Progressive Conservatives to make a speech. We would all like to hear a speech by the Leader of the Progressive Conservatives.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You will never get any ideas from that.


Robert Joseph Ogle: We would like to hear where that Party stands. I would like to hear some of his Irish wit, Mr. Speaker. He and I share the same Irish background. I would like him to come in and give us a clear statement of where the Progressive Conservative Party stands on the Crow Bill.


An Hon. Member:: You have the wit and he has the blarney.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I do not see any reason why he should not do that. That is my last remark on this amendment, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to seeing the Leader of the Progressive Conservatives come in and address the House.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing today is the difference between Motion No.
39,	the Progressive Conservative amendment, and Motion No.
40,	the NDP amendment. Basically, the difference between them is that Motion No. 39 is a political amendment and Motion No. 40 is a legal amendment. Motion No. 39 is in keeping with the cosmetic, political, both sides of the fence approach that the Progressive Conservatives have taken throughout the debate on the Crow, while Motion No. 40, the NDP amendment, is consistent with the comprehensive and consistent defence we have made of the Crow rate and the Canadian Wheat Board throughout the debate on the future of the Crow rate. That is the difference between the two. One is designed to create the appearance of protecting the Canadian Wheat Board, while the other is designed to implement the reality of protecting the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Once again I find myself on my feet in these debates about amendments, pointing out again that the Progressive Conservative Party is again failing to stand with the NDP for the protection of the Canadian Wheat Board. Only last week I spoke on a similar amendment where the Conservatives failed to stand with the NDP for the protection of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not know if you were in the Chair at that time, Mr. Speaker, but I pointed out at that time that it was no surprise to us in the NDP because the Canadian Wheat Board is the symbol of orderly marketing for many people, that the Conservatives would want subtly-not vociferously and not too enthusiastically because they know the political consequences of that, but subtly-to erode both the reality of that symbol and the symbolic nature of the Canadian Wheat Board.
When it comes down to it, the Conservatives cannot ideologically live with orderly marketing. They have always had a problem with that. It goes against the neo-Conservative strain in the Party. Historically, there may have been Conservatives who were in favour of orderly marketing and who co-operated in setting up many of the institutions in the country for overcoming the inadequacies of the marketplace and for protecting producers and consumers, et cetera. What now prevails
in the Progressive Conservative mind is not that conservatism of years gone by. Of course, I am being overly flattering when I speak of conservatism of years gone by, but it is only to point out that now we have the total ascendency of that neo-Conservative ideology in the Progressive Conservative Party which sees orderly marketing as something to be overcome, to be destroyed; they see it as an evil. Anything that interferes with the marketplace is to be regarded as undesirable.
The Conservatives cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. Do they want to preserve the Canadian Wheat Board and the orderly marketing it represents? If they do, why do they not stand with us and support an amendment that actually does that, rather than simply creating the appearance of doing that?
Earlier in the debate the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) said he was getting tired of listening to the NDP. We were glad that he was not so tired that he could not get up to speak on the amendment, because we always enjoy his interventions. We are glad that we provoked him into using up ten minutes. He told a story about what the Canadian Wheat Board had done to a couple of farmers. I had an opportunity to check with some of my colleagues who know more about the details of the case and I am told that he did not tell the whole story. I know that is unusual for the Hon. Member for Bow River, but he did not tell us that the farmers in question had delivered more grain to the elevators than their quota. He did not tell us that because the grain was there it was holding up the ability of many other farmers-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Baloney!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -in the area to get their grain to market. We did not hear that from the Hon. Member. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is heckling me. He says I am not taking the side of the producer. What I am trying to do is take the side of the details, of the truth of what actually happened in this case so that all of us can make an independent judgment about what we think is really the case. We did not get that from the Hon. Member for Bow River. We just got a very selective interpretation of what the truth was about that particular case. That is no surprise. It is in keeping with the way in which Conservatives are always looking for ways to distort the facts and undermine the credibility of institutions like the Canadian Wheat Board. In effect, what the Hon. Member for Bow River did, particularly now that I have had the opportunity to check the rest of the story-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member knows nothing about the case and now he is generalizing. Tell the truth and stop talking about the corporations. Have a heart for the little man for a change.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am overcome with the piety of the Hon. Member for Bow River. That was not a point of order and I was not talking about the corporations. I was talking about what actually happened in that case. Hon.
October 18, 1983

Members can make their own judgment about what happened in that particular case.


Mr. Malone:: Come on!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Now the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) is foaming at the mouth.


Arnold John Malone: You are right, I am. Every time you speak you do nothing but perpetuate falsehoods.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We seem to have struck a nerve, Mr. Speaker. We seem to have-


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is lies. Tell the truth and shame the devil.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) was given the floor to make a speech.


Arnold John Malone: What a speech! Terrible, despicable.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to cause too much excitement over here.


Arnold John Malone: Well then, tell the truth. You stand there and fabricate and call it a speech.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The truth seems to excite the Hon. Member.


Arnold John Malone: You could not spell "truth".


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is refreshing to see Progressive Conservatives excited by the truth.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is the lies that bother us.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Generally speaking, they are excited by their own falsehoods. Mr. Speaker, I see you are rising to your feet. Is this to call for order once again or am I nearing my time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair would ask Hon. Members to co-operate. Under our rules, practices and Standing Orders the Hon. Member who is given the floor to make a speech on the motion before the House should not be unduly interrupted. I suppose there is no harm in occasional verbal sniping, but it should not carry on beyond decency.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Show respect for this institution.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, one of the other things I wanted to say, having to do with the Crow rate had to do with-


Arnold John Malone: That would be interesting.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: It would be a first.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -the remarks made earlier by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) about how we need to understand the history of any particular thing in order to really appreciate what is really going on, is this. Let us just recall for a minute that not too long ago in the House we
Western Grain Transportation Act
unanimously passed a resolution concerning French language rights in Manitoba. One of the things we were saying when we did that was that we respected the history of Manitoba and certain rights granted certain Canadians at a certain time. We wanted those rights to be respected even though the situation had changed and Francophones in Manitoba are not in the majority any more as they were when Manitoba came into Confederation. We said that a right is a right, and that is what we are talking about when we talk about the Crow rate. If we want to respect history and the rights established in the history of this country, then the Crow rate is one of those kinds of rights. It cannot simply be abrogated because somebody, in this case the CPR, decides that they no longer think it is as relevant or as practical as it was when it was initially granted.
When you start to talk about rights, Mr. Speaker, practicality and logistics do not enter into it in the same way they would if you were talking about something else. I ask this House, when it is thinking about the Crow rate, to try and do it with the same respect for history as it did concerning the question of French language rights in Manitoba.


Mr. Breau:: You are stretching it too far.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) says I am stretching the point. I am not stretching the point at all.


Herb Breau: Is the Crow rate in the Constitution?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Crow rate is part of the understanding of this country, particularly in western Canada. That has to be remembered by Hon. Members when they are considering this matter.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of corporate morality. If the CPR and others want to change the Crow rate, then we say now, as we have said from the very beginning, put the whole deal back on the table. Put everything back on the table, not just change whatever side of a historic agreement one side happens not to like any more.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is procrastination.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is the kind of sell-out bargaining that both the Liberals and Conservatives have fallen victim to in this debate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No change.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They are willing to put only that one side of the deal back on the table and let the CPR have its way with the country. It goes on forever and ever like that, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the debate on Motions Nos. 39 and 40, but I was so moved by the oratory of my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), that I felt-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 18, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Pepin: Resist temptation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I felt, Mr. Speaker, I should rise in my place and express some very serious concerns on behalf not only of my constituents, many of whom are deeply concerned about the implications of these two motions, but also about the broader implications of Bill C-155.
First of all, since I do not believe this has been done yet in the course of debate, I would like to clarify what is in fact before the House. We are now dealing with Clause 19 relating to certain duties and functions of the Administrator under the Act. Motion No. 39 would add to this clause the following:
The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make available the quantities and types of grain necessary to achieve sales commitments on behalf of, and in the interests of producers.
That motion was moved by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). The amendment proposed in Motion No. 40 would replace Clause 19(3) with the following:
The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under Section 21(k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, or any Orders of the Governor in Council, to make available the quantities and types of grain needed to achieve sales commitments.
That motion was moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who has done such an outstanding job both in committee and in this House in attempting to preserve the historic Crow rate.
Looking at the history of these two motions in the committee hearings, I am not going to take the time of the House to go into detail but I think it is important to note that Motion No. 39 attempts to restore the wording moved by the Conservative Party at committee stage and subsequently weakened by a Liberal Party subamendment. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) who moved an amendment in response to the Tory proposal and the Liberal subamendment was carried.
While we support the essence of both motions, clearly Motion No. 40 should be adopted by this House. It is a much stronger version of Motion No. 39 and effectively more in touch with the representations made by the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Esmond Jarvis, who said in his brief that he was very concerned about the shifting of powers to the Administrator and did not want to see any erosion whatsoever of these essential and, I might add, historic powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. His brief very graphically illustrated the need for Motion No. 40 to be adopted by this House. He said:
The Board still feels that the system operates most efficiently and effectively if grain transportation is fully co-ordinated by the major sales agency.
That, of course, is today and has been historically the Canadian Wheat Board. He went on:
If this is not permitted, it should be clear that we view any further reduction in the Board's ability to co-ordinate transportation, as a very serious step backward for the export sales program for Western Canadian grains.
Our strong concern is that with the establishment of a Grain Transportation Agency by this Act... and under Paragraph 97(b) of the Canada Grain Act, further powers could be shifted by Order-in-Council from the CWB to this agency at a later date.
It is for that reason that we propose Motion No. 40, Mr. Speaker. We are most concerned that under no circumstances should the existing powers of the Canadian Wheat Board be in any way weakened, particularly by regulatory action which is taken without any opportunity for the producers to have input.
The powers of the Canadian Wheat Board have been set out very clearly by my colleagues in the past. Certainly the central concept of the Board is at the core of our support for the existing Crow rate and the existing system of marketing, and that is the concept of orderly marketing. I know that the concept of orderly marketing is one which the Conservative and Liberal Parties have never felt particularly comfortable with, but certainly in my view that concept of orderly marketing as exemplified by the work of the Canadian Wheat Board is essential. Any actions which might be taken by the Government to erode the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly by regulation, will be vigorously resisted by us. It will not be just with smoke and mirrors, as is the case with the Conservative amendment in Motion No. 39. What we propose is real and effective powers for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board is in fact one of the most accountable, open and democratic agencies in Canada. It is not a Government funded agency; it is an agency which is funded entirely by the producers. It has an annual report which is in fact delivered to farmers in every community it serves. Members of the Board fan out and speak to farmers in communities big and small in all parts of the prairie provinces.
Motions Nos. 39 and 40 should not in fact even be necessary. The suggestion that the historic powers of the Canadian Wheat Board be eroded is one which should not be made in this day and age. Yet CP Rail, and a number of other powerful resources, have effectively coalesced in an attempt to weaken the powers of the Board and transfer those important powers to the Administrator, taking them out of the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Gibbings, who is a neighbour of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and does not live far from the mother of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), has had a very distinguished career as a Wheat Board Commissioner. Before that he was president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and played bridge with the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West. He stated, and I quote:
It is imperative that grain sales and grain transportation not be separated. The Canadian Wheat Board must be able to arrange the transportation of its own product or it cannot fulfil its obligations to western grain producers or their customers overseas. The board's marketing success, meaning sales success, depends on its ability to make day-by-day or even hour-by-hour decisions on grain movement. Its flexibility must not be compromised.
Those were the words, Mr. Speaker, of an individual who certainly is very experienced in both transportation and sales of grain in the prairie provinces. We in this Party certainly support the essence of Motions Nos. 39 and 40. However, I
October 18, 1983

believe it is important to place this in a broader context, that is, that we are fighting for the survival not only of a historically important symbol, but certainly for a system of transportation which is vital to thouands and thousands of prairie farmers.
It is important in that context, Mr. Speaker, to note and I have just received this information which I am sure the House would be most interested to learn-that so far to date during the course of the debate on this important legislation there have been 102 interventions by Members of the New Democratic Party and 11 interventions by-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is not relevant, I must say, to the motion before the House. In reading the text of the motion, I find no reference whatsoever to what the Hon. Member is now bringing up. I would invite him to speak to Motions Nos. 39 and 40.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just seeking your clarification. I take it you are suggesting that the 102 speeches by the New Democratic Party were not relevant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: No, of course not. The point I am trying to make, and the invitation I extend to all Hon. Members, is to speak to the amendments and to make their remarks specifically relevant to the amendments. On a number of previous occasions I have asked Hon. Members for their co-operation. We are all experienced Members, and I trust we will abide by the rules and practices of the House in this instance once again.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps to save the time of the House I might ask unanimous consent that this document be appended to Hansard. It indicates that there were 61 speakers for the Conservative Party and 102 for the New Democratic Party. I see some indication that that consent might not be forthcoming, so I will return-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member has reached the point of no return: his time has expired. Is the Hon. Member seeking to have his time extended? Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I sit here quite patiently as an easterner listening to the poppycock and damn nonsense from Hon. Members who treat this House as if it were a play area. The distortions, Mr. Speaker, which have come from the distinguished and honourable-supposedly-gentleman to my left leave rational and sane people appalled. You have to sit there in the Chair. What in God's name would you do if you were a shut-in trying to get some entertainment and education and listening to that?
Western Grain Transportation Act


An Hon. Member:: Order!


An Hon. Member:: Relevancy!


J. Michael Forrestall: I want to draw to your attention-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but may I inquire if he has risen to make a speech or to make a point of order? Would he please inform the Chair?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I thought I might bootleg four or five minutes. I rise on a point of order simply to correct the record. Participation from this side of the House with respect to this Bill when dealt with on second reading in principle tells an entirely different story than the story which the New Democratic Party would have the people of this country believe. In actual fact, at second reading debate in principle we had 108 participants from the Progressive Conservative Party, westerners, basically, who are concerned about the producers. The New Democratic Party had 68 participants. As of last night this Party had still put up more speakers on this very important legislation than the NDP have in the entire debate, notwithstanding the fact that it has wasted five days of this House on frivolity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That again is totally irrelevant to the matter which is now before the House. The Chair must admit, however, that certain statements having been made, it is only fair to give the opportunity of reply to the Hon. Members who feel under attack. However, I hope we will now let the matter rest and proceed with orderly debate. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing Motions Nos. 39 and 40, I should first of all express my regrets that we were not able to listen to the easterly winds blow a little while longer. It was most edifying to those of us who have rather deep roots within the western part of the country, either directly related to the Prairies or certainly no more than one step removed.
It does bother me, Mr. Speaker, to hear some of my colleagues to the right exaggerate so profoundly some of the differences between the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party on these amendments. I feel rather sorry for the people out there in television land who may be watching because they will be suffering from a misapprehension. In fact, what is going to happen, as I understand it, on these two Motions is that the New Democratic Party is going to be voting for Conservative Motion No. 39 and if the Conservative Party is to be believed, it is going to be voting for our Motion No. 40 if its Motion No. 39 does not pass. If that is the case, what is all the fuss all about?
I always enjoy, Mr. Speaker, listening to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). He is always colourful. I am not, of course, just referring to his jacket. He always makes colourful contributions to this House and he certainly did so on the occasion of his intervention in the debate on the matter now before us. I must question why he went so far out of his

October 18, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
way to create the impression that there was some deep, dark division between the two Opposition Parties on this question. After all, the enemy or, rather, our opponents, especially on the matter of these amendments, are on the other side. I will not call them the enemy because that is not what the spirit of this institution is all about.
In any event, given the substantial agreement that exists between the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party on these two amendments, I would hope that if this debate continues for any extended period we could perhaps have more calm and cool reason in pointing out what small differences may exist between our two positions.
The differences between Motion No. 39 and Motion No. 40 appear to be very small. The Conservative amendment, Motion No. 39, states:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 19 by adding immediately after line 20 at page 10 the following:
(2)	The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under the Canadian Wheat Board Act to make available the quantities and types of grain necessary to achieve sales commitments on behalf of, and in the interests of producers.
In comparison, Motion No. 40 presented by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) states:
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 27 to 32 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
(3)	The provisions of this Party respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, or any Orders of the Governor in Council, to make available the quantities and types of grain needed to achieve sales commitments.
Perhaps our amendment is more specific but most observers believe that we are trying to accomplish the same goal. Obviously, the intent of both amendments is to preserve the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to co-ordinate the movement of grain. Of course the reasons underlining this attempt to find the most effective way to ensure future export sales and the efficient operation of the grain transportation system is to retain the Board's ability to fully coordinate the system.
Unless Clause 19 is amended, it will make the Administrator a virtual transportation czar over the transportation of western grain. That is basically what this party and we understand the Conservative Party have objected to. According to the Government proposal, only the elevator system and the buying and selling of grain would remain outside the powers of this transportation czar. The Wheat Board would effectively lose control over the block system. The Board needs the power to properly order and direct cars to fulfil its mandate. That is the essential reason for the amendment we have put before the House and, I believe, for the amendment the Conservatives placed before the House.
While we do have some differences in philosophy, as has been illustrated by the Hon. Member for Bow River, and other Conservative Members as well as some from my own Party, let us not exaggerate those differences so that it would give the
public a false impression that there is a vast gulf separating us, at least during this part of the debate.
Motion No. 39 attempts to restore the wording that was moved by the Conservatives at the committee stage but weakened by a Liberal subamendment in the committee. The Liberals seem to be unmoved by these appeals and their proposal passed.
Motion No. 40 is basically a stronger version of Motion No. 39 and we believe it is much more in touch with the Canadian Wheat Board Chief Commissioner, Edmund Jarvis, who recommended the wording that the NDP has placed before the House. That wording is found in his brief in which he expressed concern about the shifting of powers to the Grain Transportation Administrator. In arguing for a defence of Section 21 (k) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Canadian Wheat Board and our Party are referring to a section which allows the Board, subject only to Order in Council, to provide for the allocation of railway cars available for the shipment of grain at any delivery point to any elevator, loading platform or person at the delivery point. In our view, Motion No. 40 is a better alternative. Motion No. 39 as worded does not replace the existing Section 2 but adds to and confuses it.
Perhaps those are not minor differences but neither are they differences of a nature which justify the exaggerated language and opinions that have been expressed during the course of this reasonably short debate on these motions. Surely there is enough dividing us in our attitude toward institutions such as the Wheat Board, and surely there is enough differing opinion in the House and in the country that legitimately divides us on many serious issues involving the Crow debate and other matters, that we do not have to exaggerate what, on the surface and technically, are relatively minor points.
I submit that Canadians are fed up with hostility being overblown on matters over which the depth of feeling is not really that strong. Why do we not at least get together on those matters on which we can agree? At least as far as the Official Opposition and the NDP are concerned, this is obviously one of those issues where the differences are minor. While the amendments may be relatively important in their impact, I would hope Members on the Government side would pay more heed to the serious arguments that have been made in the midst of the confusion raised by the manufactured antagonism between Conservatives and New Democrats than they did in committee.
I believe that the points we are making are valid. Our proposals will make a difference to the producers and to the Canadian Wheat Board, which has done a reasonably good job on behalf of the grain producers of western Canada and other participants in the Canadian grain industry for many years, despite some of its failings. I would ask the Government to reconsider its position and support either motion-hopefully Motion No. 40-when it comes to a vote.
I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and if I have in any way managed to encourage a little more rationality and peace in this place, at least on this issue, I feel I will have performed some useful function in this debate.
October 18, 1983


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Is the Minister going to enter the debate at this point?


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief in my remarks in support of Motion No. 39 and Motion No. 40. I would like to say something that may seem strange to some of my colleagues, but I think the last spokesman for the New Democratic Party set a new tone for the debate. It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), in beginning the debate for his Party, made some almost incredible statements for one who we have said throughout this debate has spent more time in committee than any other Member from his Party. I compliment the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) on his tone and contribution to the debate.
We are debating two motions that, in the opinion of all Members on this side, actually strengthen the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to do the job for which it was originally established. There have been criticism from time to time by some Members and I would like to bring the attention of the House to one in particular. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) spoke of my colleague for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). He is a man who has served Canada as an elected Member for more years than I have been alive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: He has served as a Member of the Legislature in Alberta as well as here in the House of Commons. He also served his country as a member of the Armed Forces during the Second World War. I think any Member who would attack the credibility and ability of someone with that kind of a record should take a look within his soul and at himself to see why that would happen.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Most of us in this House, no matter from where we come, western Canada, central Canada or eastern Canada, realize the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board to the grain producers of western Canada. I do not think that is debatable. The Wheat Board has to be strengthened and it has to be maintained to buy, sell and move grain.
I would like to speak to some of the Members of the Government side who ultimately through the democratic process will have the last say on Motions Nos. 39 and 40. I ask them to think what would happen if we turned the shoe around and put it on the other foot. What would happen if there were amendments put forth that would dilute or may be perceived to dilute the powers of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board which serves the members of Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic region and British Columbia. If we put forward an amendment that was just perceived in the minds of their constituents to alter the ability of the Canadian Livestock Feed Board to do the job those producers and farmers and feeders in that area rely upon it to do, they would feel betrayed. It is an institution which they know is important to their ability to continue to
Western Grain Transportation Act
produce livestock and go about their way of earning a living, and they would feel that if that was going to be changed in some way detrimental to the functions of the Board, they would stand, as we on this side have stood, and say "Take a second look".
The Canadian Wheat Board is not another Crown agency. I would surmise the majority of wheat producers and Canadian Wheat Board permit card holders in the western part of Canada do not even think of the Canadian Wheat Board as a Crown agency. They do not think of it as something like CN, Air Canada, Petro-Canada or the post office.


Arnold John Malone: Or Canadair.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: They think of it as their Canadian Wheat Board, they think it belongs to them. As a matter of fact, it is more than just think, Mr. Speaker. Most producers of grain in western Canada know that the Canadian Wheat Board really does belong to them. Producers pay the operating costs which are taken out of sales, and they elect an advisory committee. The only thing that removes the Canadian Wheat Board from the farmer is Order in Council appointments of commissioners and the guarantee of the public purse as the commitments for initial payments are made. When something happens which makes them say "That is not our Canadian Wheat Board", there will be a lot of concern among Canadian wheat producers in western Canada.
That is why we on this side put forward two amendments. I had the opportunity in committee of moving an amendment similar to the one moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). It was supported by Members of the NDP. We would like to see it supported by all Members in this House. It makes clear the abilities of the Canadian Wheat Board to carry out their duties. I think this amendment does an excellent job, a better job than the amendment in Motion No. 40.
As I read Motion No. 40, the amendment refers to Orders in Council. I am not sure whether that means only Orders in Council under Section 21(k), whether it means Orders in Council relating to the appointment of commissioners, or whether it means Orders in Council relating to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. We have heard some Members say it is a legal definition. Just being a dirt farmer and not knowing that much about legality, I think when doubts are raised as to what is the definition of Order in Council, it means that it should be looked at very closely. In the words of the legal counsel to the committee, the definition put forward by my colleague for Assiniboia fulfils that requirement of establishing without doubt in Bill C-155 the functions and abilities of the Canadian Wheat Board as prescribed by the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
If producers have a feeling that they are losing some control, I do not think the Government that sits opposite or Members in the Opposition would be able to stand still for the hue and cry and for the sheer anger and frustration that producers in western Canada would put forth if they found that any part of this Bill impeded the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to

October 18, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
do what it does best, and that is sell or facilitate the sale of grain on behalf of producers in western Canada.
The Board has gone through a lot of changes. I think it has gone through changes at a measured pace. We have now part of a dual system when it comes to feed grains. There are all kinds of arguments for another day as to the ability of a dual system to function. The people who make the dual system function under the Canadian Wheat Board Act are the very producers who grow that grain and sell it. If they did not want that system to function in that manner if would not. No one is supposed to sell barley either way under the feed grain act. That is a choice individual producers make. It is not a matter that the Board has lost power but the Board has been made, let us use the word "responsible", by the very producers that it has been established to serve.
I will be voting for Motion No. 39. I hope it will carry, if not, I am sure I will be seriously looking at Motion No. 40 as an alternative. I hope though that Members on the Government side will take a second look. I know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is going to speak. I hope he has had time to consider the amendments put forward by our Party and he has considered the real purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board. I hope he will be giving us some support in this area. Debate can go on and on, but in reality the matter rests with Government Members to make sure that the Canadian Wheat Board is protected and given the ability to do its job.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I recognize now the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). I see the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is rising on a point of order.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Minister is standing and I do not want to interrupt him. However, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Nanai-mo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Call in the Members.
[And The Speaker having resumed the chair at 5.59 p.m.]


Madam Speaker:: This morning the House resumed consideration of the Report Stage of Bill C-155. During the course of the debate, the Chair recognized the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) as the next speaker, at which time the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), pursuant to Standing Order 33 moved:
That the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville be now heard.
The Chair having put the question to the House, the bells were sounded to call in the Members. Some time later the Chair was informed by Party representatives that they did not intend to come into the House today to vote on the question. The bells were stopped since it was futile to call in the Members.
It is now six o'clock p.m. and Standing Order 8 requires the Speaker to adjourn the House until the next sitting day. While Standing Order 33 provides for a motion that a certain Member be now heard, the Chair has no choice but to interpret the word "now" to mean at this sitting. Since it is not possible to assume that either the speaker who had the floor when this motion was moved or the Member who was to be now heard would be present in the House or, for that matter, would necessarily want to be heard or to speak, the motion thus lapses because the situation in the House is unpredictable.
A motion under Standing Order 33 that a certain Member be now heard is not in itself a dilatory motion such as a motion to adjourn the House or the debate. However, since the Chair was informed that Members would not present themselves to vote, and since in effect the House has been prevented from conducting its business, this motion is ipso facto to be considered as a dilatory motion and, therefore, lapses.
It being six o'clock p.m., I declare that the motion of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is no longer before the House and that this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, October 19, 1983