1983-11-03

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 31, 1983, consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 58 (Mr. McKnight).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before we proceed with further consideration of the Bill at report stage, I would like to refer to the motions placed on the Notice Paper last Monday with the unanimous consent of the House.
As Hon. Members are aware, a great many of these motions were previously ruled out of order on procedural grounds. It is not the intention of the Chair to interfere with the unanimous agreement of the House to place the motions back on the Notice Paper for consideration. However, even though the House has agreed to set aside its rules and practices in some regards and go beyond any procedural limitations in regard to these motions, the Chair is still confronted with a major difficulty.
Eight of the motions involve the additional expenditure of public funds and, therefore, require a Royal Recommendation which can only be signed by His Excellency. The four motions standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), namely Motions Nos. 14A, 74A, 157A and 160A, have been covered by the required Royal Recommendations. However, Motions Nos. 51 A, 125A, 126A and 157A, standing in the names of the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) respectively, are not so accompanied.
Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 543(1), provides:
If any motion or bill or proceeding is offered to be moved, whether in the House or in a committee which requires, but fails to receive, the recommendation of the Crown, it is the duty of the Speaker to announce that no question can be proposed upon the motion, or to direct the withdrawal of the bill, or to say that the problem may be rectified by the proposer obtaining a Royal Recommendation.
The citation is clear and unequivocal and is backed by long practice. Under the circumstances and in light of this citation, I do not see how 1 can in conscience, respecting my obligations to the House, accept that Motions Nos. 51 A, 125A, 126A and 157B can be proposed for consideration. No unanimous consent can get around the problem. I regret very much that I have to reach this decision, but 1 hope all Hon. Members will appreciate the difficult position in which the Chair has been placed.
1 would also like to indicate to the House that the motions placed on the Notice Paper by unanimous consent on Monday last have been inserted in their proper numerical order and given, as the case may be, a letter A or B, in addition to an arabic numeral, so that all those motions which have been before us would not need to be renumbered. The new motions are Motions Nos. 10A, 14A, 74A, 90A, 134A, 154A, 157A, 160A, 165A and 165B.
Once consideration of Motion No. 58 now before the House is completed, the next motion to be considered will be Motion No. 10A. It in turn will be followed by debate on Motion No. 14A. Both will also be voted on separately. Motions Nos. 157A and 74A ought to be debated together. Since Motion No. 74A is consequential to Motion No. 157A, a vote on Motion No. 157A would also dispose of Motion No. 74A. Motion No. 90A should be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 134A will be grouped for debate with previously grouped Motions Nos. 63, 68, 69, 99 to 103 inclusive, 115, 127, 128, 130 to 133 inclusive, 136 to 138 inclusive, 140 to 144 inclusive, 148 and 149. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 133 will dispose of Motion No. 134A; however, a negative vote on Motion No. 133 would necessitate the question being put on Motion No. 134A.
Motion No. 160A should be grouped with the previous grouping of Motions Nos. 159, 160, 161 and 162 for debate, which had been grouped for debate but separate votes. It is my intention to group Motions Nos. 160A and 160 for voting as follows: An affirmative vote on Motion No. 160A negates the need for putting the question on Motion No. 160, while a negative vote on Motion No. 160A would require the putting of the question on Motion No. 160.
Motion No. 154A will be grouped for debate with the previously grouped Motions Nos. 153 and 154, and each will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 165A and 165B ought to be grouped for debate and an affirmative vote on Motion No. 165A will dispose of Motion No. 165B; however, a negative vote on Motion No. 165A would require the putting of the question on

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Motion No. 165B. 1 am sure all of that is clear to Hon. Members.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I hope that you will be prepared to hear at least some argument on the question of whether certain amendments are admissible or otherwise. I would like to draw your attention, if 1 may-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the Hon. Member not accepting the decision of the Chair with regard to four amendments that have been ruled as requiring a Royal Recommendation and are being rejected accordingly? Is that the point of the Hon. Member?


Ian Deans: Well, it is not a matter of not accepting it. I would like to put before you some considerations which may not have been taken into account by the Chair in arriving at the preliminary ruling.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair cannot accept argument on a decision of the Chair after the decision has been rendered.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has been a practice of the Speaker to allow some discussion on rulings such as this immediately after-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair does not permit debate on a ruling of the Speaker. That was a decision in our Standing Orders taken some years ago. The Chair intends to respect the clear intent of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. A decision has been made by the Chair on these matters.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, might 1 just interject, not for the purpose of coming to the rescue of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), but merely to make an observation without in any way reflecting on the ruling of the Chair. There has been a practice that has grown up in the House which I, and I am sure all Members, would like to see retained in situations such as the one which the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is attempting to speak to today and which by our custom he is prevented from doing.
Normally the occupant of the chair, as Madam Speaker did when these amendments had to be dealt with, generally expresses concern about the acceptability of a motion or motions and warns Members that the Chair does have concern and will hear submissions at some later time. I am in accord with the Chair, so naturally I cannot question it. However, I would suggest that we would not want to dispense with that past practice and replace it with the practice where the Speaker initiates rulings without any warning to Members who may wish to make some submissions in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has made an observation which the Chair will heed carefully. The Chair, however, has considered this matter, taken advice and is firmly of the opinion as expressed.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of Standing Order 79(10), which provides, and I quote:
(10) The Speaker shall have power to select or combine amendments or clauses to be proposed at the report stage and may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgment upon it.
It is clear that in this case, the Chair did not think it would be useful to exercise its discretionary powers and call upon a Member to explain the subject of the amendment. The Chair made its ruling without consulting the Hon. Member, and I think this is sound practice because it saves considerable time. Not long ago, this latitude was still granted, and the result was that precious time was wasted in the House of Commons, and I think that the Chair now tends to simply apply the Standing Order. I realize that the Standing Orders are seldom crystal clear, but I must say I welcome this return to strict application of the Standing Orders, as opposed to a not so literal interpretation when the Standing Orders are clear and allowing any number of interventions, as has been the case in the past, unfortunately, which has led to considerable waste of time.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that notwithstanding the Chair's ruling, which I respect, if there is a way to allow the House to give its unanimous consent for a vote on the amendments that were rejected this morning-I realize that the Chair, in giving its ruling, explained that it was difficult, but nevertheless the Chair reiterated that on this side of the House, we would give that unanimous consent if it was required and if it would allow the Chair to put the question on these amendments. However, without wishing to oppose the Chair's ruling, I want to make it quite clear that this is not a case of obstruction or opposition on the part of the Government. The Chair's ruling is there, and we respect it, but if unanimous consent would be useful for the New Democratic Party, we are prepared to give it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in a difficult position. The Chair has considered the matter of the Royal Recommendation, a long-standing practice of the House. Motions that require a Royal Recommendation and do not have a Royal Recommendation cannot be put before the House. The Chair has not been able to overcome this very great difficulty, in fact insuperable difficulty, with regard to procedural acceptability of motions. If there is unanimous agreement of the House Leaders to put some type of motion or amendment before the House, the Chair at this stage can only suggest that there might be consultations and it might be possible for the House Leaders to come back with further suggestions. The Chair is the servant of the House, but at this stage the Chair cannot see its way to accepting motions that clearly require a Royal Recommendation, which is not there for those four amend-
November 3, 1983

merits. With regret, because of the unanimous decision of the House, the Chair has had to make the ruling that it has made and the Chair does not do this lightly.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am in a bit of a quandary because we understood when we agreed to give unanimous consent to allow certain matters to be put on the Notice Paper and voted upon that we likewise were being given unanimous consent for that practice to be followed in the case of the amendments we put in. We had no indication from anyone at the time that there would be a counter-ruling made which would result in our not being permitted to vote on our amendments. I must say that had that matter been made clear to us at the start we would not have acceded to the unanimous consent being given on the other questions.
1 want to suggest that there is perhaps a way out. The unanimous consent was given, 1 believe, by both sides of the House with the understanding that the questions would be put to a vote. 1 would like the Chair simply to consider whether or not in the circumstances, given that the Hosue is entitled to give unanimous consent to a matter such as this, and without establishing a precedent, as is clearly set out in Citation 14 of Beauchesne, that the intent of the House would be thwarted if the vote were not allowed to be taken.
1 can appreciate the difficulty of the Royal Recommendation. I would like to suggest that what we are offering in at least two of the three amendments can be considered as amendments to the Government proposal which has, in fact, a Royal Recommendation. The Government has put forward a proposal on the question of shipper share under 157A, and in the normal process of debate we would have been able to offer an amendment to that proposal as long as our amendment did not require the Government to spend more money than they had heretofore allocated for 157A.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is listening to the Hon. Member and is seeking a way out of the difficulty. All the Chair can suggest at this point is that there might be some conversations between House Leaders of the Parties to see whether amendments can be offered in a form which would come within the scope of the Royal Recommendation. It appears from what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is saying that there might be a disposition on the part of the Government to make amendments to the legislation so that matters might be so considered.
The Chair has a problem with the Royal Recommendation. The precedents are abundantly clear. It is one of those things that the Chair cannot set aside.
The Chair would like to suggest that the House Leaders, especially the House Leader for the Government and the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, have a private conference and see whether it is possible to frame amendments in such a way that they can be brought within the scope.


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is very important to make sure that the record is clear. There are two points to be
Western Grain Transportation Act
made. First, we did hold discussions concerning the acceptance of amendments for debate, and the position we took was that if Members of the Opposition Parties wanted to bring such amendments forward, we would not object. I think it is important to point out to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that in the discussion we did not receive copies of their proposed amendments until minutes before Question Period-almost minutes before consent was to be given. We had no opportunity to determine their advisability within the scope of what is normally considered the Royal Recommendation. I believe that that is within the discretion of the Chair. The offer was made and accepted but because there was no time to give them a full examination and make that judgment, I do not think we can be held responsible.
Second, let us make it clear that there is no disposition on the part of the Government to accept such amendments. We are prepared to have them debated but I want to make it clear we are not prepared to have them accepted. If they want to debate them, that is well and good. But if you are suggesting that we try to rework them so that they are acceptable, 1 think you will find that negotiations would not lead very far.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I want to carry on with the debate on the motion put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. 1 thought we were still debating this point of order but since my hon. colleague is entering into debate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, there is no further debate on the point of order; the matter has been settled. The Hon. Member is recognized for debate.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on another point of order.

All 1 want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that you made a ruling this morning, we are abiding by that ruling and we can live with it. However, since you suggested that 1 have some discussions with the New Democratic Party's House Leader, if the Chair is not advised of any unanimous consent in the course of the day, the Chair's ruling stands and we shall vote on the amendments as the Chair ruled, and I want that to be quite clear.
In other words, I would not want your suggestion for consultations to be an excuse for delaying the vote until later this evening. 1 want to make that quite clear.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the merits of the debate. At the outset of today, the last day of report stage because of the invocation of closure by the Government, I think it is important that we spend time debating the issue.
The Government House Leader mentioned that there have been delays on points of order. I suggest that the ultimate

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
delay was caused by the Minister himself when he had the audacity to move the adjournment of debate at 4.30 on Tuesday morning. At that time, Members on this side of the House were quite prepared to continue debating on our own time, regardless of whether we got any sleep, because we believe this is an important issue. The Minister was embarrassed and ashamed of the position of the Government on this issue and so moved the adjournment. This caused him to lose the ability to put this matter through before the Armistice Day break. I know that Members of the Liberal Party are seething and unhappy over the incompetence of the Minister in the way in which he did this. I simply would like on one occasion to join with Liberal backbenchers and say that I am mad as hell about this and so is everybody on our side.
[DOT] (U25)
This particular proposal, which was put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), is a very sensible one. Before the Minister moved the adjournment of the House at 4.30 a.m. on Tuesday, he said he was going to take this matter under advisement but he did not think that any of his legal advisers were up at that time. He wanted to adjourn the House so he could get competent legal advice with respect to the admissibility of this very sensible motion. The Minister has had all of Tuesday morning, all day Wednesday, and all of this morning to consult with his legal counsel to find out whether or not this particular provision can in fact be accepted by the Government. I will be anxious to hear, now that the Minister has had three days to consider the matter, whether this motion will be accepted.
This motion proposes to specify that in fact the railways will be held under obligation to provide suitable accommodation for grain. This is a matter of some serious consequence because the whole proposal which the Government has brought forward is an extremely rich package as far as the railways of Canada are concerned. 1 said on an earlier occasion that if 1 were on the board of directors of CPR 1 would commission a statue of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and have those statues put in the foyer of the headquarters of the CPR, because the CPR is really beholden to the Government for this rich package. 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of western Canada understand that. When they are called upon to pay an enormous price in terms of extra cost to move their grain, they will not forget what the Liberal Party has done to them with this legislation.
Another point made by my colleague, which I believe is very helpful, is that under this provision the Administrator of the transportation agency is deemed to be a shipper for purposes of making an application, which would be at public expense but on behalf of the producers, with respect to any inability on the part of the railways to carry the grain of the western producers. 1 believe this is a very sensible proposition because what is going to happen, under the circumstances we now have in this Bill, is that if there is any complaint, the individual producer, either himself or in co-operation with his fellow farmers, will at his own expenses have to petition with respect
to inequities which may in fact occur as a result of the inability of the railways to carry out their mandate and obligation to move the grain to export points.
1 also want to voice my concern that one of the motions which has been proposed by the New Democratic Party has in fact been ruled out of order. The reason I am sorry that this motion was not brought up for a vote on the floor of the House is that it is a motion which, in my estimation, demonstrates the greatest turnaround by any political party in recent history. With respect to the motion brought forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, in regard to assisting the movement of grain and making sure the railways carry out their obligations, the New Democratic Party has now done a great flip-flop in its attitude toward the retention of the statutory Crow rate. The implication is clear from the motion it put forward that the New Democratic Party, as my colleague the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has said, has now taken the position that the Crow must go. It has done a complete 180 degree reversal over the position they ostensibly took.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Do you believe that?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As you can see, Mr. Speaker, 1 have two pieces of paper. One is the motion put forward by the Minister of Transport with respect to the safety net provisions. The other one, Mr. Speaker, is an NDP amendment. You can see from your chair that these two documents are typed on the same typewriter. They are precisely the same with one exception; they blotted out a part of the safety net provision and inserted their own figures. Instead of the Government provision of 4 per cent in 1984, 5 per cent in 1985, 8 per cent in 1986, 9 per cent in 1987 and 10 per cent after 1988, they put in their own provision of 3 per cent.


Mr. McKnight:: It must be a mistake.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No mistake, Mr. Speaker. As I said, they did not have the grace to use their own typewriter; they used a Government typewriter and put in exactly the same motion. What does this mean, Mr. Speaker? It means the NDP has flip-flopped.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, not only is the Member wrong but he is debating a motion just ruled out of order. I would very much like to have had this motion debated by the House and voted on. This motion would not only have preserved the Crow but would have reduced-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -the impact on the farmers of western Canada. However, now that the Hon. Member is able to hide behind the Speaker's ruling, he is taking a position he would not have been able to take. I ask that he be required to speak to the amendments before the House and refrain from speaking to amendments ruled out of order by the Speaker.
November 3, 1983


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) suggests this part of my reference to motions and positions of the Party, whether they have been accepted or not, is not relevant to this particular motion. I point out that there is nothing more relevant to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, which requires the CTC to ensure the railways carry out their obligation to provide adequate accommodation for the movement of grain. What are they going to consider? They will consider the cost to the railways and their level of payment. Therefore, we have then to assess how much should the railways be paid. Their motion, whether it was ruled out of order or not, deals specifically with that very question. Therefore it is of the highest relevance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain raised a point of order and he is correct in that at some time during the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West considerable reference was made to a motion ruled out of order. I think the proper route for me is to suggest the Hon. Member try to address himself to Motion No. 58 and try to contain his remarks in that regard.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have a record of fairness and equity in this matter, Mr. Speaker, and as you know I always follow your rulings with absolute dedication. I propose to do just that. All I can say with respect to the position of the NDP-I am not going to refer to any particular motion ruled out of order so I will not be irrelevant-is that their position, generally speaking, and having no regard to motions ruled out of order, is that they have done a flip-flop on how much the railways should in fact receive for the movement of grain. These people are absolutely shameless.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my understanding of the rules of order in this House is that Members in debate cannot impute motives to individual Members or Parties.


Mr. Forrestall:: Who was imputing? 1 thought it was a very direct charge.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: 1 think the Hon. Member has done this by a total misinterpretation of something of which he apparently knows very little. If I may explain-


Some Hon. Members:: No.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Try and explain it during the election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) should seek the floor in debate if he wishes to explain something. With respect to the point of order, the Hon. Member is correct but I think the Chair has a duty to allow as wide ranging a debate as possible. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West has only four minutes approximately remaining. If he could be allowed to continue his remarks we can move on to less rambunctious debate.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the NDP is so sensitive over this terribly bad policy they have adopted. Imagine how you would feel if you had gone around telling the people of western Canada that you want to retain the Crow and the first chance you have to do anything with respect to this legislation is to give the western farmers a hick in the slats to the extent of a 20 per cent increase right now in the cost of transporting grain. You would be livid, Mr. Speaker, and 1 see you understand that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party have taken a firm and consistent position with respect to the retention of the Crow. The freeze is an understandable, fair and reasonable position for our Party to take with respect to this matter until after the review period has been completed.
What do I mean by that? We say out west you do not want to buy a pig in a poke. They say that out east as well, and 1 am going to say it right here in central Canada. We do not want to buy a pig in a poke. We want to see how this system operates. Would you buy a bill of goods, Mr. Speaker, and pay for it before you see whether it works, without any guarantees? Not on your life. But that is what the grain producer is asked to accept. There are all sorts of vague references to the obligations of the railways, all sorts of talk about safety nets, but in the final result the NDP and the Liberals are saying the farmers pay more without seeing whether or not this system is going to work. Well, we say the western farmer does not deserve that kind of contemptuous action on the part of the Government.
My colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster, along with Members of our Party, attended faithfully all the hearings on this matter in committee. Where were the NDP Members? Where were these defenders of the Crow? Except for the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) and the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre who were there half the time, the rest of them were there on one or two occasions to get their pictures taken. This was so that they would have a photograph to send out in their householder mailing.
People in our Party hold permits and know what it is to get on the land and produce. They know the problem involved in grain transportation. My colleague makes a proposal which is going to put an additional and specific obligation on the part of the railways to deliver, and I cannot understand why anyone in this House would not support this wholeheartedly.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, before he moved adjournment of the House, indicated he was sympathetic to this matter. 1 think it would be incumbent upon him or his Parliamentary Secretary to let us know whether or not we are going to have this proposal added to the Bill. Opposing as we do the ruinous aspect of this legislation, we have tried to be constructive in this debate. We have attempted to say that we object to this legislation but here are some things the Government should consider. I hope the Minister will give fair and sympathetic consideration to putting in this very useful

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
amendment and I look forward to someone from the Government standing up and accepting our proposition.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) requested that someone from the Government side respond to his remarks. I would like to take this opportunity to do so.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Why not the Minister?


Jesse Philip Flis: The Hon. Member asks why not the Minister. He knows the rules of the House. We are only allowed to speak once for ten minutes on each amendment.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West said that people in our Party hold permit books yet not once did I hear any Member from the other side get up and declare a conflict of interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Jesse Philip Flis: As a lawyer, perhaps he should look into that.
The Hon. Member opened his remarks by blaming the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) and the Government side-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I listened without interruption to the Hon. Member. I would ask him to give me the same courtesy.
The big concern of the Hon. Member is why we moved adjournment at 4.30 a.m. I will tel! him why, and I would suggest to him that had he been here all night like the rest of us, he would have known why.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I was here.


Jesse Philip Flis: The Minister got up to make a remark and I will quote the Minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a legitimate point of order. 1 do not want the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to be acting under any delusions. I was here from the beginning to the end of the debate for absolutely 100 per cent of the time.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, over a week ago-


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. The Hon. Member refers to a conflict of interest. I want him to know that the present Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board does hold a permit book, and rightly so. There is absolutely no conflict of interest if he wants to rule out all farmers having any voice in terms of producers. That is absolutely ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I think he should reconsider.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Jesse Philip Flis: Since 1 have heard that there is no conflict of interest, I will withdraw those remarks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: In all fairness, Mr. Speaker, a little over a week ago I rose in the House asking to extend debate time past six o'clock. The Official Opposition turned that down because 1 did not add to my request a time limit. 1 did not say that debate should end at 10 or 12 or at whatever time. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) got up on Monday and made the same request, again applying no time limit. That meant that we could have sat, Mr. Speaker, for one or two weeks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 have had occasion to ask other Hon. Members to try to keep their remarks relevant to the motion before us. 1 think I have to ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to do the same.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If you are going to move adjournment, sit down.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) complained about the fact that he was not as successful in moving the motion to extend hours as was I. I suspect that my powers are a little more persuasive than his. Furthermore, if the Liberal Party would have had 25 Members in the House, it could have prevented the situation from occurring rather than having the embarrassment of moving the motion to adjourn.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, you asked me to remain relevant to the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Yes, I did, and I would appreciate if the Hon. Member would.


Jesse Philip Flis: My remarks are relevant because the Hon. Member asked why we moved adjournment when we were debating Motion No. 58 which is before us. The Minister got up and said, and I quote from page 28614 of Hansard:
I will take into account Motion No. 58, but obviously I 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.
During the committee hearings we heard from two legal counsel who stated that there was no need for this lengthy amendment since most of it just quoted from Section 262 of the Railway Act. This Bill continually refers to other Acts, Mr. Speaker, and if we were to quote from every other Act every time one was mentioned in the Bill, the Bill would be so lengthy that it would be too heavy to lift. We were advised in committee that there was no need for Motion No. 58. We
November 3, 1983

voted it down, but the Minister, in good faith, made the following proposition: "Give us time to check with legal counsel again and maybe we can accept it".
The next day, Mr. Speaker, instead of coming to vote before eleven o'clock so that we would not have lost the day, Hon. Members of the Conservative Party decided to come to the House after eleven o'clock.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I note that the Parliamentary Secretary is suggesting that the Minister wanted to have time to seek legal counsel. I am wondering, since the Bills of the House are written in legal language, if he would be in conflict of interest if any lawyers happened to read that Bill.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, Conservative Members came back the next day. Had they come before eleven o'clock, we could have gone into day two of the debate and considered Motion No. 58 at great length. No, they decided to waste another day of the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is day two.


Jesse Philip Flis: The Hon. Member who spoke before I rose got up and blamed the NDP-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I understand the points being made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary but I think he should restrict his remarks to the nature of Motion No. 58.
I would remind the Hon. Member that there is some difficulty in that Members are not permitted under Standing Orders to cast reflections upon a vote. He is approaching the area where it becomes difficult for the Chair. Perhaps he could try to address himself to Motion No. 58.


Jesse Philip Flis: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. However, the whole debate arises out of Motion No. 58 and whether to accept it or not. I am trying to present arguments to show that had Members of the Opposition co-operated in good faith, as they say they do but never do, there may have been the possibility of accepting that motion. However, if they are going to play these kinds of obstructive games, my advice to the Minister will be to vote the motion out.
Members of the Opposition have wasted day after day. Together with Members of the NDP, they wasted three full days on procedural wrangles. They wasted a day with petitions that could have been tabled and they wasted a day by coming in after eleven o'clock. That makes three parliamentary days that they have wasted during which we could have debated every amendment that is put before us on the Table, including Motion No. 58.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would just like to draw to your attention the rule of relevancy and I invite you to enforce it. I am sure you would get support from all concerns of the House. Previous Speakers have done that in the past. I understand the rule and we all understand it.
Western Grain Transportation Act For the sake of the debate, 1 think the Parliamentary Secretary should obey that rule as well.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. I believe that the question of relevancy is very important now that we are under the constraint of closure. I would simply want to add my voice to the argument that all comments should be strictly relevant. If not, there are so many motions on this complicated Bill that we will never get through them before 5.45 p.m. and will not, in the true parliamentary tradition, have a legitimate opportunity of looking at each of these items.
In terms of the response of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister has now had three days to consult his lawyers-


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


Jesse Philip Flis: He is the same Member, Mr. Speaker, who five minutes ago tried to blame the NDP in order to cover up the Tory flip-flop. He is now standing up on a point of order.
Hon. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party said that they were bringing forward motions like Motion No. 58 to protect the western producers. Let me ask Hon. Members opposite how Motion No. 58 protects the poultry producers, the livestock producers and the specialty crop producers who have told us time and time again that the retention of the Crow rate has hurt those producers with a 86-year distortion. The Hon. Members who were on the committee heard this. They are nodding.
How is Motion No. 58 going to get rid of this distortion? How is Motion No. 58 going to get rid of this hurt that has been caused to the farmers in the west over 86 years? They have not addressed that. They kept flip-flopping. They were against the Gilson proposal. They were against the Pepin 50-50 proposal. They came up with their own freedom of choice. When we came in with payment to the railways, they then wanted to support the Pepin 50-50 proposal. Then they come in with the three-year freeze. How was that three-year freeze going to protect these producers who are hurt by the retention of the Crow, who have had this distortion imposed upon them by the retention of the Crow?


Arnold John Malone: The hurt has increased.


Jesse Philip Flis: Now they are trying to say that the NDP is flipping. We know the NDP's position. The NDP has at least been honest and upfront right from the beginning. But I cannot say that for the Progressive Conservatives, Mr. Speaker. They were dishonest. They were flip-flopping all over the place on this Bill and they still are with this amendment.


An Hon. Member:: You are defending the NDP.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to speak on Motion No. 58 which presents a long and detailed regurgitation of a lot of what is now in the Transportation Act. It attempts simply to restate some of those clauses

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
into this Bill. I do not know whether there is very much to be said about this long and detailed amendment except that it contains a lot of words that are already written into law and are part of the current Transportation Act. It really changes very little or changes nothing. It simply goes over many things that are now in existing laws. It simply transfers some phrases into this Bill.
For instance, the first aspect of the motion talks about furnishing adequate and suitable accommodation for the receiving and loading of grain offered for carriage upon the railroad. This would normally mean new sidings. That has been part of the Railway Act for many years. It has been written into law that the railways must provide the sidings. But in actual fact if a customer wants a siding, for the past number of years the customer has had to pay for it. That has been written into this Bill, but it is already in other laws. Therefore, it will not change anything. I submit that it will only reiterate present laws that are not being enforced.
This motion also goes on to say that it would furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying, unloading and delivering of grain. That sounds like hopper and railway cars. Yet we know for a fact that in spite of this being part of the existing Railway Act, no cars have been purchased by either railway company for the movement of grain since the 1950s.
In subparagraph (c) we read:
(c)	without delay, and with due care and diligence, receive, carry and deliver all such grain;
That provision is already in the Railway Act. It is a very detailed piece of legislation, yet we know that in 1977-1978 the CPR refused to supply cars to move grain and the Wheat Board and the Provinces ended up having to buy cars to get the grain moving again.
Motion No. 58 subparagraph (d) reads:
(d)	furnish and use all proper appliances, accommodation and means necessary for receiving, loading, carrying, unloading and delivering such grain;
One would think that would include up to and including branch lines. We know that in spite of this being a part of existing transportation law, and having a branch line act providing subsidies to provide service on those branch lines, the branch lines are not being maintained, even those that have been designated to be kept up by the Canadian Transport Commission. We know the cost of upgrading them to meet CTC rulings is something like $1.6 billion. The Government has only $1.1 billion to put toward that objective and the railways are refusing to find the other half billion.
We know these things are not happening in spite of all these fine things in Motion No. 58 that already exist in laws and apply to the railway system. We see that there are sections on due payment of tolls lawfully imposed by the Act. We see there are portions in here that deal with payments. There is a section dealing with how persons who are aggrieved by the railways under this act may act against the companies for the refusal of the company to comply with the requirements of this section. It is almost a straight removal of a similar section in
the Railway Act that exists now. We know that was not successfully used. It is not something farmers can use. Farmers did take the CPR and the CNR to court because of their refusal to provide adequate rolling stock and service in 19771978. The courts ruled that the law was not strong enough. The court said the farmers were not in law the shipper and could therefore not act against the railway. These fine words being lifted out of a couple of other acts and put into this one will not change the way the system operates.
I would like to say a few words about the producers' share of costs in this Bill. It seems to me there is not a current way of protecting farmers from paying more than a specified share of the cost of freight. That is why there has been a discussion about 3 per cent or 7 per cent or 10 per cent.
1 would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that over the past number of years the shipper's share of the freight charges on the six major grains, according to figures put out by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, has been as follows. In the 19791980 crop year the average percentage of the price of the shippers' share was 3 per cent. In 1980-1981 the average share of the freight for the six major grains was 2.6 per cent. In the 1981-1982 crop year the shippers' share was 3 per cent. The shippers' share is not quite the same thing as the safety net, but I put in these figures so you can compare them with the proposal for the safety net to show how relevant the figures are, Mr. Speaker.
The safety net is a ceiling that would provide a net above which-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is 2.5 per cent.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: -the proportion of freight costs cannot climb. I have just read into the record how it has been 3 per cent for the last couple of crop years and that it dropped to 2.6 per cent in 1980-1981 essentially because the price of the grain went up in 1980-1981. That is the secret. If the price of grain continues to fall along the line that it started back in June, 3 per cent would be a safety net even under the current rate.
If the Conservatives could do arithmetic or had any analytical ability, they would know, even under the current rate which is what we have been talking about all through this debate, that if the price of grain goes below $1.50 per tonne for the six grains on a weighted average, there would be more than 3 per cent of the producers' income going to pay freight even under the current Crow rate. A 3 per cent safety net guarantees producers against additional freight costs even with the existing Crow rate. That is a fact that some of my colleagues on this side of the House totally ignore. They are completely ignorant of facts. They do not wish to read, listen or understand. While we hear a lot of them saying they are farmers, that they have quota books and their understanding of this issue is all knowing and supreme because of this fact, they, I think, are kidding themselves. They are attempting to fool the Canadian people, but they are only fooling themselves.
November 3, 1983

If they were farmers and had to make their living from agriculture, they would have sharp pencils and know the real effect of the safety net as proposed in this Bill and how important it is to keep that safety net at 3 per cent. It would be a protection, even with the current Crow rate, at a time when prices are falling. It would provide a protective blanket. With the 3 per cent safety net which I have proposed, when the price of grain falls a little more, as has been the case in the last few months, the actual Crow rate would be forced down.
Since this matter has been raised six or seven times by Hon. Members of the Conservative Party, I think it is time the true facts on the safety net were presented. I hope it is debated from here on in on the basis of the actual facts instead of illogical falsehoods.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak a few minutes to motion No. 58 and explain briefly that the purpose of the motion is, in fact, to insert Section 262 of the Railway Act in Bill C-155. During the proceedings in Committee, it was generally understood, except by the Progressive Conservatives, that it was useless to add Section 262 because it was already referred to in the Bill.
For the sake of comprehension, I would like to refer to the comments of Mr. Lefebvre who assisted us during proceedings in Committee, and perhaps I may read a few lines of what this expert told us at the time, and I quote:


Mr. D. Lefebvre:: Mr. Chairman, for the record I would like to say that as Bill C-155 now stands, in my view it is clear that Section 262 applies. However, I might add that to repeat in a statute something that is already there, even if you repeat it at length, does not make it any stronger or any clearer.
When the railways came because they alleged that the compensation Bill C-155 afforded them was barely enough, it was contended that it might be some sort of an excuse for the CTC not to enforce Section 262. The amendment that has been circulated, 1 believe, makes it clear that is no excuse and the compensation provided by Bill C-255 is adequate.
The amendment: Again from the point of view of drafting legislation, one objection I would have is that it repeats a good part of the law. In large measure I think we should try to co-ordinate statutes and when something is said and we want to deviate to reinforce it, I think we should concentrate on it rather than repeat extensive provisions of the law that already exist.
Mr. Speaker, what the Progressive Conservative Party is trying to do with this motion, and 1 say it again, is to simply include a provision that already exists in other legislation, in other words, it is repeating it. Far be it from me to give you a lesson in law, but I remember when we were studying the principles of interpreting laws, Justice Pigeon, of the Supreme Court, told us that whatever is in the law is there for a purpose. Therefore, a single reference to a section of the Railway Act would be adequate, in the circumstances. I think that wasting time in Committee and wasting time today in the House on such an elementary principle is ample proof that the Progressive Conservative Party still wants to obstruct the proceedings of the House and still wants to waste the time of the House when it is considering a measure as important to
Western Grain Transportation Act
Canadians as Bill C-155 concerning changes in the Crow rate. These past few weeks, we have witnessed the Progressive Conservative Party taking various positions which amount to a filibuster of a piece of legislation which would serve all Canadians. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) alluded to that a few minutes ago, and all we can say is that the position of the Progressive Conservatives has been shifting all along.
When we went to Western Canada ... I am talking about the current position of the Progressive Conservatives with respect to the whole Bill, but more particularly to Motion No. 58 generally. The Conservative Members are now advocating the status quo. I would refer them to some of the statements made in Vancouver by Mayors Colgur, Lester and Harcourt who appeared before the Committee. If I may, I would like to quote the words of Mayor Colgur, among others:
Mr. Chairman, our greatest fear is that nothing will happen, that we will fight and that the committee will fight to maintain the status quo. We are concerned that that could be devastating to the Province of British Columbia.
We are mindful of the problems-
And further:
But, Mr. Chairman, if the committee chooses to do nothing, we believe that will be devastating to all Canadians. Certainly we have our own constituents who we have to represent and we are mindful of doing that, but if we have to advise our constituents that after having gone through this process nothing has happened, I believe that all of Canada will be the worse for that.
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that those statements were made by witnesses who appeared before us in Vancouver, not by a Government Member. Mayor Lester also said, and I refer to the proceedings of the Committee on Transport, page 117:179:
We have not got excellent relations with the CNR, still 1 think that the state of the railway is of real concern to us, and we can see very clearly that the maintenance of the Crow rate has damaged the railway and distorted the transportation system. And, of course, if that were to be changed, then the situation would be reversed.
That was another statement made by one of the mayors of the Vancouver region.
Here is another statement by Mayor Colgur, of the Vancouver region in British Columbia, which 1 would like to quote:
I think I can speak generally on that point, Mr. Chairman. What the member is suggesting is tantamount to doing nothing ...
He was then referring to a statement made by a member of the New Democratic Party whose riding 1 forget. However, my colleague did say earlier that those mayors were supposed to be Social Democrats, therefore against the Progressive Conservatives. Now, this was in answer to a question asked by a Member of the New Democratic Party:
I think I can speak generally on that point, Mr. Chairman. What the member is suggesting is tantamount to doing nothing, and that is our concern, that no decision is the worst possible decision. That to me-and I believe I am speaking for the other mayors-is tantamount to another elongated delaying tactic, which

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
will really result in our having nothing in Canada other than what we have had for the last 85 years, which is basically now long out of date. I suppose another way of looking at it, Mr. Chairman, is: it is tantamount to trying to update the dinosaur, which is now extinct.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not the one who mentioned the dinosaur, it was a mayor of British Columbia. Anyway, the current position or policy of the Progressive Conservatives might be described as a standpat policy, and that policy has gained the full support of the Members of the New Democratic Party. That is rather strange because, on July 11, 1983, I received a letter from the new Leader of the Opposition addressed to me personally: Mr. Gaston Gourde, M.P., Confederation Building. Here is part of that letter:
With respect to your remarks in the House of Commons concerning the Crow rate-
I had taken the floor one day to find out whether the new Leader of the Opposition might for once indicate to us the position of his party on a topical issue. We all know that in many other fields the Leader of the Official Opposition has decided to remain silent in the belief that, if he did not say anything, he would not put his foot in his mouth. In any event, we had asked him to state his position, and he did just that.
I continue the quotation:
I must advise you that I stand squarely behind the Progressive-
-the word "Progressive" is there all right.
-Conservative Members who have stated the policy of our Party. As you undoubtedly know, the Hon.-
-I have to read the name-
-Don Mazankowski made an important speech in the House on May 12, in which he set forth our position in detail.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice that the Hon. Member is reading from some document. 1 wonder if he might table it when he has finished his speech.


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to table an excerpt from my latest householder to all the residents of my riding, and I hope the Canadian people will make good use of it. And it will probably-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bloomfield):: Order. 1 have to tell the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Gaston Gourde: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would seek unanimous consent to continue my remarks for a few minutes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. That is up to the House to decide.

Order. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) expressing the reasons why this Bill should pass. He quoted extensively from evidence that was given at committee by various mayors and others who were present for the passage of the Bill. I can understand the concern of these witnesses. However, what the Government has overlooked and what many of these witnesses have overlooked is the effect that Bill C-155 has on the producer, because the producer in western Canada is the one most affected by the change. I suppose the attitude of the Government is based on the fact that it does not have within its caucus any producers from the Wheat Board area.
I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) should make a comment regarding the fact that a number of Members on this side of the House were in conflict of interest because they held permit books. I was happy, however, that he did withdraw those comments subsequently. It is an indication of the attitude of this Government which is not concerned and never has been concerned about the farmers of western Canada.
I can put the New Democratic Party in the same category. The Members on the Government side say that what I am speaking about is a lot of nonsense. The Members on the Government side have looked after the railways very handsomely as far as dollars and cents are concerned, but what they are attempting to do as far as the producer is concerned is to bankrupt him. The Government wants to increase the rates so it will be prohibitive for the producer to raise grain in western Canada. The barley producer and oats producer will be out of business because, on the basis of this Bill, it will take half the selling price of those two grains to pay the freight. Therefore, the producers cannot survive.
I was saying that the NDP are in somewhat the same position. They have been rather embarrassed by the motion they put which will have a safety net of 3 per cent and which in effect would immediately, on passage of this Bill, increase the freight rate to the farmer. In the short time allotted to me, I would like to discuss the particular amendment we are dealing with at the moment.
This amendment substitutes the proposed section for Section 262 of the Railway Act. The question might arise as to why we want to put in this section and not leave Section 262 of the Railway Act in place. A few minutes ago the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) said that Section 262 of the Railway Act had been ineffective. What we are attempting to do in our Motion No. 58 is to bring in a section which is similar to 262 but which deals specifically with the transportation of grain. In addition, and I will speak to this in
November 3, 1983

a few moments, there is added strength in the section that we are seeking to amend.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) appeared at the committee hearings in Vancouver for about one hour and then disappeared. 1 wish to quote what he said about Motion No. 58. I quote from page 28605 of Hansard for October 31, 1983:
This amendment is a piece of fluff. That is what it is. It is a piece of fluff... It is all fluff and no substance.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre says that Section 262 has not been effective. Under these circumstances, it would seem that the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre and the other Members of his Party would be supporting an amendment which would be effective in ensuring the carriage and transportation of grain by the railways.
Motion No. 58 tightens up what used to be Section 262. It is interesting to refer to the Transport Committee minutes. 1 refer to issue No. 132, page 91 Mr. Thompson, counsel for the committee, was asked about this amendment and about Section 262. I quote from page 91 of the proceedings of the Transport Committee:
When the railway officials were here they indicated basically that the revenues they were going to get under the provisions of Bill C-155 were adequate, but one got the impression that they were saying that they were sort of minimally adequate or barely adequate. Now, in the event they would attempt to accord less beneficial treatment to grain traffic, subclause (8) is available for the commission to take a look at.
Subclause (8) is part of Motion No. 58, but time will not permit me to read it.
There is one other aspect that Mr. Thompson spoke about when he was giving evidence, and he refers to subsection 10(a) of Motion No. 58 which has to do with the Administrator being allowed, on behalf of any grain shipper or group of grain shippers, to take proceedings before the commission. This is what Mr. Thompson says:
The basic purpose of Subclause (10) is to provide a means by which a senior government officer may, on behalf of the grain shipper or shippers, lead the way towards the recovery of some sort of remedy for a shipper or a group of shippers. If anyone is in doubt about the cost of litigation, I can assure them that litigation is extremely expensive and it is a very difficult burden for any small operator to bear. If the administrator were to bear this responsibility, it would be a very small matter in terms of the expenditures of the government, but it might be a very significant matter to assist the shippers.
Mr. Speaker, I see my time is almost up but I would like to say in closing that 1 am very disappointed in the Minister. First of all he brought in closure and then, when we on this side extended the debate and were debating Motion No. 58, he stood up and said this particular amendment was interesting and he might be able to accept it, but because it was the middle of the night he could not contact legal counsel in his Department to discuss it. But he said he would like to look at it. Having said that, he then adjourned the debate.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that if the Minister stands up and takes part in debate on this motion it would end the debate as far as this particular motion is concerned. It would seem to me that the Minister could, on a point of order, stand up
Western Grain Transportation Act without closing debate and tell this House what consultations he had with his legal counsel and what decision he has taken with respect to this particular motion.
Amendment No. 58 strengthens the power with respect to the railways so that they may be held to the rules when delivering grain. I invite the Minister to stand up on a point of order, or alternatively I am sure that the Members of this House would give him unanimous consent, to tell us what his decision is with respect to Amendment No. 58.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-155 and more specifically on Motion No. 58 before the House today.
1 must say 1 find the Motion situation-we have now had over 80 motions-rather surprising after sitting on the Transport Committee and conducting hearings across the country, and subsequently considering the Bill, clause by clause, in late August and all through September-and seeing a situation where motions were submitted to the Committee by the Official Opposition to reduce the number of members on the administrating Committee and today, another motion is being proposed to have the same number we had in the Bill originally. As for Motion No. 58, when questions were asked during clause by clause consideration in committee, the legal expert said at the time that this provision already existed in the Railway Act.
I am rather surprised at the whole situation, because to me, Mr. Speaker, this is just filibustering, and has definitely no connection with the aspirations of Canadians, not even those of Western Canada. 1 heard the previous speaker saying that no one on this side of the House understood the producers, and 1 would like to remind him that when we were conducting hearings in Regina, his hometown, the chairman of the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition, when asked whether producers were able to pay more, answered yes, and of course, there were many members of the National Farmers Union in the room at the time in Regina who did not entirely agree. But 1 think that the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition is a very farsighted group that sees the future of Western agriculture in a different perspective, and it was, in fact, Mr. McMillan who said at the time that producers were able to pay more.
As for the motion before the House today, namely Motion No. 58 which concerns Clause 33, and considering what we were told by Mr. Lefebvre in his answer to a number of questions, 1 feel, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is merely being added to the number of motions we already have to add to the delay, just like the four positions of the Progressive Conservative Party, and perhaps I may explain. It has become their trademark to put motions like the one before the House today to make people think they are very concerned, when in fact, they are merely trying to play for time or to waste time, because, Mr. Speaker, since I chaired a sub-committee in the

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Quebec caucus on this issue. 1 remember clearly that in March, the Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) said in the House, when the motion was being proposed, that the Liberal Members who had formed the sub-committee should persuade the Government to change the method of payment and that it was intolerable. He even wanted us to resign. At the time, the Member for Joliette was referring to payments to the railways and not to producers. Then all of a sudden we heard their official critic talking about freedom of choice. This option, and even Motion No. 58, are issues we discussed with representatives of the agricultural industry in Quebec, to find out what they thought. Well, the answer we got when we conducted hearings in Quebec was that the concept of freedom of choice was the ultimate in hypocritical posturing, and that was the position defended by the Progressive Conservative Party.
1 would like to comment on another position defended by the Progressive Conservative Party and a statement was reported in the newspaper La Terre de chez nous, referring to the leadership campaign when the present leader was still just a candidate he said in Alberta that he was going to help producers and if possible direct payments to producers. That was the third position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party. And finally, they managed to come up with a fourth position when they talked about maintaining the status quo, and this is because Official Opposition does not know where it is going and is really ambivalent about the issue, because when we were in the Vancouver area and people came to our hearings, they said: to do nothing would be the worst that could happen. Something must be done about the very substantial investments expected in the Vancouver area. Local Members who were there-some were not-and even some Members of the New Democratic Party came to our hearings, and that is where they heard from the local mayors. Some of them were more or less told off and even Members of the Official Opposition were told that the worst that could happen in connection with the Bill and investments to be made in the Vancouver area by CN and CP, if the Bill was not passed, doing nothing would be the worst that could happen. So I feel that as the Government we must make a choice, and consider what is important for breeders and producers, and in this connection, we must not forget that under Clause 59, we are establishing a committee to review the operation of this legislation and the effectiveness of the method of payment, and to examine the implications. We met members of the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition, and of course they had some apprehension, but this is a solution that is attractive to them and they are in favour of being able to examine the implications and having a committee consisting of at least three and not more than five members and reporting before March 1985, to inform the Department about what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that in view of the situation and the large scale investments expected both in Western and Eastern Canada, including the manufacturing of hopper cars and
railroad tracks, and prospective investments in the Vancouver terminal area, to create jobs in an area which, as the House knows, is suffering from some disruption at the present time, that is why a group of mayors came to give us their point of view.
1 believe that we must not stop this process and that we must therefore see to it that the bill is passed. Unfortunately, because of the obstructive methods used by the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, we have been forced to set a limit on the number of days for the debate. Normally, Mr. Speaker, the Committee was to report to the House on September 12. However, there were many discussions in committee and the Opposition members said: "We may not be able to do it by September 12; we shall perhaps need a few more days." We trusted them and granted a few more days to discuss this bill. However, it was a futile exercise because, when we were able to report to the House, there was still more obstruction in spite of the fact that during the committee hearings, we had heard all possible viewpoints about this bill and absolutely everyone was heard.
I even recall one day in Regina when our hearings began at 9 o'clock. We did not stop for lunch or dinner. We heard all the groups and even individual witnesses until 10:30 or 1 1 that evening. Committee members on both sides organized a rotation. We heard all the witnesses. It has been said that producers cannot pay more, but some of them at least tell us that they can. What they fear is the effect on livestock producers and the possibility of these producers being hurt by this bill.
As for the livestock producers, they are the ones who asked the government to change not this bill, but this situation because of the problems involved. They are asking however that the payment be made to producers on the basis of acreage.
There had been the Gilson report. Then, there was the 50/50 formula and another proposal for a middle-of-the-road solution. This is why now with this bill, Mr. Speaker, we must make the payment to the railways because it is a transportation problem, and afterwards look at the effects of this change in committee.
It is not what the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP want. So far the Progressive Conservatives have had four positions. They are all mixed up because they have to say something in Quebec and something else in Western Canada, so that they will not lose any votes. That is in fact their position. As for the New Democratic Party, their position is to do absolutely nothing, to maintain the status quo, in spite of everything that the progressive groups in Western Canada want.
We should therefore pass this bill and implement it. Then, when the Committee submits its report in 1985, people in Western and Eastern Canada will know what are its final consequences, and if it is necessary to make adjustments to improve the situation, the Government can make them, but
November 3, 1983

without following the example of the Progressive Conservative Party and taking four positions, particularly a special position in Quebec because they need votes in that province. They have to get some votes in Quebec, but they are simply being hypocritical when they talk about freedom of choice in Quebec. Then, as concerns the issue of payment to the producers, they say: It is a transportation problem. That is the position of the Progressive Conservative Party, to try to win votes by being on both sides of the issue without ever saying anything, like their new Leader.
Mr. Speaker, this is why their attitude should be condemned. The bill must be passed without delay to ensure that the producers will know what is really going on.
[English |


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak following a most despicable performance.


Mr. Rossi:: You don't know where you stand, just like your Leader.


Arnold John Malone: I know where I stand. I stand in this House of Commons as a Member of a Party with regional relevance. We have just listened to a speech from a member of the St. Lawrence Seaway party, a little party that just sits along the Seaway. It is a part of no other part of Canada. It has nothing to do with the north or the west and hardly anything to do with the Atlantic region.


Carlo Rossi: You are just like your Leader.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, let me bring to your attention some of the things that just came spilling out of the mouth of the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois). He said that the progressive groups in western Canada know that we must have this change. I am going to issue a challenge to him and I will eat a little crow if he can meet it. 1 want him to name one group that favours the Crow rate. There is not one prairie Government, one agricultural group in western Canada that favours the present legislation on Crow rates.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: There is not one. I stand here as a Member of Parliament from western Canada. The Hon. Member opposite says that we are holding up the House because the progressive groups in western Canada want this Bill. That is a complete fabrication of the facts and I dare the Hon. Member to establish what group that is. It is not the farmers' union; it is not the Wheat Pools; it is not Pioneer grain; it is not Cargill grain; it is not the Alberta cattlemen's association; it is not the western stockgrowers association; it is not the pork producers; it is not the poultry producers; it is not the Alberta Government; it is not the Saskatchewan Government; and it is not the Manitoba Government. He cannot produce any evidence for that false statement.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask my hon. colleague whether he attended the hearings in Regina when the President of the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition indicated to the Committee that he was in agreement with the producers paying more. 1 would like him to tell us whether he was there.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I want to take up the challenge that has just been issued to me. The question was whether I attended the Regina hearings. I attended nine hearings but 1 did not attend the one in Regina.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: 1 wrote down what the Hon. Member said and that was that they sat in Regina from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. without stopping for a meal. What he did not say was that there was virtual unanimity throughout that Regina hearing on one point: every person there spoke with emotion and compassion and said this Bill is wrong.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Taylor:: Sit down. You were heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have to remind the Hon. Member that points of order are not acceptable as a mechanism of intervening in debate. I will recognize him but I hope it is on a point of order.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like my colleague to tell me whether he read the record of the hearings held in Regina, and whether he can tell us at this stage what was said by the representatives from the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I know what the position of the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition is. I have met with it many times. I should like the Hon. Member opposite from Lotbiniere-


Mr. Blais:: Lotbiniere.


Arnold John Malone: Lotbiniere. 1 stand corrected on the pronunciation. I wonder if he would be so good as to look at something that is relatively recent. A newspaper headline of November 2 reads "Prairie groups withdraw support for federal Crow Bill". Yet the Hon. Member tries to say that all those progressive organizations are giving support. The truth of the matter is that the Hon. Member speaks from a vacuum. His neurons are lonesome. He stood in this House and said that beef producers want change. Let me tell you, Sir, if he can-


Jean-Guy Dubois: Yes they do.


Arnold John Malone: -find one beef organization anywhere in this country that is asking for a change, he should name it. He accused the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act of sticking fast. I wrote down what he said. He said that they wanted to pay the railways because this is basically a transportation Bill. That is a statement that came from the Hon. Member.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Yes.


Gordon Edward Taylor: It is completely wrong.


Arnold John Malone: This is not a transportation Bill. This is an economic development Bill. If the Hon. Member thinks otherwise, 1 challenge him to go back to the time when the Crow rate was written. What Members of Parliament of the day were talking about then was not just running a train west; it was the economic development of all of western Canada. That is what the Crow rate was about. It was about the economy and the diversity of the country. By taking away the concept of freedom of choice which the Hon. Member chose to attack today, what the Hon. Member does in supporting that position-


Jean-Guy Dubois: What is it?


Arnold John Malone: -is to kill the red meat industry in western Canada. He intends to take away 6,000 jobs from the packing plant industry. He intends to hurt the Province of Alberta by some $6 million annually. That is the kind of tactic he would choose. It is his position that if you pay the railways, the only way the farmer can get his share of the subsidy is if he exports his grain. That means the poultry, pork and beef industries, and those value added industries, do not have the opportunity to have the usage of feed grains because they are going to be exported out of the Province.


Jean-Guy Dubois: It is for Western-


Arnold John Malone: Why not sit here and listen, Sir? You do not come from the Crow region. It would pay you well just to listen.
Today is the first day we have seen Liberal backbenchers speaking on this Bill. It is the last day of closure, Mr. Speaker, and they stand to speak. How I would love to use an unparliamentary word to express what I think of that. Here we are in the last few hours on the Bill and they fill up the time with Liberal backbenchers. Where were they before, when this Bill should have had its examination, when we should have had full debate in this House? They rise today and suggest that, because they are backbenchers and it is the last day, they have an equal right to time. I defy that kind of-


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, concerning the reference to where Hon. Members were, 1 would like to tell my colleague opposite that when all the hearings started in June, July, August and September, there were on the Committee eight Liberal Members who sat through all of the hearings, but not the way the Hon. Member from Alberta did!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There may have been eight Liberals, but they sat in silence most of the time.


Jean-Guy Dubois: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) rises on a point of order, I must of course hear him.

However, I am concerned that he is using points of order which are in fact points of debate.


Mr. Evans:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that you consider Citation 306 in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. I will quote it for you:
A Member who, during a debate, has spoken to a question may again be heard to offer explanation of some material part of his speech which has been misunderstood; but he must not introduce new matter or endeavour to strengthen, by new arguments, his former position which he alleges to have been misunderstood, or to reply to other Members. Here again, a greater latitude is permitted in cases of personal explanation, where a Member's character or conduct has been impugned in debate. The proper time for explanation is at the conclusion of the speech which calls for it, but it is a common practice for the Member desiring to explain, to rise immediately the statement is made to which his explanation is directed. If the Member in possession of the House gives way and resumes his seat, the explanation is at once received; but the explanation cannot then be offered if the Member speaking declines to give way.
I am not sure that an Hon. Member can rise on a point of order to make such a explanation. However, certainly an intervention by an Hon. Member who has previously spoken, who has been misunderstood and who has been misquoted or whose character is being impugned, has the right of reply in this House. He has the right to rise and make that statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: We will continue with the same point of order. The Hon. Member for Bow River on the same point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, not one of the items mentioned by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has been the case. He is simply getting up and introducing new debate.


An Hon. Member:: He was misunderstood.


Gordon Edward Taylor: He was not misunderstood.


Carlo Rossi: There is a Speaker here. Sit down.


Gordon Edward Taylor: He is just getting up to talk.


Carlo Rossi: Who are you to judge that? Sit down. [Translation]


Mr. Tessier:: Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the Hon. Member from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who suggested that we were there but remained silent, that we said in a few seconds what he relishes in repeating for hours on end.
November 3, 1983


Mr. Keeper:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that it is bad enough that the Government is using closure to silence opposition to the Crow rate. Now those Hon. Members are abusing the rules of the House and using points of order to stop the opposition-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Now who is the pot who is calling the kettle black?


Cyril Keeper: -from bringing forth valid points on this legislation.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. One day we are being criticized because we are not taking part in debate to allow them more time. Today we are being criticized because we are taking too much time, too active a part in the debate. The opposition cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.


Cyril Keeper: You just conceded the point of order.


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, all the difficulties come from the fact that the Hon. Member is completely irrelevant. That is why we are standing up, Mr. Speaker.


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


Arnold John Malone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. For a moment 1 thought you had forgotten 1 was here.


An Hon. Member:: We prefer to do that.


Arnold John Malone: We really did want to debate this Bill. We were here ready to do it and certainly would have liked to do so. However, the Minister chose to close the House up and said we could not continue the debate because he wanted to get some legal advice on this piece of writing known as the Crow rate. However, one of the Hon. Members opposite says that farmers should not be writing the Crow rate Bill nor speaking on it because it would be a conflict of interest. I suspect that probably what he is suggesting is that those people in the House who are doctors should not have anything to do with medical Bills because of a conflict of interest. Lawyers should never read any of the writing which is in Hansard because a lot of that is in legal form. Therefore, anyone who knows anything about anything should never do anything-which sounds to me very much like the kind of Government we have, Sir; those who know the least do that which they know the least about. I find that has certainly been the tradition with the Liberal Party in Canada. 1 suspect it will probably continue to act that way until there is no one left in that Party.
There is something else I would like to note. One of the Parliamentary Secretaries suggested that 1 was impugning the character of an Hon. Member. 1 tell you, Sir, that he is expert in doing that for himself. 1 do not need to impugn his character. When he comes forward and gives these kinds of speeches, making statements about the great acceptability of Crow rates in western Canada, then claims he was there in
Western Grain Transportation Act
Regina, by golly, 1 dare him to make that statement and then read the record of the situation in Regina. It is too bad we do not have a videotape so he could see the anguish on those people's faces.
The truth of the matter is that there is pain and hurt in western Canada, caused by a group of people called the "St. Lawrence River Party", a little party in the middle of the country without regional relevance which is impacting upon the great economy of western Canada. They claim that freedom of choice as part of the legislation is something which cannot even be considered, and by that move they have ruined the meat industry in western Canada because feed grains will be exported. I see an Hon. Member shaking his head. I hear him shaking his head from over here, Sir.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arnold John Malone: An Hon. Member whose constituency is five or six provinces away from the west shakes his head. That defies logic. The truth of the matter is that if you pay a subsidy and the only way you can get the subsidy is by putting the grain on the train, if you attract the farmer that way, he is going to export. How are they going to feed their cattle if the federal Government dangles a $651 million carrot to make the farmer export his grain? How do you look after the feedlots, the poultry barns and the like, when the source of your feed stock is now being exported out of the province? Farmers know that and they are worried.
Today we get a lecture in the last dying hours from Hon. Members in the back row opposite who never chose to speak before today. There are some exceptions, but certainly that Party did not speak en masse like it is today. 1 have to ask, where is the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), the only other Member of Parliament from the west other than the Minister? Oh, my gosh, he is here! 1 am looking forward to a western Liberal speech from him.
This Crow rate does impact on all of Canada, because it is only when there is an enrichment in their economy that western producers have the wherewithal to buy the refrigerators, cars and farm machinery which are made in central Canada. There is an interdependence in this country. We ought not to lose sight of the fact that we are a country, a nation, that we are bound together and that all parts are better off when one part is better off. This is not a fight between east and west and it should not be viewed that way. There is an enormous potential for growth.
I say to my Quebec friends on the other side-


Claude Tessier: You have friends in Quebec?


Arnold John Malone: -those of you who thought that enrichment of the western red meat industry was a threat are dead wrong. We can extend our markets into California, which are not your markets. You can have your markets in central Canada and the northeast United States.

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
There is an opportunity here for changes to the transport policy which would contribute to the economic development of our country where we would all be better off. This debate has been a farce. It has meant a delay because the fundamental issues could not be heard. But whatever the tactics were to try and get the deadwood heads to listen, there was a tremendous number of great amendments which would have made a bad Bill acceptable all across the country and they are not going to be heard. It is an unfortunate sham. Long after the vote is taken on this issue there will still be anguish in the major part of this country because the St. Lawrence River party decided to impose its might against those with legitimate rights to have their views heard in a major debate in the House of Commons of Canada.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I was happy to see the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) acknowledge there would be anguish for a long time around this House. I hope it is an offer of a solid seat in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for one Anguish.
Just leading into the remarks I would like to make on Motion No. 58 to Bill C-155, Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned when Members opposite do not want to listen to the Opposition Parties, whether it be the NDP or the Progressive Conservatives. The great philosopher Voltaire once said that one of the very basics in democracy is: I may disagree profusely with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Honesty, openness and a willingness to listen makes for much better government for the people of Canada rather than always having the Government Party disagree with Members of the Opposition and not even listen to them.
From the knowledge I have, that has been the way since the beginning of this great country in 1867. Ever since that time there has been a sort of parliamentary wedlock between the Conservatives and Liberals. They say one thing in opposition critical of their partner in wedlock on the other side, and then when they are in Government it is a complete switch about. It has always been like that.
The New Democratic Party is the only Party which has consistently maintained we should have the statutory Crow rate unaltered for the protection of the western Canadian producer. The Conservatives started at the beginning of this Bill to say the Crow had to go. In fact, when they were the Government they were planning exactly the same piece of legislation which the Liberals are implementing by closure here today through Bill C-155.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member has an obligation to prove to the House what he just said. He said the Conservative Party had exactly the same piece of legislation ready to present to the House to dismantle the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. I ask that he substantiate that statement or else withdraw it.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that if the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) would
table in this House all the documents he was privy to while he was Minister of Transport.


John Leslie Evans: The onus is on you.


Douglas Keith Anguish: If we can examine those documents, I will be more than happy to point out the accuracy of the allegation I have made. But until that happens I will go on-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Hon. Member has no evidence to substantiate the statement he made.


Mr. Manly:: You have the evidence, you table it.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the plan the Liberals are implementing now, which would have been put in by the Conservatives, would have cost the producers in my riding dearly. For example, the Meadow Lake delivery point-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I hate to dwell on this point, Mr. Speaker, but I think the Member has an obligation either to put up or shut up. If he cannot prove his statement, then he should withdraw it.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think the Conservative Party has an obligation to make clear to this House and the Canadian people that they mean that this Crow legislation must be stopped. They have talked only of postponing it.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, under the plan I was talking about put forward by these partners in parliamentary wedlock, it will cost the farmers who deliver to the Meadow Lake delivery point-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I respect the Hon. Member and I hope he respects the traditions of this House. I think it is most unfair for a Member to make a statement which has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. Unless this hon. gentleman can substantiate what he has stated, namely that we as a Government and I as Minister of Transport had legislation exactly the same as this legislation ready to be introduced, which is absolutely false, I ask the Hon. Member either to produce the evidence or withdraw the statement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The difficulty is that the Chair is not in a position to rule on whether or not debate, or some part of it, is either true or false, accurate or inaccurate, or whatever. That is not the function of the Chair. The Hon. Member for Vegreville had a grievance and I think he has certainly made clear his difference of opinion and his grievance. At this point in a procedural sense I simply have to leave it to the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake to proceed as he wishes.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, what I have said has more foundation than what the Conservative-
[ Translation]


Claude Tessier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
November 3, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead on a point of order.


Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order as my colleague for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), maybe the Progressive Conservative Party did not have any legislation ready, but originally they had the same thing in mind as this Government, but they want to see this Government incur all the odium of such a legislation. They are not ready to face up to their responsibilities.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the assertion I made certainly has as much a foundation, and likely more, than that of the Members of the Conservative Party who stand in this House and say the NDP is tryingto break the Crowsnest Pass Agreement.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member alleges that what the NDP is doing in its safety net amendment is not breaking the Crow, 1 would like him to explain why their proposed amendment would have had the effect of immediately increasing the cost to the farmer of moving grain by 20 per cent. How does he explain that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I have asked Hon. Members to attempt, if they can, to avoid using points of order to intervene in the debate of another Hon. Member. 1 leave it entirely in the hands of the Hon. Member for The Battlesfords-Meadow Lake, but in view of the interventions, perhaps he would like me to call it one o'clock. Would that be convenient for him?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker. In regard to the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), he was either not listening or not present in the House of Commons, because this morning the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) in his intervention explained exactly what was happening. I do not have the table here before me.
1 would like to go on with my comments on Motion No. 58, Mr. Speaker, which is designed to protect the producers by guaranteeing them service from the rail companies relating to movement of grain from western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, 1 see you are rising. Shall I call it one o'clock and resume my remarks when debate begins after the Question Period?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I nodded my head in agreement, which is to say that I shook my head, something that I do not ever want to do again after hearing the comment made by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).
It being one o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


CANCELLATION OF NORTHERN BENEFITS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the Government proposes to cancel the special tax advantages available to people working and living in the North despite the protests of every group with any understanding of development in that area, including some parts of the Government itself.
The cancellation of these northern benefits will bring in only a small amount of additional revenue to the Finance Department and have a disastrous effect on industries such as mining. It will do nothing to assist northerners whose disposable income is dramatically reduced by high costs of living. Instead, it will simply add employees of large companies and Governments to the list of people suffering these disadvantages.
We on this side of the House can find only one explanation for the decision, and that is that the Government intends to replace a stimulant available to all, with a grant system available only to those it selects. This has been the pattern of economic assistance over the last several years, and it is one with grave consequences. Industry spokesmen have pointed out that the grant system rewards industries whose imminent failure means political problems for the Government. They have said the grant system is "addictive", and that it forces bureaucrats to make decisions about the validity of industrial efforts with which they may not be familiar.
It is time the effort was made to provide stimulative tax measures for everyone, so that personal and industrial initiative can take advantage of opportunities instead of turning to the Government and asking for a special grant or loan.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at this very hour the Syrian backed faction of the PLO is attacking the camp of the PLO loyal to Arafat in the city of Tripoli, in northern Lebanon. The Syrians in the surrounding hills are pouring artillery shells on the camp, and we have learned that already many civilians in that camp have been killed and wounded. Arafat is pleading with world leaders to save the people from a Syrian backed massacre.

November 3, 1983
Is it not ironic, Mr, Speaker, that it is only a matter of days since our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) was in Syria, and was assured by Syrian leaders, according to the Minister's own words, that Syria would like to see a sovereign and independent Lebanon, that Syria would like to see the process of reconciliation there take place, and that it would be unwise to disregard the role which Syria occupies in pursuing the path to peace?
In the light of the slaughter taking place in Tripoli at this very time, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that, although PLO factions have for years been terrorizing innocent Israeli and Lebanese civilians, massacring innocent Jews throughout the world, and now are terrorizing one another, Canada is in contact with the PLO and is even musing aloud on upgrading the level of that contact.
At the very time when the PLO is increasingly discredited, in disarray, and treated with disdain by more and more Arab nations, I oppose that Canada should be giving any appearance of shoring up the sagging fortunes of these terrorists. Instead, perhaps our Government should review its policy on the PLO and, based on its recent contacts with Syria, should on humanitarian grounds call on Syria to stop immediately the slaughter it is perpetrating in Tripoli.


RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSPORTATION OF HAY TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a situation which is causing concern to a number of Canadians, many of whom reside in my constituency of Fraser Valley East and other areas on the Province of British Columbia. I am speaking of the problem of reciprocity in the treatment of truck drivers between Canada and the United States.
The situation has been ongoing for a number of years, but on June 1, 1983, the Canadian hay dealers were notified that they no longer would be allowed to take unloading crews into the United States. While the order in itself does not constitute a serious limitation to hay movement if the situation is handled the same on both sides of the border, the enforcement has been much more prohibitive in the United States than in Canada. United States drivers continue to assist in the unloading of hay imported into Canada from the U.S.A. by United States dealers.
As there are some 4,000 instances of hay importation from the United States to Canada, and as U.S. alfalfa hay will remain in demand for our high producing dairy herds in British Columbia for many years to come, we urge that customs officials take measures to ensure that equal treatment is accorded to Canadian hay dealers to permit them to compete in their own marketplace.
As well, there is concern that loads of hay are not moving directly from the U.S. to the farms which have bought the hay.
In some cases U.S. hay dealers have set up a sales location to use as a base from which to sell hay. Such action constitutes further unfair competition with Canadian hay dealers.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity today to congratulate the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark), who has finally discovered the sad predicament the artists are in two years after I introduced in the House a motion to amend the Income Tax Act in order to alleviate the financial problems threatening the very survival of those who are part of our Canadian culture. The party opposite has discovered overnight the difficulties experienced by Canadian artists, but I merely want to remind the House that the government Members had already done their job. Unfortunately, copyright does not seem to mean much to the former Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Tobique Indian band in New Brunswick held a duly called election on September 19, but because of a narrow interpretation of the Indian Act, Department of Indian Affairs officials will not allow the new chief and council to take office until November 29, ten weeks after the election.
The new chief and councillors fear that in the interim the outgoing chief will spend the meagre funds the band has to operate with for the rest of the fiscal year. In spite of these fears, the Minister and his officials have refused a request from the new chief to freeze funds until the new council takes office.
Indian Affairs will act to enforce the fine points of the Indian Act no matter how ridiculous, but the Department will not accede to a request from an elected chief to safeguard band funds. Small wonder that the Tobique band members have occupied the council office to try to get attention for their problems.
The Tobique band is one more reason why the Indian Act must go, and one more reason why the Department of Indian Affairs must go, and why Indian people must have the right to conduct their own business without interference by federal or provincial bureaucrats.
November 3, 1983


RAILWAYS
Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the House that some time ago I received a telegram from the company operating the railways in British Columbia praising the Transport Committee for accepting to deal with an amendment to Bill C-155 concerning the British Columbia Railways. What 1 found both surprising and extraordinary was that after commending us for accepting the company's position, the telegram urged us to rush through this legislation which it said was of paramount importance for British Columbia generally and the Vancouver area in particular. As this is the second day of debate at the report stage and the Third Reading will be tomorrow, I warn the Official Opposition and the other party that we must hold the votes quickly today and proceed to Third Reading tomorrow to meet the expectations of Canadians. I challenge all Hon. Members from the Vancouver area to stand in the House and voice their opposition to my own position and that of the British Columbia railway company, and more especially that of the people in the Vancouver area who want to see this bill adopted so that the infrastructure may be strengthened, investments encouraged and job creation increased in their area. I hope that we will complete the study of this bill very quickly.


UNITED NATIONS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, within hours of a rescue operation being launched in response to a request for aid from the island of Grenada, the Liberal Government condemned the rescue move. Yet, last evening a vote took place in the General Assembly of the United Nations on a Nicaraguan resolution condemning the rescue operation. Our Government did not vote for the resolution, nor did it vote against it, as did such Caribbean countries as the Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and as did Israel, and the United States. Our Government boldly abstained.
Does this mean the Government has changed its mind? Does it now realize that it was too rash in initially condemning the intervention? What is the Government's position as of this moment? Surely this once again demonstrates the need for the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to review the Government's handling of the entire
Grenadian affair, to review what forewarning the Government had as to what was happening on that island-


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


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, senior citizens are a most important, yet often forgotten, segment of Canadian society. During retirement years an individual's income in the majority of cases will drop dramatically, and many financial adjustments are made necessary. Also, many seniors will discover that for the first time in their lives it has become necessary to pay their income tax by quarterly instalment. This longstanding provision of the Income Tax Act was originally designed to help individuals avoid interest penalties. However, through lack of understanding of the income tax provisions, and because of errors in the calculation of yearly income, many senior citizens are still faced with instalment interest penalties at year end.
While the Department of National Revenue has made an effort to improve the notification process for individuals who are required to pay their income tax by instalments, there is a need for further review and clarification of this provision as it affects senior citizens. It is my hope that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in reviewing any changes to the Income Tax Act, will give the concerns of Canada's seniors their utmost consideration.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, people from many lands have come to Canada's shores and contributed to the rich cultural and linguistic mosaic which is Canadian society today. Canada is now a multicultural, multiracial, and multireligious country. It is a heritage which makes us the envy of the world.
Those who sought the freedom and opportunity offered by our country must be encouraged to participate fully in Canadian public affairs. We must recognize the diversity of culture, race, language, religion, and heritage, which forms the basis of our society and undertake a determined initiative to ensure equality of access for all Canadians.
In order to facilitate this process I urge the Government to strengthen the structure of the present multiculturalism directorate by creating a separate multiculturalism ministry with its own independent budget and minister. This ministry should be

November 3, 1983
a vibrant centre, and given responsibility for ensuring that every government Department, Crown corporation, board and committee truly understands and responds to the multicultural reality of Canada.
At present there is no central source of information for the collected experience and knowledge relating to multicultural-ism. In addition to its monitoring duties, the new ministry should assume a role as a national multicultural information bank in order to facilitate greater understanding of minorities which have yet to be included in the mainstream of Canada's social, political, and economic life.


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, events in British Columbia have reached a crisis as provincial public sector employees have been forced to strike by the intransigence of the Conservative-Social Credit Government which is misguided by right-wing ideology. We have been reminded frequently of the influence held by the right-wing Vancouver think tank, the Fraser Institute, in providing policy direction to the Socreds before, during, and after the 1983 provincial election.
The Fraser Institute has held charitable tax status with Revenue Canada since October, 1974, when it reportedly was financed by Conservative business interests who were more concerned with the overthrow of the progressive Government of the day led by Dave Barrett than with the generation of new ideas.
Common law has solidly established that if any purpose of a group is to influence Parliament or a legislature to change existing laws, or to enact new laws in accordance with the views of interested bodies, that purpose will not be charitable. This principle is supposed to guide Revenue Canada officials in their granting of charitable status. Many research organizations have been denied such status due to this principle. Revenue Canada in fact published a pamphlet explaining the consequences of a charity having political objectives and carrying on activities which are political in nature.
The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) must re-examine the policies of his Department regarding charitable status in light of this accepted common law. Either he should grant tax exempt status to research organizations regardless of their political colour, or he should direct his officials to revoke the tax number of the Fraser Institute. It is clear that there is nothing charitable about this right-wing-


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He has not given the House any hard information on our fiscal situation since April when he brought down his last budget, but he shared some of his musing with The Globe and Mail yesterday. Would he tell the House what is the expected deficit of the Government now for this financial year, and whether or not it is still $31.3 billion? If it is not that, what is it? Could he also tell the House whether our expected revenues are up or down, and whether our projected expenditures are up or down? What is our present fiscal position? We have passed seven months of the financial year. What is the position?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. gentleman very briefly, 1 would say that some of our revenues are higher and some are lower, some of our expenditures are higher and others are not as high. Generally speaking, I am maintaining my deficit forecast of $31.3 billion, but I shall be reviewing the situation in detail with my officials around the end of December, when figures for the third quarter will be available. I shall then be in a better position to provide a more precise estimate of the deficit for the current year, but I have no reason to make any substantial changes in the forecast I made in my last budget.


John Carnell Crosbie: That was very informative. When the Minister is high, he is often at his lowest, or when he is highest he is lowest, and when he is lowest he is highest. In other words, the Minister is saying that he has no information for the House.


UNEMPLOYMENT FORECAST
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. He told The Globe and Mail that growth in 1984 would be worse than even he predicted. That would mean higher unemployment than the 11.4 per cent which he predicted in the budget. Could the Minister tell the House what steps the Government will take to counteract this new forecast of increased unemployment? Will he increase real personal income, for example, by eliminating the Canadian ownership charge, or reducing interest rates? What steps will he take to overcome this pessimistic forecast which he gave publicly this morning?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for explaining his own jokes, but 1 would hope that he would be better at explaining articles in The Globe and Mail. What the article in The Globe and Mail indicated was not what the Hon. Member said. I indicated that
November 3, 1983

for this year the growth in Gross National Product would be significantly higher than 1 had anticipated last April, that inflation would be lower, that unemployment would be lower, that employment would be higher and that, therefore, all the main economic indicators would be more favourable this year than I expected at the time of my budget.
As far as 1984 is concerned, I indicated that the Gross National Product increase might be between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. It may be closer to 5 per cent than to 4 per cent; 1 am not in a position to forecast that. In the budget last April I indicated 5.2 per cent. Obviously, if we have a significantly high rate of growth this year, this establishes a higher base from which to start. It would be normal, if we keep roughly the same forecasts as I am forced to do at the present time until we review them at the end of the year, that since we would start from a higher base in 1984 that would mean the rate of growth itself would be somewhat lower, but not significantly. I am happy to inform my colleague that unemployment is expected to be lower next year, 1984, than I forecast in my budget of last April.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON INFLATION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is saying that what he says he does not mean, and what he means he does not say. I quoted to him from what he said, according to this morning's Globe and Mail.
The Minister also said that he is "stepping up his crusade against inflation since he has no other practical options for substantially reducing unemployment". Since we just had a record number of bankruptcies, a record number of unemployed, and record misery because of the Minister's crusade against inflation, what is he now going to do as he steps up his crusade against inflation? How many more unemployed will there be? How many more bankruptcies will there be? What does he mean by this confession of failure? Will he get out of the way, if he has no practical options to offer to overcome unemployment?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, from hearing the Hon. Member the only conclusion I can reach is, as 1 said, that he does not want to understand. 1 will try again.
The level of unemployment is lower this year, and will be lower this year than even 1 anticipated in April. The number of jobs created will be higher this year than we had anticipated. The rate of inflation will be lower than we had anticipated. In 1984 those figures will also be better than had been projected in the budget of last April. The clear conclusion what my colleague should reach is to the effect that the economy will have been performing better in 1983 than I had forecast and better than most forecasters had forecast. It will perform better in 1984, better than all the forecasts we have seen. That is what is foreseen for next year.
As far as the number of unemployed is concerned, unemployment is expected to be lower this year than had been
Oral Questions
anticipated. Employment will be higher. If we want to achieve that growth, and a sustained growth in this country, we will have to maintain our level of inflation at least close to that of the United States. 1 would be even happier if it were below that of the United States. I do not think we will achieve lower unemployment in this country by jacking up inflation. Everybody would suffer if we followed the role recommended by the Hon. Member.


SALES TAX INQUIRY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his confession to The Globe and Mail the Minister indicated that he really thinks growth is going to be down from his forecast. He admitted that to my colleague from St. John's West, that it will be down to the 4 per cent range. In view of that decline in anticipated growth, will he be introducing increases in sales tax as contemplated in his April budget?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that in 1983 we will have a higher rate of growth than had been anticipated, significantly higher. If you start from a higher base, it would be normal to expect that the rate of growth next year would be somewhat slightly lower than had been foreseen when we foresaw a rate of growth of only 2.3 per cent this year. It is likely to be above 3 per cent this year. This is simply mathematics. It is easily understood. It does not mean that the economy is going to slow down next year. It is going to grow, and grow quite significantly and rapidly. As I said, I had foreseen 5.2 per cent in the budget last April.
I will have an opportunity to introduce a new budget some time in 1984. By then I will be able to give a specific figure to my hon. friend. However, if next year we end up with a growth of 5 per cent or 4.9 per cent, compared to the forecast of 5.2 per cent last April, we will still know a higher rate of growth, especially in view of the fact that we will have grown this year by much more than had been anticipated.


INTEREST RATES CHARGED BY CHARTERED BANKS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, we now know that four is higher than five point two. I will now turn to the question of interest rates.
The Minister will know that the Economic Council, the Wood Gundy Report, and the Conference Board have all indicated that interest rates, in their view, must come down. We see that the Bank of Canada rate is roughly 150 or 152 points today below the prime rate that the chartered banks charge. Will the Minister do something about interest rates, such as have a conference with the chartered bank presidents and ask them to reduce their prime rate to, say, 10 per cent? The history is that for years the chartered banks have been able to get along with a spread of no more than 50 bases points. Why do they now need 152 bases points?

November 3, 1983
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 answered a similar question yesterday by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I informed him that interest rates in Canada had dropped significantly during the past year, that if we went back as far as 1981, there was a spread, interest rates in Canada being 4.7 per cent higher than they were in the United States. Today, the bank rate is the same as in the United States, and rates for short term paper are slightly lower or about equal to American rates. We have compressed interest rates in Canada to a very significant extent over the last two years, and especially during the past year. We managed to do so without affecting the value of the Canadian dollar, and I said that if interest rates in United States were to drop again, Canada would be in a position to benefit immediately, as would most other industrialized countries.
1 can inform the hon. gentleman that 1 shall be meeting with major directors of Canadian banks in the near future, and certainly intend to discuss with them the whole issue of current real interest rates in Canada. Once again, if we really want our economy to prosper and to reduce interest rates, it is important not to have an inflation rate that is higher than the U.S. rate, as it is at the present time.


IMPACT OF NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. In the last few days he indicated that he expected the unemployment level to remain in the 12 per cent range until 1984. He has also indicated that he and his Government have little room to manoeuvre in terms of any real job creation. Is one of the reasons that the Government has little room to manoeuvre because the National Energy Program provides for Canada's most wealthy investors an opportunity to receive 80 per cent of their investment back from the federal government in cash grants?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 have stated quite clearly and repeatedly that in 1983 the level of unemployment will be lower than had been anticipated. We had foreseen an average of 12.4. I expect that this year it will likely be below 12 per cent. As far as 1984 is concerned, 1 want to tell the Hon. Member that the level of unemployment is expected to be below 12 per cent, not above 12 per cent as he has suggested.
As far as the specific point he has raised is concerned, I remind him that the grant system that has been introduced with regard to the oil and gas industry has been introduced as a replacement of a fiscal system one of whose basic characteristics was that it was mainly helping the wealthiest companies, which fundamentally were foreign multinationals. The new system is biased in favour of Canadian firms. It has succeeded in significantly expanding Canadian ownership of the oil and
gas industry. I am amazed that even the NDP cannot realize that.


TAX WRITEOFFS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to rephrase my question in human terms. Very specifically, I want to ask the Minister whether he, in his previous position and present one, has introduced legislation that would provide someone making a $7,000 investment with the opportunity of securing a major tax writeoff worth many thousands of dollars for this year, and then receiving $18,000 in a federal cash grant for 1984? Is this the kind of step that the Government has taken in an effort at job creation in this country, with these unbelievable tax giveaways?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member does not realize is that such benefits will materialize if there is an oil or gas discovery, and the Canadian public gets 25 per cent interest in any discovery that is made. The Canadian people are going to be rewarded for their investment in the discovery of oil and gas in this country, not only by achieving self-sufficiency and energy security, but also by sharing in the wealth that will have been discovered due to the support that is provided by the Government of Canada, to all companies, but more particularly to Canadian investors. We will all benefit by such a regime. This is a better regime than the one which existed before, which benefited mainly multinational companies.


USE OF ENERGY TAX FUNDS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, certainly people are being rewarded for a $7,000 investment with $18,000 in cash plus tax benefits. Will the Minister confirm that, in a consumer-led recovery which he had hoped for, by increasing taxes under programs such as the Canadian ownership special charge he is doing two things? He is taking money out of the hands of the Candian taxpayers and hindering a recovery and, perhaps as important, is collecting money from the Canadian taxpayers to enable him to give these unbelievable tax holidays to the most wealthy Canadian investors. Is that not what he is doing in terms of redistributing income upwards?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I must say I entirely disagree with the hon. gentleman. Once again, grants paid to businesses in the gas and oil industry are basically earmarked for gas and oil exploration in this country. The grants in question are paid only if the money is spent on prospecting for gas and oil. if none is found, the $7,000 and the government grant will have been spent on wages and services in an attempt to discover gas and oil. If gas and oil discoveries are made, the Canadian Government and the Canadian taxpayer will have a 25 per cent interest, and in this
November 3, 1983

way we shall have made a contribution towards achieving energy security and self-sufficiency, something all Canadians want to achieve and the basic objective of our national energy policy. 1 would like to say to the hon. gentleman that if he looks at the facts, he will see that we have made tremendous progress in this respect over the last two years.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND OF THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR INDIAN AND NATIVE AFFAIRS, OF THE PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 would like to call to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Gary Lane, the Minister of Justice of Saskatchewan, and of the Hon. Sid Sutchak, the Minister responsible for Indian and Native Affairs, of Saskatchewan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR CANADA
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the temper and tone of the letter of resignation of the Chairman of Air Canada this morning, will the Minister table in this House those parts of the report of the RCMP investigation not relating to criminal matters, but rather pertaining to conflict of interest and improper conduct of the Chairman in the discharge of his mandate?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member should know by this time that any investigation of that kind is a matter in the jurisdiction of the police officers and authorities who undertake such investigations. It is not the practice to make reports of such investigations public, for all the obvious reasons. I would say that the Hon. Member is intemperate in asking for such.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE REPORT
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Since the Minister has seen the RCMP report, will he state in this House on his ministerial oath that, separate and apart from the criminal aspects, there is nothing in that report pertaining to conflicts of interest, improper conduct, or irregular conduct of the Chairman in the discharge of his duties? Is the Minister really trying to pretend that the Chairman is a martyr, or should he really be complimented on being a great barterer since he is going to be paid one and one-half time his salary in a lump sum?
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has any further allegations to make, I would invite him to make them outside this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COPYRIGHT
Robert Gourd: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is also responsible for the copyright legislation. I am pleased to find that the Opposition has finally discovered that some artists do reside in Canada. Yesterday I noticed that the former Prime Minister and former leader of the preceding Government was asking for special rights for authors, and I should think that the copyright is the first right that must be given to Canadian authors and composers. Can the Minister tell us what the current situation is and whether some progress will soon be made in that field?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the Hon. Member's question. The Minister of Communications and 1 have been working very closely for the past couple of months on the development of new copyright legislation which is long overdue in this country. We hope to produce results very soon.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Hatton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Government has been most generous in recent years with Canadian tax dollars in bailing out super-large multinational corporations, often throwing good money after bad. Since the small business sector remains the largest potential employer in Canada, will the Minister, in fairness to small business, commit himself today to redirect at least a portion of his Government's so-called bail-out fund to the establishment of employment tax credits or similar incentives for small business? This is where jobs can and should be created. Why is the Minister not acting in this regard?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I wonder where the Hon. Member has been for the last six months? I will send him a copy of the budget and, if it is too big, I will send him a copy of "The Budget in Brief". It is short; it is all listed there. He will find that there are hundreds of millions of dollars in tax incentives that were included in the last budget.

November 3, 1983
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: You have not passed one piece of legislation.


Marc Lalonde: The measures addressed to the corporate sector in the last budget were, on the whole, biased in favour of small and medium-sized businesses. All the measures that were contained in the budget, whether in the area of research and development or in the area of investment, were available to all business, particularly small business. In many instances there was a special bias in favour of small and medium-sized business. If the Hon. Member is interested, I will send him my own copy.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Close to half the nuclear reactors in Canada are closed down, this coming at a time when the United States has cancelled proposals for 48 more nuclear reactors this year. At the same time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has endorsed 12 more for Canada. In light of the visibly bankrupt economics of the nuclear industry in Canada and the unlikelihood of Canadians continuing to support the nuclear industry, particularly exports to the United States, or accepting strawberries back from Romania in return for a Candu reactor, will the Minister stop being a lap dog to Bill Davis and the nuclear mobsters in this country, and establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the entire nuclear fuel cycle?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of investment made by Canadians in that system. It is a very good system. In operation you can always have some problems, but it is very evident that the problems that have been faced in Canada have been well managed. There was no danger to anybody. The system is very safe and it has been proven that, under the circumstances, there was no danger to anybody. Hydro Quebec, Hydro Ontario, and the federal Government have proven that we can operate Candu reactors in Canada. It is a good system. We have invested too much just to cancel a big program like that in a flim-flam way as the Hon. Member would like us to do.


MINISTER'S POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, talk about flimflam. I would like to get a yes or no answer from the Minister of Energy. The nuclear industry in Canada is in absolute chaos. The Ontario Government is proposing to expand the nuclear industry in order to deal with acid rain. It states it can shut down coal-fired plants by expanding the nuclear industry. Will the Minister support a Royal Commission of Inquiry into
an industry that is obviously in chaos, is endangering Canadian health, and is dragging at least Ontario into bankruptcy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no to a Royal commission.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post but, in his absence, I should like to put it to the Acting Minister. Can he explain why Canada Post encourages its employees to use its own private travel section for their private travel arrangements, pockets the commissions, and thus forces small travel agencies into even more trouble? Why does it use its admail service to promote the delivery of advertising flyers through the mails, thus drawing revenue from local newspapers, the backbone of Canadian communities, and from the small printing shops? This action is subsidized by a Crown corporation and creates direct competition for small business which is trying to create new jobs for Canadians.


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Post Office could not be in the House today. I will be pleased to take notice of the question and draw it to his attention. He will undoubtedly give an answer to the Hon. Member's question.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the wonderful promises made by the Minister when he announced changes to the excise and customs jurisdiction in order to protect the Canadian shipbuilding industry last December, how does he account for the fact that the shipbuilding policy is still not in effect, when two foreign-built ships are entering Canada for every one that is currently being built in Canadian shipyards? Unemployment in the shipbuilding industry is at the highest point it has been since 1939. There are 8,000 unemployed shipyard workers waiting for the Minister and the Government to stop dithering over this issue.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the legislation, perhaps the Hon. Member would like to direct his question to the Minister directly responsible for the legislation.
November 3, 1983

The Hon. Member should know that there is substantial under-capacity utilization throughout the world in the shipbuilding industry; it is not just in Canadian shipyards.
The announcement made by my colleagues, the former Minister of Supply and Services and the former Minister of National Defence, with respect to the frigate program indicated one of the largest megaprojects and job-creation programs in all of Canada. As well, there was the Minister of Transport's announcement with respect to the Coast Guard frigate program. Obviously the Hon. Member has not paid attention to the recent announcement made by my colleagues in this House.


FISHERIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Of late the issue of extra berthing costs has been raised in the House. 1 should like to ask the Minister if the position he is taking is the result of recommendations made by the Minister's advisory council. As he knows, the salmon industry is already prostrate and this issue is strapping it even more.
With respect to the proposed buy-back program, I should like to ask the Minister if, in the implementation of that program, he will respect the prudence of those who have been in the industry for a while and who have acted cautiously, and see to it that the buy-back program will not be a bailout of the banks.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member has put his question in that light. The problem of the fishery on the Pacific Coast is very serious. The first responsibility of the Minister is to look to the stocks, because the whole industry is based on the stocks. At the moment they are under very heavy pressure from over fishing. The report of Dr. Pearse, that we should reduce the fishing effort, is something with which I fully concur.
As the Hon. Member said, 1 have received the advice of the Minister's advisory council, and that includes about 17 associations, on how to go about it. My Department is carefully reviewing those recommendations. I can tell the Hon. Member that 1 will be giving the recommendations the highest consideration. I hope that in due course I will be able to announce the policy of the Government.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]



Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and it has to do with the information he gave us yesterday concerning the restructuration of fisheries in Eastern Quebec. I would like to know from the Minister whether it is true that his Assistant Deputy Minister and senior officials of his Department are to meet in Rimouski tomorrow with fishermen in the Gaspe to pursue the discussions on the restructuration of the processing plants in Quebec?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm to the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temiscouata that, among others, Newport fishermen did call my Department and asked for a meeting with the Assistant Deputy Minister with a view to going over the details of the offer made by the Canadian Government to the entire Pecheurs-Unis movement. Needless to say, the officials of my Department gladly agreed to meet with the representatives of Newport fishermen, and 1 might even say that if they were invited to go to Newport, they would do so. As for me, of course, I have no intention to behave as my Quebec counterpart did, that is go over everybody's head, up the ante and try to make people believe that the problem can be solved by concentrating the efforts in a single place. The issue facing us is to find a solution to all the problems of the Pecheurs-Unis movement, not only to those of one community at a time.


PACIFIC RIM MARKETS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. Earlier this week the Minister met with his provincial counterparts. One of the requests they made was that, in his exploration of closer links with the United States, markets in the Pacific rim not be sacrificed. They expressed real concern that we explore the Pacific rim for more markets. Because of the importance of this to job creation in Canada, with the high unemployment rate, and the importance of the Pacific rim to western Canada as a market for many of our products, can the Minister tell us what concrete steps he is planning to take in the next few weeks to expand our trade with Pacific rim countries such as Japan and China?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Mr. Speaker, some two and a half weeks ago I participated in two investment seminars, held in Tokyo and Osaka. They were aimed at increasing the level of Japanese investment in this country, which at present is only SI.2 billion

November 3, 1983
Oral Questions
as against the book value of foreign capital investment in Canada of over S50 billion. We believe that there are ample opportunities for jobs to be created in this country through additional Japanese investment in addition to the creation of jobs through the sale of Canadian goods.
The Hon. Member may be aware that several months ago 1 led a mission through the ASEAN countries of Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Singapore. On that mission we signed contracts for $166 million worth of Canadian sales, and we also set the stage for several hundreds of millions of dollars worth of contracts. Those later contracts are developing at a rapid rate.
Our rate of growth of sales into the Pacific Rim market is very encouraging. The Hon. Member should also recognize that sales into the United States, where a more rapid rate of recovery is occurring than anywhere else in the world, are also important as they create jobs. A 10 per cent increase in sales to the United States would amount to more additional sales than anything we could achieve elsewhere in the world.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: As a supplementary-


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


UNITED STATES HEARINGS ON IMPORTATION OF CANADIAN POTATOES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. As he is aware, the potato industry in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick is anxiously awaiting the announcement of the U.S. Department of Commerce concerning allegations of the dumping of Maritime potatoes into the New England states. Sales to the United States from the Maritime potato industry have averaged $32 million per year and this is crucial to the economy of the Maritime Provinces. Not only are these financial aspects at stake, but this case will set a precedent for all cases concerning trade with the U.S. in agricultural commodities.
I think the Minister is aware that recently a Bill was introduced in the United States Senate by Senator D'Amato which, if passed, would impose heavy tariffs on all fresh vegetables entering the U.S. from Canada.
In view of the importance of the outcome of these hearings to all of Canada, will the Minister tell the House what the Government is doing to assist the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in their struggle against the dumping allegations?
And is the Minister aware that incomes for potato farmers in all five of Canada's eastern potato producing provinces have been reduced by not less than 20 per cent by the 17.9 per cent surcharge which the Americans are imposing upon us? And does Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for his keen interest in a very important and serious problem. I want to tell him that the Canadian Horticultural Council is co-ordinating the reply of the industry in the battle against this threatened action. We believe that there is no justification for the anti-dumping charges which have been laid. We have made representations on a continuing basis to the American authorities to ensure that this matter is dealt with in the quasi-judicial sense which is provided for by the law down there.
The strange thing, of course, is that many years we buy more potatoes from the United States than it buys from us, primarily in western Canada. The circumstances under which its potatoes are marketed in this country, from a pricing point of view, are remarkably like those under which our potatoes are marketed into the United States. I feel it is certainly not in the interests of the United States, or of good relations in trade between our countries, for any anti-dumping charge to be laid by the Americans-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Do you believe this?


Erik Nielsen: How about him? Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: May I say I am in close touch with the Horticultural-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. A short supplementary to a previous question. The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Mel-ville.


INVOLVEMENT OF FOREIGN-OWNED BRANCH PLANTS IN EXPORT TRADE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of talk, because all we have had is a bunch of bull. The Minister is aware that one of our major stumbling blocks in diversifying our trade is the export restrictions put on branch plants by their parents. I would like to ask the Minister specifically if he is willing to bring in a Bill which would prohibit export restrictions on foreign-owned branch plants in this country, in order to create more jobs for Canadians?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talks-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about bull. It is quite true that we do export some bulls as part of our export trade-
November 3, 1983


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Some of it stays here, too.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -and, indeed, the export of cattle is an important part of our international trade.
The Hon. Member then quickly changes the subject and talks about restrictions on subsidiaries of foreign companies operating in Canada, in relation to their capacity to participate in export markets. I can say to the Hon. Member that this is a matter which has been of serious concern to a succession of Governments. As a consequence of global mandates in particular products, it is less a problem than in previous years, and more and more subsidiaries of foreign companies in Canada are increasing their exports. We hope that healthy trend will continue.


UNITED STATES POTATO IMPORT HEARINGS-REQUEST FOR CANADIAN REPRESENTATION
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the Hon. Member for Malpeque. 1 would like to direct my question also to the Minister of State for International Trade. Will representations be made to the U.S. in the strongest possible terms regarding the consequence of comparable applications of surcharge for other food products exported from Canada to the U.S.? Will the Minister's own Department and the Department of Agriculture send representatives to the 1TC potato hearings scheduled for November 18, 1983, in Portland, Maine? Would the Department also supply statistical data respecting total fruit and vegetable trade between Canada and the U.S., illustrating the extent of the unfavourable balance of trade which Canada is experiencing? Would the Department supply statistics to show the percentage of U.S. consumption supplied by Canada-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is asking a question of which the level of detail is more appropriate to be placed on the Order Paper. However, the Minister may reply to the question.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked a series of questions. May 1 say that the response of the Department on these matters has been that which has been worked out in conjunction and through consultation with the Canadian Horticultural Council. If it feels there is some particular advantage in representation at the hearings, then, yes, we certainly would be prepared to provide it. We are staying in close consultation with them as to the best way in which this matter can be combated.
In relation to the other vegetables, the Hon. Member may be aware that there are many, many bills of a protectionist nature which are introduced in the American Congress. They are regularly opposed by the administration, and very few of them progress very far. However, we are watching the Bill to which the Hon. Member refers. We will monitor it closely and take appropriate action.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


RECRUITMENT OF INDIAN URBAN ENTREPRENEURS
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question would likely best be answered by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is in regard to previous questions I have raised in the House when I informed the House that the Cabinet was considering a Machievellian scheme whereby $345 million of taxpayers' money would be spent to recruit urban Indian entrepreneurs who are leaning toward the Liberal cause. It is one thing to consider something like that in Cabinet, and quite another to implement it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should ask his question.


Frank Oberle: Yes, I will. Can the Minister tell the House why it is that he did not respond to very serious efforts by his own colleagues in the Liberal Party to delay the announcement of this Liberal vote-buying scheme headed by Maurice Strong? Why did he not delay the announcement at least until such time as the report-which he ordered delayed-is published, which will be within days? It could be considered by Cabinet, particularly those recommendations in the report which deal with the spending of such money in a way which would not only mean economic development for Indian people but would-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Minister reply to the question?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I find so many humorous undertones in that question, I would just love to answer it. But it is not-


Frank Oberle: It is not funny.


Mr. McDermid:: There is nothing funny about that.


John Carr Munro: I find it very funny. However, Mr. Speaker, it is not my responsibility. The Hon. Member should know it is the responsibility of the Minister of State for Small Business.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare who has been all over the House in the last two days-


An Hon. Member:: She is campaigning for Chretien.


Bruce Halliday: She is the peripatetic Minister.


John Horton McDermid: She is campaigning for the leadership.


An Hon. Member:: Here she is.

November 3, 1983
Oral Questions


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that her Department has awarded $25,000 under the Community Forum Program to the Health Coalition of Nova Scotia so they can hold a series of public meetings in support of her yet-to-be-seen-by-Parliament Canada Health Act. Would the Minister indicate to the House, first, when the program was announced? Second, why was there no news release issued? And third, how was the Nova Scotia Health Coalition, whose views are known to be sympathetic to the Minister, apprised of the program?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in the information program about one of the most expensive and best programs for Canadians, namely, Medicare, we have a small sum of money put aside, as we do often in my Department, for voluntary associations which have public meeetings on preserving Medicare. If the Hon. Member did not receive any documents, 1 will make sure he has them as soon as I return to my office.

these amounts. We still want to continue as in the past to ensure that the funds put aside for job creation in Quebec will be used. We hope to use them for this purpose thanks to common sense and goodwill.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, November 2, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) and the petition presented by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) do not meet the requirements of Standing Orders as to form.



EMPLOYMENT


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since the period provided for submissions under the Canada Works Program is now over and as I understand there is still no agreement between Quebec and Ottawa, can the Minister confirm today that the amounts available under the Canada Works Program cannot be distributed to the municipalities under an agreement with Quebec? Must we conclude that there has been no agreement between the two levels of government?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the question asked by the Hon. Member, I believe that he has confused several matters. It is true that discussions are going on between the Quebec Government and Ottawa to determine how the Federal Government could deal with the municipalities in various cases, including employment projects. We have always believed that, as the Government of Canada, we should be able to deal with the municipalities in Quebec, as with the municipalities everywhere else in Canada, to create jobs. This position has been questioned by the Quebec Government and discussions are now taking place.
However, we have also decided that, if there is some money available that cannot be used in cooperation with the Quebec municipalities because the provincial Government has prohibited such an arrangement, this money will be used for other projects in Quebec so that the citizens will not be deprived of


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have several questions with respect to the Government's intentions concerning the business of the House. All Members will of course be anxious to learn what business the Government intends to call tomorrow. Under the experimental rules the House will be rising tomorrow at the close of business and ordinarily would not be returning until Monday, November 14 next. That generates the question as to whether the Government has any intention of recalling Parliament next week. In addition, does the previous prediction of the Government House Leader with respect to a Throne Speech around November 14 or November 15 still prevail, or is the Government now thinking of another date?
While he is pondering those questions, will he also look into the matter of Bill C-653. I understand the committee has had only two meetings on that matter. There is no reason why the committee could not conclude its work and report back to the House forthwith, which is the sincere desire of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
Lastly, will the Government House Leader, in view of the obvious reluctance of the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to call a meeting to consider the Grenadian affair and the removal of Canadians without the fumbling of this Government, ask the chairman of that Committee to convene the Committee immediately so we can examine and expose to the cold light of day the facts surrounding the obvious mismanagement of the whole affair by the Government of Canada?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I will try not to play the same kind of political games that my colleague is now playing.
November 3, 1983

On the last point concerning the Committee dealing with the Grenadian invasion, if it was so urgent we would have expected questions today in Question Period. Despite the lack of interest by the Opposition, and in particular by their Leader, on anything for that matter, I will nevertheless raise the matter with the very distinguished chairman of the Committee who 1 understand is consulting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Who with, Andropov?


Yvon Pinard: On the second point raised by my colleague concerning Bill C-653, he suggests I consult and I will consult.

Mr. Speaker, as regards the first question, the Government's priority is to create new jobs, and we believe that the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will be created, once Bill C-155 to repeal the Crow rate is passed, should be a priority, not only for the Government, but also for the Opposition. Furthermore, we hope that if the Opposition is willing to show its good faith, and if especially the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party would care to observe yesterday's tragic anniversary in a more positive fashion next time by promoting employment instead of massive lay-offs, we shall, with the unanimous consent of the House, be able to dispose tomorrow of the third reading stage of Bill C-155.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, our priority is Bill C-155. This evening, we shall be voting on the report stage. Only one day of debate is left, and tomorrow will be designated for that purpose, in the hope that, I repeat, the Opposition does not try to prevent the creation of jobs in Canada. Tomorrow, we shall seek the unanimous consent of the House, and all Government Members will be in the House to try and create those hundreds of thousands of jobs. Tomorrow we shall seek the unanimous consent of the House to put the question on third reading before the end of the day. Not until Bill C-155 is passed by the House of Commons and the Senate and has obtained Royal Assent will we be in a position to consider a reasonable date for proroguing Parliament, no matter when or at what time Royal Assent for Bill C-155 is granted.
In the circumstances, we hope Bill C-155 will be passed as soon as possible, and as soon as the Bill is referred to the Senate, and until it is either referred back to the House or receives Royal Assent, 1 hope the House will be able to dispose quickly of the following Bills, subject to change, as usual, it being the Government's prerogative to establish the Orders of the Day and to change them, subject, of course, to reasonable notice, and 1 am referring to Bill C-170, Bill C-96 and Bill C-91.
If we assume that the Bill is referred to the Senate tomorrow evening, the House will definitely not be sitting next week. Should Bill C-155 not be referred to the Senate tomorrow evening, like all Members I shall be waiting for the Speaker to
Business of the House
recall Parliament, and if the Speaker does so, 1 shall act accordingly.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite hear the tail end of the translation so I missed the last half of the Government House Leader's response.


Some Hon. Members:: Ask your Leader.


Erik Nielsen: However, if the jackals would be quiet for a moment, 1 did not get a specific response with respect to the intention of the Government. Is it the intention of the Government to recall Parliament next week or is it not? We assume from the House Leader's remarks that we will be proceeding with the Crow tomorrow. In view of the fact that the stupidity of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) prevented us from dealing with the fisheries Bill tomorrow by way of his closure on closure the other day, can the Government House Leader inform us when he intends to bring that very important legislation forward?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the attitude taken when questioning on House business. When I answer in English, the Hon. Member never complains but when I answer in French-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: When I deal with sensitive parts of House business in French, and this is not the first time 1 have done so, he is always complaining about the translation while my colleagues on this side and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) who sits beside the Hon. Member understand me very well. Therefore I do not intend to repeat in English what I just said in French. We have very good translators. I suggest that my hon. colleague has been playing politics with the Minister of Transport, a man who is doing a marvelous job trying to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: I think the Hon. Member should ask questions of the Leader of his Party. The Leader does not want to ask questions but I hope he will be able to answer the questions of his own House Leader on this subject.
May 1 remind my hon. colleague from Yukon that his Party is responsible for having wasted time last Tuesday. Members of his Party decided to spoil a whole day for reasons of their own which I do not share. We intended to proceed on Tuesday. It is obvious that we had sufficient Members present and ready to vote in the House before eleven o'clock. Therefore they wasted the time, not the Minister of Transport.
The Hon. Member knows that we have a meeting at four o'clock this afternoon. If he wants some clarification on our intent, I will be pleased to repeat in English what I just said in French over coffee in my office.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-
28684

November 3, 1983
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) at this point.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all courtesy to everyone concerned, the Chair would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and then recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has been on his feet repeatedly seeking to be recognized and the Chair would like to recognize him. The Chair will then recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: I have a question of privilege.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 must confess that it is a little difficult to be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Question of privilege!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Erik Nielsen: Question of privilege!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: My question of privilege, Sir, is that by long-standing traditions and practices in the House, the House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons is recognized until the question of House business has been exhausted. I was just going to ask one further brief question which, as House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons, I am entitled to do and 1 would like to have the Chair's blessing in order to do so and perform my function. I say, Sir, that it is not the practice of this House to deny that right to the House Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is within the discretion of the Chair to recognize Hon. Members. The Chair tries to be impartial and catch the eye of Hon. Members while bearing in mind the total circumstances. The Hon. Member for Yukon was recognized for purposes of asking a question about House business. He has been subsequently recognized twice to clarify House business-


Erik Nielsen: Once.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair stands corrected on that matter; 1 was under the impression the Hon. Member was
recognized twice. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Yukon for a short supplementary question and will then recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I shall begin my short supplementary question by stating to the Government House Leader that I was not complaining about the translation. I was listening in English just as he listens in French and I have no complaints with the excellent translation. It was simply that I did not get the last half of the Minister's answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's point does not appear to relate to House business.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member wishes to clarify House business, he may do so. Matters relating to translation surely are not House business. Will the Hon. Member-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will Hon. Members please be quiet? The Hon. Member for Yukon has a supplementary question on House business and I invite him to place it.


Erik Nielsen: 1 had finished my clarification. The question I wish to ask is, in view of the stupidity of the Minister of Transport in moving closure on closure and thus wiping out that day, when will the fisheries Bill come before the House? That was the question he did not answer. Perhaps he could answer it now.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 answered the Hon. Member's question earlier, in French. I suggest the hon. gentleman read what I said in Hansard. It was very clear. It was about Bill C-170 which I mentioned earlier.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting how the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) cries?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I seem to recall that when I disobeyed the Chair, I got turfed out.


Some Hon. Members:: Out with him!


Ian Deans: However, I understood the Government House Leader to say that he would be seeking-


Mr. Kempling:: "Ian Nepean".


Ian Deans: That was very interesting and very clever. Imagine the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) thinking that I-
November 3, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain please ask his question?


Ian Deans: Thank you very much. I have been trying to ask my question but I was interrupted by the Hon. Member for Burlington. If I understood the Government House Leader correctly, and 1 am sure I did, he appeared to indicate his intention to ask for unanimous consent to deal with Bill C-155 at third reading stage tomorrow. Did I understand that correctly?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Read the "blues".


Ian Deans: My understanding was not correct? I just wanted to make sure that the Government House Leader understands that he will not get that consent.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear. I was not seeking unanimous consent to deal with third reading tomorrow because we do not need unanimous consent to do so. We will deal with third reading tomorrow unless the Opposition prevents us from reaching that stage. If this is a notice of obstruction, that is another matter.
Assuming, Mr. Speaker, that, like a normal Parliament, we will seek unanimous consent to vote tomorrow as opposed to allowing the vote to be deferred. That is the unanimous consent of which I was speaking.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that that might well be his answer. Now that I have it perfectly clear, there will be no unanimous consent tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of that position, can the Government House Leader now tell us whether he will be recalling Parliament next week?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would care to analyze the answer I gave earlier, he will have the answer to his question.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has received notices from the Hon. Members of matters of privilege to be raised at this point. The Chair will call first on the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


MR. WADDELL-WITHDRAWAL OF REMARKS CONCERNING MR. RON ATKEY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege with respect to a disservice I did to
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
Mr. Ron Atkey, a previous Member of this House and a former Minister. At page 28450 of Hansard for Friday, October 28, 1983, I asked a question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts). In my supplementary question, I mentioned Mr. Atkey's name. I would like to read just a part of my question as follows:
A number of immigration consultants and lawyers, including the Hon. Minister's predecessor, Ron Atkey, the Conservative Minister, have been to Hong Kong to take advantage of this bonanza business. Does the Minister think that our immigration policy, which favours business investment over family reunification, can lead to inequalities, and encourages these sharks to go to Hong Kong and say that you can in fact buy your way into Canada, at a time when the Hong Kong people are very uneasy over the renewal of the British treaty with China? Is not the policy itself inherently inequitable when it leads to this kind of situation?
It seems to me on rereading Hansard that I was inadvertently classifying Mr. Atkey as a shark. I did not want to do that. I never intended to do that. Mr. Atkey is not a shark. He is a prominent and good lawyer. I have dealt with him in the past.
He has not approached me. 1 read Hansard and I realized that I would be doing a terrible disservice if I left my remarks as they were in Hansard. I tried to clarify the matter outside the House with the press. I kept to the point that I was trying to make in the House that there were rip-offs in Hong Kong and because of the uneasiness there a lot of lawyers, including Mr. Atkey, had flocked to Hong Kong. I did not want to convey the impression and I do not want to convey the impression that Mr. Atkey is in any way a shark. I want to clarify that and to withdraw that remark. I do not think it has caused Mr. Atkey any problem, but if it has I apologize to him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just look at the newspapers.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think that clears up the matter and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to do so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's point is not a question of privilege, but he has made his point.


MR. SARGEANT-ALLEGED LEAK OF REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has also received notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant). The Chair would like to make one observation. The Chair will hear the Hon. Member but his point of privilege apparently relates to a report of a committee that has not yet been laid before this House and it is impossible for the Chair to decide the Hon. Member's question of privilege until such time as such report will have been laid before this House.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly because that report has not been laid before the House that 1 feel my privileges as a Member of this House have been violated. I refer specifically to the report on Indian Self-Gov-

November 3, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
ernment, the contents of which have been widely covered in much of today's press.
First 1 shall read Citation 647 of Beauchesne, which states in part:
The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to Members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.
Let me elaborate briefly on my personal concern. I consider the subject matter of this report to be of great importance to all Canadian natives. I sat on this committee very briefly last spring and I have been looking forward for some months now to the final report of that Committee.
1 would point out that in my constituency there are 11 reserves. The chiefs of all of these reserves have been following this exercise, this study of self-government, very closely. In recent weeks a number of those chiefs have asked me if they could get copies of this report. 1 had to inform them that the report was confidential until such time as it was tabled in the House. 1 promised to make this report available to them as soon as it was tabled in the House.
1 have been told by our caucus representative on that Committee, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), that the report will not now be tabled until at least November 14.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that next week during the break 1 have already scheduled a number of meetings with chiefs in my constituency to discuss any number of concerns. You can well imagine that the first question will be: Why can we not have copies of this report when it is now widely circulated? To say the least, Mr. Speaker, 1 will be a touch embarrassed to have to admit to them that even Members of Parliament cannot get their hands on this report while much of the press have seen it. Given that this report has been so widely covered, 1 am not sure what kind of credibility they will attach to my disclaimer. According to one rumour 1 picked up this morning-I stress it is only a rumour-there are now 150 copies of this report circulating outside the House of Commons. I do not want to be critical at all of the press for the role it has played in this matter. After all, the press was only doing its job in reporting this leak. But I must be critical of some unnamed and indeed unknown member of that Committee- the only possible source of that leak would be somebody on the committee-who showed no concern for the rights and privileges of all Members of this House by leaking the report.
From my own personal point of view, the only possible solution would be for the chairman of that Committee to table that report in this House right now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Not to do so will continue to violate the privileges of all Members of this House.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following motion:
Whereas the publication of the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government before it has been reported-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 call to the attention of the Hon. Member that before he can move a motion the Chair has to find a prima facie question of privilege. The Chair indicated at the beginning its concern that, not being in possession of the report of the Committee, it is quite impossible for the Chair to determine whether or not there was a leak. The Chair is quite prepared to listen to the Hon. Member's statement. If the Hon. Member wants to say that if a prima facie question of privilege were found he would then be prepared to move such a motion, that would be in order.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Thank you for your advice on this matter, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that it has been so widely reported in today's press and will continue to be reported over the next day or two, I do not think there is any doubt that the report has been leaked. If you do find there has been a prima facie case of a breach of privilege I would at that time like to move the following motion:
Whereas the publication of the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government before it has been reported to the House breaches the privileges of Members of this House;
I move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for investigation to discern how and why this document was released before it had been reported to the House.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member opposite. I would like to respond briefly as chairman of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. It is regrettably true that not the report but an early version of the report has come to the public's attention. Anyone who has been here for any length of time at all knows that we live in a very leaky ship. I am surprised that the whole system has not sunk by now.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: You are on the Titanic.


B. Keith Penner: Despite that, it seems to be more or less afloat. Who leaked the report or for what reasons, it is impossible to say. I do not think it really much matters at this point.


John Horton McDermid: You know what reasons.


B. Keith Penner: However, I do think a couple of points should be made. First, the effect of leaking a copy of a report prior to the final version is unfortunate, not for Members of this House but for the Indian people of Canada. The positive impact of that report is certainly blunted to a considerable extent.
This was a serious attempt by Parliamentarians from all political parties, plus some very dedicated and enlightened Indian leaders, to make a positive contribution to Indian policy in this country and move us out of the current situation which is unacceptable to everyone. It is regrettable that this leak took place and that the Indian people themselves are adversely affected.
I do want to say to the Hon. Member who asked the chairman to rise in his place immediately and table the report that I regret that I am unable to do that for the simple reason

November 3, 1983

that 1 act on the authority of the Committee itself. The committee met and by way of motion it was agreed that on November 14 that report would be tabled in the House.
I recognize that the passage of one week will be difficult for Indian leaders and for some Members of Parliament who are anxious to engage in dialogue on this report. I also know that when it is tabled next Monday it will no longer be current and much of the news media will no longer have interest in it.


Erik Nielsen: A week Monday?


B. Keith Penner: Of course the serious press will continue to take some interest in it. However, I want to say that this report was never intended to be just a one-day flash in the pan, anyway. This report was designed by Hon. Members to make a lasting contribution to Indian policy in the country. Although there is a one-week delay, I think it will stand the test of time and prove to be a very notable contribution to Indian policy in Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is an outstanding question of privilege which has to be decided by the Chair. I wish very briefly to add my submission with respect to that matter so that it might be considered thoroughly by the Chair before rendering a decision on the question of privilege raised. We now have not simply an allegation of the leakage of a confidential committee report; we have an admission by the Chairman of that committee that indeed there was a leak of an official confidential report of the committee. We just cannot let the matter die there. There is no authority in the Chair, I respectfully submit, to order any production, but there is certainly authority in the Chair to refer the circumstances, as set out in the motion of the Hon. Member who raised the matter, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
If that is not done, then there is a cloud which hangs over every single Member who worked on that committee. At least the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections should have the opportunity to come to the conclusion, to which it may well come, namely, that no Member of Parliament sitting on that committee had anything to do with the leakage of that report. At least that much should be the subject of inquiry.
1 listened carefully to the terms of reference which the Hon. Member set out. I suggest that the Chair take them under very serious consideration before coming to any conclusion. If there is a prima facie breach, which seems to be quite evident on the basis of the admission of the Chairman himself, then the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in the form that was presented by the hon. gentleman who raised the question.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. The Chairman of the committee said that he could not release the report because of a motion which took place within the committee. The Chairman is aware that there was a division of opinion
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant
within the committee on the date of release for the report. 1 would ask if the Chairman would consider calling an emergency meeting of the special committee to reconsider the question of the date of the release of the report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will hear interventions and has one or two observations to make.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, clearly we have a report here that is of vital interest to the Indian community of the country. It is now admitted that it has been made public and that it is not available to other Members of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, perhaps between the time when you make your ruling as to whether or not this matter needs to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Members of the House who are on that committee could hold a brief and expeditious meeting and release the report today before the earlier report becomes too widely circulated, so that accurate information could be made available to Members of Parliament and to the Indian community.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has two difficulties at this point; it will hear the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish).


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be very brief on the same question of privilege.
1 sat for a short period of time on that committee, and 1 do not have access to a copy of the report. I am in a similar situation as the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) who raised the question of privilege, in that 1 have meetings arranged for the November break with some of the 17 Indian bands within my riding. It is very embarrassing. There is a breach of privilege in the fact that we do not have access-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) made that point very clearly. Does the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) have anything to add at this point? The Chair has one or two concerns it wishes to express.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 have an observation and then a submission to make to the Chair as a result of the submissions made after mine. First, the suggestions I have heard with respect to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), as Chairman of that standing committee, convening another meeting to review the situation sounds eminently sensible. That still does not absolve the Chair of the responsibility of making a decision on the question of privilege which has been raised. Whatever the committee now does is up to the committee, but certainly the question remains outstanding. I submit that there has been a breach of privilege, and that the motion should be referred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear Hon. Members if they have anything additional to add, but I do not like to hear a mere repetition of argument.


Erik Nielsen: It is not a repetition.

November 3, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Sargeant


Yvon Pinard: Quite briefly, Mr. Speaker, I will say that we on this side of the House do not feel that there has been a breach of privilege. These questions of privilege are quite limited and must lead you to conclude that there has been a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. That essentially is the basis for a question of privilege. As to the issue raised in the House, 1 suggest there is absolutely nothing to support the allegation that Hon. Members have been prevented from carrying out their duties; we submit, therefore, that you cannot rule that there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. Whatever you decide, we will act accordingly.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair invites the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake not to repeat the arguments of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to you and the Chair. I did not feel I was repeating the arguments of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake. I also feel there has been a breach of privilege, which I was trying to voice. I would have appreciated you hearing me out until the conclusion of my remarks and showing me the respect that I show for the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has to show respect to the Chair. If the Hon. Member has an additional point to raise, the Chair requests him to get to it. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake very explicitly indicated the position he was in through not having access to the report, and the Hon. Member says that he is in the identical position. Fine, now what else does he have to add to that?


Some Hon. Members:: Nothing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In that case the Chair will make two observations. First, the Chair is not in any way attempting to avoid its responsibilities, but the Chair very appropriately must seek counsel and defer at this point.
The second concern of the Chair is a very real one of having one committee of the House investigate the work of another committee of the House, moving something to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to investigate what took place in the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). The suggestion of the Hon. Member for Yukon is an eminently good suggestion, that the Chairman could call members of his committee together to see what they can agree to do in these circumstances. The Chair makes the suggestion to the Chairman, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior, that he seriously consider such a request. The Chair is not in a position to direct committees. The Chair is only in a position to decide matters placed before it, and the Chair at this point will defer.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Spekaer, I rise on a point of order. I think if you will check the record you will see that the suggestion to
which you referred as coming from the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) did not in fact come from him but, rather came from the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) also made the suggestion very clearly, and the Chair in no way wishes to detract from the eminently sensible and precise contribution of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, was presented by the Hon. Herb Gray, President of the Treasury Board and read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the House.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 63 I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1983-84, tabled this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
Mr. Speaker, since the list is rather long, I believe there is unanimous consent that it be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
That the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1983-1984, tabled this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Agriculture Votes lb, 5b, 15b, LI6b and 20b To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 40b and 55b Secretary of State Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 25b, 30b and 40b To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b and 16b National Defence Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Economic Development Vote lb Finance Votes lib, L15b and 25b
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes lb, 10b, L41b, 45b, 50b and 65b National Revenue Vote lb
November 3, 1983

To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b and 25b Fisheries and Oceans Votes lb, 2b, 5b and 10b To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes lb, 5b and 6b National Health and Welfare Votes lb, 10b, 15b, 25b, 30b, 35b, 45b, 50b and 55b
Social Development Vote lb
To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes lb, 5b, 15b, 20b, 30b, 35b, 40b, 45b and 58b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Votes lb, 5b, 15b, 30band 50b Solicitor General Vote lb
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes 5b, 10b, 15b and 35b Labour Votes lb and 5b
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Governor General Vote lb Privy Council Votes lb and 2b
Science and Technology Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b, 25b and 30b Secretary of State Vote 35b Supply and Services Vote 10b Treasury Board Votes lb and 10b
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes lb, 25b, 26b, L31 b, 35b, 40b, 50b, 55b and 76b
Public Works Votes 6b, 20b, 40b, 55b, 56b, 57b, 70b and L75b To the Standing Committee on Regional Development Regional Economic Expansion Votes 20b and 30b To the Standing Committee on Transport
Transport Votes lb, 10b, 45b, 46b, 55b, 60b, 65b, 75b and L95b To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Vote lb


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Robert Gourd: Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct honour to table the fourth, fifth and sixth reports of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by my constituents who are concerned that the repayment of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation assistance for mortgage pay-
Petitions
ment in the form of interest reduction loans, they will be in a situation where the homes that they live in will be mortgaged for more than the original mortgage five years previous. They are concerned that in order to satisfy repayment of the interest reduction loan with current interest rates and other economic conditions, they will experience additional severe financial and emotional stress. Finally, they know that since the existing policy recognizes that need for assistance in the form of "grants" as opposed to "interest reduction loans", they, the undersigned, call upon Parliament to enact legislation that will forgive repayment of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation assistance for mortgage payments in the form of interest reduction loans. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the duty and honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Fraser Valley West, expressing support for Canada's full participation in the NATO and NORAD alliances and requesting that Canada honour its obligations toward the defence of the free world and take all necessary action, including the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada to achieve these goals. The nature of the petition is to indicate that in the face of Soviet conventional and nuclear military superiority and intransigence in seriously negotiating at the START INF and MBFR talks that unilateral disarmament initiatives would have a destabilizing and regressive effect on the reduction of weapons. The purpose of this petition is, therefore, to support the concept of the balance of power and negotiating from a position of mutual strength as the foundation of pursuing both security and disarmament to lower levels of armaments through mutual balanced and verifiable reductions.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned 14,000 residents of the area of Corner Brook, Newfoundland, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the Government of Canada proposed to construct a forestry research centre in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and that preliminary funds for this purpose were allocated in the federal budget and that the Ministry of the Environment and Mr. Brian Tobin, M.P., indicated publicly that the Government of Canada would construct the forestry research centre in Corner Brook if the Government of Newfoundland agreed to relocate the provincial forestry service from St. John's to Corner Brook, which has been accomplished and that

November 3, 1983
Petitions
a sight selection committee was appointed by the Government of Canada to find a suitable location and the provincial Government has offered the preferred sight in Corner Brook free of charge.
Wherefore, we the undersigned, the petitioners, being of the full age of 18 years and being residents of the city of Corner Brook, 14,000 Humber Valley, the Bay of Islands, hereby petition the Government of Canada to proceed immediately with the construction of a federal forestry research centre in the city of Corner Brook. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition regarding the Crow rate, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance common to your petitioners, humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year. This grain in turn contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow, that is, no change. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions to present this afternoon. All of them are with regard to the Crow rate. The first petition I have is signed by residents of Conquest and Bounty, Saskatchewan. They have addressed this petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternate plan presented by the New Democratic Party and that the Crow rate must be maintained. In addition, the railways of all Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.
The undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternate plan, which will not change the Crows-nest freight rate agreement. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is from residents of Eston; all farmers from Eston, Saskatchewan. They present a petition to the honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The residents state that they have paid their fair share in terms of Canada's economy. They view their right to the maintaining of the statutory Crowsnest Pass Agreement as their constitutional right, and that without this provision to have their preferential rates for shipping their products to the ports of Canada and to the export markets they will be adversely effected. They fear that many farmers in Saskatchewan will be jeopardized if this Government puts through its planned changes to kill the Crow rate in Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
The next petition 1 have is from residents of Biggar, Saskatchewan. The residents of Biggar have also asked that I express their concern through this petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The undersigned residents, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that they are concerned, like the people from Eston, and that the undersigned carefully considered the alternate plan of the New Democratic Party. They want the Crowsnest freight rate maintained. The railways of all of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system which in their particular instance would allow for better movement of the grains that they produce in western Canada.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the position of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This petition is from farmers in the Lashburn area. These farmers are concerned that the dismantling of the statutory Crow rate will adversely affect the farms that they presently occupy in the Lashburn area. This will have a very adverse effect on the economy, not only of the farmers but also on the small businesses. They fear that if branch lines are abandoned because of Bill C-155, the communities will also suffer. If you look at the community of Lashburn they point out it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more within the next seven years if in fact Bill C-155 passes.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
There are signatures on this petition from Biggar, Saskatchewan, and Landis. The petitioners have asked me to present this petition to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition is from the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. The undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan of the New Democratic Party. They state very clearly that they want the Crowsnest Pass Agreement to be maintained and the rail
November 3, 1983

system that presently moves their grain to market to be upgraded into a modern and efficient transportation system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This petition has been sent to me by constituents of the Kindersley-Lloydminster riding, all of whom are people involved in the agricultural sector in the Unity area. They are concerned that this Government wants to push through Bill C-155 which has become known as an Act to change the Crowsnest Pass agreement. They want this agreement to be maintained. They are asking that Bill C-155 not be passed by this Parliament. They want the representatives here to act in the best interests of the people involved in agriculture in Canada.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This petition comes from residents of Marshall and Lloyd-minster areas. They have personally written to me and asked that I present their petition today in the House of Commons. The petition is from the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy. They are concerned that the Crow rate must be maintained, and they do not want the passage of Bill C-155 as it is now before the House. They prefer to see the Bill split into three distinctive and separate areas, first dealing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 presume the Hon. Member is reading distinctly from the document-a perusal of the document he put on the Table will verify that-and is not making a speech or ad-libbing at this point. Otherwise, 1 invite him to confine himself to the petitions.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to confine myself to the petitions. 1 am going through them as expeditiously as possible. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to give the title of the petition, what it represents, a very brief description and the prayer, as has been ruled previously in this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will draw to the Hon. Member's attention that he appears to be going a little beyond the usual format, and I invite him to conform to it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member presenting his petitions that what he is in effect doing is denying the rights of Members of the House of Commons to debate the Crow legislation. The longer they go on with those petitions, the less time we still have under time allocation for
Petitions
debating the Crow legislation. We have to finish at six o'clock tonight. That leaves us two hours and five minutes to debate the final stages of the report stage of this legislation. The longer he goes on with petitions, the more it eats into that debating time of Members of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's point is well taken. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague has only two other petitions to present. 1 wish the Conservatives had thought of that on the day the Minister moved time allocation when they purposely kept us from having a chance to speak.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I will respect your call to go more precisely to the point on the petitions. I also respect the intervention of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). 1 did learn about the thrust of presenting petitions when their own Party delayed for an entire afternoon in the House by presenting petitions of a much less relevant nature.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 would appreciate the Hon. Member getting to the point. Would he please state his position?


Douglas Keith Anguish: 1 cannot really remember where I was on this petition, Mr. Speaker.
The thrust of the petition is-


Erik Nielsen: Do you remember where you are?


Douglas Keith Anguish: -that the constituents of the Province of Saskatchewan who sent this have asked that the Crow rate be maintained and that Bill C-155 not pass and they support the alternative plan of the New Democratic Party.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I do have several other petitions, but 1 will not take up the time of the House today. TThe Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has indicated that I would present one more petition, and I will do that and resume my seat.
This petition is signed by people in the Province of Saskatchewan and also the Province of Ontario. The undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party. They feel that the Crow rate must be maintained and Bill C-155 must not go through in its present form. They also want the railways of all of Canada, not only in their own areas, to be upgraded into an efficient and modern transportation system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass Agreement. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

November 3, 1983
Order Paper Questions
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for indulging me the time to present these petitions.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty, seeing there are only a few more days of Crow debate, to present a petition on behalf of the undersigned petitioners from the region of Prince Albert. We, the undersigned, do hereby signify our objection to changes to Crow rate rail freight rates as proposed in Bill C-155. We pray the Parliament of Canada to defeat this Bill on the grounds that it guarantees economic hardship for Canadian agriculture while assumingly proposing benefits.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions. Could 1 have the unanimous consent of the House to dispense with the reading of a fairly lengthy list of motions standing in the name of various Members?


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, we would be quite pleased to grant unanimous consent with respect to that, with the reservation that it be for this day only.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time since this morning to look over the motions standing on the Notice Paper, particularly in the light of what unanimous consent means. 1 must tell you that I came to the conclusion that perhaps they should be read. With the benefit of hindsight, however, I have decided that today might not be the best day. We will give unanimous consent for this final day.


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. 4,822 and 4,892.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982, what percentage of RCMP recruits who completed basic training in Regina were (i) Anglophone (ii) Francophone?
2.	What percentage of RCMP recruits who will be completing basic training in Regina in the calendar year 1983 are (a) Anglophone (b) Francophone?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so far
as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are concerned: Comparative statistics are recorded only by fiscal year and by First Official Language French (FOLF) or English (FOLE).
I. (a)to(c)
1980/81 FOLF 8 per cent FOLE 92 per cent
Total 921
1981/82	FOLF 25 per cent FOLE 75 per cent	
1982/83	FOLF 30 per cent FOLE 70 per cent	
1983/84	FOLF 75 per cent FOLE 25 per cent	(anticipated) (anticipated)
Total 24
2. Only 24 recruits are expected to engage in the fiscal year 1983/84 and will graduate in March 1984. Twelve of these recruits are F.O.L.F. and were engaged in April, 1983 to undertake English language training at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Academy in Regina. Twelve more recruits are to be engaged in September, 1983 to join the first group engaged in April. Selection of the 12 recruits for the September group has not been made as yet but it is anticipated that both official language groups will be equally represented.


Mr. Parker: How many persons in the constituency of Kootenay East-Revelstoke were unemployed in the first quarter of 1983?


John (Moody) Roberts: The number of persons on U.l. (regular and fishing only) in the constituency of Kootenay East-Revelstoke for the months of January, February and March, 1983, amounted to 4,608, 5,535 and 5,675 respectively. These statistics do not include special benefits such as sick leave, maternity leave and retirement which are not recorded by constituency office.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again I rise to make an inquiry with respect to the response to a question which has been on the Order Paper for some time. 1 have raised it on a number of occasions. It is a starred question. I do not want this Parliament or the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to forget for one moment that, notwithstanding the attitude of the Government with respect to positions in this House, we still believe that starred questions should be responded to orally and quite rapidly.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, we obviously have an argument with that and we have raised it before, with regard to the timing of answers to starred questions. I can certainly not forget the starred question that the Hon. Member has in mind, with all the respect that I have for the Hon. Member and the request that he has made before.


Mr. Parker:: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary. He has notified us today that Question No. 4,892, which is standing in my name, is being answered today. In fact, it was answered last week.
November 3, 1983

Last week I asked that Question No. 4,894 be answered. I hope that it was his intention to answer Question No. 4,894, because those coal lands are very important to me. I wish to have the question answered that I asked last May.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that there is a mistake. I will check and make sure that Question No. 4,892 was answered and not Question No. 4,894, to make sure that the Hon. Member's question is answered as promptly as possible.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, not only is there a mistake, but the number is also wrong. The information I have is that the answer to this question today is in the name of the Hon. Member for McKenzie (Mr. Korchinski) who was asking a question with regard to the RCMP. That has nothing to do with the question I asked. The question I asked is in the name of the Hon. Member for Mackenzie. There certainly is a mix-up.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, 1 brought it to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary several days ago that some of my questions had not been answered. They referred to the guest list for the state dinner held in honour of Her Majesty in Victoria and Vancouver earlier this year.
I know it is the perogative of the Government to invite whomever it wishes, but the list is public property. 1 just want to determine whether admittance to state dinners was gained by flashing a Liberal membership card or if there was some other way of getting to the dinner.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure you that flashing a Liberal membership card would not get you through the door.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Orders of the day.



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 Motion No. 58 (Mr. McKnight).
Western Grain Transportation Act
Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I will try to continue my remarks on the Conservative Motion No. 58. When I was speaking before lunch 1 was interrupted several times.
1 should like to recap some of my comments. 1 was trying to put forward several arguments. First, the Government does not like to listen to opposition, regardless where it comes from. That is an erosion of democracy in the country. Second, there is no difference between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. Had the Conservative Party been the Government or should it become the Government, or had the Liberals not tried to force the Bill through-I would remind Hon. Members that it is not through yet-then the Conservative Party would have brought it in. The Conservatives should realize the negative impact of the legislation on many communities along small branch lines in western Canada.
The Conservatives often say that the NDP Members are not very knowledgeable on this subject as not many Members of this Party hold permit books. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that some Members of the New Democratic Party who sit in the House are permit book holders. They know as much about grain transportation as anyone in the House; in fact, in most cases they know more about it.
The Conservative Party has put forth many arguments which do not relate to grain transportation. They have asserted that the NDP does not want the Crow rate to be maintained. I say that we do; we have always stood behind the statutory rate and we will always voice our concern.. We want the Crow rate maintained.
The Conservatives started out wanting the Crow rate to be dismantled. Now they claim that they want the Crow rate to be maintained and that Motion No. 58 in the name of one of their Members is designed to put pressure on the rail companies to give better service.
1 do not know if those Conservatives who claim to be permit book holders are talking as grain shippers; I think the term is "bull shippers". The things they have said did not have a lot to do with the transportation of grain. The only other agricultural commodity involved would be livestock, so I think "bull shippers" would be more appropriate than grain shippers when applied to Members of the Conservative Party.
The change in the Conservative position is phenomenal. Just let us look at the effects of this in western Canada. They claim that Motion No. 58 will ensure that grain companies provide better movement for grain. I say that that is a false contention. The same thing appears in Section 262 of the Railway Act. In the Battlefords-Meadowlake we have not had good movement of grain or good rail transportation for many years.
My constituency contains about 70,000 square miles and not one passenger train moves through that entire section of Canada. There are branch lines going into such places as Meadow Lake where you cannot take a hopper car in. If you rode a hopper car in you could not haul it out because the rail is so light the track would buckle under the weight of a fully loaded car.

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
If Bill C-155, the concoction of Liberals and Conservatives, goes through, it will cost the people who haul to the Meadow Lake delivery point, $1,438,000 more per year than they are paying at the present time.
Look at the situation in the city of North Battleford. I am not referring to the town. It will cost the city $1,155,000 more per year for the delivery point at North Battleford. Battleford, which is often referred to as The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, because there is a town on one side of the river named Battleford and on the north side of the river there is the city of North Battleford, is a delivery point which will cost the producers who haul there each year, $917,000 a year more to haul their grain to the market. We feel that is unfair. Hon. Members criticized the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) when he said the legislation was a piece of fluff. But the legislation is a piece of fluff. There is no protection for the producers. There are all kinds of written in protection for the rail companies. Motion No. 58, as presented by the Conservative Party, should in fact say at the conclusion that if that performance is not met by the rail companies in Canada, they do not get any return; their investment is guaranteed by the Government of Canada. If they do not provide the service, they can suffer the loss. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that at certain times the rail companies do give good service, but we are dependent upon their inclination as to whether they want to move the grain from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency or whether they do not want to move the grain. It is not working, Mr. Speaker. You cannot whitewash the rail companies to the people and farmers in The Battlefords-Meadow Lake who rely on agriculture. They not only know that this legislation is not in their best interests, they also know that the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberals certainly do not represent their best interests. Otherwise this piece of legislation would not be before Parliament.
If the Conservative Party really wanted to protect the best interests of the farmers, it could have broken this Bill into the three sections, which the New Democratic Party recommended. Because of the complexities of this legislation, we wanted the Bill broken up into three distinct areas: first, an area dealing with the statutory rate for the movement of grain in western Canada; second, a section dealing with the upgrading and improvement of the rail transportation system; and third, a section dealing with the Dominion coal blocks. If the Conservative Party had the best interests of our producers at heart it would have supported us in this intent. The Conservative Party did that when there was a Bill for the oil companies before the House. It let the bells ring for 14 days in the House of Commons, holding Parliament to ransom. Those Hon. Members did it for the oil companies, but they sure will not do it for the farmers of western Canada, Mr. Speaker. They backed down. They know they would do exactly the same thing that the Liberals are doing today.
What motivates that Party to do that? I do not know for sure. Is it the $50,000 a year which CPR gives not only to the Liberal Party, but to the Conservative Party of Canada as
well? Regardless of which of the major political Parties gets elected in Canada, the best interests of CPR are protected.


Jack Burnett Murta: Talk about how much CN gives the two political Parties. Tell us about the CNR.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Some Tory Members are asking about the CNR. The CNR came about back in the 1920s because of Liberal and Conservative administrations which had allowed a number of rail companies to develop in Canada, which all became bankrupt. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was about to go under because of the heavy loans it had made to bankrupt rail companies which had received patronage from Liberals and Conservatives. Finally, the Government at that time decided to save the Liberals, Conservatives and the banks of Canada and form one national railway company. As the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) said, "Socialism for the wealthy". When the CNR finally came about, it was at a bit of a disadvantage as a national transportation company, a Crown corporation, because as we all know-at least we all should know-it came into being with a debt in excess of $1 billion.
That is not much in terms of Government spending today, Mr. Speaker, but back in 1923, $1 billion was a lot of money to be handed over to a railway company which was not even expected to succeed. Some people still question whether the CNR has succeeded. I believe is has done amazingly well with the debt load it had when it started out back in the 1920s. That is the story of the CNR, Mr. Speaker. It has never been on as favourable a footing with a government-whether Liberal or Conservative-as Canadian Pacific Railway has.
Before I conclude my remarks I think I should also mention the windfall which has been given to CPR. It was supposed to receive, over its period of existence, some 43 million acres of land and several hundred millions of dollars. In fact, if you take all the benefits which have been given to CPR since its beginning, added on to present day dollars, its entire assets have been paid for by the Canadian people. Of course, it should give good service from time to time. However, I maintain it could have done a little better in terms of taking branch lines, like the one in Meadow Lake, and making sure one could haul a fully loaded hopper car out over that CP line. It should also have made sure that its sidings in such places as Denholm and Brada are sufficient to unload enough boxcars so that the elevators are not plugged for a good portion of the year.
There have been some problems with the movement of grain. I would not want to say it is all because of Canadian Pacific or Canadian National. The root of the problem lies here in this House, Mr. Speaker, with Hon. Members who have an ignorance of the grain transportation system in this country. Hon. Members from the Conservative and Liberal Parties have continually propped up the rail system of grain transportation in this country. So I do not blame the rail companies, Mr. Speaker. I blame the inadequate administration of Conservative and Liberal Governments which have ruled this country since 1867. Hon. Members should not try to lay the blame on the New Democratic Party. They should not
November 3, 1983

try to lay the blame on the producers of western Canada. The blame lies here with inept Governments which have led this country into the state it is in right now.
If this Bill goes through, even with motion No. 58, we will find ourselves in a situation where the farmers of western Canada cannot compete in the international markets. Once that happens we will be working for legislation a few Parliaments from now-


Jack Burnett Murta: Order.


Douglas Keith Anguish: -asking for help for the farmers of western Canada because they cannot meet the financial obligations which have been placed on them by these Governments over so many years.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to try to clear up a couple of points before I deal with the particular motion. These were points made by two or three former speakers. The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), in spite of the fact that the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) challenged him this morning to give proof that the Progressive Conservative Party would bring in this Bill if we were in power, continued that allegation this afternoon. The NDP is pretty devoid of arguments which are sound if it has to dream things up for which it has no proof. The Hon. Member is having a hallucination. In no way would a Progressive Conservative Government ever present this Bill the way it is today. The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake should accept that. He has no proof that we would do it because no proof exists. The very fact that we have opposed this Bill indicates that we would not bring in this type of legislation. I will not spend any more time on this because it is a hallucination and the people out there will know it.
The Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Demers) said that the Progressive Conservative Party did not know what it stood for, or words to that effect. I believe the people of Canada know where we stand. 1 would just like to reiterate where we stand. We have not waffled at all on this matter. We supported the former Minister of Transport in setting up a commission to study the anomalies which existed for western Canada and try to solve them. We spent $400,000 of the taxpayers' money on a report. The various grain, cattle, hog and processing people spent probably close to $1 million in arriving at a consensus. Then, when Gilson reported that he wanted the money to be divided 81/19 to start with and then gradually reverse it so that eventually the producer got most of the money, we supported that stand. That would have been sensible. As Gilson said, in no way should you give all that money to the railways, but we would give the increased freight to the railways so they could have a paying proposition. The shortfall would go into the pockets of the producers to help pay for the increased freight. That was a sensible arrangement. But then what happened? The Liberals waffled. Then they went 50/50. They said we will give half to the producers and half to the railways. That was not as good as the Gilson report but it was better than nothing. It would have helped to eliminate the
Western Grain Transportation Act anomalies in the cattle, hog and processing industries. It would have given the West half a chance to reach its potential in agriculture.
What happened after that? The Government eliminated the Gilson report, and this number one item was out, no longer could it be discussed. So then came the number two alternative; the 50/50 came up. We generally supported that because some of the money would go into the pockets of the producers who are now on a reduced income. Their income is 25 per cent or 29 per cent lower this year than it was last year, and last year was lower than the year before. As the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has said time and again, where is the producer going to get this money for the increased freight? Well, that shortfall would have done it.
Then the Government changed its mind again. It said it was going to give not only the increased freight rates to the railway, but the shortfall as well. We objected to that and we still object to it. It is not fair at all. It is completely contrary to what Gilson said. It was the very thing Gilson said not to do. In other words, we wasted $400,000 of the people's money. The industry wasted all the money they spent in trying to reach an equitable and sensible solution to this problem. Then Government said Gilson was no longer negotiable, and the 50/50 was no longer negotiable.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vegreville suggested another solution. He said, leave it up to the producers, let them have freedom of choice. That suggestion spread like wildfire across western Canada. That proposal would give each producer the chance to participate in Government, and it would have given the Government the chance to reflect the thinking of the people. But no, the Government would not accept that proposition. It said this is not acceptable, and it would not even include it for discussion. The Government said, "We have to give it whole hog to the railway, all of the shortfall and all of the increased freight rates". So what could this Party do then? Freedom of choice was gone and the Government was not even going to talk about it. Gilson was not negotiable, the 50/50 was not negotiable, the freedom of choice would not be considered, according to the Government. So what did we say? Well, freeze the freight rates. Put a three-year freeze on so the railway will not get those increased freight rates. They would still get the shortfall, the Government said. They could go ahead with their improvements but there would be no increase for the producer. But the NDP Members would not support that. They are the ones who waffled. They wanted to do something else. Under our proposal, at the end of the third year-at which time 1 would hope the PC Party would be in power-we could then do something to reflect the thinking of the people. But no, that was opposed by the Government and the NDP. It was in the interests of the producers of western Canada. It would have given us the opportunity to do something at the end of three years. In the meantime they would not have been stuck with these increased freight rates which they do not have the money to pay for.

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
No wonder, as the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) said this morning, every organization opposes this legislation. We are giving it all to the railways and doing nothing for the producer. We are destroying the potential of our cattle, hogs and processing industry.
During the term of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) we have seen our packing plants move east. We have seen our hog production in the West go down and down and it moved east. Now the Government is going to do the same thing to our cattle industry. No wonder the people in the West are saying we will never have a chance to play our part in building this country.
That is where we stand, Mr. Speaker. We have not waffled a bit. We have stood firmly to help the producer from square one, and he will be there at square "z" if it goes that far.
The Government says that the amendments introduced by the Hon. Member for Kindersiey-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) are just a repetition of the Transport Act and Railway Act. They are not. They put some teeth into this Bill. They put the Administrator in the place of the shipper. The shipper does not have money to pay for litigation. Lawyers are expensive these days, they cost hundreds of dollars. So what did we say? We will take the part of the producer. The Administrator will become the shipper and he will fight the case in court. The benefits will accrue to all producers. Let the Liberals and the NDP put that in their pipe and smoke it. All the benefits would accrue to all the producers in western Canada. We have not waffled, Mr. Speaker. We have stood for the producer, we stand now for the producer, and we will do so until the very end.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I join my colleagues in debating the closing stages of what has been a long, protracted and bitter debate over one of the most important changes to take place in western Canada possibly since Confederation. That, of course, is the whole question of the transportation system and where we go in terms not only of how it impacts on the grain farmer but also how the transportation system in western Canada impacts on the cattle producer, the coal, potash, sulphur and lumber industries and all of the commodities that are exported out of western Canada, and consequently how that impacts on the rest of Canada. Of course, as we all know, the impact will be substantial.
From a western point of view, it is certaintly with a good deal of sadness that we arrive at the voting stage on a Bill to which we on the Conservative side of the House have been opposed fairly substantially since it was first brought in. Previous speakers have indicated our feelings about where we as a Party would have liked to have gone in terms of the concept of this legislation, but the Bill itself has never been acceptable to our Party. In fact, the legislation itself is not acceptable to western Canada, the area in which it will have the greatest impact.
The various organizations that have come before the Standing Committee on Agriculture have indicated to Government and Opposition Members alike their concern for the legislation. Those concerns are virtually unanimous. At this stage of the legislation, the opposition to the legislation is almost unanimous in western Canada.
All of the grain companies in western Canada, including the pools, have grave concerns with and are very worried about the legislation. The United Grain Growers, for example, another very large grain company in western Canada, is against the legislation. The commodity groups are against the legislation. In fact, many commodity groups tell us they would sooner not see the Bill passed at all. Livestock interests are against the legislation. Truckers are not happy with the legislation. The railways, while they will obviously get more money, are not happy with the legislation. Individual farm groups are not happy with the legislation. Most Hon. Members of the House receive very few letters written by people who in any way at all congratulate the Government for what it is doing.
When the Government flies in the face of that kind of opposition, Mr. Speaker, there must be a substantial fall-out, not only politically for the Party but also for the country itself. We are getting this legislation that we do not want rammed down our throats through closure. The changes that will have to be made to this legislation because it is so unpalatable could very well be substantial and could take a number of years to bring about.
There is no question in the minds of any Hon. Members, except perhaps a few Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party, that Canada needs a better and more efficient grain handling system. There is no question at all about that, Mr. Speaker, because, as we look into the future, we know that the life blood of the country will flow as a result of the exports that are generated primarily in western Canada. We all know that those exports consist basically of raw materials and hopefully at some stage will include processed materials. Initially those exports include raw materials like grain, oilseeds, coal, potash, lumber, sulphur, etc. We do need a better system. We do not have that system at the present time.
The crux of the debate, Mr. Speaker, is surely the kind of system into which we evolve and whether that system treats all areas of interest on an equal basis. In effect, we do not need to have distortions. This is the key question that we have tried to work around throughout the entire debate. How can we best serve not only western Canadian interests but how can we best serve Canadian interests as a whole with a minimum of distortion taking place?
Many people in the country feel that a small step could have been made if we had listened more closely to the recommendations of the Gilson report. A number of Canadians, and probably a number of Members of the House of Commons, have agreed that even if we had taken more seriously the Pepin proposal of method of payment, which was 50 per cent to the railways and 50 per cent to the producers, we would have taken another more positive step down the road to some kind of fairness and equity. What we will have is something that
November 3, 1983

could only be described as a totally botched piece of legislation that satisfies no one because it will be implemented for all of the wrong reasons.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You were in the Chair when I spoke this morning on Motion No. 58. At that time, four Conservative Members drew to your attention, Mr. Speaker, by points of order, that I was not being relevant even though I was speaking on Motion No. 58. I have listened to the Hon. Member for five minutes now. Not once has he addressed himself to Motion No. 58. I enjoy listening to the Hon. Member because he makes good sense, but 1 think he should save that speech for third reading since it would be more relevant to third reading than it is to Motion No. 58.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, who is a good friend of mine, knows that Motion No. 58 is so broad that a number of topics may be debated. I suggest to him that my train of thought is very relevant to the debate on Motion No. 58 and to what other Members of the House have been talking about.
1 was basically indicating, Mr. Speaker, that in working toward the answer to the question of where we will go, we have come up with the worst possible piece of legislation. As has been mentioned before by a previous speaker, Hon. Members of the Conservative Party have indicated the general position that we would like to take.
The general position taken by the Conservative Party has been stated many times and is basically that the Conservative Party believes that the producer payment in the context of the Bill should be withheld for the next three years. There are three reasons for that position. First, the railways will receive enough money so that over the next three years or so the very necessary rebuilding program will in fact take place. We are assured of that. We feel comfortable that that will be the case. Capacity will not be cut back or curtailed because of a lack of funds.
As the Government has indicated, there will be a committee formed to study the method of payment. That committee will look basically at two methods of payment, one being the Alberta method and the other being the Manitoba Farm Bureau method, and hopefully some kind of equity can be introduced through that study. There is some uncertainty surrounding the method of payment.
Another reason for the position taken by the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, is that the farmer himself does not feel that he can pay that amount at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead rises on a point of order.


Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand the Hon. Member when he says he is a friend of my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, but I should like him to explain to us the relevance of this Motion No. 58 he is supposed to be dealing with.
______________________________________28697
Western Grain Transportation Act


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that 1 have only a minute and a half left. 1 would urge the Hon. Member to listen to what 1 am saying. What I am trying to describe is the general direction taken in the last few months not only by the House of Commons and the country itself but particularly by the Conservative Party in terms of this particular debate.
If I could be allowed, I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that the farmers themselves on the Prairies do not feel they should be paying any more money. When you look at the cash flow charts or sheets which the farmers produce, you find the highest cost they have is interest at the present time. So they feel, and 1 think rightly so, that there should not be an additional burden at this time. If you take those three elements, the uncertainty, the fact there is going to be a revision, the fact that the farmers do not feel that they should pay, there is every reason to wait until after this crucial review of the method of payment is over before payment should start. That is the direction we should be taking in the House of Commons. It is logical, it is rational, and it makes common sense to most producers in this country, and after that period of time, after the three years are up, we can decide with the producers in this country, and after that period of time, after the three years are up, we can decide with the producers and their organizations the direction in which the grain handling industry should proceed.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with great interest to the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta). He put on the record a great speech on behalf of his constituents and the people of western Canada. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) moved Motion No. 58. This motion is one the Government ought to consider seriously. It puts in place in this Bill the opportunity for the producer to have the benefit of having the railways deliver his grain. If the railways do not, the producer within these number of sections of Motion No. 58 has the ability to question that railway or railways and, through the Administrator, to take the railways to task if the producer feels he has lost money in any way as a result of the way the railways acted. This has always been a concern of mine. In this Bill we have very little in the way of being able to take the railways to task if they do not perform in the way we think they should perform given the subsidy that is being put forward. This motion which takes the good wording from the National Transportation Act and adds to it the shipper, adds to it the ability of the Grain Transport co-ordinator to act on behalf of the shipper in the courts. It makes eminent good sense and should be in the Bill.
We all know it is very difficult for an individual to go before the courts and discuss his case. Why is it difficult? Because in today's system it often costs a lot of money to do that. Very few farmers at the far end of a branch line have the ability to take a railway to task if it does not provide the service. In this motion which is being proposed, the farmer could complain to

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act the Grain Transport Administrator and he could act on the farmer's behalf and take the railway to task either through the Canadian Transport Commission or, 1 suspect, even as far as to the courts and say that the railways are not providing the service they ought to be providing under this legislation. That is why this motion is being proposed. The intention of putting this motion in the Bill is to give farmers in western Canada the opportunity to take the railways to task if they do not provide service.
It costs farmers a lot of money to have the railroads take those very efficient and huge locomotives and run them down branch lines. Neither company has ever proposed building a small locomotive capable of pulling four or five cars down a branch line. They run those huge heavy machines down branch lines and immediately the cost of the maintenance of the branch lines goes up. If in western Canada they had machines built to deliver cars to the mainlines in an efficient manner with very little expenditure attached, I am sure efficiency would go up tremendously. It would seem to me that that would be an interesting concept to look at. I believe Mr. Justice Hall in his report suggested a similar concept to that through the prairie rail authority. That suggestion did not go very far. It is not even looked at in this Bill. There is nothing in this Bill that says the railways need to provide an efficient service to the farmer to move his grain. Yet we are providing over $600 million a year, and over the next three years we are providing over $1 billion to the railroads. We have very little in this Bill to compel the railways to do anything as far as the producers of grain are concerned.
What does the Government say? What is the Government going to do to protect the producer? The Government has brought something forward called a safety net. It is a good idea. It is good protection. In fact, that is what the Crow rate was to the farmer. He would never pay more than one-half a cent per tonne mile. The new idea comes forward that the farmer would pay 4 per cent this year on an increasing rate to 10 per cent in 1988. That is the least he would pay to move his grain. But here is the catch. The catch is that it is an average of six grains moved. When you add up those six grains: rye, wheat, rapeseed, flax, barley and oats, it does not take much calculation to figure out that it would be impossible in five years, given that present grain prices stay reasonably the same, for any prairie farmer to ship barley or oats into the export market. Why do 1 say that? Look at the present prices-$9 approximately for canola, it is called rapeseed in the Bill; I am not sure of the price of rye, but it is about $2.84 a bushel; flax is in the neighbourhood of $8 per bushel; wheat by the end of this year will probably be in the neighbourhood of $6 a bushel; and then you come to oats and barley, barley being $2.30 a bushel and oats about $ 1.40.
When you average all of those together and besides put in the calculation for the number of tonnes moved to port, you will find that the average will probably be based at a little higher than the price of wheat. That means that in today's market, if this safety net is in place, the farmer would pay approximately 60 cents a bushel to move his oats and barley to
market. Given that price, it would be impossible for him to even take them out of his bin.
This safety net does not protect the farmers in western Canada who produce feed grains. It is only a proper safety net for those grains that are at the top of the price scale, namely wheat, rapeseed and flax. In the northern parts of our prairie Provinces there are very few farms capable of producing those grains. 1 suggest that if this is the answer the Government is proposing, it ought to take a very serious look at it.
This Bill as presented to us now under closure of debate needs substantial amendment or else the farmers' ability to pay to move grain to ports will be severely damaged. If we look at the desperate situation of most farmers today, we find they simply cannot, given present prices and cost of production, produce and move grain to export markets in the next few years if we do not have the freeze on the transportation of grain or if we do not have a proper safety net.
As the Members have said previously, if at least the money were paid to the producer he would have a chance to get his grain into the domestic market from the northern parts of the Provinces, to the feedlots, to the manufacturers of feed or food on the Prairies, he would have the money in his hands to transport by either rail or truck to those markets. But he does not even have that under this system. This Bill without the motion we are now debating, Motion No. 58, does not provide any protection to the producer at all. The Bill as it stands now without Motion No. 58 provides no protection to producers; it is a beautiful Bill for the railroads. They will be obtaining a substantial subsidy from Canadian taxpayers. If this Bill is not amended, western grain producers will be placed in serious jeopardy. If the amendments about which 1 have talked are not passed later tonight, there will be nothing in the legislation to assist livestock farmers, given the hurt which will result from the subsidy going directly to the railroads.
I have suggested that if the Government had not accepted the freeze, if it did not come forward with an adequate safety net it ought to have used the agricultural adjustment fund suggested by Mr. Gilson in his report. That $204 million, which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) says is still in the envelope, could be used to assist prairie livestock farmers until the review process is completed. This is just a last-minute desperate plea. We should not have to make such a plea to the Government. It ought to accept eminently sensible amendments which this Party has put forward in an attempt to improve the Bill, but that does not seem to be what the Government is intending. After this Bill is passed there is nothing in the way of the Government to prevent it from taking that agricultural adjustment fund, moneys which are supposedly in the envelope, to attempt to assist livestock farmers until we can put some reasonable sense in the legislation after the review process.
At present we are talking about Motion No. 58. Our Party has put forward many amendments which would improve the Bill; even the New Democratic Party has put forward one or
November 3, 1983

two amendments which would make it somewhat better. When we vote on the motions tonight, I ask Government Members to consider a number of them-and I am not referring to all of them-which will make the Bill even better, given that they have not accepted some of the very important amendments which were put forward. 1 hope the Government will do that and will look seriously at Motion No. 58.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the history of our country there are certain pieces of legislation which stand out as having been directives in terms of creating an economic climate in a given region or on a national basis which have had long-term effects. For example, we had the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. It was based on the principle that a fledgling country, largely separated by unsettled areas and an area which was getting a rudimentary transportation system, needed a national policy that would create in the heartland of Canada an industrial base which could serve the rest of the country. I do not have to tell Hon. Members what has been the effect of that legislation on the development of Canada's economic structure.
Transportation and land settlement through the Homestead Act have been a vital and integral part of the development of western Canada. It is important that this legislation was always regarded as a legislative framework which allowed western Canada to develop into the agricultural basin it has become. Having said that, it is important to note that the transportation system can in fact be improved. The status quo does not have to remain untouched.
However, when I look at the legislation before us, I have no doubt that it will hurt western Canada. I have no doubt in my mind that it will hurt the farmers I represent. I have no doubt that the farmers in my area will have less ability to determine how they want to conduct their farming operations. I have no doubt that they will have greater difficulty meeting their expenses and costs. I have absolutely no question in my mind that a number of them will not be able to maintain their farming operations as they are today.
I want to show in a very practical way why the proposals of the Government will simply not have the positive impact which it suggests. Motion No. 58 is another attempt to put into place a provision which will avoid what I think is not only a mistake but could have financially disastrous effect on farmers. This point was already begun by the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). There is the argument that a 10 per cent safety net is eminently reasonable. According to the Government's argument, 10 per cent of the price of the product is a valid amount of money to charge for the movement of a commidity. In a very practical sense, it has a very determining effect upon the manner of farming in many areas. Let me be very specific as it relates to my riding.
The riding of Provencher, unlike most Prairie ridings which have an east-west elongation, has a north-south elongation. In the southern part of my riding farmers have made tremendous strides in changing to higher return crops, almost always with concomitant higher risks. However, their return per acre has been enhanced by these new crops. For instance, for years it
Western Grain Transportation Act was not regarded as possible in certain parts of my area to grow dry corn. They are now doing it. We were always importing corn from the Iowa area. Now some of it is produced where we live. That is not where the problem is. The problem develops as we go further north and the different crops which can be grown become more limited. Eventually we reach an area where basically it is oats and barley or coarse grains. When we take a look at the weighted average and at the 10 per cent safety net, the weighted average of those crops, for the purpose of discussion today, would be approximately $5 to $6, and a 10 per cent safety net would result in a 50 cent to 60 cent cost be bushel. It is one thing to apply that amount of transportation cost against a grain which receives a relatively high return, but in an area where farmers are largely restricted to growing coarse grains, where barley might be going at $1.65 and oats at $1.90, we can see that the percentage of the cost of transportation rises well beyond 10 per cent because it is the weighted average. Therefore, when we make this plea to the Government today in the last hours before the voting is to be held, it is a very sincere one.
Day after day the Government says that this legislation must be passed because it will create more jobs. 1 am not arguing that it sincerely holds that point of view. However, if that argument is valid, surely the argument should apply and be valid that farmers who are now farming should be able to continue farming. That makes reasonably good sense. 1 can argue with the NDP Members about specifics, they can argue with me; I can argue with the Liberals and they can argue with me. The point I am trying to make is that under these provisions, some people will not be able to farm. I am saying that it might just be impossible. That is true for the parkland area of the Prairies. The Government is reducing the options which the farmers are going to have.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Hon. Member says no. When he says no, I hope that he understands the Prairies. The fact remains that there is no better expert in this House with regard to the livestock industry than the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave). I refer not only to his expertise but also his experience. Listen to a gentleman like that and what he says this means to the livestock industry. Members do not have to listen to me. They should listen to him.
When that Hon. Member speaks in the House about the livestock industry and the effect this legislation will have on it, he is not doing that simply from a self interest. If there is any plea I make to the House, it is that the Government look at some of the amendments and consider them seriously. If it is sincere about wanting to create jobs, by the same token this Bill should not reduce the ability to farm or restrict the ability of livestock producers to survive.
I have not had a chance to touch on other areas such as poultry. However, at 6 o'clock today when Government Members stand up, I ask them to consider that many of these

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act amendments are not Conservative amendments. The only way that farmers will be able to survive in parts of the Prairies is if the Government accepts these amendments.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 58. This motion cannot be considered a substantive motion because it is already in the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act. However, the fact that it is transferred to this Act may have some value. Consequently, we cannot say too much about having it here.
We have a few problems with the Bill. One is the designation of the Administrator as a shipper. Within the last year or so, the National Farmers Union took the railways to court. The case was thrown out. The court said the farmer could not be considered a shipper because the shipper was the Canadian Wheat Board.
In this Bill we have the definition of a shipper. It does not go with this amendment. This Bill is badly enough worded without creating further problems, such as the definition of a shipper. That will not help very much. We will probably accept this amendment. We support it because it may do something to strengthen the position of the farmers.
I very much agree with the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) in his analysis of what happens when you increase the freight. A large portion of the crop grown in my area is barley. It is a fairly major crop. We get 100 bushels to the acre and sell it very quickly in most cases. Therefore, it is a very important crop. If we receive $1.90 a bushel and have to pay 80 cents a bushel to ship it, there is no way that the producers in my area will go on producing barley. Therefore, barley will become less and less available. Who will be most affected?
The barley producers in my area will replace the barley with another crop such as canola, wheat, or flax. Therefore, hog producers in the Province of Quebec who depend on western barley will have to pay higher prices for feed from the United States or pay more for western barley. We will not grow it unless we get approximately $2 a bushel. That is what it costs to grow under almost all circumstances.
The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) mentioned the Gilson report. The Gilson report did play some part in this whole operation. Even though it may have been a very bad part, we have to look at it thoroughly.
At a cost to the Government, and therefore, the taxpayers of Canada, of $400,000, Mr. Gilson regurgitated almost exactly the instructions he was given by the then Minister of Transport. If you look at the terms of reference he was given and his final report in summary form, and it included a lot of pages, you find that they are almost identical. Therefore, he merely regurgitated the instructions he was given at a cost to the taxpayers of $400,000. It ended up being of very little value because it did not change the position the Government had taken previously, obviously because it was the decision of the Government.
As 1 said earlier, the amendment established the Administrator as a shipper. The courts have defined the shipper as the
Canadian Wheat Board. If you take away the responsibility of a shipper from the Board, you weaken the Board. Consequently, it does not make sense.
In the last couple of weeks we have received a number of presentations from numerous farm related groups. Just today the Canadian Wheat Board issued a press release in which it suggests that a motion like Motion No. 58, which attempts to put some teeth into the Bill, does not do that. This motion does not do enough to assure the Board that we in this Parliament should support or pass this Bill.
The advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board identifies three or four areas in the Bill which should be changed before the Bill is passed. The Board states that the rates should reflect the grain producers' ability to pay and to remain competitive in world markets. It should exclude variable rates. It should guarantee branch line rehabilitation. It should eliminate the volume cap and it should not affect the Canadian Wheat Board's power to purchase and transport grain. It affects all those matters. Therefore, the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board suggests that we should stop this Bill right now because if we leave those things it will do harm to the agriculture industry in the West.
There is no group in Canada that better represents the farmers or the grain producers than an elected group of representatives who are the advisers to the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Pool has made an almost identical appeal to this Government to stop this Bill. They say: "The transportation Bill does not contain the amendments we require with respect to safety net, volume caps, producers' share of cost and variable rates". Therefore, we can only conclude that this Bill should be thrown out.
It is very important in these last few hours of debate at report stage of the Bill that we look very carefully at the Bill and know how it is going to affect the grain producers. It is going to affect the grain producers, and the cattle and hog producers, not only in the West, but the hog producers in Ontario because Quebec hog producers will be competing for their feed. When that happens every organization related to agriculture will feel its effect. I assure you that not one Member on the Government side, in fact not one Member in this House, can really put his finger on exactly what the results of this Bill are going to be. We know it is going to be disastrous in certain areas for certain parts of the agricultural industry, such as the grain producers. It is going to eliminate the marginal producer. It is going to change the crop structure and the delivery structure. People who now depend on grain crops from the West are not going to get those grain crops because the producers cannot afford to grow them, let alone ship them. If that happens it will change the basic understanding and the relative relationship between the agriculture and processing industries in Canada. We do not know, and the Government does not know, what is going to happen. We do know that for a major group of people in this country this Bill is going to be a disaster. Western farmers now contribute $6
November 3, 1983

billion in foreign exchange every year. This contribution is going to be affected in a major way by changes in this Bill. They cannot afford to pay the freight rates that are being suggested here, and the safety net will not make any difference.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Motion No. 58. This is a motion proposed by our Party and sponsored by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).
It is a sad commentary on the makeup of the House of Commons when we look at the legislation that is before us and recognize the impact this is going to have on individual farmers. I am talking about the farmers in western Canada. It is a sad commentary on the makeup of this House of Commons when we find there is not one Member sitting on the Government side who directly represents farmers in western Canada. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) is from Winnipeg-Fort Garry, an urban centre. The Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) represents ah urban centre. There is not one Member of this House of Commons sitting on the Government side who represents the farmers in western Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the eloquence of the Hon. Member, but I would not want him to continue in his assertion without knowing the fact that in the riding of Winnipeg-Fort Garry there are at least seven or eight farms, and even more important, a UGG grain elevator. To suggest that there is no representation is not exact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. That is obviously a debate.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy that the Minister of Transport represents six or seven farmers. I am also happy that he represents the elevator companies. Certainly the legislation that is before the House is favourable to the elevator companies, as we on this side of the House have pointed out in committee time and time again. They were one of the biggest opponents to the freedom of choice payment where the producer, the little farmer, the farmer with 160 acres who is growing the crop, has the choice of deciding whether the money will go to the railroad or whether he gets it, which in turn protects the cattle industry and some of the processing industries in western Canada. Of course, this flew directly in the face of the elevator companies and their self-protection and self-interest.
When the committee travelled across the country, our Members put an awful lot of effort into this. The Opposition has been constantly barraged with press releases and statements by Members on the Government side saying that we are being obstructionist and are acting childishly and foolishly in holding up this Bill and trying to work on it.
During committee stage, 89 amendments were accepted on this very poorly drafted legislation. We have on the paper a further 80. This over-all legislation was so badly drafted that
Western Grain Transportation Act
an unprecedented number of amendments were accepted by the committee which, because of the makeup in numbers, is controlled by the Government.
I submit that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, through our Members on that committee, were doing an exceptionally fine job in trying to make this Bill acceptable to the farmers in western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, let us not oppose Motion No. 58 because it is presented by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster or because it is presented by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this House. Let us look at it and see what it really means. This is a long Bill but all it does is to incorporate Section 262 of the Railway Act. That is exactly what the Government wanted in the motion. We carry it slightly further and give it a little more teeth. We add paragraph 10 which says that the Administrator is deemed to be a shipper under Section 262. That means that because the Administrator is a shipper he is in a stronger position and is able to go to the railroads and force them to move grain at the toll imposed by this Act. All we are saying is that we should give the Administrator more power to act on behalf of those small farmers who need to ship their grain in order to earn a livelihood. We should give him the power to ensure that the tarrifs are correct, through the courts if necessary, and to force the railroads to move the grain. That is fair and it is a protection for the farmers.
Our amendment would provide that the railways must move the grain at the toll imposed by the Act. We would leave the rate structure where it is for three years. I have talked to many farmers at meetings in communities in my constituency such as Lac La Biche which some Hon. Members may never have heard of, and St. Lina, Bonnyville and Iron River. The farmers stated emphatically, and in most cases without opposition, that they are prepared to pay more to ship their grain but they cannot afford it now because their costs have increased so drastically. In some cases they have doubled and tripled. The cost of farm fuel has the federal tax in place, and so does the fertilizer costs because all of these are derived from petroleum products and so the petroleum gas revenue tax is included.


Mr. Dion:: No, no.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I am not ready to hear an interjection from the Hon. Member opposite. He does not represent the farmers of western Canada and he does not have a sense of what I am talking about.
Farmers are hurting out there. They phone every week to ask how they can hang on. Many of them have loans with the Farm Credit Corporation and with the banks and those institutions are coming down on their backs and threatening foreclosure.
How can we in the House justify putting another burden on the producer when grain prices are at an all-time low? Yet we are proposing another burden for the farmers. The effect of this Bill will be to take S400 million per year from western grain producers and transfer it to the railroads.

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Time and time again over the last 18 months 1 have seen the Government give that much money and double that much money to industries in central Canada, in Ontario and Quebec, without a qualm, because it claimed that this would save jobs. It is not saving jobs in western Canada; it is killing the farmers, Mr. Speaker. The Government will rue the day it brought this legislation forward. I implore the Government to institute the three-year freeze and give the farmer a little clout by passing Motion No. 58.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Earlier today following Question Period a question of privilege was raised regarding the leaking of a draft copy of a report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. Following that, the Speaker had conversations with me, as Chairman, and advised that the Committee should be reconvened to consider whether it would be wise for the Committee to table the report immediately rather than on November 14, in light of the fact that a draft copy had been leaked. Accordingly, we have met and, if the House agrees, I will table that report.
I seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the presentation of reports of standing and special committees.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, in this Party we are prepared to give unanimous consent to revert to motions.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the Committee on the move it has taken. On behalf of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sar-geant) who raised this important matter earlier today, and asked that the report be tabled, and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), who prompted the Committee action. We hope the tabling will forestall a very difficult situation that was about to arise.
The Committee has worked hard and it would have been a shame to have seen all that work undermined as a result of an inadvertence on the part of someone, whether a member of the Committee or otherwise. We are pleased to give unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the House agree to revert to the presentation of reports from standing and special committees?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its courtesy in altering the order temporarily.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government to which, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the Committee requests a comprehensive response. 1 submit this report in the two official languages of Canada.



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 Motion No. 58 (Mr. McKnight).
Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am quite pleased to deal with Motion No. 58 which was moved by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight).

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity of serving on the Special Committee on the resolution of the Crow rate all through the months we were discussing it. 1 want to tell Hon. Members that although I do not have any farms in my constituency, the first time I ran in St. Boniface it included quite a large agricultural sector. In 30 years in the construction industry, 1 built a lot of farms, granaries, silos and storage facilities for people in the grain producing business. I learned a great deal from those producers and I still have contact with producers in and around the city of Winnipeg and throughout Manitoba. 1 feel qualified to speak about what producers have to face in supplying grain to the Canadian Wheat Board, which has its headquarters in Winnipeg.
1 served as Parliamentary Secretary when the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) was Minister of Transport and initiated the Gilson report. That report took into consideration the role and functions of the railways.
The Opposition makes a great deal of the number of amendments proposed in the Transport Committee hearings on the Crow rate. The Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) spoke of the numerous amendments that were proposed and accepted. 1 think it is important to point out that some of those
November 3, 1983

amendments covered such things as the inclusion of the word "reliable" after the words "efficient and proper service". I think that this insignificant amendment occurred three times.
It was evident in the hearings that the Conservative Party wanted the Liberals to pass the Bill so that at the next election they could claim that the Liberals were responsible and that they would have done things differently. They could have pointed to the changes that they had proposed and claimed that the Bill was being foisted on producers by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party has the interests of the transportation system in Canada at heart, Mr. Speaker.
Members of the NDP had their say at the hearings of the Transport Committee across the country. The Committee heard evidence about the things that the railroads must do and their role in improving the system-to double-track, to build the infrastructure needed to move grain to export. In another context in this House, the moment we talk about a lay-off at the CNR shops in Transcona or the western shops in Winnipeg, the NDP says we cannot do that to railroad workers. On the one hand we do not want the deficit of Canada to rise. But what is the difference if the CNR has another deficit? The taxpayers of Canada will pay for it. We must keep those railroad workers working. We have to repair cars and build new cars and new facilities for the rail transportation of grain. When we go to public hearings we are told, "No, no, we cannot have the producers pay for any of that, but make sure the railway workers have jobs". This entire Bill is designed to create work, to improve the economy of western Canada, to build better railway systems, to supply all the electrification, signs, road-building and tunnel-building that is needed, so that the grain will move efficiently and so that the commitment which the Canadian Wheat Board makes to the producers to deliver the grain on time will be met.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael) actually believes that the tunnel-building will take place at the Transcona shops in Winnipeg.


An Hon. Member:: That is what he said.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is taking things out of context. The tunnel-building system, the rails are going to be made in other parts of Canada, but the concrete ties are going to be made in Alberta. Other things will me made all over the West. There will be $75 million spent in the West. It will enhance the economy. What I was trying to point out to the Hon. Member-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member still has not said what will be built at the Transcona shops. The only-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: That is hardly a point of order. The Hon. Member is seeking to put a question to the Hon. Member who has the floor. He may or may not accept a question at this time. He has the floor to make a speech.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The rolling stock will be maintained and will be rehabilitated to make it possible to take the grain to Churchill, to Thunder Bay, to Prince Rupert and to Vancouver. This means that there will be a lot of maintenance work done in the shops. It is going to mean employment. You cannot have it one way and say, "Look, when there is unemployment at the railway shops you must make sure they have work. It does not matter if it adds to the deficit". On the other hand, if we are to improve the capacity of the railways, it has to be borne by the producer. Actually, I must correct a myth. The Crow rate is statutory. The former Minister of Transport identified that at some time there had to be a datum set. When the Crow rate was started, there were 289 loading points and 2,915 miles of railway track. It went way beyond that in the 1920s. In 1929 and 1930 it went way above that. However, even after rail line abandonment and the number of shipping points has been decreased, there are still 1,245 shipping points and 16,500 miles of railway track to be maintained. That sets a certain datum about the perpetuity of the Crow rate. The Crow benefit is being perpetuated by the Government of Canada, by the people of Canada.
When the Hon. Mr. Pepin determined-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: No, the Hon. Member should refer to his colleagues in the House by their Ministry or by their riding. He is obviously referring to the former Minister of Transport.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I was referring to the present Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) who was the former Minister of Transport. He set a datum. They took a benchmark, a record delivery of 31 million tonnes in 1981-82, and the cost to transport that grain was $651 million. They established that as a datum, and the Government of Canada, the people of Canada, are going to provide that $651 million subsidy to the producers of Canada in perpetuity. The New Democratic Party wants no change to the Crow, yet it turns around and wants to add more products. The NDP wants to add 25 additional products to the list. That Party cannot have it both ways.
There is a terrible myth about the Crow rate. The railways have been doing their job. They are delivering, but they cannot just keep absorbing the additional costs at today's prices.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is a nice joke about the railways doing their job. I like that.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: We went through a period when records were set only because other products were not competing with wheat and grain to be delivered to ports for export.


Jack Wendele Shields: Also because others supplied the grain cars, not the federal Government.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Everything has gone up and people accept that. 1 would like to remind Hon. Members that in 1935 a loaf of bread sold for 5 cents. Wheat was selling for 60 cents a bushel. One could buy a beer for 10 cents and a chocolate bar

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act or a coke for a nickel. I can recall in 1940 buying an automobile, a de luxe Chevrolet, for $1,060.


Mr. Benjamin:: What the hell has that to do with the motion?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: How about the rule of relevance?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has 30 seconds left.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Everything else has gone up proportionately, Mr. Speaker. The producer should not pay any more, yet he pays more for everything else. Hon. Members have identified all the items for which they pay more money today than they used to.


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


Arnold John Malone: He has expired.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I must say I did enjoy the speech of the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael). I enjoyed it not so much for the content but because it is the first time in the four years in which 1 have heard him speak that he has not read a text. He was flying very well today.


Jesse Philip Flis: That is cheap.


An Hon. Member:: Next time you read a speech, 1 will tell you about it.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta is challenging me for always reading my texts. 1 have referred to notes in previous talks, but he cannot say truthfully that I have always read my speeches.


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


Benno Friesen: The next time I read a text, you will not catch me at it.


An Hon. Member:: You have one there.


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


Benno Friesen: I do not know why Hon. Members are so upset over there, Mr. Speaker, with that oblique remark.


An Hon. Member:: It was a cheap shot.


Benno Friesen: I did not think it was that cheap.
I am glad for the opportunity to speak to this particular motion in the name of my hon. friend from Saskatchewan, which calls for the Government to provide in the legislation security that the railways will provide service to the producers. That is imperative, Mr. Speaker, because we know that in the competitive world in which we live there is a continual move to squeeze out the competition. It does not matter at what industry one is looking. It does not matter what the conditions
are. Sooner or later the large corporations are going to squeeze out the little man. Right now Hon. Members may wonder why we need the kind of provision to make it obligatory that the railways provide service to the producers. I know that Hon. Members will say, "Well, the CTC already provides that kind of security". Those Hon. Members ought to know that it is just not working. As my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) has pointed out, every time one calls the railway companies to account with respect to the transport of cattle and say they must provide service, the railways say, "Yes, but just make sure the cattle are ready at the right time. Then we will have all the box cars you need". It is as though the farmers could now control the gestation period of cattle along with everything else. It is imperative that the Government provide assurance to the producers that there will be modes of transportation.
Government Members from Ontario and Quebec may not realize what is happening out there in industry. Right now Smith Transport is undercutting the trucking industry to the point at which it could drive them into oblivion. 1 think those who understand the industry know there are two plans for providing piggyback service for the producer to market. There is a range of charges for plan one which is very expensive because it calls for more equipment. Plan two is cheaper for the producer because there is less equipment called for. At the present time, Smith Transport, a subsidiary of CPR, is providing plan one service to the producer below the cost of plan two. In other words, they are losing millions. Why are they willing to do that? Because in the process they will drive all the trucking companies into bankruptcy. Once that happens, they have the entire industry to themselves. Once that happens, there is no way we can make it obligatory to provide service.
It is imperative that the Government listen to a very reasonable request for a very vulnerable industry, and make this amendment part of the legislation so the producer will have some security. In 1967 this House passed the Railway Transportation Act. In the debate the Government at that time and the Minister of Transport, I think it was Mr. Pickersgill, conceded that you could not in fairness give a grant to one mode of transportation and not to others. You could not give a grant to the railways and not the trucking industry. As much as Mr. Pickersgill emphasized that point in 1967 and made sure the principle was incorporated in the legislation, the Government is now backing down on that provision, denying the principle, and giving grants to only one mode of transportation. That is like giving a credit card to the CPR and letting them run that operation as they wish. With that endless supply of money to the one industry, the competition has absolutely no way of competing. I am asking the Government to reconsider its adamant position on the grant system because it is giving a competitive edge to only one industry.
We and the producers of western Canada are going to rue the day that the Government did not listen to representation in this House regarding this provision. The only thing the producer has going for him at this point is that grain is not an
November 3, 1983

immediately perishable product. But what will we do if we are talking about perishables such as eggs, vegetables or fruit? It seems to me that when the Government considers the $600 million it is providing to the railways this year alone, when it is receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes by way of the fuel tax which applies to the trucking industry, let alone the licencing and all other revenue sources from that industry, it is acting in an incredibly prejudicial way in favour of the railway system. It is not the railway system which is going to keep this country together, it is the producer. If the Government insists on providing for only one form of transportation, there is no way they can ensure that the railways will market the crops in the future.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interrupt the Hon. Member in his last speech on this issue, but there is a matter of some urgency before the vote at report stage can be taken, and I wonder if I might have the consent of the House to move some consequential amendments?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Minister seek consent to move the amendments one at a time.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is understood, Mr. Speaker. I will be moving them seriatim. Therefore, I move:
That Bill C-155 be amended in clause 54 by striking out lines 17 to 26 at page 31, and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) in respect of the 1982-83 crop year, $22.05,
(6) in respect of the 1983-84 crop year, $22.99,
(c)	in respect of the 1984-85 crop year, $23.93,
(4) in respect of the 1985-86 crop year, $24.86, and
(e) in respect of the 1986-87 and subsequent crop years, $25.80."
These changes are consequential to the increase in the volume ceiling of 31.1 to 31.5, and result from line-related costs being spread over a greater volume. I would appreciate having it put on the Order Paper as part of the grouping for the vote.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since the effect of this amendment will be to reduce the cost of shipping to the grain producer in the West, we of course give consent. But it is one more example, after 80 amendments in committee and 84 in the House of Commons, of how ill-prepared the Government was. It is still trying to clean up a very badly prepared Bill.


Ian Deans: I agree this is clear evidence that we ought not to be voting on the amendments today since the Government, even at this late minute, is still introducing amendments. However, on this particular one we will give consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it just shows the Government is ever alert, to the very last moment, to possible changes it might make to improve the Bill. I do have a second technical amendment which really is a consequence of the time that has elapsed since the Bill was drafted. It has nothing to do with
Western Grain Transportation Act matters of technical competence, but more to ensure the Bill is in concurrence with the time frame. We would like to withdraw Motion No. 167 and substitute the following motion. I will not read it because I have submitted copies, but in effect it is that every railway company, on or before November 1, 1983, shall file and publish a tariff respecting the period beginning January 1, 1984 and ending on July 31, 1984. We would like to change the word "November" to "December", 1983. We ask for unanimous consent to take into account it is now November 5, and it is a little rough to establish a tariff until the legislation is passed. This is simply to take into account the elapsed time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Minister have unanimous consent-The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, as I read the Bill at the moment, the tariff which would have to have been filed on November 1 is the existing Crowsnest Pass freight rate. We certainly do not give consent to alter it to December 1.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) does not have the unanimous consent of the House and therefore the amendment cannot be introduced. Does the Minister have any further amendments he wishes to introduce at this point?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, considering that we are batting 500, now is a pretty good time to stop.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5.50 p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, October 26, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 10A
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", in 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;".


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


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions about the procedure that is being adopted. You have before you, Mr. Speaker, a grouping of motions to be voted upon in order to save time in the voting process, because we do not want to be here into the wee hours of tomorrow voting on 84 motions. However, there is a residual procedural problem and that is the calling of the yeas and the nays in each of the groups upon which the yeas and the nays have not yet been heard. I would suggest that that process is a prior process and should be proceeded with before putting the votes on the various groups.

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would inform the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that that is exactly what the Chair is proposing to do.


Erik Nielsen: It was not so stated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have called Motion No. 10A, which has not previously been put before the House. 1 intend to go seriatim through the rest in accordance with the grouping indicated previously by the Speaker.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated, we intend to vote on these by groups. Considering that, I wonder if the motion that has just been accepted by the House for unanimous consent dealing with the changes in volume would properly be grouped under group A and that that would be added to the group A category for yeas and nays.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister is perhaps anticipating. It is my understanding that at this stage, groups A, B, C, D and E come before the House for votes. At this stage we are dealing with the motions that have not previously been considered by the House.
The question is on Motion No. 10A. 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 yeas 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 will be deferred.
The question is on Motion No. 14A.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that you proceed group by group and apply the yeas and nays that you have now heard on Motion No. 10A to all of the remaining motions within that group that have not yet been subject to the yeas and nays procedure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to inform the House that the Table has not had time to put all of these in the form indicated by the Hon. Member for Yukon and the Chair is bound by the limitations that it now faces. The Chair will attempt to proceed as expeditiously as possible. If the House wishes to do it that way, it will take the officers of the Table perhaps five minutes.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have an alternate suggestion which might find acceptance from the House. Perhaps we can take a division of the yeas and nays on the first undisposed motion in each group and apply that result to each undisposed motion in the group affected without going to the trouble of enumerating them all.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is in the hands of the Members of the House. One difficulty the Chair must point out is that the motions have not been put to the House. In many cases there are no seconders and it is difficult to dispense quickly of motions that have not been placed and have not been properly put and seconded. However, the Chair is open to suggestions.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, in a few moments you will have a list of the six groups we are talking about. In each group, there are some motions that have not yet been put. I agree with the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) as I have consulted with the House Leaders on this question. When you call the first motion in each group that has not yet been put to the House, Mr. Speaker, we suggest that the same yeas and nays apply to the other motions in the group that have not yet been called. We are not suggesting that you do not call those motions but we are suggesting that you do not have us shout yeas and nays every time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With the permission of the House and in the interest of expediting matters, we will presume that House Leaders are seconders in every case. We will simply make that presumption and we will attempt to put the motions in an orderly way with that assumption.
The House is dealing with group B. Motion No. 24 has been deferred.
Perhaps the Hon. Member for Yukon can explain again and the Chair will attempt to interpret as best it can.


Erik Nielsen: With respect, Mr. Speaker, we have not yet disposed of group A. We have heard the yeas and nays on Motion No. 10A. May I suggest to the House that the yeas and nays on Motion No. 10A apply to all other undisposed motions within group A? After that, we would then move on to group B in the same fashion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the sake of the record, the yeas and nays applying to Motion No. 10A will also apply to Motions Nos. 14A, 61, 156, 164, 168, 169 and 171. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: It is agreed, Mr. Speaker, but you should add to that list the last amendment moved by consent by the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Added to this list is the last amendment introduced, by unanimous consent, by the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 14A
November 3, 1983


GRAINS, CROPS AND PRODUCTS
[Stage Direction]
Alfafa Meal, Pellets or Cubes, dehydrated Barley
Barley, Crushed Barley, Pearl Barley, Pot Barley Sprouts
Beans (except soybeans) including faba beans, splits and screenings Bean (except soybean) derivatives (flour, protein, isolates, fibre)
Bran
Breakfast Foods or Cereals (uncooked) in bags, barrels or cases. Manufactured from commodities only as listed in this Schedule.
Buckwheat Canary Seed Corn, Cracked Corn (not popcorn)
Feed, Animal or Poultry (not medicated or condimental), containing not more than thirty-five per cent (35%) of ingredients other than commodities as
[Stage Direction]
November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
specified in this Schedule, in bags or barrels or in bulk Flax Seed
Flour, made from grain or malt in bags or barrels or in bulk Grain, Feed, in sacks Groats Hulls,Oat
Lentils, including splits and screenings Malt (made from grain only)
Meal, Barley Meal, Corn Meal, Linseed Meal, Oat
Meal, Rapeseed or Canola
Meal, Oil Cake, Linseed
Meal, Oil Cake, Rapeseed or Canola
Meal, Oil Cake, Sunflower Seed
Meal, Rye
Meal, Wheat
Middlings
Millfeed
Mustard Seed
Oats
Oats, Crushed
Oats, Rolled
Oil Cake, Linseed
Oil Cake, Rapeseed or Canola
Oil Cake, Sunflower Seed
Oil, Linseed
Oil, Rapeseed or Canola
Oil, Sunflower Seed
Peas, including splits and screenings
Pea derivatives (flour, protein, isolates, fibre)
Rapeseed or Canola Rye
Screenings or Screenings pellets (applicable only on Screenings from grains specified herein)
Seed Grain in Sacks Shorts
Sunflower Seed Triticale Wheat Wheat Germ Wheat, Rolled".
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now move to group B. Motion No. 24 has already been deferred. Is it the pleasure of the House to defer the votes on Motions Nos. 29, 32, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 47, 50, 55, 56, 60, 76, 78 and 83?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 24
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 35 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion or board, the business of'.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 19 to 22 at page 4.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 10 and 11 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"an employee of the Canadian Wheat Board."
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 20 to 25 at page 8.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out lines 44 to 47 at page 8 and lines 1 to 41 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"should be met by any railway company
(d)	monitor the performance of the railway companies to ascertain whether or not they are meeting the performance objectives referred to in paragraph (c); and
(e)	develop, for possible implementation under section 21, a scheme of sanctions applicable to railway companies and make recommendations to the Minister on the advisability of implementing that scheme."
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 12 and 13 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"during the period by railway companies; and".
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 14 to 24 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(6) implement a scheme that provides for sanctions to be applied to railway companies that do not meet the performance objectives referred to in paragraph (a)."
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21
(a)	by striking out line 18 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor: "than the railway companies and the Canadian Wheat Board, that meet".
(b)	by striking out line 22 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor: "participants, other than the Canadian Wheat Board, or any classes thereof that".
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 2 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"fifteen Senators or fifteen Members of the".
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 preceeding crop year."
and by renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.
Motion No. 55
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.
(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.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 2 to 7 at page 17.
Motion No. 76
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 15 to 21 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
November 3, 1983

"and determine, for that year, the volume-related variable costs of the railway companies for the movement of grain."
Motion No. 78
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 31 to 36 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) compute the cost of capital for the railway companies in relation to the average return on investment of grain producers in the Western Division;". Motion No. 83
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out lines 22 to 45 at page 22 and lines 1 to 12 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor: "railway companies for the movement of grain.
"(3) The variable costs referred to in subsection (2) shall be estimated by applying the railway price indices, as approved by the Commission, to the volume-related variable costs of the railway companies for the movement of grain for the most recent base year, adjusted to take into account the difference between the tonnage of grain moved in the most recent base year and the tonnage of grain that, in the estimation of the Administrator, will be moved in the next crop year."


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am assuming, because 1 have not checked, that all of the motions which you have just read have not yet been disposed of by the deferral process.


Yvon Pinard: 1 assume the same thing, Mr. Speaker, that they have not been disposed of in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe that is correct.


Erik Nielsen: I hope you are sure of it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: They have not been disposed of by the House up to this point.
The understanding is that the following motions have been deferred in group C: Motions Nos. 33, 39, 44, 45, 48, 35, 37, 38, 40, 46, 49 and 52. Motion No. 58 is under consideration. Motion No. 33.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 33
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 6 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"(rf) promote, and shall require, if necessary, reciprocal and other arrange-".


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


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Motion No. 44
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 21 to 24 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) sanctions to be aplied to system participants or any classes thereof, other than the railways, that do not meet the performance objectives referred to in paragraph (a), shall be non-pecuniary."


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette) moved:: Motion No. 45
Western Grain Transportation Act
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out line 32 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"the commission, is equal to 29% of the".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 48
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 25 by deleting lines 10 to 17 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
''debated for not more than three sitting days and at the expiration of the three sitting days the Speaker shall forthwith without further debate or amendment put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: moved:
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out line 25 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"the grain producers, but such agreements shall not provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport from shipping points on rail lines which have not been abandoned by order of the Canadian Transport Commission." Motion No. 37
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 18 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"mented under section 21, but awards and sanctions for system participants other than the railway companies shall be non-pecuniary in nature;".
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 18 by striking out line 18 at page 9 and substittuing the following therefor:
"mented under section 21, but such awards and sanctions shall not involve the allocation of railway cars nor affect the quota system of the Canadian Wheat Board."
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 19 by striking out lines 27 to 32 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) The provisions of this Part respecting the duties and functions of the Administrator do not restrict the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board under section 21 (A:) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, or any Orders of the Governor in Council, to make available the quantities and types of grain needed to achieve sales commitments."
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 21 by striking out lines 32 to 34 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Commission, is equal to 20% of the volume-related variable costs of the railway company plus 100% of the cost of capital portion of the line-related variable costs for grain dependent branch lines."
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 25 by striking out lines 10 to 17 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"debated and on conclusion of the debate the Speaker shall forthwith put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion."


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to defer votes on the following motions? Motions Nos. 58, 63, 68, 69, 99, 103, 115, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134A, 136, 138, 140, 143,65, 72, 77, 79, 84, 88, 90A, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 158, 161, 162, 163, 165A, and 165B.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 17 to 19 at page 17.
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 4 and 5 at page 18.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 6 and 7 at page 18.
Motion No. 99
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 34 to 38 at page 28 and lines 1 to 7 at page 29.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 103
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 10 to 30 at page 29.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 115
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 26 to 30 at page 29.
Motion No. 127
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 31 to 43 at page 29.
Motion No. 130
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 11 to 17 at page 30.
Motion No. 131
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 18 to 31 at page 30.
Motion No. 133
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 32 to 45 at page 30.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Motion No. 134A
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 33 to 45 at page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"change" means zero;"


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 136
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 46 to 49 at page 30 and lines 1 to 9 at page 31.
Motion No. 138
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 10 to 26 at page 31.
Motion No. 140
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 27 to 36 at page 31.
Motion No. 143
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 37 to 47 at page 31.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 65
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 20 to 40 at page 17 and lines 1 to 3 at page 18.
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 36 by adding immediately after line 13 at page 19 the following:
"(2) If the transportation or handling of grain produced east of Thunder Bay or Armstrong and destined for export to an overseas country is diverted away from Canadian ports, railway lines, or handling facilities to ports, railway lines, and handling facilities in the United States, the Canadian Transport Commission shall reduce the annual rate scale by an amount so that
(a)	rates to Thunder Bay, Armstrong, or Churchill do not exceed the cost of shipping grain from points west of Thunder Bay or Armstrong to Duluth or Superior
(b)	the combined cost of shipping grain by rail to Thunder Bay and by water from Thunder Bay to St. Lawrence ports does not exceed the cost of shipping grain from points west of Thunder Bay or Armstrong by rail or by rail and barge to New Orleans
(c)	rates to ports in British Columbia do not exceed the cost of shipping grain from points west of Thunder Bay or Armstrong to ports on the pacific coast of the United States."
and by renumbering subsection (2) as subsection (3).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 77
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 31 to 36 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) compute the cost of capital in accordance with such principles as the Commission deems appropriate and adjust that cost by any amount it deems justified in light of the risks associated with the movement of grain;".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: ;
Motion No. 79
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 38 by striking out lines 37 and 38 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) exclude the cost of capital and depreciation in respect of grants and donations from the government of Canada and provincial and municipal governments and in respect of branch line".
Motion No. 84
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out lines 28 to 34 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) The costs referred to in subsection (2) do not include cost of capital and depreciation in respect of grants and donations from the government of Canada and provincial and municipal governments and in respect of branch line assets provided under the Prairie Branch Line Rehabilitation Program and in respect of railway cars that have not been funded by the railway companies."
Motion No. 88
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out line 17 at page 24 and substituting the following therefor:
"with the provisions of this Part the railway companies shall not impose a stop off charge for the storage, milling, or processing of grains in Canada."
Motion No. 98
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 53
(a)	by striking out line 23 at page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"53.(1) The rates set out in a tariff take effect";
(b)	by adding immediately after line 27 at page 28 the following:
"(2) The railway companies shall move a quantity of grain equal to that in primary elevators as of the date of any freight rate increase after the date of such increase at the rate in effect prior to the increase.
Motion No. 93
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 47 by striking out lines 37 to 44 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) Where the Commission allows a proposed lower rate under paragraph (2)(*), the Commission shall extend such lower rate by the same percentage reduction to all other shipping points covered by this Act."
November 3, 1983


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 94
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 47 by adding immediately after line 44
at page 26 the following:
"(5)(a) Ancillary charges are charges for services performed by a railway company in addition to the line-haul movement of grain.
(b) The Commission may, by order, prescribe the level of ancillary charges but in no case shall that amount exceed the level that in the opinion of the Commission is necessary to reflect the variable cost of an ancillary service."


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 95
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 48 by striking out lines 1 to 3 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"and shall, in respect of any crop year, include in its tariff a rate in respect of any joint line movement if such rate is requested by the Canadian Transport Commission or Canadian Wheat Board.
(2) A rate in respect of a joint line movement shall not exceed the rate that would apply if the movement was a single line movement." and by renumbering subsection (2) as subsection (3).
Motion No. 96
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 48 by adding immediately after line 7
at page 27 the following:
"(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Commission shall prevent back hauls and cross hauls of grain by requiring the railway companies to file rates for joint line movements that would be applicable if the rate was filed as if it
were a single line movement."
Motion No. 97
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 49 by striking out lines 20 to 31 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) Notwithstanding subsection 48(1), the Canadian Transport Commission shall, in consultation with the railway companies and such system participants as it deems appropriate, promote reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies for the interchange of grain and shall require the railway companies to establish rates for joint line movement of grain to Prince Rupert and Ridley Island from any point on any line of railway other than a line of railway of the Canadian National Railway Company and shall require Canadian Pacific Limited and Canadian National railway Company to establish rates for joint line movement of grain to Churchill and such rates to Prince Rupert, Ridley Island, and Churchill shall not exceed the rates that would apply for single line movements."


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 158
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 59 by striking out lines 22 to 26 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the apportionment of costs between the Government of Canada and the shippers of grain in respect of the period beyond the 1985-1986".
Motion No. 161
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 59 by adding immediately after line 3
at page 35 the following:
"(c) the method by which any inappropriate and excessive contribution by the producers determined under paragraph (d) might be refunded to those producers; and."
and by renumbering paragraph (c) as paragraph (/).
Motion No. 162
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 59
(a)	by striking out line 14 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"59.(1) The Minister shall, during the 1985-";
(b)	by adding immediately after line 6 at page 35 the following:
"(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of the results of any review or study carried out under this section to be laid before Parliament on any of the first
Western Grain Transportation Act
fifteen days that either House of Parliament sits after the completion of such review or study and such copy shall stand permanently referred to any Committee of Parliament established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to transportation."
Motion No. 163
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 6 at page 35 the following:
"60.( 1) Following the completion of any review or study carried out under section 59, the Minister, within 90 days, shall prepare a detailed and comprehensive response to such review or study, including the Minister's acceptance or rejection of each conclusion and recommendation contained in any review or study and the reasons therefor.
(2) The Minister shall cause a copy of his response referred to in subsection (1) to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament sits after the preparation of that response and such response shall stand permanently referred to any Committee of Parliament established for the purpose of reviewing matters relating to transportation." Motion No. 165A
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 62 by striking out lines 19 to 23 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"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."


Sidney James Parker: Motion No. I65B
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 62 by striking out lines 19 to 23 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"thereto, 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."


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to make sure that you mentioned Motion No. 33 as having being disposed of in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes. We come now to group D. I believe none of these have been disposed of. Is it agreed that Motions Nos. 71, 101, 142, 157A, 90, 91, 167, and 170 be disposed of?


Erik Nielsen: Be deferred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Correction, be deferred.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Motion No. 101
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 10 to 16 at page 29 and substituting the following therefor:
" "cumulative government share of the cost change", in respect of any crop year, means an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying the number of tonnes of grain moved in that crop year or 31.5 million tonnes, whichever is the lesser, by the aggregate of'.
Motion No. 142
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 54 by striking out lines 37 to 47 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) The Commission may from time to time reduce the cumulative government share of the cost change per tonne referred to in paragraph (b) of the definition "cumulative government share of the cost change" in subsection (1) where, in its opinion, that share has been excessively increased as a consequence of the spreading of line-related variable costs over a number of tonnes of grain that is less than 31.5 million moved in any crop year."
Motion No. 157A
That Bill C-155 be amended by striking out the heading "Part IV" preceding Clause 59 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:


&quot;PART IV
[Stage Direction]
59.	In this Part,
"freight to price ratio", in respect of any calendar year, means an amount equal to the quotient, expressed as a percentage obtained by dividing the average cost to the shipper of moving one tonne of grain in that calendar year by the weighted average price for that calendar year;
"shipper share limitation adjustment", in respect of any calendar year, means an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the number of percentage points by which the freight to price ratio in that calendar year exceeds, in the case of the calendar year
(1)	1984, four per cent,
(ii)	1985, five per cent,
(iii)	1986, eight per cent,
(iv)	1987, nine per cent, and
(v)	1988 and thereafter, ten per cent by
(b)	the product obtained by multiplying the weighted average price for that calendar year by the total number of tonnes of grain moved in that calendar year;
"six grains" means wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed;
"weighted average price", in respect of any calendar year, means the weighted average determined under paragraph 60(1 )(b) in respect of that calendar year.
60.	(1) The Commission shall, on or before March 1st of each year, using the information that it deems appropriate, determine, in respect of the preceding calendar year,
(a)	the average price per tonne at which each of the six grains, in storage, was available for sale on each trading day at the port that handled the largest volume of that grain in the calendar year;
(b)	the average of the average prices referred to in paragraph (a), weighted on the basis of the number of tonnes of each of the six grains moved in the calendar year;
(c)	the average cost to the shipper of moving one tonne of grain in the calendar year; and
(</) the freight to price ratio.
(2)	For the purposes of paragraph (l)(a), the average price per tonne at which each of the six grains was available for sale shall be determined on the basis of the price per tonne of the grade of each of those grains the largest volume of which was moved in the calendar year.

[Stage Direction]
and by renumbering the subsequent Parts and Clauses and amending all references accordingly.
Motion No. 90
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 43 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 24 the following:
"(3) Subsection (2) does not apply in respect of a lower rate referred to in section 46."
Motion No. 91
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 46 by striking out lines 41 to 46 at page 25 and lines 1 and 2 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor: "46.(1) Notwithstanding sections 43 and 45 but subject to subsection (2), a railway company may, in respect of any crop year, include in its tariff a rate that is lower than that provided by section 43 in respect of
(a)	any point of origin that was treated as a competitive or continuous point in the tariff of rates applicable to the 1981-82 crop year; and
(b)	any additional point of origin that is designated by the Commission as a competitive or contiguous point prior to December 31, 1983."
Motion No. 167
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out lines 27 to 37 at page 37 and lines 1 to 14 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
"70.(1) For the purpose of applying this Act in respect of the period beginning on January 1, 1984 and ending on July 31, 1984, notwithstanding anything in this Act,
(a)	the quotient referred to in subsection 36(1) shall be deemed to be 5.06;
(b)	the quotient expressed as a percentage, referred to in subsection 37(2) shall be deemed to be 76.7 per cent;
(c)	every railway company, on or before November 1, 1983, shall file and publish a tariff rrespecting the period beginning on January 1, 1984 and ending on July 31, 1984;
(d)	section 53 applies as if it provided for the rates set out in that tariff to take effect on January 1, 1984, and to continue in force until July 31, 1984;
(e)	the amount of 31.5 million tonnes referred to in the definition "cumulative government share of the cost change" shall be 31.5 million tonnes, less the actual number of tonnes of grain moved during the period beginning on August 1, 1983 and ending on December 31, 1983; and
(/) any provision of this Act that requires anything to be done at a particular time for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to require that thing to be done at such time as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this subsection in respect of the period beginning on January 1, 1984 and ending on July 31, 1984."
Motion No. 170
That Bill C-155 be amended by adding immediately after line 17 at page 38 the following:
"Coming into Force
71. This Act or any provision thereof shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation."
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We come now to group E. Is it agreed that Motions Nos. 82 and 160A be deferred?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Motion No. 82
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out lines 13 and 14 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"(o) volume-related variable costs, $590 million; and".
Recommendation
(pursuant to Standing Order 79(6))
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons that Bill C-155, An Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be amended in subclause 39(1) by striking out paragraph (a) thereof and substituting the following paragraph therefor:
November 3, 1983

"(a) volume-related variable costs, $590 million; and".
Motion No. 168
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 70 by striking out lines 15 to 17 at page 38 and substituting the following therefor:
''(2) On or before April 15, 1984, the Minister may, subject to such terms and conditions as the Treasury Board may approve, pay an amount not exceeding $82 million dollars to the Canadian National Railway Company and an amount not exceeding $95 million dollars to Canadian Pacific Limited in respect of movements of grain during the period beginning on August 1, 1983 and ending on December 31, 1983.
(3) On or before April 15, 1984, the Minister may, subject to such terms and conditions as the Treasury Board may approve, pay to shippers of rapeseed or canola meal or rapeseed or canola oil or linseed meal or linseed oil processed in the Western Division from grain a sum equal to the difference between the freight rate paid by them for the movement of that commodity during the period beginning on August 1, 1983 and ending on December 31, 1983 and the freight rate that would have been paid by those shippers for shipping that commodity under the freight rates that are effective on January 1, 1984 had those rates been in force during that period."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We come now to group F. Is it agreed that Motions Nos. 148, 145, 153, 154, 154A, 159 and 92 be deferred?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 148
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 55 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 32 the following:
"(4) For greater certainty, it is declared that for any of the crop years 1983-1984 to 1985-1986, the total revenue to be received by the railway companies shall not exceed the aggregate of the volume-related variable costs and line-related variable costs for the movement of grain in each such crop year.
(5) The Commission shall undertake to develop a formula, for possible application after the 1985-1986 crop year, which will allow the railway companies a contribution to constant costs for the movement of grain based on and reflective of new railway investment required to accommodate the movement of grain."
Motion No. 145
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 55 by striking out lines 1 to 8 at page 32 and substituting the following therefor:
"55.(1) Subject to any regulations promulgated by the Governor in Council pursuant to Section 58 and subject to Section 21 and subsections 55(2), and (3), the Minister shall, in respect of the 1983-84 and subsequent crop years pay to the railway companies the Crow Benefit plus the government contribution to cost increases."
Motion No. 153
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out lines 40 to 42 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"58.(1) Notwithstanding Section 55, the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing".
Motion No. 154
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 58 by striking out line 43 at page 33 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) the manner in which the parties to whom payments under".
Motion No. 154A
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 58 by adding immediately after line 13 at page 34 the following:
"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."
Western Grain Transportation Act Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette) moved:
Motion No. 159
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 59 by striking out lines 35 to 39 at page 34 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) the appropriateness of any method of payment of the Crow Benefit that may be authorized in any subsequent Act as well as the suitability of any formula for the payment of a contribution to constant costs to the railway companies for the movement of grain developed by the Commission;".


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 92
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 46 by striking out line 2 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"applicable to the 1981-82 crop year or which are subsequently declared to be competitive or contiguous points by the Commission."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 10A. Motion No. 10A is in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
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 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:: Call in the Members.
The first question is on Motion 10A. According to the agreement among the Parties, this division will also apply to Motions Nos. 14A, 61, 156, 164, 168, 169, 171 and the Minister's new Motion, No. 175.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion agreed


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No. 29 (Mr. Benjamin) which		
was negatived on	the following division:	
	(Division No. 378)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althouse	Keeper	OgleAnguish	Kristiansen	OrlikowBenjamin	Lewycky	ParkerBlackburn	Manly	RiisBlaikie	McDonald (Ms.)	RobinsonDeans	(Broadview-Greenwood)	(Burnaby)de Jong	Miller	SargeantFulton	Mitchell (Mrs.)	SkellyHeap	Murphy	WaddellHovdebo Jewett (Miss)	Nystrom
NAYS Messrs.	Young-29.Allmand	Breau	CollenetteAndre	Bujold	ComtoisAppolloni (Mrs.)	Burghardt	CookAxworthy	Campbell (Miss)	CooperBachand	(South West Nova)	CorbettBeatty	Campbell	CorbinBeauchamp-Niquet	(LaSalle)	Corriveau(Mrs.)	Campbell	CosgroveBegin (Miss)	(Cardigan)	Cossitt (Mrs.)Berger	Chenier	Cdte (Mrs.)Blais	Chr6tien	CousineauBlaker	Clark	CrombieBlenkarn	(Yellowhead)	CrosbieBloomfield	Clark	(St. John's West)Bockstael	(Brandon-Souris)	CrosbyBosley	Clarke	(Halifax West)Bossy	(Vancouver Quadra)	CrouseCoates	Cullen
November 3, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act
Messrs.	Messrs.
Cyr	Howie	Munro	Hovdebo	Miller	RiisDantzer	Hudecki	(Hamilton East)	Jewett (Miss)	Mitchell (Mrs.)	RobinsonDarling	Huntington	Murta	Keeper	Murphy	(Burnaby)Daudlin	Irwin	Neil	Kristiansen	Nystrom	SargeantDawson	Isabelle	Nicholson (Miss)	Lewycky	Ogle	SkellyDe Bane	Jarvis	Nickerson	Manly	Orlikow	Waddellde Corneille	Jelinek	Nielsen	McDonald (Ms.)	Parker	Young-29.Demers	Johnston	Nowlan	(Broadview-Greenwood)	Deniger	Joyal	Oberle	Dick	Kaplan	Olivier	NAYS	Dingwall	Kelly	Ostiguy	Dion	Kempling	Ouellet	Messrs.	Dionne	Kilgour	Paproski	(Chicoutimi)	Killens (Mrs.)	Parent	Allmand	Dupras	LapierreDomm	King	Patterson	Andre	Duquet	LapointeDubois	Kushner	Pelletier	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Ellis	(Charlevoix)Duclos	Lachance	Penner	Axworthy	Elzinga	LapointeDupont	Lajoie	Pepin	Bachand	Epp	(Beauce)Dupras	Lalonde	Peterson	Beatty	Erola (Mrs.)	La SalleDuquet	Lambert	Pinard	Beauchamp-Niquet	Evans	LawrenceEllis	Lamontagne	Portelance	(Mrs.)	Fennell	LeBlancElzinga	Landers	Prud'homme	Begin (Miss)	Ferguson	LeducEpp	Lang	Reid	Berger	Fisher	LefebvreErola (Mrs.)	Laniel	(St. Catharines)	Blais	Fleming	LoiselleEvans	Lapierre	Reid	Blaker	Flis	LumleyFennell	Lapointe	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Blenkarn	Forrestall	MacBainFerguson	(Charlevoix)	Roberts	Bloomfield	Foster	MacDonald (Miss)
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Frith
Gamble
Garant
Gass	MacDougall
Gauthier	MacEachen
Gilchrist	MacGuigan
Gimaiel	Mackascy
Gingras	MacLaren
Gourd	MacLellan
(A rgenteu i 1-Pa pinea u)	Malepart
Gourde	Malone
(Levis)	Maltais
Gray	Marceau
Greenaway	Masse
Gurbin	Masters
Gustafson	Mayer
Halliday	Mazankowski
Hamilton	McCain
(Swift Current-Maple	McCauley
Creek)	McDermid
Hargrave	McGrath
Harquail	McKenzie
Hawkes	McKinnon
Hees	McKnight
Henderson	McLean
Herbert	McRae
Hervieux-Payette	Mitges
(Mrs.)	Mulroncy
Hnatyshyn	Munro
Hopkins
Lapointe (Bcauce)
La Salle
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
Robinson
Bockstael
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)	Bosley	Fraser	MacDougallRoche	Bossy	Fretz	MacEachenRompkey	Bradley	Friesen	MacGuiganRooney	Breau	Frith	MackascyRossi	Bujold	Gamble	MacLarenRoy	Burghardt	Garant	MacLellanSt. Germain	Campbell (Miss)	Gass	MalepartSavard	(South West Nova)	Gauthier	MaloneSchellenberger	Campbell	Gilchrist	MaltaisSchroder	(LaSalle)	Gimaiel	MarceauScott	Campbell	Gingras	Masse(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Cardigan)	Gourd	MastersScott	Chenier	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	Mayer(Victoria-Haliburton)	Chretien	Gourde	MazankowskiShields	Clark	(L6vis)	McCainSiddon	(Yellowhead)	Gray	McCauleySmith	Clark	Greenaway	McDermidSpeyer	(Brandon-Souris)	Gurbin	McGrathStevens	Clarke	Gustafson	McKenzieStewart	(Vancouver Quadra)	Halliday	McKinnonTardif	Coates	Hamilton	McKnightTaylor	Collenette	(Swift Current-Maple	McLeanTessier	Comtois	Creek)	McRaeThacker	Cook	Hargrave	MitgesThomson	Cooper	Harquail	MulroncyTobin	Corbett	Hawkes	MunroTousignant	Corbin	Hees	(Esquimalt-iTowers	Corriveau	Henderson	Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Trudeau
Turner
Vankoughnet
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Yanakis-228.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.	Darling Daudlin	Kaplan Kelly	Pepin PetersonDawson	Kempling	PinardThe House divided on Motion No. 41 (Mr. Benjamin) which	De Bane	Kilgour	Portelancewas negatived on the following division:	de Corneille Demers	Killens (Mrs.) King	Prud'homme ReidDeniger	Kushner	(St. Catharines)Dick	Lachance	ReidDingwall	Lajoie	(Kenora-Rainy River)(Division No. 388)	Dion Dionne	Lalonde Lambert	Roberts Robinson(Chicoutimi)	Lamontagne	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)YEAS	Domm	Landers	RocheMessrs.	Dubois	Lang	RompkeyDuclos	Laniel	RooneyAlthouse	Blackburn	Deans	Dupont	Lapierre	RossiAnguish	Blaikie	de Jong	Dupras	Lapointe	RoyBenjamin	(Charlevoix)	St. Germain
November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Messrs.
Savard	Stevens	TurnerSchellenberger	Stewart	VankoughnetSchroder	Tardif	VeilletteScott	Taylor	Watson(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Tessier	WeatherheadScott	Thacker	Wenman(Victoria-Haliburton)	Thomson	WilsonShields	Tobin	WiseSiddon	Tousignant	WrightSmith	Towers	Yanakis-228.Speyer	Trudeau


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 55 (Mr. Benjamin) which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 399)
Althouse
Anguish
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blaikie
Deans
de Jong
Fulton
Heap
Hovdebo
Jewett (Miss)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Keeper
Kristiansen
Lewycky
Manly
McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.)
Murphy
Nystrom
Ogle
Orlikow
Parker
Riis
Robinson (Burnaby) Sargeant Skelly Waddell Young-29.
(LaSalle)	(Chicoutimi)	Hargrave	NAYS	Campbell	Domm	Harquail	(Cardigan)	Dubois	Hawkes	Messrs.	Chenier	Duclos	Hees	Allmand	Bossy	ClarkChretien	Dupont	Henderson	Andre	Bradley	(Brandon-ScClark	Dupras	Herbert	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Breau	Clarke(Yellowhead)	Duquet	Hervieux-Payette	Axworthy	Bujold	(Vancouver <Clark	Ellis	(Mrs.)	Bachand	Burghardt	Coates(Brandon-Souris)	Elzinga	Hnatyshyn	Beatty	Campbell (Miss)	CollenetteClarke	Epp	Hopkins	Beauchamp-Niquet	(South West Nova)	Comtois(Vancouver Quadra)	Erola (Mrs.)	Howie	(Mrs.)	Campbell	CookCoates	Evans	Hudecki	Begin (Miss)	(LaSalle)	CooperCollenette	Fennell	Huntington	Berger	Campbell	CorbettComtois	Ferguson	Irwin	Blais	(Cardigan)	CorbinCook	Fisher	Isabelle	Blaker	Chenier	CorriveauCooper	Fleming	Jarvis	Blenkarn	Chretien	CosgroveCorbett	Flis	Jelinek	Bloomfield	Clark	Cossitt (Mrs.)Corbin	Forrestall	Johnston	Bockstael	(Yellowhead)	Cote (Mrs.)Corriveau	Foster	Joyal	Bosley	
November 3, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act
Cousineau
Crombie
Crosbie
(Si. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Cullen
Cyr
Gauthier Gilchrist Gimaiei Gingras Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Greenaway
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Harquail
Hawkes
Hees
Henderson
Messrs.
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hnatyshyn
Hopkins
Howie
Hudecki
Huntington
Irwin
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Munro
(Hamilton East) Murta Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nickerson
Nielsen
de Jong
Fulton
Heap
Hovdebo
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kristiansen
Lewycky
Manly
Messrs. McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.)
Murphy
Nystrom
Ogle
Orlikow
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Malone
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCauley
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McRae
Mitges
Mulroney
Stevens
Stewart
Tardif
Taylor
Tessier
Thacker
Thomson
Tobin
Tousignant
Towers
Trudeau
Turner
Vankoughnet
Veillette
Watson
Weatherhead
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Yanakis-228.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No. 60 (Mr. Benjamin) which		
was negatived on	the following division:	
	(Division No. 402)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althouse	Jewett (Miss)	NystromAnguish	Keeper	OgleBenjamin	Kristiansen	OrlikowBlackburn	Lewycky	ParkerBlaikie	Manly	RiisDeans	McDonald (Ms.)	Robinsonde Jong	(Broadvicw-Greenwood)	(Burnaby)Fulton	Miller	SargeantHeap	Mitchell (Mrs.)	SkellyHovdebo	Murphy
NAYS Messrs.	Waddell Young-29.Allmand	Cossitt (Mrs.)	FretzAndre	Cote (Mrs.)	FriesenAppolloni (Mrs.)	Cousineau	FrithAxworthy	Crombie	GambleBachand	Crosbie	GarantBeatty	(St. John's West)	GassBea uc ha m p- N iq ue t	Crosby	Gauthier(Mrs.)	(Halifax West)	GilchristBegin (Miss)	Crouse	GimaielBerger	Cullen	GingrasBlais	Cyr	GourdBlaker	Dantzer	(Argenteuil-Papineau)Blenkarn	Darling	GourdeBloomfield	Daudlin	(L6vis)Bockstael	Dawson	GrayBosley	De Bane	GreenawayBossy	de Corneille	GurbinBradley	Demers	GustafsonBreau	Deniger	HailidayBujold	Dick	HamiltonBurghardt	Dingwall	(Swift Current-MapleCampbell (Miss)	Dion	Creek)(South West Nova)	Dionne	HargraveCampbell	(Chicoutimi)	Harquail(LaSalle)	Domm	HawkesCampbell	Dubois	Hees(Cardigan)	Duclos	HendersonChenier	Dupont	HerbertChretien	Dupras	Hervieux-PayetteClark	Duquet	(Mrs.)(Yellow head)	Ellis	HnatyshynClark	Elzinga	Hopkins(Brandon-Souris)	Epp	HowieClarke	Erola (Mrs.)	Hudecki(Vancouver Quadra)	Evans	HuntingtonCoates	Fennell	IrwinCollenette	Ferguson	IsabelleComtois	Fisher	JarvisCook	Fleming	JelinekCooper	Flis	JohnstonCorbett	Forrestall	JoyalCorbin	Foster	KaplanCorriveau	Fox	KellyCosgrove	Fraser	KemplingKilgour	Messrs. McCain	RobinsonKillens (Mrs.)	McCauley	(Etobicoke- La keshore)King	McDcrmid	RocheKushner	McGrath	RompkeyLachance	McKenzie	RooneyLajoie	McKinnon	RossiLalonde	McKnight	RoyLambert	McLean	St. GermainLamontagne	McRae	SavardLanders	Mitges	SchellenbergerLang	Mulroney	SchroderLaniel	Munro	ScottLapierre	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Lapointe	Munro	Scott(Charlevoix)	(Hamilton East)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Lapointe	Murta	Shields(Beauce)	Neil	SiddonLa Salle	Nicholson (Miss)	SmithLawrence	Nickerson	SpeyerLeBlanc	Nielsen	StevensLeduc	Nowlan	StewartLefebvre	Oberle	TardifLoiselle	Olivier	TaylorLumley	Ostiguy	TessierMacBain	Ouellet	ThackerMacDonald (Miss)	Paproski	Thomson(Kingston and the Islands) Parent	TobinMacDougail	Patterson	TousignantMacEachen	Pelletier	TowersMacGuigan	Penner	TrudeauMackascy	Pepin	TurnerMacLaren	Peterson	VankoughnetMacLellan	Pinard	VeilletteMalepart	Portelance	WatsonMalone	Prud'homme	WeatherheadMaltais	Reid	WenmanMarceau	(St. Catharines)	WilsonMasse	Reid	WiseMasters	(Kcnora-Rainy River)	WrightMayer	Roberts	Yanakis-228.Mazankowski Mr. Deputy Speaker: 1 declare the motion lost.	The House divided on Motion No. 76 (Mr. Benjamin) which	was negatived on	the following division:	(Division No. 410)	Althouse	YEAS Messrs. Keeper	OgleAnguish	Kristiansen	OrlikowBenjamin	Lewycky	ParkerBlackburn	Manly	RiisBlaikie	McDonald (Ms.)	RobinsonDeans	(Broadview-Greenwood)	(Burnaby)de Jong	Miller	SargeantFulton	Mitchell (Mrs.)	SkellyHeap	Murphy	WaddellHovdebo	Nystrom	Young-29.Jewett (Miss) Allmand	NAYS Messrs. Bockstael	ChretienAndre	Bosley	ClarkAppolloni (Mrs.)	Bossy	(Ycllowhead)Axworthy	Bradley	ClarkBachand	Breau	(Brandon-Souris)Beatty	Bujold	ClarkeBeauchamp-Niquet	Burghardt	(Vancouver Quadra)(Mrs.)	Campbell (Miss)	CoatesBegin (Miss)	(South West Nova)	CollenetteBerger	Campbell	ComtoisBlais	(LaSalle)	CookBlaker	Campbell	CooperBlenkarn	(Cardigan)	CorbettBloomfield	Chinier	Corbin
November 3, 1983

Messrs.
Western Grain Transportation Act (Division No. 412)
Corriveau Cosgrove Cossitt (Mrs.)
Cote (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West)
Crouse
Cullen
Cyr
Dantzer
Darling
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Dick
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi)
Domm
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ellis
Elzinga
Epp
Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Fennell
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Forrestall
Foster
Fox
Fraser
Fretz
Friesen
Frith
Gamble
Garant
Gass
Gauthier
Gilchrist
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Greenaway
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Harquail
Hawkes
Hees
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hnalyshyn
Hopkins
Howie
Hudecki
Huntington
Irwin
Isabelle
Jarvis
Jelinek
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Kempling
Kilgour
Killens (Mrs.)
King
Kushner
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lambert
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
La Salle
Lawrence
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey MacLaren MacLellan Malepart Malone Maltais Marceau Masse Masters Mayer
Mazankowski
McCain
McCauley
McDermid
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
McRae
Mitges
Mulroney
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Munro
(Hamilton East)
Murta
Neil
Nicholson (Miss)
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Oberle
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Paproski
Parent
Patterson
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Roche Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy
St. Germain Savard
Schellenberger
Schroder
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Shields
Siddon
Smith
Speyer
Stevens
Stewart
Tardif
Taylor
Tessier
Thacker
Thomson
Tobin
Tousignant
Towers
Trudeau
Turner
Vankoughnet
Veillette
Watson
Weathcrhead
Wenman
Wilson
Wise
Wright
Yanakis-228.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 33. According to the agreement this division also applies to Motions Nos. 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 58, 63, 65, 68, 69, 72, 77, 79, 84, 88, 90A, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97,98,99, 103, 115, 127, 130, 131, 133, 134A, 136, 138, 140, 143, 158, 161, 162, 163, 165A and 165B.
The question is on Motion No. 33.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Messrs.	NAYS
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LcBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Loisclie Lumley MacBain MacEachen MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Pepin Peterson Pinard Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkcy Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No. 44 (Mr. McKnight)		
which was negatived	on the following division: (Division No. 391)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althouse	Cooper	FennellAndre	Corbett	ForrestallAnguish	Cossitt (Mrs.)	FraserBeatty	Crombie	FretzBenjamin	Crosbie	FriesenBlackburn	(St. John's West)	FultonBlaikie	Crosby	GambleBlenkarn	(Halifax West)	GassBosley	Crouse	GilchristBradley	Dantzer	GreenawayClark	Darling	Gurbin(Yellowhead)	Deans	GustafsonClark	de Jong	Halliday(Brandon-Souris)	Dick	HamiltonClarke	Domm	(Swift Current-Maple(Vancouver Quadra)	Ellis	Creek)Coates	Elzinga	HargraveCook	Epp	Hawkes
November 3, 1983

Heap	McDonald (Ms.)	RiisHees	(Broadview-Greenwood)	RobinsonHnatyshyn	McGrath	(Burnaby)Hovdebo	McKenzie	RocheHowie	McKinnon	St. GermainHuntington	McKnight	SargeantJarvis	McLean	SchellenbergeJelinek	Miller	ScottJewett (Miss)	Mitchell (Mrs.)	(Hamilton-Keeper	Mitges	ScottKempling	Mulroney	(Victoria-HKilgour	Munro	ShieldsKing	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	SiddonKristiansen	Murphy	SkellyKushner	Murta	SpeyerLambert	Neil	StevensLa Salle	Nickerson	StewartLawrence	Nielsen	TaylorLewycky	Nowlan	ThackerMacDonald (Miss)	Nystrom	Thomson(Kingston and the Islands)	Oberle	TowersMacDougall	Ogle	VankoughnetMalone	Orlikow	WaddellManly	Paproski	WenmanMayer	Parker	WilsonMazankowski	Patterson	WiseMcCain	Reid	WrightMcDermid	(St. Catharines)	Young-124.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Bockstael Bossy Breau Bujold Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Messrs.
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper Kempling
			Corbett	Kilgour
	NAYS		Cossitt (Mrs.)	King
			Crombie	Kristiansen
	Messrs.		Crosbie	Kushner
			(St. John's West)	Lambert
Allmand	Evans	MacEachen	Crosby	La SalleAppolloni (Mrs.)	Ferguson	MacGuigan	(Halifax West)	LawrenceAxworthy	Fisher	Mackasey	Crouse	LewyckyBachand	Fleming	MacLaren	Dantzer	MacDonald (Miss)Beauchamp-Niquet	Flis	MacLellan	Darling	(Kingston and the Islands)(Mrs.)	Foster	Malepart	Deans	MacDougallBegin (Miss)	Fox	Maltais	de Jong	MaloneBerger	Frith	Marceau	Dick	ManlyBlais	Garant	Masse	Domm	MayerBlaker	Gauthier	Masters	Ellis	MazankowskiBloomfield	Gimaiel	McCauley	Elzinga	McCainBockstael	Gingras	McRae	Epp	McDermidBossy	Gourd	Munro	Fennell	McDonald (Ms.)Breau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	(Hamilton East)	Forrestall	(Broadview-Greenwood)Bujold	Gourde	Nicholson (Miss)	Fraser	McGrathBurghardt	(Levis)	Olivier	Fretz	McKenzieCampbell (Miss)	Gray	Ostiguy	Friesen	McKinnon(South West Nova)	Harquail	Ouellet	Fulton	McKnightCampbell	Henderson	Parent	Gamble	McLean(LaSalle)	Herbert	Pelletier	Gass	MillerCampbell	Hervieux-Payette	Penner	Gilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)(Cardigan)	(Mrs.)	Pepin	Greenaway	MitgesChenier	Hopkins	Peterson	Chretien	Hudecki	Pinard	NAYSCollenette	Irwin	Portelance	Comtois	Isabelle	Prud'homme	Messrs.Corbin	Johnston	Reid	Corriveau	Joyal	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Allmand	ComtoisCosgrove	Kaplan	Roberts	Appolloni (Mrs.)	CorbinCote (Mrs.)	Kelly	Robinson	Axworthy	CorriveauCousineau	Killens (Mrs.)	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	Bachand	CosgroveCullen	Lachance	Rompkey	Beauchamp-Niquet	Cdte (Mrs.)Cyr	Lajoie	Rooney	(Mrs.)	CousineauDaudlin	Lalonde	Rossi	Begin (Miss)	CullenDawson	Lamontagne	Roy	Berger	CyrDe Bane	Landers	Savard	Blais	Daudlinde Corneille	Lang	Schroder	Blaker	DawsonDemers	Laniel	Smith	Bloomfield	De Bane
de Corneille
Demers
Deniger
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Eroia (Mrs.) Evans
Mulroney
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnct Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-124.
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
FI is
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.) '
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Johnston	Messrs. MacGuigan	Prud'hommeJoyal	Mackasey	ReidKaplan	MacLaren	(Kenora-Rainy River)Kelly	MacLellan	RobertsKillens (Mrs.)	Malepart	RobinsonLachance	Maltais	(Etobicoke- Lakcshorc)Lajoie	Marceau	RompkeyLalonde	Mass6	RooneyLamontagne	Masters	RossiLanders	McCauley	RoyLang	McRae	SavardLaniel	Munro	SchroderLapierre	(Hamilton East)	SmithLapointe	Nicholson (Miss)	Tardif(Charlevoix)	Olivier	TessicrLapointe	Ostiguy	Tobin(Beauce)	Ouellet	TousignantLeBlanc	Parent	TrudeauLeduc	Pelletier	TurnerLefcbvrc	Penner	VeilletleLoiselle	Pepin	WatsonLumlcy	Peterson	WeatherhcadMacBain	Pinard	Yanakis-133.MacEachcn	Portelancc


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No. 46 (Mr. Benjamin) which		
was negatived on the following division:		
Althouse	(Division No. 393)
 YEAS Messrs. Gurbin	Mulroney
Andre	Gustafson	MunroAnguish	Halliday	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Beatty	Hamilton	MurphyBenjamin	(Swift Current-Maple	MurtaBlackburn	Creek)	NeilBlaikie	Hargrave	NickersonBlenkarn	Hawkes	NielsenBosley	Heap	NowlanBradley	Hees	NystromClark	Hnatyshyn	Obcrle(Yellowhead)	Hovdcbo	OgleClark	Howie	Orlikow(Brandon-Souris)	Huntington	PaproskiClarke	Jarvis	Parker(Vancouver Quadra)	Jelinek	PattersonCoates	Jewett (Miss)	ReidCook	Keeper	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Kempling	RiisCorbett	Kilgour	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	King	(Burnaby)Crombie	Kristiansen	RocheCrosbie	Kushner	St. Germain(St. John's West)	Lambert	SargeantCrosby	La Salle	Schellenberger(Halifax West)	Lawrence	ScottCrouse	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dantzer	MacDonald (Miss)	ScottDarling	(Kingston and the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	MacDougall	Shieldsde Jong	Malone	SiddonDick	Manly	SkcllyDomm	Mayer	SpeyerEllis	Mazankowski	StevensElzinga	McCain	StewartEpp	McDermid	TaylorFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerForrestall	(Broadview-Greenwood)	ThomsonFraser	McGrath	TowersFretz	McKenzie	VankoughnetFriesen	McKinnon	WaddellFulton	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WilsonGass	Miller	WiseGilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)	WrightGreenaway	Mitges	Young-124.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Allmand	Evans	MacEachenAppolloni (Mrs.)	Ferguson	MacGuiganAxworthy	Fisher	MackaseyBachand	Fleming	MacLarenBeauchamp-Niquet	Flis	MacLellan(Mrs.)	Foster	MalepartBegin (Miss)	Fox	MaltaisBerger	Frith	MarceauBlais	Garant	MasseBlaker	Gauthier	MastersBloomfield	Gimaiel	McCauleyBockstael	Gingras	McRaeBossy	Gourd	MunroBreau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	(Hamilton East)Bujold	Gourde	Nicholson (Miss)Burghardt	(L6vis)	OlivierCampbell (Miss)	Gray	Ostiguy(South West Nova)	Harquail	OuelletCampbell	Henderson	Parent(LaSalle)	Herbert	PelletierCampbell	Hervieux-Payette	Penner(Cardigan)	(Mrs.)	PepinChtnier	Hopkins	PetersonChretien	Hudecki	PinardCollenette	Irwin	PortelanceComtois	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCorbin	Johnston	ReidCorriveau	Joyal	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cosgrove	Kaplan	RobertsC6t6 (Mrs.)	Kelly	RobinsonCousineau	Killens (Mrs.)	(Etobicoke- Lakeshorc)Cullen	Lachance	RompkeyCyr	Lajoie	RooneyDaudlin	Lalonde	RossiDawson	Lamontagne	RoyDe Bane	Landers	Savardde Corneille	Lang	SchroderDemers	Laniel	SmithDeniger	Lapierre	TardifDingwall	Lapointe	TessicrDion	(Charlevoix)	TobinDionne	Lapointe	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	(Beauce)	TrudeauDubois	LeBlanc	TurnerDuclos	Leduc	VeillctteDupont	Lcfebvrc	WatsonDupras	Loiselle	WeathcrheadDuquct	Lumley	Yanakis-133.Erola (Mrs.)	MacBain


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand	Comtois	FergusonAppolloni (Mrs.)	Corbin	FisherAxworthy	Corriveau	FlemingBachand	Cosgrove	FlisBeauchamp-Niquet	C6t6 (Mrs.)	Foster(Mrs.)	Cousineau	FoxBegin (Miss)	Cullen	FrithBerger	Cyr	GarantBlais	Daudlin	GauthierBlaker	Dawson	GimaielBloomfield	De Bane	GingrasBockstael	de Corneille	GourdBossy	Demers	(ArgentBreau	Deniger	GourdeBujold	Dingwall	(Levis)Burghardt	Dion	GrayCampbell (Miss)	Dionne	Harquail(South West Nova)	(Chicoutimi)	HendersorCampbell	Dubois	Herbert(LaSalle)	Duclos	Hervieux-Campbell	Dupont	(Mrs.)(Cardigan)	Dupras	HopkinsChenier	Duquet	HudeckiChretien	Erola (Mrs.)	IrwinCollenette	Evans	
November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Isabelle	Messrs. MacEachen	PortelanceJohnston	MacGuigan	Prud'hommeJoyal	Mackasey	ReidKaplan	MacLaren	(Kenora-Rainy River)Kelly	MacLellan	RobertsKillens (Mrs.)	Malepart	RobinsonLachance	Maltais	(Etobicoke- La keshore)Lajoie	Marceau	RompkeyLalonde	Masse	RooneyLamontagne	Masters	RossiLanders	McCauley	RoyLang	McRae	SavardLaniel	Munro	SchroderLapierre	(Hamilton East)	SmithLapointe	Nicholson (Miss)	Tardif(Charlevoix)	Olivier	TessierLapointe	Ostiguy	Tobin(Beauce)	Ouellet	TousignantLeBlanc	Parent	TrudeauLeduc	Pelletier	TurnerLefebvre	Pcnner	VeilletteLoiselle	Pepin	WatsonLumley	Peterson	WeatherheadMacBain	Pinard	Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No.		52 (Mr. Mayer) which
was negatived on	the following division:	
Althouse	(Division No. 398)
 YEAS Messrs. Gurbin Mulroney	
Andre	Gustafson	MunroAnguish	Halliday	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Beatty	Hamilton	MurphyBenjamin	(Swift Current-Maple	MurtaBlackburn	Creek)	NeilBlaikie	Hargrave	NickersonBlenkarn	Hawkes	NielsenBosley	Heap	NowlanBradley	Hees	NystromClark	Hnatyshyn	Obcrle(Yellowhead)	Hovdebo	OgleClark	Howie	Orlikow(Brandon-Souris)	Huntington	PaproskiClarke	Jarvis	Parker(Vancouver Quadra)	Jelinek	PattersonCoates	Jewett (Miss)	ReidCook	Keeper	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Kempling	RiisCorbett	Kilgour	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	King	(Burnaby)Crombie	Kristiansen	RocheCrosbie	Kushner	St. Germain(St. John's West)	Lambert	SargeantCrosby	La Salle	Schellenberger(Halifax West)	Lawrence	ScottCrouse	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dantzer	MacDonald (Miss)	ScottDarling	(Kingston and the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	MacDougall	Shieldsde Jong	Malone	SiddonDick	Manly	SkellyDomm	Mayer	SpeyerEllis	Mazankowski	StevensElzinga	McCain	StewartEpp	McDermid	TaylorFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerForrestall	(Broadview-G reen wood)	ThomsonFraser	McGrath	TowersFretz	McKenzie	VankoughnetFriesen	McKinnon	WaddellFulton	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WilsonGass	Miller	WiseGilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)	WrightGreenaway	Mitges	Young-124.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Allmand	Evans	MacEachenAppolloni (Mrs.)	Ferguson	MacGuiganAxworthy	Fisher	MackaseyBachand	Fleming	MacLarenBcauchamp-Niquet	Flis	MacLellan(Mrs.)	Foster	MalepartBegin (Miss)	Fox	MaltaisBerger	Frith	MarceauBlais	Garant	MasseBlaker	Gauthier	MastersBloomfield	Gimaiel	McCauleyBockstael	Gingras	McRaeBossy	Gourd	MunroBreau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	(Hamilton East)Bujold	Gourde	Nicholson (Miss)Burghardt	(Levis)	OlivierCampbell (Miss)	Gray	Ostiguy(South West Nova)	Harquail	OuelletCampbell	Henderson	Parent(LaSalle)	Herbert	PelletierCampbell	Hervieux-Payette	Penner(Cardigan)	(Mrs.)	PepinChenier	Hopkins	PetersonChretien	Hudecki	PinardCollenette	Irwin	PortelanceComtois	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCorbin	Johnston	ReidCorriveau	Joyal	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cosgrove	Kaplan	RobertsCote (Mrs.)	Kelly	RobinsonCousineau	Killens (Mrs.)	(Etobicoke- La keshore)Cullen	Lachance	RompkeyCyr	Lajoie	RooneyDaudlin	Lalonde	RossiDawson	Lamontagne	RoyDe Bane	Landers	Savardde Corneille	Lang	SchroderDemers	Laniel	SmithDeniger	Lapierre	TardifDingwall	Lapointe	TessierDion	(Charlevoix)	TobinDionne	Lapointe	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	(Beauce)	TrudeauDubois	LeBlanc	TurnerDuclos	Leduc	VeilletteDupont	Lefebvre	WatsonDupras	Loiselle	WeatherheadDuquet	Lumley	Yanakis-133.Erola (Mrs.)	MacBain


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.		
The House	divided on Motion No.	58 (Mr. McKnight)
which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 401)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Althouse	Corbett	FraserAndre	Cossitt (Mrs.)	FretzAnguish	Crombie	FriesenBeatty	Crosbie	FultonBenjamin	(St. John's West)	GambleBlackburn	Crosby	GassBlaikie	(Halifax West)	GilchristBlenkarn	Crouse	GreenawayBosley	Dantzer	GurbinBradley	Darling	GustafsonClark	Deans	Halliday(Yellowhead)	de Jong	HamiltonClark	Dick	(Swift Current-Maple(Brandon-Souris)	Domm	Creek)Clarke	Ellis	Hargrave(Vancouver Quadra)	Elzinga	HawkesCoates	Epp	HeapCook	Fennell	HeesCooper	Forrestall	Hnatyshyn
November 3, 1983

Hovdebo Howie Huntington Jarvis Jelinek Jewett (Miss) Keeper Kempling Kilgour
Messrs.
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.) Mitges Mulroney
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellcnberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Deans	MacDougall	Shieldsde Jong	Malone	SiddonDick	Manly	SkellyDomm	Mayer	SpeyerEllis	Mazankowski	StevensElzinga	McCain	StewartEpp	McDermid	TaylorFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerForrestall	(Broadview-Greenwood)	ThomsonFraser	McGrath	TowersFretz	McKenzie	VankoughnetFriesen	McKinnon	WaddellFulton	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WilsonGass	Miller	WiseGilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)	WrightGreenaway	Mitges	Young-124.NAYS	Messrs.	Allmand	Comtois	FergusonAppolloni (Mrs.)	Corbin	FisherAxworthy	Corriveau	FlemingBachand	Cosgrove	FlisBeauchamp-Niquet	C&te (Mrs.)	Foster(Mrs.)	Cousineau	FoxBegin (Miss)	Cullen	FrithBerger %	Cyr	GarantBlais	Daudlin	GauthierBlaker	Dawson	GimaielBloomfield	De Banc	GingrasBockstael	de Corneille	GourdBossy	Demers	(Argenteuil-Breau	Deniger	GourdeBujold	Dingwall	(Levis)Burghardt	Dion	GrayCampbell (Miss)	Dionne	Harquail(South West Nova)	(Chicoutimi)	HendersonCampbell	Dubois	Herbert(LaSalle)	Duclos	Hervieux-PayeCampbell	Dupont	(Mrs.)(Cardigan)	Dupras	HopkinsChenier	Duquet	HudeckiChretien	Erola (Mrs.)	IrwinCollenette	Evans	
November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Isabelle	MacEachen
Johnston	MacGuigan
Joyal	Mackasey
Kaplan	MacLaren
Kelly	MacLellan
Killens (Mrs.)	Malepart
Lachance	Maltais
Lajoie	Marceau
Lalonde	Masse
Lamontagne	Masters
Landers	McCauley
Lang	McRae
Laniel	Munro
Lapierre	(Hamilton East)
Lapointe	Nicholson (Miss)
(Charlevoix)	Olivier
Lapointe	Ostiguy
(Beauce)	Ouellet
LcBlanc	Parent
Leduc	Pelletier
Lefebvre	Penner
Loiselle	Pepin
Lumley	Peterson
MacBain	Pinard
Messrs.
Portelance Prud'homme Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand	Collenette	Erola (Mrs.)Appolloni (Mrs.)	Comtois	EvansAxworthy	Corbin	FergusonBachand	Corriveau	FisherBeauchamp-Niquet	Cosgrove	Fleming(Mrs.)	Cdte (Mrs.)	FlisBegin (Miss)	Cousineau	FosterBerger	Cullen	FoxBlais	Cyr	FrithBlaker	Daudlin	GarantBloomfield	Dawson	GauthierBockstael	De Bane	GimaYelBossy	de Corneille	GingrasBrcau	Demers	GourdBujold	Dcniger	(Argenteuil-Burghardt	Dingwall	GourdeCampbell (Miss)	Dion	(Levis)(South West Nova)	Dionne	GrayCampbell	(Chicoutimi)	Harquail(LaSalle)	Dubois	HendersonCampbell	Duclos	Herbert(Cardigan)	Dupont	Hervieux-PayeCh6nier	Dupras	(Mrs.)Chretien	Duquct	Hopkins
November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Hudecki	Messrs. MacBain	PortclanceIrwin	MacEachen	Prud'hommeIsabelle	MacGuigan	ReidJohnston	Mackasey	(Kenora-Rainy River)Joyal	MacLaren	RobertsKaplan	MacLellan	RobinsonKelly	Malepart	(Etobicoke- La keshorc)Killens (Mrs.)	Maltais	RompkeyLachance	Marceau	RooneyLajoie	Masse	RossiLalonde	Masters	RoyLamontagne	McCauley	SavardLanders	McRae	SchroderLang	Munro	SmithLaniel	(Hamilton East)	TardifLapierre	Nicholson (Miss)	TessierLapointe	Olivier	Tobin(Charlevoix)	Ostiguy	TousignantLapointe	Ouellet	Trudeau(Beauce)	Parent	TurnerLeBlanc	Pelletier	VeilletteLeduc	Penner	WatsonLefebvre	Pepin	WeatherheadLoiselle	Peterson	Yanakis-133.Lumley	Pinard


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No. 72 (Mr. Benjamin) which		
was negatived on	the following division:	
	(Division No. 409)	
Althouse	YEAS Messrs. Gurbin	MulroneyAndre	Gustafson	MunroAnguish	Halliday	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Beatty	Hamilton	MurphyBenjamin	(Swift Current-Maple	MurtaBlackburn	Creek)	NeilBlaikie	Hargrave	NickersonBlenkarn	Hawkes	NielsenBosley	Heap	NowlanBradley	Hees	NystromClark	Hnatyshyn	Obcrle(Yellowhead)	Hovdebo	OgleClark	Howie	Orlikow(Brandon-Souris)	Huntington	PaproskiClarke	Jarvis	Parker(Vancouver Quadra)	Jelinek	PattersonCoates	Jewett (Miss)	ReidCook	Keeper	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Kempling	RiisCorbett	Kilgour	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	King	(Burnaby)Crombie	Kristiansen	RocheCrosbie	Kushner	St. Germain(St. John's West)	Lambert	SargeantCrosby	La Salle	Schellenberger(Halifax West)	Lawrence	ScottCrouse	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dantzer	MacDonald (Miss)	ScottDarling	(Kingston and the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	MacDougall	Shieldsde Jong	Malone	SiddonDick	Manly	SkellyDomm	Mayer	SpeyerEllis	Mazankowski	StevensElzinga	McCain	StewartEpp	McDermid	TaylorFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerForestall	(Broadview-Greenwood)	ThomsonFraser	McGrath	TowersFretz	McKenzie	VankoughnetFriesen	McKinnon	WaddellFulton	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WilsonGass	Miller	WiseGilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)	WrightGreenaway	Mitges	Young-124.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Allmand	Evans	MacEachen	Appolloni (Mrs.)	Ferguson	MacGuigan	Axworthy	Fisher	Mackasey	Bachand	Fleming	MacLaren	::LBeauchamp-Niquet	FI is	MacLellan	>(Mrs.)	Foster	Malepart	Begin (Miss)	Fox	Maltais	;Berger	Frith	Marceau	Blais	Garant	Masse	Blaker	Gauthier	Masters	Bloomfield	Gimaiel	McCauley	Bockstael	Gingras	McRae	Bossy	Gourd	Munro	Breau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	(Hamilton East)	Bujold	Gourde	Nicholson (Miss)	Burghardt	(Levis)	Olivier	;fCampbell (Miss)	Gray	Ostiguy	(South West Nova)	Harquail	Ouellet	Campbell	Henderson	Parent	(LaSalle)	Herbert	Pelletier	Campbell	Hervieux-Payette	Penner	(Cardigan)	(Mrs.)	Pepin	Chenier	Hopkins	Peterson	.Chretien	Hudecki	Pinard	Collenette	Irwin	Portelance	Comtois	Isabelle	Prud'homme	Corbin	Johnston	Reid	Corriveau	Joyal	(Kenora-Rainy River)	Cosgrove Cote (Mrs.)	Kaplan	Roberts	Kelly	Robinson	Cousineau	Killens (Mrs.)	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)	Cullen	Lachance	Rompkey	Cyr	Lajoie	Rooney	Daudlin	Lalonde	Rossi	Dawson	Lamontagne	Roy	Dc Bane	Landers	Savard	-I.de Corneille	Lang	Schroder	Demers	Laniel	Smith	Deniger	Lapierre	Tardif	Dingwall	Lapointe	Tessier	Dion	(Charlevoix)	Tobin	Dionne	Lapointe	Tousignant	4(Chicoutimi)	(Beauce)	Trudeau	Dubois	LeBlanc	Turner	Duclos	Leduc	Veillette	Dupont	Lefebvre	Watson	[DOT]Dupras	Loiselle	Weatherhead	Duquet	Lumley	Yanakis-133.	Erola (Mrs.)	MacBain


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 77 (Mr. Mazankowski)			
which was negatived on the following division:			1
	(Division No. 411)		
	YEAS		
	Messrs.		
Althouse	Corbett	Fraser	Andre	Cossitt (Mrs.)	Fretz	Anguish	Crombie	Friesen	Beatty	Crosbie	Fulton	Benjamin	(St. John's West)	Gamble	Blackburn	Crosby	Gass	Blaikie	(Halifax West)	Gilchrist	Blenkarn	Crouse	Greenaway	Bosley	Dantzer	Gurbin	Bradley	Darling	Gustafson	Clark	Deans	Halliday	(Yellowhead)	de Jong	Hamilton	Clark	Dick	(Swift Current-Maple	(Brandon-Souris)	Domm	Creek)	Clarke	Ellis	Hargrave	(Vancouver Quadra)	Elzinga	Hawkes	Coates	Epp	Heap	Cook	Fennell	Hees	Cooper	Forres tall	Hnatyshyn	
November 3, 1983

Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDonald (Ms.) (Broadview-Greenwood)
Messrs.
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.)
Mitges
Mulroney
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Obcrle
Ogle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-124.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstae!
Bossy Breau Bujold Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Ch6nier
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cdte (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson Dc Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Eroia (Mrs.) Evans
Mulroney
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Obcrle
Ogle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-124.
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervicux-Payettc
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killcns (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel La pierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Loiseiie Lumley MacBain MacEachen
Messrs.
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Mal6part
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Pepin Peterson Pinard Portclancc
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Wcathcrhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No. 88 (Mr. Benjamin) which		
was negatived on the following division:		
	(Division No. 417)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althouse	Corbett	FraserAndre	Cossitt (Mrs.)	FretzAnguish	Crombic	FriescnBeatty	Crosbie	FultonBenjamin	(St. John's West)	GambleBlackburn	Crosby	GassBlaikie	(Halifax West)	GilchristBlenkarn	Crouse	GreenawayBosley	Dantzer	GurbinBradley	Darling	GustafsonClark	Deans	Halliday(Yellowhead)	de Jong	HamiltonClark	Dick	(Swift Current-Maple(Brandon-Souris)	Do mm	Creek)Clarke	Ellis	Hargrave(Vancouver Quadra)	Elzinga	HawkesCoates	Epp	HeapCook	Fennell	HeesCooper	Forres tall	Hnatyshyn
November 3, 1983

Hovdebo Howie Huntington Jarvis Jelinek Jewett (Miss) Keeper Kempling Kilgour King
Messrs.
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.) Mitges Mulroney Munro
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Deans	MacDougall	Shieldsde Jong	Malone	SiddonDick	Manly	SkellyDomm	Mayer	SpeyerEllis	Mazankowski	StevensElzinga	McCain	StewartEpp	McDermid	TaylorFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerForestall	(Broadview-Greenwood)	ThomsonFraser	McGrath	TowersFretz	McKenzie	VankoughnetFriesen	McKinnon	WaddellFulton	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WilsonGass	Miller	WiseGilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)	WrightGreenaway	Mitges	Young-124.NAYS	Messrs.	Allmand	Collenette	Eroia (Mrs.)Appolloni (Mrs.)	Comtois	EvansAxworthy	Corbin	FergusonBachand	Corriveau	FisherBeauchamp-N iquet	Cosgrove	Fleming(Mrs.)	Cdte (Mrs.)	FlisBegin (Miss)	Cousineau	FosterBerger	Cullen	FoxBlais	Cyr	FrithBlaker	Daudlin	GarantBloomfield	Dawson	GauthierBockstael	De Bane	GimaielBossy	de Corneille	GingrasBreau	Demers	GourdBujold	Deniger	(Argenteuil-Burghardt	Dingwall	GourdeCampbell (Miss)	Dion	(Ldvis)(South West Nova)	Dionne	GrayCampbell	(Chicoutimi)	Harquail(LaSalle)	Dubois	HendersonCampbell	Duclos	Herbert(Cardigan)	Dupont	Hervieux-PayeChenier	Dupras	(Mrs.)Chretien	Duquet	Hopkins
November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Loiselle Lumley
Messrs.
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Pepin Peterson Pinard
++NAYS
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No. 94 (Mr. Mazankowski)		
which was negatived on the following division:		
	(.Division No. 423)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althouse	Corbett	FraserAndre	Cossitt (Mrs.)	FretzAnguish	Crombie	FriesenBeatty	Crosbie	FultonBenjamin	(St. John's West)	GambleBlackburn	Crosby	GassBlaikie	(Halifax West)	GilchristBlenkarn	Crouse	GreenawayBosley	Dantzer	GurbinBradley	Darling	GustafsonClark	Deans	Halliday(Yellowhead)	de Jong	HamiltonClark	Dick	(Swift Current-Maple(Brandon-Souris)	Domm	Creek)Clarke	Ellis	Hargrave(Vancouver Quadra)	Elzinga	HawkesCoates	Epp	HeapCook	Fennell	HeesCooper	Forrestall	Hnatyshyn
November 3, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act
	Messrs.		The House divided on Motion No. 95 (Mr. Benjamin) which		
Hovdebo	McGrath	Robinson	was negatived on	the following division:	Howie	McKenzie	(Burnaby)	Huntington	McKinnon	Roche	Jarvis	McKnight	St. Germain	(Division No. 424)	Jelinek	McLean	Sargeant	Jewett (Miss)	Miller	Schellenberger	YEAS	Keeper	Mitchell (Mrs.)	Scott	Kempling	Mitges	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Messrs.	Kilgour	Mulroney	Scott	King	Munro	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Althouse	Gurbin	MulroneyKristiansen	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Shields	Andre	Gustafson	MunroKushner	Murphy	Siddon	Anguish	Halliday	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Lambert	Murta	Skelly	Beatty	Hamilton	MurphyLa Salle	Neil	Speyer	Benjamin	(Swift Current-Maple	MurtaLawrence	Nickerson	Stevens	Blackburn	Creek)	NeilLewycky	Nielsen	Stewart	Blaikie	Hargrave	NickersonMacDonald (Miss)	Nowlan	Taylor	Blenkarn	Hawkes	Nielsen(Kingston and the Islands)	Nystrom	Thacker	Bosley	Heap	NowlanMacDougall	Oberle	Thomson	Bradley	Hees	NystromMalone	Ogle	Towers	Clark	Hnatyshyn	OberleManly	Orlikow	Vankoughnet	(Yellowhead)	Hovdebo	OgleMayer	Paproski	Waddell	Clark	Howie	OrlikowMazankowski	Parker	Wenman	(Brandon-Souris)	Huntington	PaproskiMcCain	Patterson	Wilson	Clarke	Jarvis	ParkerMcDermid	Reid	Wise	(Vancouver Quadra)	Jelinek	PattersonMcDonald (Ms.)	(St. Catharines)	Wright	Coates	Jewett (Miss)	Reid(Broadview-Greenwood)	Riis	Young-124.	Cook	Keeper	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Kempling	RiisCorbett	Kilgour	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	King	(Burnaby)NAYS	Crombie	Kristiansen	RocheCrosbie	Kushner	St. GermainMessrs.	(St. John's West)	Lambert	SargeantAllmand	Evans	MacEachenAppolloni (Mrs.)	Ferguson	MacGuiganAxworthy	Fisher	MackaseyBachand	Fleming	MacLarenBeauchamp-Niquet	Flis	MacLellan(Mrs.)	Foster	MalepartBegin (Miss)	Fox	MaltaisBerger	Frith	MarceauBlais	Garant	MasseBlaker	Gauthier	MastersBloomfield	Gimafel	McCauleyBockstae!	Gingras	McRaeBossy	Gourd	MunroBreau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	(Hamilton East)Bujold	Gourde	Nicholson (Miss)Burghardt	(Levis)	OlivierCampbell (Miss)	Gray	Ostiguy(South West Nova)	Harquail	OuelletCampbell	Henderson	Parent(LaSalle)	Herbert	PelletierCampbell	Hervieux-Payette	Penner(Cardigan)	(Mrs.)	PepinChenier	Hopkins	PetersonChretien	Hudecki	PinardCollenette	Irwin	PortelanccComtois	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCorbin	Johnston	ReidCorriveau	Joyal	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cosgrove	Kaplan	RobertsCdte (Mrs.)	Kelly	RobinsonCousineau	Killens (Mrs.)	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Cullen	Lachance	RompkeyCyr	Lajoie	RooneyDaudlin	Lalonde	RossiDawson	Lamontagne	RoyDe Bane	Landers	Savardde Corneille	Lang	SchroderDemers	Laniel	SmithDeniger	Lapierre	TardifDingwall	Lapointe	TessierDion	(Charlevoix)	TobinDionne	Lapointe	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	(Beauce)	TrudeauDubois	LeBlanc	TurnerDuclos	Leduc	VeilletteDupont	Lefebvre	WatsonDupras	Loiselle	WeatherheadDuquet	Lumley	Yanakis-133.Eroia (Mrs.)	MacBain	
Crosby (Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling
La Salle Lawrence Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands)
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Johnston	Messrs. MacGuigan	Prud'hommeJoyal	Mackasey	ReidKaplan	MacLaren	(Kenora-Rainy River)Kelly	MacLellan	RobertsKillens (Mrs.)	Malepart	RobinsonLachance	Maltais	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Lajoic	Marceau	RompkeyLalonde	Masse	RooneyLamontagne	Masters	RossiLanders	McCauley	RoyLang	McRae	SavardLanicl	Munro	SchroderLapierre	(Hamilton East)	SmithLapointe	Nicholson (Miss)	Tardif(Charlevoix)	Olivier	TcssierLapointe	Ostiguy	Tobin(Beauce)	Ouellet	TousignantLeBlanc	Parent	TrudeauLeduc	Pelletier	TurnerLefebvre	Penner	VeillctteLoiselle	Pepin	WatsonLumley	Peterson	WeatherheadMacBain	Pinard	Yanakis-133.MacEachcn	Portelance


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No. 96 (Mr. Benjamin) which		
was negatived on	the following division:	
Althouse	(Division No. 425)
 YEAS Messrs. Gurbin Mulroney	
Andre	Gustafson	MunroAnguish	Halliday	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Beatty	Hamilton	MurphyBenjamin	(Swift Current-Maple	MurtaBlackburn	Creek)	NeilBlaikie	Hargrave	NickersonBlenkarn	Hawkes	NielsenBosley	Heap	NowlanBradley	Hees	NystromClark	Hnatyshyn	Oberle(Yellowhead)	Hovdebo	OgleClark	Howie	Orlikow(Brandon-Souris)	Huntington	PaproskiClarke	Jarvis	Parker(Vancouver Quadra)	Jelinek	PattersonCoates	Jewett (Miss)	ReidCook	Keeper	(St. Catharines)Cooper	Kempling	RiisCorbett	Kilgour	RobinsonCossitt (Mrs.)	King	(Burnaby)Crombie	Kristiansen	RocheCrosbie	Kushner	St. Germain(St. John's West)	Lambert	SargeantCrosby	La Salle	Schellenbcrger(Halifax West)	Lawrence	ScottCrouse	Lewycky	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Dantzer	MacDonald (Miss)	ScottDarling	(Kingston and the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	MacDougall	Shieldsde Jong	Malone	SiddonDick	Manly	SkellyDomm	Mayer	SpeyerEllis	Mazankowski	StevensElzinga	McCain	StewartEpp	McDermid	TaylorFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerForrcstall	(Broadview-Grecnwood)	ThomsonFraser	McGrath	TowersFretz	McKenzie	VankoughnctFriesen	McKinnon	WaddellFulton	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WilsonGass	Miller	WiseGilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)	WrightGreenaway	Mitges	Young-124.
++NAYS
Messrs.
Allmand	Evans	MacEachcnAppolloni (Mrs.)	Ferguson	MacGuiganAxworthy	Fisher	MackaseyBachand	Fleming	MacLarenBeauchamp-Niquet	Flis	MacLellan(Mrs.)	Foster	MalepartBegin (Miss)	Fox	MaltaisBerger	Frith	MarceauBlais	Garant	Mass6Blaker	Gauthier	MastersBloomfield	Gima'fel	McCauleyBockstael	Gingras	McRaeBossy	Gourd	MunroBreau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	(Hamilton East)Bujold	Gourde	Nicholson	(Miss)Burghardt	(Levis)	OlivierCampbell (Miss)	Gray	Ostiguy(South West Nova)	Harquail	OuelletCampbell	Henderson	Parent(LaSalle)	Herbert	PelletierCampbell	Hervieux-Payettc	Penner(Cardigan)	(Mrs.)	PepinChfcnier	Hopkins	PetersonChretien	Hudecki	PinardCollenette	Irwin	PortelanceComtois	Isabelle	Prud'hommeCorbin	Johnston	ReidCorriveau	Joyal	(Kenora-Rainy River)Cosgrove	Kaplan	RobertsC6ti (Mrs.)	Kelly	RobinsonCousineau	Killens (Mrs.)	(Etobicoke- Lakeshore)Cullen	Lachance	RompkeyCyr	Lajoie	RooneyDaudlin	Lalonde	RossiDawson	Lamontagne	RoyDe Ban6	Landers	Savardde Corneille	Lang	SchroderDemers	Lanicl	SmithDeniger	Lapierre	TardifDingwall	Lapointe	TessierDion	(Charlevoix)	TobinDionne	Lapointe	Tousignant(Chicoutimi)	(Beauce)	TrudeauDubois	LeBlanc	TurnerDuclos	Leduc	VeillctteDupont	Lefebvre	WatsonDupras	Loiselle	WeatherheadDuquet	Lumley	Yanakis-133.Erola (Mrs.)	MacBain


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Deans	MacDougali	Shieldsde Jong	Malone	SiddonDick	Manly	SkellyDomm	Mayer	SpeyerEllis	Mazankowski	StevensElzinga	McCain	StewartEpp	McDermid	TaylorFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerForrestall	(Broadview-Greenwood)	ThomsonFraser	McGrath	TowersFretz	McKenzie	VankoughnetFriesen	McKinnon	WaddellFulton	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WilsonGass	Miller	WiseGilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)	WrightGreenaway	Mitges	Young-124.NAYS	Messrs.	Allmand	Chretien	DuprasAppolloni (Mrs.)	Collenette	DuquetAxworthy	Comtois	Erola (Mrs.)Bachand	Corbin	EvansBeauchamp-Niquet	Corriveau	Ferguson(Mrs.)	Cosgrove	FisherBegin (Miss)	Cote (Mrs.)	FlemingBerger	Cousineau	FlisBlais	Cullen	FosterBlaker	Cyr	FoxBloomfield	Daudlin	FrithBockstael	Dawson	GarantBossy	De Bane	GauthierBreau	de Corneille	GimaTelBujold	Demers	GingrasBurghardt	Deniger	GourdCampbell (Miss)	Dingwall	(Argenteuil-(South West Nova)	Dion	GourdeCampbell	Dionne	(L6vis)(LaSalle)	(Chicoutimi)	GrayCampbell	Dubois	Harquail(Cardigan)	Duclos	HendersonCh6nier	Dupont	Herbert
November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Hcrvicux-Payette (Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killcns (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel La pierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LcBIanc Leduc Lefcbvre
Messrs.
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackascy
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Pepin Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Gass
Gilchrist
Greenaway
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger Blais Blaker Bloomfield Bockstacl Bossy Breau Bujold Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Miller Mitchell (Mrs.) Mitges
++NAYS
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cot6 (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Banc de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet
Wise Wright Young-124.
Eroia (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervicux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LeBlanc Leduc Lefebvre Loiselle Lumley
Messrs.
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Pepin Peterson Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The House divided on Motion No.		134A (Mr. Hovdebo)
which was negatived on the following division:		
	(Division No. 436)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althouse	Corbett	FraserAndre	Cossitt (Mrs.)	FretzAnguish	Crombie	FriesenBeatty	Crosbie	FultonBenjamin	(St. John's West)	GambleBlackburn	Crosby	GassBlaikie	(Halifax West)	GilchristBlenkarn	Crouse	GreenawayBosley	Dantzer	GurbinBradley	Darling	GustafsonClark	Deans	Halliday(Yellowhead)	de Jong	HamiltonClark	Dick	(Swift Current-Maple(Brandon-Souris)	Domm	Creek)Clarke	Ellis	Hargrave(Vancouver Quadra)	Elzinga	HawkesCoates	Epp	HeapCook	Fennell	HeesCooper	Forrestall	Hnatyshyn
November 3, 1983

Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
Messrs.
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.)
Mitges
Mulroney
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich) Murphy Murta Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-124.
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger Blais Blaker Bloomfield Bockstael Bossy Breau Bujold Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chdnier
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cdte (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
++NAYS
Messrs.
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gimaiel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel La pierre Lapointe (Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillettc Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blaikie
Blenkarn
Bosley
Bradley
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crombic
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crosby
(Halifax West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Do mm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Frctz Friesen Fulton Gamble Gass Gilchrist Greenaway
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Bigin (Miss)
Berger Blais Blaker Bloomfield Bockstael Bossy Breau Bujold Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Gurbin
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Swift Current-Maple Creek)
Hargrave
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Jarvis
Jelinek
Jewett (Miss)
Keeper
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen
Kushner
Lambert
La Salle
Lawrence
Lewycky
MacDonald (Miss)
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall Malone Manly Mayer
Mazankowski McCain McDermid McDonald (Ms.)
(Broadview-Greenwood)
McGrath
McKenzie
McKinnon
McKnight
McLean
Miller
Mitchell (Mrs.)
Mitges
Mulroney
Messrs.
Chinier
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
Cdt6 (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Banc de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dubois
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenberger
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-124.
Duclos Dupont Dupras Duquet Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gimalel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(L6vis)
Gray

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Messrs.
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette (Mrs.) ' Hopkins Hudecki Irwin Isabelle Johnston Joyal Kaplan Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagnc Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix) Lapointe (Beauce) LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion lost.
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare	
The House divided on Motion 1	
which was negatived	on the follow (Division N
 YEAS Messrs.
Althouse	Gurbin
Andre	Gustafson
Anguish	Halliday
Beatty	Hamilton
Benjamin	(Swift Current-N
Blackburn	Creek)
Blaikie	Hargrave
Blenkarn	Hawkes
Bosley	Heap
Bradley	Hees
Clark	Hnatyshyn
(Yellowhcad)	Hovdebo
Clark	Howie
(Brandon-Souris)	Huntington
Clarke	Jarvis
(Vancouver Quadra)	Jelinek
Coates	Jewett (Miss)
Cook	Keeper
Cooper	Kempling
Corbett	Kilgour
Cossitt (Mrs.)	King
Crombie	Kristiansen
Crosbie	Kushncr
(St. John's West)	Lambert
Crosby	La Salle
(Halifax West)	Lawrence
Crouse	Lewycky
Dantzcr	MacDonald (Miss)
Darling	(Kingston and th<
Deans	MacDougall
de Jong	Malone
Dick	Manly
Do mm	Mayer
Ellis	Mazankowski
Elzinga	McCain
Epp	McDermid
Fennell	McDonald (Ms.)
Forrestall	(Broadview-Gree
Fraser	McGrath
Fretz	McKenzie
Friesen	McKinnon
Fulton	McKnight
Gamble	McLean
Gass	Miller
Gilchrist	Mitchell (Mrs.)
Greenaway	Mitges Mulroney
Peterson Pinard Por tela nee Prud'homme Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tcssier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Paproski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines)
Riis
Robinson
(Burnaby)
Roche
St. Germain
Sargeant
Schellenbergcr
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Skelly Speyer Stevens Stewart Taylor Thacker Thomson Towers Vankoughnet Waddell Wenman Wilson Wise Wright Young-124.
++NAYS
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand
Beauchamp-Niquet
(Mrs.)
Begin (Miss)
Berger Blais Blaker Bloomfield Bockstael Bossy Breau Bujold Burghardt Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Chenier
Chretien
Collenette
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cosgrove
C6t6 (Mrs.)
Cousineau
Cullen
Cyr
Daudlin Dawson De Banc de Corneille Demers Deniger Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi)
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Messrs.
Erola (Mrs.)
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Fleming
Flis
Foster
Fox
Frith
Garant
Gauthier
Gimai'el
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Johnston
Joyal
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel La pierre Lapointe (Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lcfebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- La keshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tcssier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.				Fleming	Killens (Mrs.)

November 3, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Messrs.
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Lamontagne
Landers
Lang
Laniel
Lapierre
Lapointe
(Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Leduc
Lefebvre
Loiselle
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Olivier Ostiguy Ouellet Parent Pelletier Penner Pepin Peterson Pinard Por tela nee Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke- Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Veillette Watson Weatherhead Yanakis-133.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 71. According to the agreement, this division also applies to Motions Nos. 74A, 90, 91, 101, 142, 157A, 167 and 170.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 am just curious to know when we will decide on Motions Nos. 40, 49, 78, 134A, 84 and 165B. The reason I ask. Sir, is as follows: a negative vote-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motion No. 77 is in group C. Motion No. 78, which has just been mentioned, is in group B, and so on. The Hon. Member, if he looks at the motions, will find that every one of these cases has been provided for in the grouping. They have been checked and rechecked, 1 am assured by the Table officers. There appears to be a consensus also among Hon. Members close to me who indicate they have also made the check.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry, Sir. This is one of the difficulties when one is working from two different pieces of paper. I asked before the vote started if we would all be working from the same piece of paper. Let me suggest to you that it is entirely possible that Hon. Members might have voted differently-I do not know. 1 will accept the vote as it is.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You have no choice.


Ian Deans: Well, I do have a choice. The Speaker in his original grouping made the suggestion that 1 am now requesting be looked at. The Speaker's grouping originally said that a negative vote on Motion No. 39 necessitated a separate vote on Motion No. 40. 1 am, therefore, not at all sure that Members who voted on the last grouping understood that voting for Motions Nos. 39 and 40 at the same time is the same thing as voting for Motion No. 39, and subsequently having to vote on Motion No. 40.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the interests of following each other, could the Hon. Member indicate which group these motions are from?


Ian Deans: Yes, I will, group No. C, which we have just completed voting on. The following situation arises: a negative vote on Motion No. 39, which we have just completed, necessitates a vote on Motion No. 40. A negative vote on Motion No. 48, which we have just completed, necessitates a vote on Motion No. 49. A negative vote on Motion No. 133, which we have just completed, necessitates a vote on Motion No. 134A. A negative vote on Motion No. 83, which we have just completed, necessitates a vote on Motion No. 84. A negative vote on Motion No. 165A, necessitates a vote on Motion No. I65B. Finally, a negative vote on Motion No. 77, necessitates a vote on Motion No. 78. I was wondering if you might go through those now, Sir, in order that we-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member properly raises a point in the interests of getting the record straight. Every one of those motions has been included in other groupings for the vote. None of them have failed to be mentioned individually in the course of the groupings. The point the Hon. Member makes is a very valid point. However, it has been considered in the groupings. There could be a discussion, perhaps, between the officers of the Table, to verify. However, I am informed that each one of these has been considered at some point.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, they are.


Ian Deans: I do not see them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of the Hon. Member is extremely well taken. This was the original observation of the Chair. However, the Chair can only observe at this point that every motion has been provided for in the grouping. Reference was made to Motion No. 40. This was referred to very specifically in group C. I believe that for any motion that the Hon. Member cares to mention, the Chair can provide a point at which it has been provided for.


Erik Nielsen: We are all working from the same piece of paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.		
Western Grain Transportation Act
Since Motion No. 101 has been adopted, the question on Motion No. 102 will not be put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 82. According to the agreement this division also applies to Motion No. 160A.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Since Motion No. 160A is deemed to have been adopted, the question will not be put on Motion No. 160.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 148. According to the agreement, this division also applies to Motions Nos. 92, 145, 153, 154, 154A and 159. Motion No. 148 is in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).
Western Grain Transportation Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This disposes of the motions according to the groupings agreed upon.
There remains Motion No. 174 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
Hon. Members will recall that, on October 3, 1983, the Speaker observed that motions to alter the long title of a Bill are not in order "unless such substantial changes are made to the Bill that would necessitate a change in the title to reflect the content and intent of the Bill". In this regard, 1 would refer Hon. Members to Citation 780(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, and also to Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition at page 531.
The Chair is not convinced that the amendments agreed to at report stage necessitate an amendment to the title. Therefore, 1 must rule out of order Motion No. 174 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport) moves that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour 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 years have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members. Shall we dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a third time?


Some Hon. Members:: Never.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made Wednesday, October 26, at the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 7.37 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Motion agreed to.
At 7.37 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 4, 1983