October 13, 1983

NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

It has to do with the trucking industry.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):

I thank the Hon. Member for reminding the Chair of its duties. The Chair was listening attentively to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). My contention was that she was leading into the subject matter of the amendment before the House.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Lynn McDonald

New Democratic Party

Ms. McDonald:

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly what I was doing.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

John Leslie Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. Evans:

Nonsense.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Lynn McDonald

New Democratic Party

Ms. McDonald:

If the Hon. Member will let me continue the quotation, I think he will see that it is relevant. I want to deal with this as a system. One aspect of the policy is that it has long-term implications. It affects the trucking industry, rail, the size of communities, rural communities and families across the Prairies. There are many implications. I want to deal with as many as I can in the ten minutes available to me.

I would like to suggest how they are all connected. The neck bone is connected to the shoulder bone, etc.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen

Liberal

Mr. Cullen:

That is a great song but not much of a speech.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Lynn McDonald

New Democratic Party

Ms. McDonald:

We live in a system. What one part does affects the other. There are four companies which have been bought out in anticipation of changes in the Crow legislation. The new company will operate as a wholly-owned subsidiary of CP Trucks, according to the news release. I think that is extremely important. Who would deny the relevance of CP to every discussion we have had on the Crow so far? The article continued:

The agreement, which is conditional on the approval of provincial and federal regulatory agencies-

That is the agreement we are talking about now.

-is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.

Kissner, who will be general manager of the new company, said the companies will operate much the same as before except under CP Trucks ownership. "Were owned by CP, but we're running it as a separate company totally."

The four firms had revenues totalling $10 million last year and covered almost the entire Province.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):

Order. I regret to have to interrupt the Hon. Member but I am beginning to wonder if the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) did not have reason in the first place. I have been patient with the Hon. Member and, as usual, have given the benefit of the doubt to Hon. Members who are addressing the amendment.

I should remind the Hon. Member and all Hon. Members that we are dealing with the duties of the Administrator and not the corporate structures of companies. There may be a faint or distant relationship to the subject matter now at hand, but again, as I have mentioned on previous occasions, the Standing Orders, traditions and procedures require that at report stage in the House of Commons we address our remarks specifically to the amendment at hand. This is not an opportunity like the one Hon. Members have on second or third reading stages to wander in many directions, as provided for in the rules. I would invite the Hon. Member to attempt to relate more specifically to the amendment as it is written.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Lynn McDonald

New Democratic Party

Ms. McDonald:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Leslie Gordon Benjamin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Benjamin:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This subclause relates to motor vehicle traffic in the western region which is made up mostly of the three prairie Provinces. My colleague is speaking about the enlargement of a railway trucking firm in the Province of Saskatchewan that is doing so in anticipation of trucking grain and getting branch lines abandoned. That is the whole point of the Hon. Member's argument. I submit, Sir, that she is perfectly in order when talking about motor vehicle transportation in the western region.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):

Order. I take at face value the comments of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Nevertheless, the Chair has an obligation to attempt to relate the remarks being made by the Hon. Member who has the floor to the text of the amendment. I do

October 13, 1983

not want to engage in debate with Hon. Members, but it seems to me that we sometimes wander very far afield. I do not criticize or question in any way the validity of the arguments being made. 1 would simply ask Hon. Members to try to relate more clearly and specifically to the amendments. 1 give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Lynn McDonald

New Democratic Party

Ms. McDonald:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I had only one further sentence to quote which I think will help to make very, very clear the relationship my remarks have to the amendment. 1 hope the House will be patient. 1 am a sociologist and I am interested in social systems. 1 do think we must look at this situation rather more globally. Other Hon. Members have referred to the social impact of the legislation before us and I do not see why I should not be allowed to do so also.

In any event, I wish to quote only one further sentence from The Leader-Post article, and it reads as follows:

He said the consolidation was in line with the rationalization of trucking services proposed by the Saskatchewan Highway Traffic Board and the Saskatchewan Transportation Agency. He denied that any of the companies were in financial difficulties.

"It hasn't been done because people are in difficulty. It's a business move. They (CP Trucks) came along and we were agreeable."

This is clearly relevant to the whole question that is before us, Mr. Speaker. Let me return to that question so that there will be no doubt. The subclause that is before us reads as follows:

The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.

My argument, Mr. Speaker, is that unless we look at the subject globally and see it as an economic system, we may come to the wrong conclusion about what is in the best interests of producers. There are direct costs and there are indirect costs. One of the indirect costs will be increases in taxes to producers to pay for the additional roads that would be required and the additional upkeep of those roads due to additional road traffic. This becomes a direct cost to the producer when he pays his taxes. We should take that cost into consideration; it may seem invisible right now. It is not actually contained in the Bill but it is a cost that will eventually be borne by the producer and it is something that we must look at. In order to have an efficient system, we must look at direct and indirect costs, immediate costs and subsequent costs.

Let us look at a few of the economic facts, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read from the testimony of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who has obviously been concerned with returns to producers but is also concerned with the efficiency of the whole system. His testimony reads as follows:

Mr. Chairman, further to the reasons for my subamendment, it is an economic fact that when you reduce volumes on a rail line, that increases the costs of the rail line and the losses per bushel on the rail line. So on an existing branch line, the minute you make agreements to provide for movement of grain off that line by motor vehicle transport-

Western Grain Transportation Act Motor vehicle transport is clearly the issue that is before us.

-you thereby reduce the volume on that rail line, increasing the costs and the losses per bushel on the rail line, which then provides the railroads with the perfect excuse to apply for the abandonment of the line.

This policy will lead to further branch line abandonment and branch line abandonment will lead to higher community costs, higher social costs to families and to small rural communities. The Hon. Member went on to say:

So where lines have already been abandoned-and I think it is about 2,500 miles-it would make some sense for the administrator on behalf of not only the minister but also on behalf the grain producers to enter into agreements... But where there is a branch line in existence, surely we would not want to contribute to the excuse to abandon the thing.

Now, this is being practical and realistic. It is agreeing that there are problems which we cannot turn back the clock to solve. This indicates that we must protect the communities that are currently being served by branch lines. We do not want to see those branch lines abandoned. We would like to see that those communities do have adequate protection and that will not happen unless we remove the subclause that is before us now.

Let me continue by reading some of the economic implications contained in the Hon. Member's argument:

There are extra elevation charges the minute you start hauling grain. It means an extra loading and unloading when you haul grain by truck; it adds an additional loading and unloading. It adds one set of additional elevation charges if you take it from one country elevator to another one on a different line. When the farmer brings it to his country elevator and the truck takes it out to another elevator, it adds an additional loading and unloading of that truck, additional elevation charges and handling charges, compared to what the case would be if the farmer took it to his country elevator and the rail picked it up.

That is the efficient system, the system we have had so far and the system we do not want to see abandoned. The Hon. Member continued:

If you insert an additional movement, that is an additional cost to the grain producer.

We do not want to see additional costs incurred by the grain producer and that is why we see some hypocrisy in the clause that we would like to see deleted when it talks about returns to the grain producers. We wonder what position the grain producers will be in if this provision is allowed to go through.

I shall continue reading the economic argument of the Hon. Member:

If you start moving grain, export grain or non-board grain, off existing branch lines from primary elevators, to a primary elevator on another branch line, as I said earlier, all you have done is reduce the volume of movement on that branch line, increased the costs to the railroad and increased the losses per bushel. So why jeopardize a branch line that is viable? Ones that were considered light grain-dependent lines 10 years ago, with increased production, are now medium to heavy grain lines. Why place them in jeopardy? We are having enough problems keeping the branch lines we have left as it is.

I think we do have to consider the ecological aspects of this policy, Mr. Speaker. If we are to move from rail transportation to trucking, that means that we already have the disruption of the environment created by the rail lines as they exist and there will be additional disruption of the environment and additional use of scarce energy resources. Trucking is certainly a form of transportation that requires extensive use of non-

October 13, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act

renewable resources. It means that we are not using resources that are scarce as wisely and as frugally as we should.

I would also like to make a pitch for "small is beautiful", Mr. Speaker. We have small communities to protect. There is a certain wisdom in keeping things on a reasonable scale. I think we ought to have more respect for that.

Social costs are costs that we cannot put a dollar figure on. There are social costs when communities are disrupted, whole towns closed down, people forced to move and services decline as the people who have services to offer move out to a larger town seeking more business. Those are social costs which have not been calculated, but there are economic costs that can be calculated more directly. When communities have to close down, families have to move, schools have to be relocated, churches have to close and reopen somewhere else. All kinds of voluntary associations that have been the backbone of rural community life are disrupted.

This is the kind of society that is precious to Canadians and we want to protect it. We must look at the social consequences of the policy that is before us. I strongly urge Hon. Members to support this very reasonable amendment as it will allow greater protection of community life and will be in the best interests of our ecology and of using non renewable resources very carefully. It is a reasonable amendment and I would ask support for it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Gordon Edward Taylor

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, after listening to five Members of the NDP speak this morning, I would like to deal with Clause 17(4). The five NDP Members talked all around it and about some other clause, but not about Subclause (4). I want to outline for them exactly why Subclause (4) is in the Bill, why I support it, why it is in the interests of producers and in the interests of the country as a whole.

In the first place, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) spoke of undermining social structures. Where there is a rail line, Mr. Speaker, and you suddenly have a rock fall, sometimes it is hard to get repair equipment in so it might take several days to have the rock fall removed. In the meantime, the elevator is jammed and producers have to get their wheat to market or there is no money coming in for them. Are they to sit and twiddle their thumbs, as the NDP suggests, waiting for the rail line to be fixed? No, Mr. Speaker. The Administrator will make arrangements for trucks to haul the grain.

The Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) said this subclause is not in the best interests of producers. I can tell him that it is in the best interests of the producers. The sociologist NDP Members had better stay and listen, because if we do what the NDP wants us to do, it would undermine the livelihood of prairie producers and put them out of business. They want their grain moved to market, and whether a Member comes from Toronto or anywhere else, she should know that. The grain must be moved to market and if

there is something which impedes the railway, then it must be moved by other means. That is only common sense.

There are times when the railway lines are hauling canola or coal or something else and are completely jammed. There are times when the rail cannot get into the station. Members to my left from B.C. do not know what they are talking about. I have seen 50 farm trucks in a line, waiting for the elevators to clear and for a train that cannot come. Surely in those circumstances the Administrator should have the right to make arrangements to truck the wheat to the next elevator where there is no blockage. The wheat could then go to market and the farmers would have money in their pockets.

The NDP talk about the social structure being undermined, but the very thing they put forward would undermine the social structure of the prairie farmer. And they talk about subsidizing truckers. There is nothing in the Bill about that. Truckers do not want to be subsidized; they want to haul for a reasonable price. This clause would do nothing to subsidize truckers. Where does the NDP dream all this stuff up? Where do they find it? It is not in the Bill.

If anyone is away off the beam, in the Prairies we have a saying-"You are all haywire". Everyone who spoke for the NDP this morning is haywire. None of them talked about the right Bill. This Bill would help the prairie producer, not hinder him.

In wintertime I have seen the rail lines so blocked that an engine or a snowplow cannot get in. Sometimes the snowplows are busy on the main lines so the branch lines suffer. But what happens on the highways? The snowplows get in next morning. Sometimes the rail lines are blocked for a week and B.C. Members who know all about this should put that in their hat. The trains cannot get in. What is to be done then? Are the farmers to sit there and let their wives go without any money, or their kids have no money to by a school lunch, because they cannot sell their wheat? The Administrator will arrange to hire the trucks and move the wheat on the highway that has been cleared. That would be in the interests of the producers and the truckers would make a dollar. They will not be subsidized.

The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) spoke of the global effects of this clause. Let him talk to the farmer on the quarter section who needs some money in his pocket about global effects and he will tell you where to go. He will not say you are "haywire" either; he will use the proper language.

Truckers cannot be nationalized so the global effect is adverse to the CCF-or the NDP philosophy. Truckers are independent. They want to work for a living and they want to get a dollar when they earn a dollar, but they do not want to be subsidized. The NDP should know that. It is easy to nationalize a railway. We did it with the CNR and the NDP wants it done with the CPR. That is the global effect the Hon. Member is talking about.

I am talking about the welfare of the individual farmer, the man on the soil, the man who milks ten cows every morning to make a living, the man whose wife has to go out and gather the

October 13, 1983

eggs, whose kids go out and pick the carrots. They are not rich but they have a desire to work and to do things for the country. They want to make their own way but the NDP want to deny them the right to earn their own living by selling their wheat. They say the wheat has to go by train.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

An Hon. Member:

No.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Gordon Edward Taylor

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Taylor:

The man from the Island says "No". He says there is never a time when you can use a truck in the best interests of the producer. Such nonsense. Truckers contribute to the economy of the country just as much as the railways do. Truckers are able to step in and fill the gap when the railways cannot deliver.

I can go along with the arguments the NDP make about abandonment of lines, but there is nothing in this subclause about that. I have gone through abandonment. I have sat in homes and have seen the farmer and his wife cry because the line was being abandoned. I have gone to the Board of Transport Commissioners and pleaded with them to leave the railway lines, so I know what I am talking about. This clause has nothing to do with abandonment. Its purpose is to get the grain to market so that the producer can put the money in his pocket.

The NDP talk about trucks ruining the highways, but I wonder if they know what they are talking about. The hopper trailers used by trucks today carry 110,000 pounds or about 900 to 1,000 bushels. They have sufficient axles that the actual toll on the road is less than that of a small truck with one axle and a small tire.

Highway construction is not immature in this country; it is mature. Highways are built for the type of axle that is used on them. A proper subgrade is built and a proper base course, so the only thing that wears out after years and years is the surface and that is a very small part of the costs. The surface can be renewed and the axle load can be regulated. The Member from B.C. who knows so much about trucking should put that in his hat. Highways will not be ruined. A lot of this happens in wintertime when the highways are frozen, but even the inadequate roads constructed by some municipalities because they do not have sufficient money are able to carry heavy loads. They are gravel and they are frozen. Every road in Alberta in winter is hard surfaced, not with asphalt. Jack Frost does the job for them. Those roads carry the traffic.

When one talks about wearing out roads, what better way to wear out roads, if they have to wear out, than by hauling the grain of the producer so we can put some money into the pocket of the producer? Every one of those five speakers of the NDP was completely haywire. They are talking about the wrong clause altogether. We are talking about the interests of the producers and the economy of this country.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in this Chamber and to follow the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). He has had a long and

Western Grain Transportation Act

very creditable career in politics in Canada. Much of what he said in the last ten minutes reflects his enormous amount of experience after 30 years as a Minister.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Arnold John Malone

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Malone:

In the Province of Alberta he was the Minister of Highways and the good people of his area, and throughout the whole Province, I might add, always referred to having "Taylor-made" roads in that Province.

It is with that wisdom, I am sure, that he tells us something very important which relates to this amendment, and that is that the fundamental issue which we are talking about is the question of efficiency. The New Democratic Party has used the word "efficiency" and I intend to use it also. The NDP believes it is efficient to keep a railway system because it wants to keep the railway system. I submit, Sir, that efficiency is not desire. It is the bottom line as measured in dollars and cents.

I would like to use an example which I believe even the NDP can understand. In a nearby constituency there is a branch line which serves one community. In that community they use four trains a year to remove the grain. Calculating a train at 100 cars, it would mean that train would have to make some 66 trips on the average of 4.5 cars per stock lot. An engine, Sir, is around 80 tonnes. In addition to the engine there is the caboose, plus the cars, plus a whole network for fixing up the railway bed. In virtually everyone's judgment, that rail line is not likely to stay in service ad infinitum. What is the answer of the NDP? When the line is abandoned there will be no service for the farmers, although the NDP claims it is looking after the farmers. The reality is that trucks are more efficient in some instances. In the majority of other instances, the train is more efficient.

Surely it is not difficult to comprehend that to have a rail line which moves only grain, which has sometimes as many as four 80-tonne engines, would be a cheaper way of moving grain. The actual data indicate that a train can move grain at one-fifth the cost and one-twentieth the pollution. However, surely on the short hauls in some directions, to have a whole network which services the train, its engine, its caboose and all of its line people, may not be as efficient and trucks may be more viable.

That is the data I have and I submit, Sir, that when those situations come into play, obviously the farmer ought not to be the one denied the service, but rather Government should opt for different modes of transportation. There is a $651 million subsidy, not for transportation but for the railways, and under what philosophical judgment should the railways receive that support from the Government at the expense of any other mode of transportation?

If it could be clearly demonstrated that many persons with little baskets could carry the grain to Vancouver, the Port of Churchill, or the Port at Thunder Bay, cheaper and more efficiently and our economy could be enriched, then all those social arguments which the Hon. member for Bow River said were for naught would in fact come into play in the argument

October 13, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act of the NDP. There is always a dollar left over as a result of efficiency, so there can be a social heart and concern. It is just utter nonsense to hear people say we should spend more money to keep up inefficient policies because of a social conscience. One does not have to be a socialist to have a social conscience. But one must be able to recognize that if one can operate a society with efficiency, then the wealth in the nation is assured and one is able to have that social conscience.

We must look at the fact, then, that it takes approximately 60,000 bushels of grain per mile to make a railway efficient. We do have some branch lines in which trucking would operate very efficiently. That gives different options and alternatives. From 1974 to 1979 the then Minister of Transport, Otto Lang, removed 2,300 miles of branch lines from the Prairies. I submit to you, Sir, that had the NDP policy been in place then, none of those people on the abandoned branch lines would have had any option. Their railway would have been gone. There would have been no support for trucking. Those communities would have shrivelled and died. That would have been the answer of the NDP.

When the facts dictate it is more efficient to move by truck, and the Grain Transportation Authority makes that judgment, then the trucking mechanism should be available. There is lots of business for the railways. There can be flexibility. It may well be that farmers will not easily be able to get rid of some of their wheat because it will not sell for export or for flour, but he will then have the choice of selling it to a nearby feedlot and he will be able to use the trucking system to deliver to a place where the railway does not run.

I submit to you therefore, Sir, that the argument which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Green-wood (Ms. McDonald), as well as other Members of the NDP, that what the Government is really doing is shedding itself of a federal burden and transferring it to the Provinces, is not the main point. It is not the dispute between the federal and provincial governments; it is the case that there is only one taxpayer. That taxpayer wants the most efficient transportation system irrespective of how it is accomplished.

The argument which should be made is that, while we will pay a certain amount of money for the maintenance of railway beds, the railway grain lines move one commodity. When one spends money for highways, one not only moves grain but uses those highways for many other purposes.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, the rail system is used today when carload shipments are made. The lumber train hauls a full load of lumber, the potash train hauls a full load of potash. The same with coal, grain and the like. The days of a train hauling mail, groceries for the store, parts for the machinery shop and a few cream cans are long gone. I submit, Sir, that the cost burden which must fall on the grain producer for the shipping of grain in less than trainload quantities is such that, if there is a more economical option available to the Grain Transportation Authority, then surely the NDP would not deny that saving to the region involved.

The bottom line, Sir, is efficiency. We need to have the greatest level of efficiency possible, and rail is demonstrably most efficient only when you can move larger volumes. Many farmers will be denied service unless they are able to use the trucking option. It increases their ability to deliver products to markets other than export markets.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):

Is the House ready for the question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Question.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink

October 13, 1983