1977-05-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The Minister of National Health and Welfare has claimed in an interview that the separatists in Quebec voted Liberal in the by-elections two days ago. This clearly implies that the separatist voter in Quebec has decided that the quickest way to achieve his aims of breaking up the country is to keep the federal Liberals in power in Ottawa. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That the Prime Minister state on motions what new initiatives he plans to take in view of this interesting development.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the presentation of that motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43, which arises out of information made available yesterday that AECL, a federal Crown corporation, has established a co-ordinating committee with Ontario Hydro in order to develop detailed plans to establish a nuclear energy facility for the production of plutonium, a substance extremely dangerous both to produce and to maintain. It is precisely this substance with its dangerous possibilities that President Carter in the United States recently decided to ban from production, concluding that such critically radioactive fuel could lead to devastation on a massive scale should a major nuclear accident occur. Grave doubts have also been raised on precisely this matter by the government of the
United Kingdom. I therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources take immediate action to prohibit AECL from continuing with its plans with Ontario Hydro to establish a nuclear energy facility for the production of plutonium.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to the Standing Order can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion of pressing necessity.
Considering that last Sunday evening the English network of the CBC on its program News Magazine dealt with the by-elections during which the Social Credit Party of Canada was completely ignored while the leaders of the other three federal political parties were introduced, considering that last Tuesday evening the French network of the CBC did likewise, interviewing the leaders of the other three parties, two of which did not even have a single member elected and wilfully refraining from interviewing the leader of my party, who was in the Temiscamingue constituency with the new Social Credit member, Mr. Gilles Caouette, and considering that such a situation is not new but well established, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House of Commons severely criticize the CBC for its discrimination against the Social Credit Party of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 26, 1977

Oral Questions URBAN AFFAIRS


SUGGESTED RESUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Now that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has revived the concept of the urban demonstration program with the help of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) in order to finance some of his pet projects in Vancouver, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That other municipalities be invited to resubmit the more than 200 applications that were returned to them on the collapse of the original urban affairs program, projects more suited as demonstrations than a renovated swimming pool.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires that before the presentation for debate of such a motion the unanimous consent of the House must be given. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


ERECTION OF SCAFFOLDING FOR TELEVISION LIGHTING
Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the question period,
although it is probably not necessary, I might draw the attention of hon. members to the presence of some scaffolding equipment in the chamber. This equipment will remain, pursuant to the mandate of the Special Committee on Televising and Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House, for two days so that some lighting tests, which will be of invaluable aid to the committee in its work, can be carried out. I hope hon. members are not unduly inconvenienced.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I will give him an opportunity to get back to his seat.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: He is consulting the Solicitor General.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the Paris newspaper Le Monde the Prime Minister was quoted as saying in an interview: "It would be
[Mr. Speaker.)
folly in my view to abolish controls before the general election". Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether this quotation accurately represents his views?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, accurately with a slight hyperbole introduced into the language. I have always felt that there is a very strong argument for keeping controls as long as possible, except and until we have agreement from the main economic decisionmakers in the economy on some kind of voluntary restraint. That is the idea I was developing, and I feel it would be folly just to remove controls without any kind of agreement, whether it be before or after an election.


REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT ON RESTRAINT BY BUSINESS AND LABOUR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the Prime Minister indicate what he feels is the present state of the voluntary agreement that he may be seeking so far as labour and business are concerned? Is there progress? Can the Prime Minister announce that in fact there will be such an agreement in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we do feel we have made substantial progress in both bilateral and trilateral meetings. The next step as far as we are concerned will consist in the tabling tomorrow by the Minister of Finance of the green paper he mentioned in the budget debate. That green paper will put forth in more detail the kind of national consensus we would like to see develop before controls are removed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question arising out of those two answers. Is it fair for the House to assume that in fact the government has not arrived at a date that they think would be suitable to commence the decontrol phase of their anti-inflation program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The matter was dealt with by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech. He indicated it would not be before such a date unless certain things happened and of course the possibility that it could be after that date is always a real one but one we hope will not materialize. We would still prefer an earlier decontrol date than December 1978 but once again, we want to achieve the maximum degree of voluntary restraint before that takes place.


REASON MINISTER OF FINANCE WILL NOT CONSULT PROVINCES FURTHER ON DATE TO END CONTROLS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It concerns the minister's rather high-handed statement that he, without any further consultation with the provinces, intends to make an announcement on the termination date of the controls program. In light of the support which many provinces have given the program and in view of the risks that they have run in
May 26, 1977

doing so, will the minister tell the House why he does not feel any necessity to meet further with the provinces on this matter?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that was the conclusion arrived at in the meeting I had with the provincial ministers of finance some weeks ago. 1 think the fair consensus to be drawn from that particular meeting was that, in the first place, there was no preferred time by all of the provinces as to when the controls should be brought to an end and, secondly, that the ultimate responsibility in this regard would have to be taken by the federal government.


William James Kempling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister knows when he will announce a decision it would appear that he also knows what the decision would be. Will the minister tell the House why he will not avoid the damaging uncertainty that two more months of vacillation about controls will certainly cause and inform the House of the government's decision tomorrow?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, neither of the assumptions made by the hon. member is accurate. He has just made the criticism that we are going to make an announcement without consultation and then he criticizes me for engaging in further consultation with the community.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns a meeting of federal government agencies in regard to nuclear policy which took place on February 28 this year at which senior officials of AECL, including both the chairman and the president, presented their plans for extending Canada's current nuclear program into the extremely hazardous area of fuel recycling. These plans call for the acquisition of a site during the fiscal year 1977-78 for the location of a waste disposal area and for a recycling plant which would be on line in 1985-86. Can the minister tell the House whether these plans, prepared by a Crown corporation which reports to him, represent government policy? If not, does he approve of representatives of that corporation entering into close co-operation with other levels of government to develop and encourage nuclear recycling before this is in fact government policy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to an old report. If he checked Hansard he would see a question was put to me in the last two weeks. My answer stands. There is no new development. The government has not taken a decision to build or have built plutonium or nuclear recycling or reprocessing facilities.
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE FOR ACQUISITION OF SITE IN ONTARIO FOR DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In an interview given since then the President of AECL has said that the federal government is unabashedly pro-nuclear and that he expects approval for the project to be granted in stages, starting later this year. Will the minister comment on that opinion of the president of the Crown corporation which reports to him; is this opinion accurate? Will a decision on nuclear reprocessing be made by the end of the year and more specifically, does he foresee approving the inclusion in his department's estimates for the next fiscal year of a $4.1 million item that AECL says it needs for site investigation and acquisition?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, of course, the president was speaking in his personal capacity when he stated his opinion about the views of the government. Answering the second question, on whether we will make a decision by the end of the year on the reprocessing facility, I can hold out no hope that we will. We may make our decision by then, or make it much later. As the hon. member knows, we have agreed to concert our policies with those of President Carter. That, clearly is an ongoing matter. To answer the question on research, the expenditure of $4.1 million to which the hon. member referred for a nuclear disposal site seems to be prudent. AECL, in co-operation with the Ontario government and Ontario Hydro, should be looking at potential storage facilities in which to put waste from the nuclear reactors operating in Ontario. Those nuclear reactors produce more than 95 per cent of all nuclear waste in Canada.


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO NUCLEAR PROCESSING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question relates to the need for a broader, more comprehensive inquiry into nuclear policy. The minister has previously said in the House that an additional public inquiry into nuclear processing is not necessary at this time because other provincial public inquiries are examining this precise-nuclear question. I ask, does the minister know that the provincial inquiries to which he referred said reprocessing is a federal matter, therefore not for inclusion in their hearings. If he did not know this will he now say if he will change his mind on the need for a public inquiry before approving nuclear reprocessing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member again that I have encouraged the standing committee dealing with natural resources to direct its attention to this question.


John Edward Broadbent: Come on!

May 26, 1977
Oral Questions


Alastair William Gillespie: I hope it will find an opportunity in its schedule to consider this question, and other nuclear questions.


John Edward Broadbent: Do you expect this to happen in committee?


REASON FOR CONSIDERING ESTABLISHMENT OF PLUTONIUM EXTRACTION PLANT
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? In view of the previously expressed government policy, expressed by the Prime Minister himself in this House as late as May 17 last, relating to the undesirability of having in Canada or anywhere in the world plutonium reprocessing plants, I ask, why is the government permitting AECL, a Crown corporation, to engage in an expensive study for the building of a $1.5 billion plutonium extraction plant in Ontario?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the position on reprocessing plants was one we were still defending in London as recently as two weeks ago. I must ask the minister to advise me about the building of a plutonium extraction plant.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister is this. On May 12 last he said, "Much of our safeguards position centres around the undesirability of having reprocessing plants. President Carter was stating the view we had already stated many times." We now hear news about a secret meeting on February 28 last, involving AECL officials, respecting very advanced plans to build a $1.5 billion reprocessing plant.


John Edward Broadbent: With the Ontario government.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: These facts do not jibe. Could the Prime Minister please reconcile the two obviously contradictory points of view? I wonder if the Prime Minister could do it, because we have already heard from the minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just told the hon. member I would ask the minister about it. I am asking him to answer publicly in the House, but if the hon. member would rather have the minister not answer, I will have him give me the answer outside.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Why are they buying land?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That's what I want to know.


Walter David Baker: In this government the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing and that is the problem.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
Is the minister aware that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was not in attendance with a camera crew at Rouyn-Noranda last Tuesday night on the occasion of the election of a new member of the Social Credit Party of Canada when the national leader of the party was present?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's remarks as a representation and certainly try to reply to his question as directly as possible.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Can the Secretary of State explain to the House how the CBC, a company that belongs to us since our taxes pay for it, succeeded in arranging for live coverage of all the Liberal candidates elected Tuesday night, as well as all the party leaders, except, of course, the new Social Credit Party member, Mr. Gilles Caouette, and the leader of my party?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the answer immediately, but I will certainly provide the hon. member with a reasonable explanation as soon as possible.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It follows up on questions asked in the House yesterday. In a rather surprising development that occurred following the investigation of a break-in by the police of L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec in Montreal, three senior police officers entered a plea of guilty, namely Chief Superintendent Donald Cobb, Inspector of the Quebec Provincial Police, Mr. Coutrille and Inspector of the Montreal City Police, Roger Cormier. Can the Solicitor General tell us today whether there was any consultation between him and these three senior officers, particularly the officer of the RCMP before they entered the guilty plea. Can he tell us today whether there is anything that can be construed as authorization by his department before the break-in was conducted?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, on both accounts the answer is an unequivocal no.
May 26, 1977


DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM PRAXIS CORPORATION-PRIOR CONSULTATION WITH MINISTER
Frank Oberle: I accept the Solicitor General's answer. It takes me back to the situation with regard to the break-in of the Praxis Corporation in Toronto. The Solicitor General said yesterday that the Official Secrets Act required the RCMP in such cases to consult with the Solicitor General before certain investigative procedures are implemented. That was in response to several questions regarding the destruction of certain documents by the RCMP, documents belonging to the Praxis Corporation. Can the Solicitor General tell us whether there was any consultation between him and the RCMP before these documents were destroyed? Was there any consultation between him and the RCMP before the documents that were not destroyed were returned to the Praxis Corporation?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as to the destruction of the documents that the hon. member refers to, there was no consultation whatsoever. I am not clear at what point the documents the hon. member refers to would have been destroyed. I am sorry, but the second part of the question seems to have slipped my mind. Perhaps the hon. member can repeat it.


Frank Oberle: I will repeat that part of the question. Inspector Venner has now admitted that certain documents were destroyed. The documents were kept illegally by the RCMP for seven years and were not returned to the rightful owner in that period of time. Were these illegal acts indeed perpetrated with the consent of the Solicitor General's office?


Francis Fox: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member refers to documents being returned. They were returned after the matter was brought up in the House following questions raised by the hon. member. At that time I was informed by the RCMP that they still had some documents on hand. At that point, at the request of the Commissioner, the documents were returned to the Toronto police who were conducting an investigation into the matter. That jurisdiction will have to decide whether any further steps will have to be taken. The hon. member is prejudging the issue when he states in this House that the RCMP committed an illegal act.


ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF SECURITY SERVICE-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Frank Oberle: I will direct my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I ask this question in light of what happened in Montreal and in light of all the questions and answers in this House in January and now with regard to certain activities of the security section of the RCMP. In the light of the fact that these activities are clearly identified, now as being not in conformity with the law, can the Prime Minister enter a plea of mea culpa-


Mr. Paproski:: That is German for I am guilty.
Oral Questions


Frank Oberle: -and offer the House a judicial inquiry under the Inquiries Act into all aspects of the extra parliamentary concept, particularly the break-in and arson at the Praxis Corporation office in Toronto?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would begin by recognizing that the hon. members questions are perfectly legitimate. I would be as worried as he is if I did not know all the facts. I do not know all the facts-


An hon. Member:: Then you are worried.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I do know that in both instances the government was in no way involved. Second, that the police action in the Montreal case is before the courts-


Walter David Baker: They pleaded guilty.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And in the Toronto case there is an absolute denial by the federal police that they were involved in any way in breaking in and illegally obtaining documents. A police investigation is presently being conducted by the Toronto police and if this does not bring the matter sufficiently to light I will consider an inquiry. But I have indicated on previous occasions my preference, and that of the government, is to follow due process. If the courts cannot seem to get to the bottom of this matter I will consider an inquiry.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. It relates to the procurement policies of the Department of Supply and Services. Although the Atlantic region contains 9.5 per cent of Canadas population, of the $1 billion spent on commercial supply by the minister's department only 6.3 per cent went to the region and of the $1.9 billion spent on science and engineering procurement only 2 per cent went to benefit Atlantic Canadian industry. Since these percentages, which underline the minister's negligence with respect to regional development needs-they are well below any proportion based on relative population and in one case involve a reduction by as much as 50 per cent compared with expenditure in the previous year- can the minister explain why he is following policies which, in effect, cause greater regional disparity in the Atlantic region and which seem to fly in the face of action taken both by his colleague, the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion and of the government's overall commitment?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, my department is not responsible for the industrial base within the various regions of our country, but it must see to it that businessmen everywhere in Canada have equal opportunities to do business with the government. It is with

May 26, 1977
Oral Questions
this in mind that, together with departmental officials, I visited Canada from coast to coast to meet businessmen and indicate to them how they can contact and do business with us, how they can submit to us their grievances for possible settlements. As a matter of fact, very shortly, that is in mid-June, I shall go with my officials to Nova Scotia to meet the businessmen of the province and instruct them on how to do business with us, within the "Operation Access" program.


KNOWLEDGE OF PRIME MINISTER OF EFFECT OF DEPARTMENT'S PURCHASING POLICIES IN ATLANTIC REGION-GOVERNMENT ACTION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary to the Prime Minister-I am not sure whether the right hon. gentleman heard the response given by the Minister of Supply and Services. Might I say to him that as a result of declining expenditures on the part of the Ministry of Supply and Services a greater degree of disparity is being brought to the Atlantic region resulting in a loss this year of at least $122 million by reason of the present procurement policy of the department. Has the Prime Minister been made aware of this serious reversal and of this substantial shortfall on the part of the department? What action is being taken to correct this situation? Specifically, has the Prime Minister issued any instructions to the Minister of Supply and Services with a view to overcoming what must be, at the very least, a ghastly error which contradicts and undermines any attempt to achieve regional equality in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I apologize to the hon. member. I did not hear the answer given by the minister. But I can assure him that it was made a matter of policy some years ago that, as far as possible the department would ensure that regional considerations and the concern for greater equalization were taken into account in the purchasing done by the department. I know that the minister has travelled around the country a great deal, meeting businessmen in every part of Canada so as to facilitate access by them to the services of his department.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I hope the Prime Minister will have a chance to look at the facts. Not only has there been a decline in absolute terms, there has been an even greater decline in percentage terms. Would the right hon. gentleman make himself aware of this situation and consult with the governments of the Atlantic provinces and with the federal department concerned to reverse this serious trend, one which is undermining the effort toward lessening regional disparity and which must surely be running counter to the policy commitment he mentioned.


REASON FOR FAILURE OF WESTERN CANADA TO RECEIVE FAIR SHARE OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING PROCUREMENT
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question, also directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. The minister remarked that various areas

have equal rights, but I question whether they have equal opportunity. My question relates to the minister's statement in Moncton recently that his department was genuinely concerned about regional disparity. Why is it that in terms of science and engineering procurement for 1976-77, western Canada received only 3 per cent of the total purchases and in terms of commercial supply only 20 per cent?


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Coyer@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, necessarily the regional industrial base generates governmental contracts for these areas. It is a matter of not indulging in discriminatory policies towards any area, but rather to help businessmen in remote areas of the country to do business with us. The more successful the administrative decentralization policy of this government will be in setting up public service work units throughout the country, the more we will be able to generate contracts in these areas and to help small and medium-sized regional undertakings. This is the policy we are going to implement.


Robert Hylton Brisco: That was indeed a strange statement from the minister on the subject of regional disparity considering that the facts have already been disclosed in the House. How soon can he assure us that there will be an upward revision and a more appropriate balance in the purchases made by his department both from the Atlantic provinces and from Western Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question, which is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister, relates to the document submitted by the Quebec Minister of Labour to the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration on the subject of immigration.
The Prime Minister mentioned that if additional powers were given to the province of Quebec, they would also be given to the other provinces. In order to find a conciliatory solution, is the Prime Minister willing to take into consideration the provisions of the British North America Act section 95 which gives the federal government a latitude of power which could help find a solution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this section to my attention. I shall reply that, as a matter of principle, the federal government has already made particular arrangements with some provinces at the administrative level. In answer to a question asked by the opposition, I gave recently several examples of those arrangements. The hon. member is asking
May 26, 1977

me if such arrangements are possible at the legislative level. Without attempting to give legal or constitutional advice, I believe the hon. member is right to suggest that such legislative arrangements would be possible with one province. That being said, the trend of the federal government remains not to seek special arrangements and, as a general rule, if we made legislation on behalf of one province, I would say we would do the same on behalf of any other province.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the CTC railway transport committee has just begun its public hearings on rail passenger service in the maritimes, was it fair for the Minister of Transport to prejudge those hearings by making a statement which implies there will be only one passenger train a day from Montreal to Halifax and no passenger service to Cape Breton and other parts of the maritimes; and in view of the urgent importance of rail service to all parts of the maritimes, will the minister agree to extend the 100 per cent subsidy to all rail passenger service recommended by the CTC?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is, of course, our stated policy to extend the 100 per cent subsidy and the over-all improvement program to those rail services which are identified and will remain following the process in which we are engaged. What was fair, to use the hon. member's word, was what we did, which was to place before the commission, by agreement among five governments, the four Atlantic governments and ourselves, the study paper and work which had been done by the governments together under the auspices of our transportation joint committee, which analyzed the situation and the cost and benefit advantages of using dollars more wisely for the over-all benefit of the Atlantic region. The very extensive $125 million transportation package for the Atlantic provinces which was announced yesterday is evidence of our intention to use money more effectively for the Atlantic provinces. We intend not to save dollars but to have a far better Atlantic transportation system by spending dollars where they do the most good.


POSSIBILITY NOVA SCOTIA AND NEW BRUNSWICK WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM MOST EFFICIENT FORM OF SERVICE
Andrew Hogan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should like to debate that with the minister at some time but obviously I do not have time during the question period. In the minister's memorandum outlining the expenditure of $125 million over a three year period there is no
Oral Questions
mention made of improving equipment and facilities, such as passenger trains, locomotives, rail beds and so on. Would the minister agree that it is likely that this agreement will mean that the maritime provinces, and especially the two which depend upon railroads, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, will be gaining in the railroad industry the technology of the 1940s and 1950s, while other provinces across the country are opting for increased, more efficient, rail passenger transit systems?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's announcement did make clear that the Atlantic region, as other regions, would benefit from the previous statements which had been made by this government. We believe that the upgrading of rail passenger service is essential and that the old system of 80 per cent subsidy coverage has to give way to 100 per cent subsidy coverage. That, of course, is coupled with our view that where taxpayers' dollars are involved we have to make some tough but sensible judgments about which services can indeed be afforded.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G£rard Laprise (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell the House whether there are vacancies in the group of veterinaries who are assigned to meat inspection in Quebec? If so, can the minister tell us whether he will act soon to have these vacancies filled to prevent the slaughter of unhealthy animals and the sale of tainted meat, as was the case in Quebec a few months ago?
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, all federal food plants have to have federal veterinaries and if that is not the case they cannot slaughter meat under our inspection. Positions are being filled from time to time. I am not in a position to say whether or not they are all filled at this time but I will check.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, 1 would like to ask the minister if he can make an inquiry to determine whether there are no vacancies at all and whether inspectors are not given unusual responsibilities which should be left only to veterinaries.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in view of problems which existed some time ago in the province of Quebec in regard to meat inspection, which was not under jurisdiction, there has been a large number of requests for federal meat inspectors. They recognize we offer a superior service to anything they have and they want our service in Quebec. We are trying to provide it as fast as we can.

May 26, 1977
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


POSSIBILITY OF GENERAL INQUIRY INTO PUBLIC BROADCASTING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On March 4 the Prime Minister, at the instigation of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, wrote to the chairman of the CRTC. In that letter the Prime Minister asked Mr. Boyle to consider the establishment of a royal commission for a general review of public broadcasting services. As I understand it, Mr. Boyle will submit his recommendations on the royal commission when he completes his inquiry into the CBC in July. However, last night the Secretary of State endorsed a wide ranging inquiry into public broadcasting. In light of the remarks of the minister, could I ask the Prime Minister whether the government is now committed to a general inquiry into public broadcasting, or will the government wait for the recommendations it sought from Mr. Boyle before making a final decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should not like to give credence to the preamble to the question, which was to the effect that this letter to Mr. Boyle was sent at the instigation or at the demand of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It was a cabinet decision, including my own, to write that letter. In precise answer to the question, no, a decision has not been made as to the need for a royal commission. Yes, we will wait until Mr. Boyle's report comes to us before making such decision. Indeed, the fact that those final lines were in my letter to Mr. Boyle is an indication that the matter was raised in cabinet and that some ministers, including I believe the Secretary of State, argued that this might be a necessity. I felt that if indeed it were a necessity we should wait to hear the opinion of Commissioner Boyle, and that is what we will do.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the matter has been before cabinet and has led to the letter to Mr. Boyle, I wonder whether it is the view of the government that any inquiry that might be undertaken into broadcasting in this country should be undertaken by a regulatory agency, such as the CRTC, or is it the view of the government that an inquiry of that kind should be made by an independent body which could look into the regulatory agencies as well as into other questions relating to broadcasting, communications and cultural policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has not yet made a decision on that, but offhand my inclination would be to indicate that it should be by an independent body, preferably a royal commission kind of body. But this is the very kind of recommendation or suggestion which we may be hearing about from Commissioner Boyle.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the request to the chairman of the CRTC was limited to broadcasting policy, I wonder whether it might also be the inclination of the Prime Minister or the government to have
[Mr. Whelan.)
such inquiry made sufficiently broad that it could consider the general cultural policies and programs of the government of Canada, since it has now been a quarter of a century or more since the report and implementation of the Massey commission proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give serious consideration to that suggestion. It might make it a more difficult and lengthy task to try to include the question of cultural broadcasting. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will remember we had the Massey-Levesque Commission on culture and we had various other commissions, including the Fowler Commission on Broadcasting. The future course might be to follow this double route or indeed join them. I will have to take the matter into consideration.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to ask my question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs; but instead I will direct my question to the Minister of Justice who seems to have been working in close co-operation with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs recently. Now that the Minister of Justice has revived the concept of the urban demonstration program in order to finance certain projects in Vancouver, which had apparently been considered for urban demonstration, has he invited, along with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, other municipalities to resubmit the more than 200 applications which were returned to them on the collapse of the urban demonstration program?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I think that question lies within the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


An hon. Member:: The six million dollar man.


Walter David Baker: That is known as bionic patronage.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his absence last Thursday, I asked the government House leader whether the government intended to ban Idi Amin from attending the Commonwealth Games, which will be held in Edmonton in 1978. Last week a 170-page report of the Inter-
May 26, 1977

national Commission of Jurists, stating that more than 100,000 people in Uganda have been killed during the six years of Idi Amin's administration, was handed to the United Nations. Ambassador Beaulne told the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence last week that this report, filed by the International Commission of Jurists, was beyond reproach. Therefore, I now ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he will give this House an unequivocal statement, that the government of Canada will not invite or accept the presence of Idi Amin at the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton in 1978?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem indicating, in so far as I am personally concerned, that I would be just as happy if the gentleman in question were not invited.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is a member of the basketball team.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not sure if the inviting capacity rests with the government of Canada or with the Commonwealth organization. I will look into it in more detail and find out what our responsibilities are. I think our objectives are common. It is just a matter of finding out which is the best way to proceed.


SUGGESTED INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO COMPEL PROFESSIONAL LEAGUES TO CONTRIBUTE TO DEVELOPMENT OF TALENT
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). May I first compliment the minister on her worth-while report and recommendations, based on her recent trip abroad?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: My question is further to my motion put yesterday regarding the government's admitted inability to solve the problems dealing with development fees between professional and amateur hockey interests. In view of the fact it now seems certain this matter will end up in the courts, I wonder if the minister would consider introducing legislation which would make it obligatory for all professional teams, leagues or shows to contribute fairly toward the development of their respective sports which would, among other things, reduce increasing costs to the taxpayer in this regard? If the minister is not prepared to consider such a proposal, could she explain to us why not?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of introducing such legislation on this matter at this time because progress is still continuing. The hon. member seems not to have taken notice of the fact that progress was made through
Ora! Questions
the mediator, the President of Hockey Canada, in whom I have confidence. There is a disposition, on the part of the National Hockey League, to provide the type of services which the hon. member is requesting. Thus, 1 do not intend to provide legislation at this time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. On Tuesday, in response to my colleague from Elgin, the minister stated that no decision had yet been made on the formation of a national chicken marketing agency but that he expected a decision would be announced shortly. May I ask the minister, now that another cabinet meeting has come and gone, whether he is now prepared to announce the formation of a national chicken marketing agency, and if not, why has he met with such little success in getting the central part of his agricultural policy past the cabinet?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member is speaking with authority from his party and is presenting his party's position on marketing boards. He totally endorses the principle of marketing boards, and he is expressing the concerns of the total party caucus.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: The private producers themselves are partly at fault. They did not go through the system as they were supposed to do. They went ahead with hearings; they came up with an unsatisfactory plan; they went ahead with other hearings, and now it is our fault that we are not moving that fast. The other day I said to the hon. member that it would be soon, and it will be soon.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is also directly involved in this issue. Does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs support the formation of a national chicken marketing agency?


Walter David Baker: He is a chicken, too.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is a turkey.

May 26, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still to come up for discussion.


POSSIBILITY OF CONTROLLING USE OF TOBACCO
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the known dangers of smoking to health, is the minister considering the possibility of controlling tobacco under the Food and Drugs Act?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It arises out of the murder of one police officer and the wounding of another in the city of Calgary, and is with reference to section 103 of Martin's Annual Criminal Code (1976) under which police officers stop the person in question and find the person in possession of a restricted weapon as defined by the Code. The police officer who was killed was shot through the head. I would ask the Minister of Justice to seriously review section 103 in reference to the right of a peace officer to search certain people. As he is aware, the section reads:
Whenever a peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that an offence is being committed or has been committed against any of the provisions of this Act relating to prohibited weapons or restricted weapons . . .
I would like the Minister of Justice to review that, in light of the fact that police officers can be criticized for making illegal searches and yet are subject to situations similar to the one which led to the murder of this police officer, who was the third police officer in two years to be murdered in Calgary.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am unfamiliar with the particular case to which the hon. member refers. However, I am familiar with the provision of the law to which he is referring, which has caused both peace officers and police officers considerable difficulty when faced with situations of imminent danger or imminent hazard. I think the suggestions he makes have been corrected in the proposals now before the House in Bill C-51, relating to the amendments to the Criminal Code and gun control and specifically relating to the provisions on search and seizure of weapons and firearms. However, in light of the question, I think both he and I will examine those provisions in Bill C-51 very carefully when it reaches committee, hopefully next week.


CANADIAN EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I will direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Transair in Winnipeg has made a bid for a contract with the United States Air Force to overhaul 97 Boeing 707 tankers over a three-year period. The work would entail modifying the wing structures. But, Transair has been discouraged by the Canadian Export Development Corporation which will not give written confirmation that Transair is the prime bidder for the $42 million Air Force contract. Transair cannot bid until they have this written confirmation. I would like to ask the minister if he would make immediate inquiries of CEDC as to why they will not give written confirmation to Transair in Winnipeg?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, essentially my understanding from conversations with Transair is that the difficulty which had existed in connection with this bid, which may have prevented the bid from being successful, will not be repeated in the course of successive bids.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the minister to say that Transair is still in a position to submit a bid? They are ready to go because of their $5 million line of credit. This is a tremendously important contract to Canada, as it will involve 500 jobs over the next three years and possible future contracts.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there may not be a possibility of a bid in relation to those particular aircraft, but there are many hundreds of others which will be coming along.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) put forward a question of privilege with reference to remarks made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) during the course of the question period. I indicated initially that the remarks pertained to persons who were not members of the House and that, indeed, their competence in the administrative sense was beyond the parameters of the House and that we were on dangerous ground.
As the argument developed, in the course of contributions to the argument, discussion and subsequent points of order, both hon. members made remarks about the contributions of each other. Each one indicated that actions or remarks by the other fell into certain categories which they described in language which has in the past been included in the definition of
May 26, 1977

unparliamentary language or offensive language within the practice of the House, and on occasion in the past has been ordered withdrawn. However, 1 indicated, as I usually do, that in the circumstances 1 would examine the transcript and see exactly what was said and determine whether unparliamentary language had been used to such an extent that I would ask for an apology or a retraction of the remarks made.
The fact is that upon examination of the transcript and of the precedents that have governed this kind of conduct in the past, I have come to the conclusion that if 1 were to apply the regulations and the precedents strictly, 1 would have to ask both hon. members to withdraw their remarks about each other. That does not seem to me to be a very productive course of action. As 1 indicated yesterday, we are on dangerous ground as soon as we begin to introduce into our discussion items of business which are extraneous to our responsibilities here. Therefore, I feel that the matter should be closed at this point.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
I shall be very brief. I rise on a question of privilege today because I feel that my rights and privileges were not respected by a Crown corporation, namely the Canadian National. Let me explain myself.
Last Friday, May 20, I took the CN train for Montreal at 4.30 p.m. I was sitting with the son-in-law and daughter of the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), and behind me sat the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker), all of whom can bear witness to the following facts. When the train controller went by asking for tickets as usual, 1 showed him my MP identification card with a photo of myself instead of the official green card issued to MPs bearing the signature of the clerk of the House of Commons which according to the law entitles all hon. members to travel free of charge on all railways in Canada. On that official card one can read that, under the law, the hon. member can travel on all trains in Canada. That card certifies only that I am a member of parliament. Yet, my MP identification card also testifies to the fact that 1 am a member of parliament. The controller refused to accept my official MP card and unfortunately a heated argument ensued. There were other people around which of course annoyed me tremendously. The controller insisted on my buying a ticket, which I refused to do. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I made an attempt to speak English to him-and this I say without wanting to discriminate against anyone- because he did not speak a word of French. It is only later that he called for the help of a French-speaking colleague of his.
In a word, therefore, I feel frustrated in a right conferred upon me under legislation as regards travel by train and furthermore this controller did not speak French, whereas the Official Languages Act states that all services provided by government agencies must be offered in the citizen's language. I hardly think the train would get off the track should someone aboard speak French.
Privilege-Mr. Lavoie
Sometime ago, Mr. Speaker, I happened to be travelling along with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). He did not have this green pass and yet he identified himself with the same card as I and nothing happened. Everything was in order. I have checked with Mr. Smith of the Canadian National who was in a way very negative in his answer. I have also contacted the Clerk of the House who told me I was right to present this card. Therefore, I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to solve this problem concerning the Montreal-Ottawa or Ottawa-Montreal line and in addition I want the Canadian National authorities to make formal apologies in order to mitigate the prejudice that was done to me under those circumstances without, however, taking any corrective action against this controller. I had to draw the House's attention to this unfortunate incident which could happen to any one of us in this Chamber and I think it is important that we may avail ourselves of our privileges on those trains which are run by a Crown agency.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not put forward a motion along with his question of privilege, but he raised a very important and serious matter. His question relates, first of all, to a member of Parliament's privilege to travel on a train with an identification card, even if it is not precisely the pass which entitles him to travel free on the train. Second, the hon. member draws our attention to the fact that there is no staff member, no bilingual controller, who can speak French or communicate in either of the two official languages on a train run by a Crown corporation. Those are important issues. I will inquire into the circumstances.
I understand very well that the hon. member has not put forward a motion relating to his question of privilege, but I can assure him that I will consider this matter which is of primary importance.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize the fact that during the question period questions addressed to ministers do not necessarily have to be answered, particularly, as Your Honour points out, when they are of an argumentative nature or when a representation is made. I asked a supplementary question of the Minister of Supply and Services, a straightforward question requiring a simple "yes" or "no" answer. I asked whether, in light of the statistics quoted by my colleague, the hon. member for Egmont, and the statistics quoted by me, the minister was prepared to give assurances to the House that his department would address itself to the restoration or removal of the inequities that evidently and obviously exist.
I simply sought from the minister his assurance that he would make every effort to remove these inequities. The minister, during my supplementary question, removed his earpiece. Perhaps I failed to identify him as the person to whom my supplementary was directed. In any event, because of the remarks I have made to you at this time, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would now be prepared to respond.


Mr. Speaker:: Even if the minister were prepared to respond at this time, it seems to me that by the use of a point of order
5966

May 26, 1977
Business of The House
to elicit a response we would be not only giving the hon. member for Kootenay West a special privilege, which would perhaps not be too serious if it happened this time only, but it would concern me were it to be an implicit invitation to hon. members to use a similar point of order when they were in any way dissatisfied with the performance or answer of a minister during the question period. I thought the hon. member made a clear and precise representation to the minister, and I think we have all treated it as such. Even if the minister now wanted to give a further answer to the hon. member, it would be unfair to extend to the hon. member or to the minister that privilege at this time.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the acting government House leader the government's business for the balance of the week. While he is on his feet, would he be able to designate Monday, May 30, 1977, and Wednesday, June 1, 1977, as allotted days in accordance with some discussions we have had?


Mr. Goodale:: Our business for today is an opposition motion. Tomorrow we will resume consideration of Bill C-17 relating to Air Canada. I will be pleased to make the designation of the allotted days which the House leader has recommended; that is, Monday, May 30, and Wednesday, June 1. On Tuesday of next week it is our intention to resume debate on the Air Canada legislation if it is not completed before that time, and then we will proceed to legislation dealing with the Economic Development Corporation, Bill C-47, followed by, subject perhaps to review at the beginning of next week, the Judges Act, Bill C-50, and the human rights legislation, Bill C-25.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is a technical point of order and I do not wish to downgrade the hon. member, but does not that designation have to be requested by a minister of the Crown?


Mr. Speaker:: That designation can be taken care of, perhaps, when we deal with motions.


Walter David Baker: I did not want to be screwed up by that technicality.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table, in both official languages, the report issued by the National Energy Board, dated February, 1977, entitled "Canadian Oil Supply and Requirements".


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada for the year 1976.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate Monday, May 30, and Wednesday, June 1, as allotted days.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand today.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the second straight day on which the parliamentary secretary has not answered any questions on the order paper. I would like to bring to his attention the fact that I have 14 questions on the order paper dating back to October and November of last year. Some of those questions dated October were first placed on the order paper in the first session of this parliament.


Ralph Goodale: Cossitt wouldn't let us answer them.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I refiled the questions which were on the order paper prior to the summer recess. I filed them in exactly the same form, but 1 dated them in such a way that it would be possible for any answers which were valid for the questions I filed in the previous session to be answered in exactly the same
May 26, 1977

form in which they were prepared. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why, for example, a question I asked about the cost to taxpayers of a visit to London, Ontario, by the previous secretary of state last July has not as yet been answered. Since then there has been a cabinet shuffle, and we have a new Secretary State, I think if the parliamentary secretary wants to do his job properly he should try to ensure that questions which have been outstanding for some months receive priority.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite may not have been keeping track of the progress of business in this House, but it is interesting to note that for the past several weeks the rate of answering questions in this House has been running well in excess of 70 per cent. That percentage rate has dropped back only in the last couple of days because hon. gentlemen who are particularly prone to place extensive lists of questions on the order paper, one in particular, have added as many as 60 or 70 questions. I think it is relevant to point out that we have been prompt in answering questions in this session, and 1 can assure hon. members that there is no effort at all to delay the answer to any particular question which should be forthcoming.


Mr. Crosbie:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order.
1 asked question No. 1,397 on December 17. I have only 19 questions on the order paper. 1 have not tabled hundreds. My question has to do with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his visits to St. John's, Newfoundland, over six weeks last fall during a certain strategic period. I want to know whether the cost of those visits was charged to the Liberal candidate who ran against me. That question is a very simple one. The answer can be ascertained in half an hour or an hour.
On February 15 1 asked several questions having to do with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission and with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. That question was placed on the order paper almost 100 days ago, and it has still not been answered. There is to be a CRTC hearing in St. John's on June 21 dealing with questions which will be relevant. I want the parliamentary secretary to get me the answers to those questions. I do not table questions lightly, and those answers are not hard to find. 1 want to know what representations have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the CRTC in connection with matters affecting the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company in Newfoundland, and I want to know before shares are transferred, before the CRTC approves transfers of shares or before conflict of interest questions come up.
I am asking the parliamentary secretary, as politely as I can, and 1 advise him not to be a pseudologist but to get on with the job and to answer some of these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Hall Commission Report



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert) moved:: That this House agrees in principle with the recommendations of the Hall Commission on Grain Handling and Transportation.
He said: Mr. Speaker . ..


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am always pleased to hear applause from the government side of the House, particularly from ministers of the Crown. I think it was Walpole who said, "They ring bells now, but they wring hands later".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking on this resolution, 1 cannot cover very much ground because of the limitation of time. 1 will simply begin by referring to one or two highlights of the Hall report. One of them is the question of abandonment, and I say immediately that as far as that is concerned, having examined some of the representations made, 1 hope that in areas on the prairies which have been pioneer settlements, the removal of the rails from those areas and the creation of desert towns and villages will be proceeded with carefully. I will deal with the construction of an Arctic railway a little later.
The Hall Commission report recommends the retention of the Crowsnest, or statutory rates for hauling grain, with the difference between those rates and the actual cost of transporting grain to be paid directly to the railways by the federal government. The report recommends assistance for Churchill, it suggests changes in connection with freight rates and recommends the use of CPR facilities in order to increase the amount of wheat shipped that way. Those references are general.
As far as the Hall commission is concerned, it constituted a blow to the solar plexus of the government, if not lower, and some of the observations made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), subsequently diluted in order to meet the exigencies of criticism, indicated that he was greatly surprised at the nature thereof. Indeed, it reminded me of an occasion in earlier days when there were Progressive members from western Canada-"Progressive" being the name of the party-and Prime Minister King had promised a degree of free trade never before seen or felt. One member was greatly exercised over the fact that there was no inclusion of any free trade items and, being a man of classical knowledge and wisdom, said, "Mr. Speaker, when Pandora's box was opened, out stepped the Trojan horse." In this case, as far as the government is concerned and judging from the reaction of the Minister of Transport, there are several Trojan horses in the Hall Commission report. It is a remarkable document. 1 am glad to say it was my recommendation that made Mr. Hall a Superior
80016-37V2

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
Court judge and at the same time set him up as a commissioner of repute.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: What does the report do? It buries the government's concept of the user-pay philosophy of the minister. User-pay, presented by the minister as a rationalization of transportation services, was little more than a transparent attempt, in the opinion of many, to reduce the benefit to farmers of western Canada under the Crowsnest pass rates.
It is with these matters that I am going to deal at some length. I am very happy to see here today, following a crusade to the Pelly constituency where a by-election is going on and where drought has not affected the area, the new Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner). 1 am happy to see him here. Then there is the Minister of Transport. I understand he is in charge of political organization there, which leads everyone to hope that the Liberals will come in third.
As far as the royal commission report is concerned, covering as it does only the western provinces and the north, I think a commission should be set up now to do justice to the maritimes and to go into the whole problem of transportation, freight rates, etc. Otherwise, the provinces by the sea will continue to be denied, as they have been under this government, a reasonable degree of economic equality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: One of those who has constantly pressed for action in this regard is the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates). During my period of administration as prime minister tremendous changes took place in the maritimes. I recall some of the approbation given to what we did by the Minister without Portfolio before he occupied that distinguished portfolio.
Now, sir, I shall immediately start on the subject of the Crowsnest pass report. I am glad to see the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) here. A moment ago I thought he was going into flight. He put his arms out like the beginning of a flight into fancy when he endeavoured to explain the delays in answering questions which has become virtually beyond anything that has ever been seen in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I find him an interesting individual, Mr. Speaker. He sits by his mentor and philosopher today, and he is being misled. I find it very interesting that he has become the "No, no" man of parliament. There he sits; he does not hear what the motions are that come before the House under Standing Order 43, but he invariably says "No".


Ralph Goodale: I listen very carefully.


John George Diefenbaker: I have some very good examples in regard to which he has been identified. I have watched him with that interest one applies to an individual who apparently does not

want to speak out loudly but simply says very low, sotto voce, "No".


Ralph Goodale: But very effectively.


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest if he is getting his training from the Minister of Transport as to parliament, he ought to change his mentor. On May 18 the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) moved the following motion under Standing Order 43:
That in view of the statement made on national television yesterday by a member of the federal cabinet that the cabinet should accept the recommendation of the Hall commission in connection with the retention of the statutory Crowsnest pass rates, this House direct the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions forthwith outlining the government's commitment to this recommendation of the Hall commission.
What was wrong with that motion, Mr. Speaker? Why did the hon. member for Assiniboia say "no"?


Ralph Goodale: Did I?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is from a Saskatchewan constituency which depends on agriculture to a considerable degree: "No, no, no" has been his attitude throughout.


Ralph Goodale: It does not say that in the record.


John George Diefenbaker: It is very obvious that I have penetrated the epidermis of the hon. gentleman. The truth hurts. Now 1 go on to the next one.


Ralph Goodale: Your fantasy is amazing.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the hon. gentleman know anything about the truth, if he denies this? On May 17, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar moved:
That this House commend the Hon. Emmett Hall for the work he has done and the recommendations he has made for retention of the Crowsnest pass rates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such motion can be presented for debate in the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. Members; Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ralph Goodale said no.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And he did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the hon. minister seeking the floor on a point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I think the record should show that Mr. Paproski, thus named, is notorious in this House for saying someone said "No" very frequently when it is totally false to say so.


John George Diefenbaker: That is exactly the type of credibility that the minister regularly exhibits, totally disregarding the truth.
May 26, 1977

Did the minister step in and say that Mr. Paproski, as he is described here, was wrong?


Otto Emil Lang: He is always wrong.


John George Diefenbaker: "No, no, no". I say to the hon. member for Assiniboia, when he makes statements to the effect that he did not say "No", I wonder how "Yes" is pronounced. I must say, however, that he does not discriminate between Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the New Democratic Party. On the same day, May 17, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) moved a motion under Standing Order 43. He moved, in part:
-in regard to the report of the Hall commission tabled in this House yesterday which contains a recommendation that the statutory grain rates be retained ... I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House calls upon the government to immediately implement the recommendation of the Hall commission on Statutory rates.
Then follows the familiar entry.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ralph Goodale again said "No".
1 want the hon. member's constituents to know what his attitude is in parliament. He has become the puppet of the Minister of Transport. There are other examples, and if he would like to hear them 1 would be glad to indicate them to him. No matter what comes up that would be of benefit to agriculture in Canada, the hon. member says "No".


Ralph Goodale: Nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: 1 suggest it would be simpler if he installed a gramophone in this House saying "No, no, no", and save his larynx. 1 have watched him day after day. He is an intelligent fellow, as you must admit. But he shows little intelligence when he prevents the House of Commons discussing questions of prime importance to western farmers. 1 have said over and over again that this government opposes the Crowsnest rates. The minister denies this, in an uncertain way. Let me read some of his observations, equivocations, qualifications and the like. On May 18 he was asked a question in the House concerning this matter. He replied, as reported at page 5758 of Hansard'.
-my initial reaction ... is very favourable indeed. It seems to me to make a good deal of sense and to have a great deal of potential... While some people raised an idea like that in various discussions before the Hall commission report, it does not really come upon the prairies as a new idea in its totality-
That is a good word, "totality". I continue:
-and I would like to hear from the representatives of farm organizations-
Time and again the minister has played havoc with those who have endeavoured to stand in support of the Crowsnest rates. I remember when Conservatives opposed them. In the election of 1925 Right Hon. Arthur Meighen said freight rates should not be fixed by statute. I took strong objection. He was defeated. The Liberal party said that the magna carta of the western farmer could not be changed without creating serious
Hall Commission Report
fissures in confederation. 1 go on quoting from Hansard. On page 5759 the following exchange is reported:


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question. How does the minister reconcile his first answer with his answer to my second question, because it is a complete distortion of the facts?


Otto Emil Lang: No it is not, Mr. Speaker. I indicated quite clearly that I have no policy which would affect the Crowsnest rate . . . What I said in my second answer is that I have been discussing this with people in the west, and I am certainly receptive to conclusions in the west that some different form of distributing the benefit may in fact be advantageous to the west.
There are loopholes large enough in the minister's position for-


An hon. Member:: A horse and wagon?


John George Diefenbaker: -an aircraft to go through. All the way along the minister has been playing with facts and endeavouring to lead people to think he has taken a stand not against those particular rates. One could go on almost indefinitely in this regard. If the minister denies it, 1 call as a witness one whom, ever since he was a little boy, the minister regarded as a friend. I refer to the Minister without Portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He was younger on September 1, 1966, when he said, as reported at page 7997 of Hansard'. "It appears that the government wants to ruin the Crowsnest pass rates." That was an interesting and obvious observation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Oh, Jack!


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to be unfair, but 1 call the Minister without Portfolio as my chief witness. When the credibility of the Minister of Transport comes into question, I am prepared to accept his views. 1 now quote a report carried in the Globe and Mail of November 27, 1976, as follows:
Mr. Horner accused Mr. Lang of "careless disregard of the public trust as Minister of Transport."
Has there been any reformation? Has the minister changed? Is he a chameleon? I could quote further passages. Has the minister without transport-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that was a lapsus linguae, but most prophetic. You should have seen the Minister of Transport as I saw him here in all his attractiveness and sartorial perfection. But I never saw the minister look more disturbed than when the Minister without Portfolio crossed to that side of the House. He has recovered now. They are getting together. Nonetheless, as the Ukrainian proverb says, "What is written cannot be drawn out, not even by a team of horses".


An hon. Member:: Isn't it Polish?


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister without Portfolio said the Canadian dollar had slipped below the level of the United States dollar because the Liberal government had deliberately held interest rates four percentage points above those in the

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
United States. They are still higher now. Who changed-the minister or the government? He went on to make one of his kinder statements, saying the government is guilty of gross mismanagement of the economy. High unemployment rates in central and eastern Canada are proof of government bungling. He is reported to have said that in November last, and conditions are worse now. I look forward to the explanation of the Minister without Portfolio. I understand he intends to speak. I hope I can stay, although I must leave by an early flight. I do not have the same facilities as the Minister of Transport.
I could go on. 1 do not intend to say anything of a critical nature. What did the Minister of Transport say when the Hall Commission report came out? The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix called it a sensible report. That newspaper has always shown a high regard for the minister. In its issue of Wednesday, May 18, it said this:
In fact, so far it is the singular exclusion of the Minister of Transport from the collective endorsement that inspires speculation on the future of the Hall report.
Why was the minister silent? He is not noted for his silence. He has an unusual capacity for language and articulation, but remained silent. The editorial goes on to say:
Surely Ottawa will notice a golden opportunity to make friends in the west, and thereby strengthen the unity of Canada.
The Hall report's lack of equivocation on the statutory Crowsnest pass freight rates, and the recommendation to extend them to processed grain products and livestock has settled fears once raised by Mr. Lang with his calls for reassessment.
He raised this in the House the other day. I have already read that portion which says, "We have to look into the cost." Did he look into the cost when his aircraft ran up a $750,000 bill in three years? Did he consider cost then? Mr. Speaker, there is no greater repentance than that of the unrepentant. Has the minister changed? I await his answer. But everywhere one notes the same equivocation in which he indulged the other day in this House. He went on to say he had been misreported-everybody out of step but the hon. gentleman- in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix by Canadian Press. I heard the minister over the radio. Despite any difficulties 1 might have with hearing, it was very clear he was equivocating about this question, at the same time saying that anyone who contends he is against the rates is not telling the truth. However, he did not say he was for them clearly, definitely and finally. It was always subject to equivocation.
1 have high regard for the minister. I remember at one time 1 criticized him. I asked, "What does he know about marketing wheat?" I was right. Today we have 750 million bushels piled up higher than the pyramids that existed when we came into power in 1957. Outside the House the minister made the statement, "Apparently the right hon. member does not know I was born on a farm, almost in the centre of a wheat field." 1 would point out to him that so were gophers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We do not want any more equivocation. We want a definite, clear and undiluted statement that there is going to be no tinkering with the Crowsnest pass rates. That is all we ask for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I do know why the minister decided to bring about this "at and east" rate. It would have cost the western farmer six cents a bushel more to transport his wheat at Atlantic ports. Why would you expect a minister representing the province of Saskatchewan to be in favour of that? He stood; he fought; he said, "This rock shall move as soon as I." The Conservative party also stood; they fought, and they got a withdrawal. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) fought on and on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Finally, the minister capitulated. Why did he want to bring in new freight rates for the Welland canal, again hooking the western farmer? He thought he could do it unilaterally. However, the United States made it perfectly clear to him they would not stand for that. The only thing that saved the western farmer from that extra tariff, and that is what I call it, on western production was the fact that the United States refused to follow. It decided it would give further consideration to the matter. I have covered this matter as succinctly as I can. I simply ask the minister to stand and say, "All my past is forgotten. I am for the Crowsnest pass rates now, without evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatever." When he does that, I will believe him, because he will not be able to do anything else if he gives that undertaking.
We now come to another matter. The Hall commission rather disturbed the government in connection with its recommendation of a railroad into the north. I have been dealing with that matter for several years. I am not going to quote what I have said on previous occasions. On February 24, 1973, 1 dealt at length with the benefits that would flow from a railroad built into the north. Beside opening the north, it would deny all those dangers that follow the building of a pipeline. It would create employment for thousands of Canadians.
The Hall commission described the plan it had in mind for opening the north as the "northern dream". I remember when I uttered the expression of the "northern dream". It was ridiculed by the Liberal party. Then when it turned out all right, those who condemned it became its projectors. They laughed at the idea of a railroad to Great Slave Lake and Pine Point. They said it would be two streaks of rust and a roadbed going nowhere. Mr. Pearson said the Conservatives were going to build highways and railways from igloo to igloo. That shows how up to date the Liberal party was, because they said the same thing in 1873 when Macdonald had his dream-only then they said "from wigwam to wigwam". The philosophy is still there.
I raised this question the other day. Somebody in the press said I must have known in advance that it would be in the Hall
May 26, 1977

report. I had no indication, but I knew the report was coming in so I raised the question in the House. I endeavoured to bring the matter before the House in a motion on May 10, and I quote:
In view of the strong views expressed by the hon. Mr. Justice Berger in connection with a gas pipeline from the Yukon and that a railroad was commended and approved by the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport in 1972 following an engineering, economic and environmental feasibility study of a railroad to carry Arctic oil and liquefied natural gas to markets in central Canada, and as the institute agreed with an earlier preliminary analysis which concluded that a railway is technically and operationally feasible and appeared to be financially attractive, with unanimous consent of the House, I would move:
That a committee of the House be set up to examine this question without delay, as the conclusion of the Canadian Institute was that 360 locomotive units and 1 1,000 tank cars of 94 ton capacity with 20 trains per day could move the necessary requirements of oil and gas.
Furthermore, having regard to the unemployment situation, the report agreed that such a railroad would require 5,000 workers to build over a 516 year period, and it would employ, on completion, some 4,600 people in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and there would be very little disruption to the environment.
You, Mr. Speaker, asked whether there was unanimous consent, and that voice which went unrecognized said "No." Why? What was the reason for that? All I have to say in that regard is that this parliament is being emasculated by the kind of thing that we witness here day after day. Regardless of whether a motion is in keeping with the kind of Canada we want to bring about, that silent "No" denies parliament the right to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I raised this in the House of Commons many years ago. On March 20, 1973, I went into full detail. I felt it deserved consideration. 1 asked the minister about it in the House the other day. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) who is lost in his environment, said, "We cannot do it." Mr. Speaker, were all those scientists and leaders in the universities, and technical individuals who comprise the Queen's University group, nincompoops and nonentities? That is the way they were treated by the minister. "You cannot do it", he said. "It would be dangerous to the environment". When I questioned him further, he said, "Well, I take the advice of my experts". 1 should like to hear those experts. He went on to say, "I seek out the best information on the environment I can get". All I can say is, he does not understand it. If he would reflect on his figures concerning the numbers of trains per day which would be needed he would see that his figures are not inconsistent with mine: they are just double what mine were-and mine were authentic.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Much would depend, the minister said, on how many cars there were in each train. Now, there's a thought. That takes unusual perception. It would depend on the number of cars. He was not wrong there. Clearly, he recognized that trains going at 60 or 70 miles an hour every hour and twenty minutes are likely to pose a greater environ-
Hall Commission Report
mental hazard in the north than "a quiet, subterranean pipeline". Quiet, yes. But destructive of the environment and of the rights of our native people throughout the north. He went on to say:
I can assure the right hon. gentleman we took this consideration seriously. We looked at it and thought it did not seem to stand up.
Why, if they thought it would not stand up, was my motion to permit its discussion and consideration by a committee of this House turned down? It would seem to me that the Minister of the Environment is a prisoner of his environment. Whatever they tell him, away he goes, asserting it as his own. I have quite a regard for him. He is good looking, attractive and articulate. But when it comes to what will happen to the environment, I prefer Mr. Justice Berger.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but his time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall take only two or three minutes more. I do not wish to deny the Minister of Transport his opportunity. After all, he is going to nail his ideas into Hansard today, and I look forward to hearing him explain the unexplainable, unveil the heretofore concealable, and unscrew the inscrutable. I wait for this to be done. I know he will do all those things with that capacity, that knowledge and, above all, that sangfroid which characterizes him at all times.
In all seriousness, through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to him, "You represent a Saskatchewan constituency. Until the recent appointment of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Guay) and the recent acquisition of the Minister without Portfolio from Alberta, upon you, and you alone, rested the responsibility as the minister from Saskatchewan to put forward the case for western rights and the western economy, while at the same time recognizing the national responsibilities which are yours". I ask him to assure the west that all the equivocation in which he has indulged has simply been camouflage designed to cover up the fact that ever and anon he comes up with this idea: I have to find out, first, whether the recommendations of the Hall commission are going to cost too much. 1 wish the minister would say to the rest of his colleagues, "Physician, heal thyself."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say I am very pleased to follow our senior colleague from Saskatchewan, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and I want to congratulate him on the statesmanlike way in which he dispatched the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale). Not only did he dispatch the hon. member for Assiniboia, whom he scared out of the House, while the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is still here, but he also scared out of the House the Minister without Portfolio from Alberta (Mr. Horner).

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
I am happy to have the opportunity to take part in this debate initiated by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. 1 support in general the principles of the Hall Report. 1 think the report was a very good one. In style, it is similar to the Berger report, also referred to by the right hon. gentleman. In the course of his study, Mr. Hall took his commission into about 77 different communities on the prairies. He talked to about 15,000 people who attended the hearings. Many of us, as members of parliament, myself included, made presentations to the Hall commission. A large number of community leaders, farm groups, and so on, presented their briefs to the commission. I hope the government acts, and acts quickly, on the recommendations in the report because some of those recommendations are vital to small towns and villages across the prairies.
The question might be asked: Why was the Hall commission appointed in the first place? I want to go back over history and consider what motivated the government to appoint the commission a couple of years ago. First, there was the question of the future of some 6,300 miles of railway across the prairies. The government had decided that 12,450 miles of railway on the prairies would form what they called a basic network guaranteed until the year 2000. Then they classified another 6,300 miles as "B railways", on which operations were frozen until January 1, 1975, following the WEOC conference in Alberta. Then, after the commission was appointed, the freeze was extended until June 30 of this year.
The commission was also to study the port utilization question, grain rates, economic development on the prairies, agricultural processing and the Arctic railway, something which was also referred to by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Let us consider the situation which existed on the prairies and which led to the setting up of the commission in the first place. Those of us who come from the prairies know that over the last few years there has been an increase in what is known as "western alienation". People are more than ever concerned as to whether or not the west is playing its full role in Canada and getting its full share from this great country. One of the major causes of complaint on the prairies is the transportation system and the way it is set up to benefit, not the people of the prairies, but in the main the vested interests which live in what is called the "golden horseshoe" of southern Ontario.
Many people in the west are also very upset that much of our raw material is shipped to central Canada for processing and we, in turn, have to import the finished products back to the prairies, losing economic opportunity and potential jobs for our people. Another area of great concern to us is the tariff structure in Canada. We seem to see a generous attitude taken toward manufacturing in this country. The average manufacturing tariff is around 30 per cent. Most of the manufacturing, of course, takes place in central Canada. The tariff on agricultural goods is about one half of 1 per cent. This, again, appears to be discriminatory toward those who live on the prairies. People from my area who go down to Minnesota or North Dakota ask me why they are able to buy manufactured goods
[Mr. Nystrom.J
so cheaply just a few miles south of the border. The answer is that although we give industries primarily in southern Ontario tariff protection, our farm goods produced by our own people have no tariff protection whatever.
I come now to the question of rail line abandonment. I have already said that possibly 6,300 miles of rail line are going to be abandoned on the prairies. A study has just been released by the University of Regina, commissioned by the government of Saskatchewan, of the economic and social impact of the abandonment of rail lines on the prairies. This study, which was released to the public on Thursday, May 12 last, found that 47 per cent of businesses and 28 per cent of the population will leave towns and villages along rail lines which will be abandoned. This study focused on 26 communities with a population of more than 100 people, selected from 374 centres served by rail lines which the government is considering abandoning. The Hall commission is as important to people on the prairies as is the Berger inquiry to the people of northern Canada, and it is why the Hall report must be taken seriously by the government.
People in my area also have a great deal of concern about some of the proposals to build huge inland terminals and to close down country elevators which serve small towns in my own province and my neighbouring province. They are also concerned about statements, made by the Minister of Transport-my right hon. friend from Prince Albert put it very well this afternoon-to the effect that the government is equivocating on the Crow rates, that it is not coming out squarely in favour of retaining the Crow rates but saying that farmers should instead receive the benefits of the Crow rates in some other way. I want to know, in what other way. 1 want to know whether the minister will tell us in a straightforward manner that he is standing firmly behind the Crow rates and will not change them as recommended in the Hall commission report.
My constituents are also concerned about the user-pay philosophy of the Minister of Transport. This is a concept which would hurt people on the prairies. If it were applied literally, it would mean that farmers and businessmen on the prairies would pay the full cost of transporting their goods and materials across this country. That in itself would discriminate against regions like the prairies, the north and the maritimes which are a long way from the markets of this country.
These are the circumstances which led to the Hall commission inquiry on the prairies and to the establishment of a study which I think is one of the most worthwhile we have seen in a long while. A number of recommendations were made which I support in principle and which I believe should be acted upon as quickly as possible. Let me take them one by one. First is the very important question of rail line abandonment. The Commission took a look at the 6,300 miles of B rail lines across the prairies which were going to be abandoned. They held hearings across the prairies and then recommended that some 1,800 miles be incorporated into the basic rail network, the existence of which will be guaranteed until at least the
May 26, 1977

year 2000. That is a good recommendation, Mr. Speaker, one that the minister should immediately agree to when he takes the floor in about 15 minutes' time. By doing so he will give towns, villages and delivery points along those railways some certainty of their future, and thus enable them to plan their communities and economies in the years ahead.
The report also found that some 2,165 miles of line should be abandoned between June 30 of this year and 1981. We all agree that some rail lines must be abandoned. In fact, some 600 miles of line have not been used for the last two years. However, I suggest the Minister of Transport take another look at some of the proposed abandonments. I can think of 200 or 300 miles of line which perhaps should not be abandoned. For example, in my own riding, Jedburgh and Colmer, both little places, deliver a fair amount of grain and depend on the railways. Perhaps they should be given a second chance and the railroad retained.
The third recommendation in regard to rail line abandonment is to put 2,340 miles of rail lines under the authority of a new Crown corporation to be known as the prairie rail authority. This is a new idea. The Hall commission says it is not really sure that these lines should be abandoned and that 2,300 miles of rail line should be examined very thoroughly by a new federal Crown corporation and retained until the year 1990. By that time a decision must be made whether to abandon or retain them.
In some ways, Mr. Speaker, I think that is very unfortunate, because uncertainty will continue to exist in many communities along those rail lines. There will be uncertainty as to whether or not the Wheat Pool and other grain elevators should upgrade their facilities or build new elevators. Just the other day the president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool announced that one new elevator planned for a certain town would not now be built. After all, what is the use of building an elevator if the rail line is abandoned in 12 years' time? What is the point of setting me a new business in a town or village on the rail line if the line is to be abandoned? Therefore, if the government accepts this recommendation they will, in effect, be telling a whole series of towns with significant populations that they will face long-term uncertainty.
In face of this de facto uncertainty over a long period, Mr. Speaker, the rail lines will indeed be abandoned. If the elevator companies do not upgrade their facilities, if businessmen do not expand, and new plants are not set up owing to this uncertainty as to the existence of the railway after 1990, then the CTC, the government, or the prairies rail authority, or whichever body will make the decision at that time, will decide the railway is not needed and will abandon it. I do not want to see a large number of these towns put in this situation of continuing uncertainty over the next 12 or 13 years.
Some of these towns are quite big places. For example, in the riding of the hon. member for Assiniboia, the shadow minister of transport, there are towns like Radville, with a population of 1,024, Bengough, with a population of 650; Willowbunch, with a population of 482; Gravelbourg, with a population of 1,428. All of these towns are recommended for
Hall Commission Report
inclusion under the prairie rail authority and will face a state of uncertainty for the next 12 years. I do not think there is going to be much development or progress in those towns unless the government decides to keep those rail lines and place them in the A category, maintaining them until the year 2000.
Other towns which will face continuing uncertainty are places like Cudworth, with a population of 800; Leroy, with a population of 435; Naicam, with a population of 711; and Wakaw, with a population of 1,009-all towns within the minister's riding. I think I am right in saying that the right hon. member for Prince Albert started his law practice in Wakaw a number of years ago, and I am sure he would not want that beautiful little town to face uncertainty until 1990 in regard to whether or not the rail line will be retained, new communities can be built and the farmers can be served by rail transportation.
When the minister speaks today, I would ask him to say something about the future of towns like Preeceville, in the riding of Mackenzie, with a population of 1,018 people, and the town of Kelvington, with a population of 1,053 people. These are large places, not tiny hamlets with 20 or 60 people. In many cases, over 1,000 people live in these towns and there are hundreds of farmers in the surrounding area. There are also several hamlets and villages between the towns, such as Preeceville, Kelvington and Porcupine in the Mackenzie constituency. Those areas are thriving and should not have to face continued uncertainty for several years. I hope the Minister of Transport is able to give them new hope when he rises and makes his statement later today.
The second recommendation contained in the Hall report is to retain the Crow rate. Our party has always been in favour the Crow rate. We think it is a rate which the farmers deserve. I hope the minister speaks categorically and strongly in favour of that rate. The commission also recommends that the difference between the Crowsnest rate and the cost of the railway be paid to the railways themselves and that the benefits of the Crow rate, to use the words of the Minister of Transport, not be given in some other way to the farmers. In fact, the Hall commission report, at page 337, reads as follows:
The very idea of sending out cheques to 160,000 farmers is appalling.
The Minister of Transport has talked about extra benefits to the farmers or to municipalities which resulted in that being contained in the report. The third thing they recommend is with respect to the whole area of economic development in western Canada. I would like to refer to the report once again where it is stated that freight structures for the processed product in its concentrated form should cost no more to transport on a ton-mile basis than the same product in its raw state. In other words, they are saying that in western Canada we should be able to process our goods and materials and ship them out at the same rate on a per ton-mile basis as raw materials. They are saying that the processing of the goods should be done where they are produced. For example, rape-
5974

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
seed should be crushed and processed in the prairies where it is produced and should be subject to the same freight rate as the raw rapeseed. If the Minister of Transport wants to do something significant for the prairies and for western Canada, that is something that should be done.
The fourth item in the report deals with the retention of the decentralized system of country elevators. That is a system which the farmers have fought for over the years, and the Hall commission is saying that it be the basis of our grain handling system in the prairies. In effect, in their report they reject massive centralization of huge inland terminals, which some people in this country have been talking about for the last few years. As the hon. member for Prince Albert stated, the report refers to a northern railway rather than a pipeline in northern Canada. That is one suggestion which merits further study, because you can move many things on a railway that you cannot move in a pipeline, including many things people need, such as raw materials which may have to be shipped down some day from northern Canada.
The Hall report also deals with ports and improving the port facilities we have in this country by dredging the port at Thunder Bay and by improving the utilization of the port at Churchill so that it will be used to a much greater extent. The port at Churchill should be utilized to a greater extent, not only for the people of Churchill but for the people of the prairies generally. The report also recommends an inland cleaning facility in my home riding of Yorkton capable of handling and cleaning 25 million to 30 million bushels of grain every year. That is a suggestion which has a lot of merit and should be looked at seriously by the minister. They are also recommending a greater utilization of the port of Prince Rupert in British Columbia. There are a number of other recommendations one could talk about when debating an issue such as this. The report has more than 500 pages. It is an excellent report and one the government should be acting upon very quickly.
At this stage I would like to move an amendment to the motion which is before the House that will, hopefully, draw the government's attention to some of the more important parts of the Hall commission report. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"particularly (a) that the Crowsnest statutory rates be maintained, (b) that the principle of the Crowsnest rates be extended to agricultural products processed in western Canada, and (c) that the utilization of the ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert be increased".
I hope the Minister of Transport and his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio from Alberta, and other ministers in the cabinet will make some quick decisions on the Hall commission report which is before them. I hope they will end the uncertainty that literally hundreds of prairie towns and villages are now facing as to whether they will have rail facilities in the years ahead. Once and for all, those of us in western Canada will have our chance to share equally in the development of this great country of ours.
[Mr. Nystrom.J


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in beginning this afternoon I want to pay tribute to the members of the Hall commission who performed a great piece of work for the transportation system in Canada and for people who are engaged in producing and distributing grain. Mr. Cowan, Mr. Stewart, Mr. Forbes and Mr. Lehr from the prairie provinces travelled far and wide throughout the prairies and elsewhere in Canada in order to obtain the views, opinions and reactions of all people interested in the handling and transportation system. In carrying out their appointed task of examining the future of some 6,000 miles of branch lines in the prairie system and the over-all question of the handling and transporting of grain, I believe they did a superb job. They listened and attempted to come to grips with many of the problems which have vexed us for a long time.
I am pleased to see the words of the resolution as proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his statement of support in principle for the recommendations of the Hall commission. I was also pleased to hear the comments of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), in terms of his general support of the recommendations of the Hall commission. Perhaps it is somewhat better to put it in that form, since it is a little difficult to agree with some of the recommendations in principle. You have to either agree or disagree with it, rather than adopting it in principle and finding out later what it is all about, determining what it costs and whether you really like it. That is the phraseology this House sometimes uses, and I think we all understand it.
The Hall commission did not come out of the clear blue sky. It was a result of a great deal of work which had been done in connection with the grains industry. That work really began in 1969 with the appointment of the grains group and consolidation within the government of a special effort to come to grips with all the problems affecting our grains industry. What is astonishing in looking at the record of accomplishments since 1969 is to compare that in contrast with the practical absence of progress, change and alteration in the preceding period, and particularly the practical absence of changes and improvements in connection with the grains industry, whether handling, transportation, marketing or any of its policies, during the time when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was prime minister of this country.
There is one major exception to the record of very little being done, and that is the introduction during that period of the idea of cash advances on farm-stored grains. That was accomplished in the first months of that government, but then it seemed to run out of steam in coming to grips with any of the difficult problems. The reason why as a party it is unable to gain solid strength with people throughout this country is that it is so unwilling to take practical and sensible approaches and, indeed, to do anything for fear that someone might not like what it is doing. The Conservative party falls back on the traditional idea that if you do nothing, no one can attack you for your mistakes. That is the philosophy of that party, both in government and in opposition, and we have seen its record. We have seen this most recently, again, in relation to the problem
May 26, 1977

facing the beef industry. They criticize ideas to solve the problems, but they themselves have no ideas to put forward.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: The work of the Hall commission was not the beginning of the study of the problem of grain handling and the transportation system. That began in 1969. One of the first tasks which we launched then, with the firm intention to be thorough, was the exhaustive study of all aspects of the problem. There was production of many documents which are available, of course, and were made available for a greater understanding of problems concerning elevators such as rail cost problems and their impact upon communities of having elevators or rail lines. All these studies which were accomplished over a period of several years were very important contributions from leaders within the grain industry as well as from many government officials who worked zealously on these. 1 wish to pay tribute, for instance, to the managers of two of the pools in the prairies, Mr. Mumford and Mr. Wally Madill, who, together with Mr. Searle who just then retired from another elevator company, worked with us in connection with many of these studies. At that time we began to assess the information to develop an understanding of the technical questions involved which were eventually to form the basis for the work of the Hall commission. When the work was over, it appeared to us that it was right to have two commissions to bring the work to a conclusion. We appointed then the Snavely commission to examine the technical questions of how much it really costs to move grain and to analyse these technical questions with the provinces and with the companies involved. Also, we appointed the Hall commission.
I was delighted when Mr. Hall accepted to be chairman of this commission, with his strong reputation for being able to listen to the public, to analyse problems and to present views in a sensitive and sympathetic manner. We appointed that commission to hear the public views, to bring together the knowledge, the analysis and the work that we and others had done, and to draw conclusions upon which to act. I was delighted to hear the reference of the right hon. member for Prince Albert to his original appointment of Mr. Hall to the bench in Canada. I think it is a well known and well recognized fact that in all of his work, whether on the bench or in the many commissions he has served so well, his strong liberalism has shown time and time again in his approach and in his conclusions in relation to problems.
That is why I believe it will be possible to act quickly on many of the Hall commission's recommendations and to use them as the basis for the development of solutions to problems in the grain industry. Indeed, to pick up the challenge of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, I can say that as soon as I saw the recommendations in the Hall commission report I began work on the initial question dealing with his first and principal recommendation that a particular 1,813 miles of track which were part of his study should be transferred to the basic rail network. I put that proposition to my colleagues for
Hall Commission Report
consideration, and this morning the order in council was passed to transfer those 1,813 miles recommended by Mr. Hall to the basic rail network. They will be protected from abandonment in the year 2000, which applies to the other branch lines which were first put into that basic network system. We have, therefore, already on the tenth day after the publication of the Hall report implemented its major feature.
Also, today by order in council we extended protection to 2,344 miles of line which the Hall commission recommended be put in the hands of the prairie rail authority. We have extended their protection to January 1, 1979, so that we may take immediate steps and, at the same time, deliberate action in relation to this recommendation to consider all its implications and to see what formal action must be taken before parliament can carry out that recommendation.
1 noted the cautionary words of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, expressed previously by some of the representatives of farmers in the prairies, with regard to some aspects that raise concern. I propose to begin immediately discussions with representatives of farmers and, of course, to hear the farmers themselves on the problems, the merits and the difficulties of this recommendation. This with the view to saying, as I said earlier in the House, that I like the report in general and in principle. I hope we can find a way to solve the dilemmas which are seen to exist in it and to get on with it in accordance with the spirit of the Hall commission report.
I propose to meet tomorrow in Regina with the leaders of many of the farm organizations and representatives of the elevator companies, or at least the key ones, and representatives of others involved in the grain industry, including the Wheat Board, we hope, in order to move forward on this and other recommendations in the Hall report. It will not be possible to say of this government, in relation to this problem concerning the grain industry, that we have been slow in moving. We will continue to do here, in relation to this great industry, what our record shows we have done since 1969, that is, to tackled the problems one by one and many together in order to make progress and in order to put the prairie farmer, who is the producer of our Canadian grain both for domestic and export use, into a sound position in his operations, in his marketing and in his income. Since 1969, the things we have done-


Mr. Malone:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate to the House whether he intends to implement the whole report of the Hall commission by order in council, as he is now implying, or will he keep the report away from the committee, as he has the beef program ever since it has been implemented?


Otto Emil Lang: Obviously, those things which can be done by order in council, if that is the appropriate method, as it is indeed in this case since we have the authority to protect certain rail lines from abandonment, will be done in that way. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting, like a typical Conservative, that we should have delayed action here. Of course, there are a number of recommendations in the Hall
80016-38'/2

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
report which can only be brought into existence by legislation. 1 am thinking in particular of the full form of the prairie rail authority which would clearly be an issue for legislation since it would affect a number of other legislative matters.


Mr. Mclsaac:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. 1 wonder if my friend has any objection against the minister proceeding immediately to move in this regard. Is he concerned about that?


Arnold John Malone: I would like the minister also to accept immediately the continued guarantee of the Crowsnest pass rates.


Otto Emil Lang: I will get to the important subjects to which the hon. member referred. I would just like to put into perspective the actions which have been taken, because hon. members opposite are apt to forget them. They do a disservice to this country by suggesting that the government of Canada is not capable of acting to protect the interests of the west. They do a disservice to unity. They do a service to cynicism and separatism with that kind of talk and allegation, and it is unfortunate that they do forget these things. Meanwhile, their colleagues who are not from the west do a further service to cynicism and separatism by going to other parts of the country and arguing that everything is being done for the west and citing things like the hopper car program as prime examples. Hon. members opposite deny that that is their tactic. If they want to know why they are the party of disunity both within their party and within the country, they should look at that record of performing differently in different regions and accusing the government of different things in those regions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Mazankowski:: Cut the lectures; get on with the Hall report.


Otto Emil Lang: Since 1969-


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To set the record straight, we should point out that any government which has had 11 cabinet ministers resign in three years is a party of disunity.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I presume you are making due allowance for the extension of my time because of these interjections.
I refer to the formation of the Canadian Grains Council and also to the expanded credit facilities and long-term federal guarantees which allowed the Wheat Board to pursue new markets for grain. I refer to the new and vigorous efforts to break into world barley markets where we had really never been in a big way for many years before 1970. Again, if we look at the record, while the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert was in power we find there was little and seriously dwindling attention paid to the feed barley market of the world. After 1970 we determined that we should

be in that market in a big way. We set initial prices which encouraged the growth of barley so it would be available for export. We set targets of 200 million bushels fo exports as a basic target the Wheat Board should go after, and in some of the years since then when it has been produced and available that amount of grain has indeed been sold. That is why in the past several years we have had record sales which have exceeded any of the levels which were achieved at any time before 1965.
We set in place a program which put $10 million annually into a new market development fund. We have developed new research facilities such as the new crop science division at the University of Saskatchewan and the protein, oil and starch plant which will be opened in July at that university. We introduced the two-price wheat program, which in a permanent way had never before been seen although it had been talked about by prairie people for many years. We did that at a time when it cost many million dollars each year to finance. We brought in a new quota system, which hon. members opposite attacked but which now allows the smooth and easy flow of grain into the system instead of bringing grain into the system willy-nilly and helter-skelter without regard to market needs and to what the transportation system can handle. We introduced a system for the early announcement of quotas, guaranteed deliveries and initial prices before seeding so that farmers would have that additional information. We improved the timing of final payments by the Wheat Board. We introduced the deferred cash ticket system on grain deliveries.
We introduced a separate pool for malting barley. The block shipping system helped tremendously in the grain handling and transportation system with which Mr. Hall and his commission had to deal. We helped with the grain trucking program, which provided some valuable information to the commission. We introduced government financing for the bringing in of grain so it could be dried. We introduced such things as further consultations with producers, and the election of the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board. We held a poll among rapeseed producers to determine their marketing preference. We now have before the House a proposal for a voluntary system of pooling rapeseed.
Over these past years, while we knew that further study on the grain handling and transportation system was needed and that the Hall report was needed, we decided that there were some things we could do in advance of the report. Such things that everyone seemed to agree would be consistent with any possible combination of grain delivery systems they could imagine. The hopper car program is a prime example of that. In addition we introduced the boxcar repair program to keep extra cars in operation for grain. We have now completed the construction or ordering of 8,000 hopper cars for grain at a cost of $240 million to $250 million.
Hon. members opposite who are from the west ignore and do not mention the things we have done for this important western industry, while their colleagues from other parts of the country point to these iniatives with criticism, saying that the government shows a preference for the west. 1 ask hon. mem-
May 26, 1977

bers opposite to try to bring about unity amongst themselves so that their party can be a party for unity for this country as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The list is long, and 1 will not continue it, but the Hall commission report and the Snavely commission report fit into and complete this work, which is very important.


An hon. Member:: What about LIFT?


Otto Emil Lang: In its way, the LIFT program also provided many millions of dollars. It was needed to change the system of clogging elevators which the right hon. gentleman's government had left in existence. That government should have understood the west and should have understood that piling up grain on August 1 every year until the elevators were full, and that encouraging wheat production under a quota system, was wrong. That government had favoured wheat over barley and forgot to sell barley in the world market because it did not seem to show any interest. All these things made no sense, and we needed a system which would work like castor oil in changing the system, but this involved $70 million of government money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why is the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) not applauding?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a point of order. I am sure the hon. minister did not intend to mislead the House, but he should know there is more congestion in east central Alberta and west central Saskatchewan this year than in past years. He ought to know that because of the movement to Thunder Bay and to other ports.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) is wrong, as usual, in suggesting that any of the congestion now is anywhere as great as it was at the time about which I was speaking. Of course, this year there is somewhat more grain to handle because of the record volume of production of last year.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It's on the farms.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member should recognize that at this point in time we are already ahead of last year's exports, and by the time this crop year is over, this particular crop year we will have exported very much more grain than we did last year. The only reason there will be additional grain on the farms- which there will be-is the record production which we all should welcome and the build-up of supplies which were already at that point fairly high. It is a welcome build-up of supplies in terms of security of supply for the world.
Hon. members opposite asked me to refer to the Crowsnest rates on grain, and I am certainly glad to take this opportunity to do that. The Conservative party, through its spokesman, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, and the New Democratic
Hal! Commission Report
Party, through its spokesman, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, have both said that essentially they agree with the recommendations of the Hall report. As with the Berger report, they were ready to agree unanimously to those recommendations the very day the report came out and before they had much chance to read it. Notwithstanding the fact that the official opposition should have been somewhat alerted to the dangers of that-because the Leader of the Opposition immediately supported the Berger report in total and then had to vote the other way in this House-on reflection perhaps a little bit of weighing of the evidence is desirable. I have also said that about some of the individual recommendations, but it would be useful to know what they cost. Even if one is willing to pay the cost, it is useful to know what it is before one decides to proceed.
Hon. members opposite support the recommendations of the Hall report in general.


M. Mazankowski:: Have you not supported them in general? Make up your mind.


Otto Emil Lang: On the question of the Crowsnest rate, the Hall commission says this:
Regardless of what rate may be set for the transport of grain to export position that rate must be statutory, not variable.
I have no hesitation in saying that I have never had any thoughts to the contrary in relation to that particular rate on grain. The commission report goes on:
How the difference between the new rate and the Crowsnest rate will be apportioned between the government and the producer is, of course, a matter for government decision. This commission feels that the government must continue to subsidize the transportation of export grain and that the full cost, as deemed by the commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail, must not be imposed on the producer.
In supporting that recommendation in general, as the two parties opposite have done, it should be noted they did not go as far as I have gone in the past in my assertion that I believed the whole of the benefit of the Crowsnest rate for grain should be reserved for western producers. They do not go as far as I have gone in suggesting that. Indeed, over the years my only qualification about the preservation of the whole of the benefit of the Crowsnest rate for the west has been to tie it in principle and theory, as it was tied in national policy almost a century ago, to the existence and creation of tariffs and their burdens on the grain farmer and the agricultural sector. I have suggested that any diminution in the benefit of those rates to the prairies could only come about if benefit was being conferred on the prairies and on the grain sector in particular by improvements and movements toward freer trade.
If the world were to move toward freer trade, then I could see that the particular historic benefit which was tied in many ways to the development of a tariff structure should be varied as well. That is the only comment or qualification I have made, whereas here the commission suggests perhaps there should be greater movement away from the statutory rate. I say that the statutory rate should remain in that statutory

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
form. I will be having discussions with my colleagues about many other issues in the Hall report in connection with improvements in the grain handling and transportation system.
Surely, in our total examination of freight we have to bring some sense of the principles to bear in regard to the handling of products and the impact of one product upon another. The Hall commission seems to me clearly to support the statement that we ought to have equity in freight rates between grain and meat. That is something I have said emphatically over and over again, particularly in connection with the development of the feed grains policy for Canada. I have spoken of the need to have access to feed grain for all farmers in all parts of the country for the purpose of freedom of trade and proper development of products according to natural advantage. I have spoken, as well, of the need to have equity in freight rates between the two products. In many ways, in principle, the people throughout the prairies appreciate the importance of that and realize it is a problem that has to be grappled with. The recommendation to upgrade the railways will cost a great deal of money. That is also a matter that this government will have to grapple with in the near future.
I spoke about the record of this government in relation to many other grain programs, without mentioning them all. I did not mention what is perhaps the greatest of all government programs in the past eight or nine years, the western grains stabilization plan. This may well prove over the years to be the greatest bulwark and mainstay of prairie grain producers at any time where downswings occur. In the light of history, there are reasons to believe that those downswings will occur. This great grain stabilization plan commits the government, in essence, to 4 per cent annually of the value of grain but guarantees whatever amount is required from the treasury to pay the difference between what the cash income of prairie farmers has been over five years and what it is in a current year. That may well prove to be the greatest monument to the action of this government in regard to the grain industry.
Mr. Speaker, that plan was the result of years and years of hard and determined work on the part of the few of us on this side of the House from the prairies, with the co-operation of members of the Liberal party from every province in the country-from Quebec and Ontario, from the Atlantic provinces and British Columbia as well as the Liberals from the prairies. It triumphed over the struggle and time-wasting and time-consuming efforts of members opposite from the prairies who were doing a disservice by working against a plan because of only one thing-that they did not want a plan so good to be brought in. That kind of narrow politics I cannot understand, even from members opposite.
The government has a record of performance in relation to the grain industry which is recognized by members of that industry, farmers and farm leaders alike. They know the problems and know that we have taken action with programs like the change in the quota system which in its time was unpopular but which has proved to be what was needed. People across this country who have seen that know they can have confidence. So much of what is in the Hall commission report
[Mr. Lang.)
is the culmination of the work done in the grains group and the culmination of the hearings we asked the Hall commission to undertake. Those people know that we will take very serious steps to implement those recommendations which will benefit the prairies, the grain industry and the grain farmer.
It will be said after these eight, nine or ten years of performance that this government has acted forthrightly at all times-has acted quickly and decisively for the benefit of the grain industry and its systems. We will do so again in connection with the Hall report. That is my pledge, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments on today's motion, although I am somewhat surprised to see how quickly we are deciding on the Hall report. I am sure it is not a mistake to say that most of us did not have time to read it because we just got it; yet we are simply requested to agree in principle on the recommendation of the Hall commission.
I think it is only an agreement in principle because it is impossible to study such a voluminous document in two, three or four days. After reading the first few pages of this document, we realize that it concerns primarily the interest of the western provinces, the grain production, as the minister just said. It concerns all the provinces of Canada because I think that the evolution of a province has an impact on the whole country; it concerns us all the more, as the minister also said, that the change will not be made with nothing but with money; we are then much more interested because we will also be asked to pay for this change.
Therefore I congratulate all the members of the Hall commission. The minister said that this commission had travelled a lot. I would add they have written a lot as well, because judging from their first volume of almost 600 pages we have just received, let alone those to come, I believe we can say these commissioners have done a lot of work. I am very pleased for western farmers who must also benefit from the effects of the progress taking place in this country.
If we go back to the time when the grain transportation system through the Prairies was just beginning, we find that what was modern then is entirely obsolete today, like the agricultural production which is quite different, much more mechanized and more rapid than at the time when they farmed with horses. This is why we can still see all these things from the past, that is those hundreds of local elevators, many of which are now completely abandoned. The same applies to railway tracks. The Hall commission was supposed to undertake a study of the situation in order to make constructive recommendations to Parliament. Appointed in 1975, this commission was assigned the task of studying the needs of western farmers in terms of railway transportation, to make a full assessment of requirements relating to regional transportation
May 26, 1977

in order to analyze the impact of the over-all grain handling and transportation system.
Finally, it was to make recommendations which today affect about 6,283 miles of railway tracks throughout the Prairie provinces. As regards those lines which are to be abandoned, I believe many western producers will have a lot to say, and we shall not voice any objection about it because they have common interests to defend. It is quite similar to what is happening in our province where we fight in an attempt to modernize our railway system. We share almost the same problems, passenger services, freight services, and we must at all cost deal with transportation experts. We must take their advice, but especially study their recommendations. I suggest this is what the Prairie farmers are trying to do with this motion today.
We shall deal also with the maintenance of statutory rates and handling but I wish we would refer to storage as well.
In a summary of his first volume, this is what Mr. Justice Hall had to say:
The grain handling and transportation commission asserts that this report is the result of a two-year study. During those two years, about 120 hearings have been held and the commission has received over 1,600 briefs. In addition, more than 15,000 people have attended the commission hearings.
Mr. Speaker, I insist on quoting that paragraph. People often say: They set up that commission, but now we will hear no more about it. I shall quote that excerpt to show the people that those commissions do work efficiently, for I think that if the people were aware of the number of hours of work, of miles covered, of visits out in the field, they would appreciate the work of this commission far more:
During its inquiry, the commission encouraged all those who are interested in the future of western Canada to express their views, both orally and in writing, at its hearings. Most of them were held in the towns and cities along the railway lines the commission was to assess and about which it was to make recommendations.
So, the commissioners did not work haphazardly; they did not write that volume sitting in their offices: they went out into the field, to see first hand what is going on.
The recommendations of the commission should serve as the basis for rationalizing the grain handling and transportation system in the future. In addition to recommending the early abandonment of the lines which are no longer needed, we also recommend the creation of a new body whose function would be to make a permanent assessment of future needs in the field of railway transportation. The commission concludes that 1,813 miles of branch lines in the Prairies, which have proved very useful and important on a regional basis, should be reintegrated into the main railway network, and that their existence be guaranteed until the year 2000.
The commission therefore recommends the abandonment, pure and simple, of over 2,000 miles of branch lines which have not been used for some time. I know that some years ago I had occasion to visit the Prairie provinces two or three times, and I was amazed to see all those abandoned lines. At the same time, there exists a whole new system, more modern and much quicker, of getting to the elevators. As I said a while ago, the years of the small industry, the small farm in the west are over, and the means of transport must, of necessity, be adapted to the evolution of agricultural production. We always hear that the west is Canada's granary, and I think this is true
Ajournment Motion
as far as grains are concerned. It is absolutely necessary to have this wealth shipped as soon as possible instead of leaving it in the fields. It is also necessary that all the provinces benefit from this. Those who are called upon to pay must also benefit from the future modernization in the western provinces.
This leads me to the question of storage. It is all well to take the grain from the land of the Prairie provinces and bring it to the elevators, but it must also be redistributed in the other provinces. I draw particularly the minister's attention to this point, namely that we will have to rethink the matter of grain storage in each and every province, and in Quebec-I speak for Quebec because that is where I live-it will be necessary to double the number of elevators either in Quebec City or in Montreal so that we do not have to send the grain by train in winter, when it is 50 per cent cheaper by ship.
If we had the necessary storage for a 12-month period, consumers, farmers and producers would benefit from the savings instead of being forced as they are now to fill western elevators and even municipal elevators right up. It would be so easy, before the close of the shipping season, to forward to Quebec and Maritime elevators the necessary stocks to guarantee to the consumers of each of those provinces the grain they will need during the 12 following months.
I think the government must show leadership and anticipate and we should forecast for at least 12 months to avoid those transport shortages. There are not enough engines and cars to carry the grain in eastern Canada when it would have been so easy to try before the close of the shipping season to fill up the elevators and thus the surplus alone would have to be carried in case of emergency during winter. Those are the comments which I want to make for now. I am pleased once again with the work done by the commission and I am convinced that it will benefit Canada as a whole.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters)- National Defence-Request for equipment to assist residents of Cobalt following fire; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Canadian Export Development Corporation-Reason for refusal to confirm Transair as prime bidder for United States Air Force contract; the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday)-Health-Possibility of studies on effects of saccharin on humans-Reason for failure to consult medical associations prior to imposing ban.

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefenbaker:
That this House agrees in principle with the recommendations of the Hall commission on grain handling and transportation.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) had stayed to hear what I am going to say, because I would rather say these things face to face. This motion was moved today to force the government to declare where it stands on the principles of the Hall report. There is nothing new in the principles enunciated in this report. They have been talked about and proposed in western Canada over the past 50 years. The essence of this report is that it puts all these things that we have asked for for half a century into one volume. Second, it puts it into plain English that even a government can understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What does the minister do in the face of this challenge by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)? He brought in a long list of achievements of his government and attacked the record of the Diefenbaker administration 15 years ago. Why does he take this stance? The reason he avoids the challenge of the right hon. member for Prince Albert is that he knows the record of his government. The philosophy of his government is not the philosophy of western Canada. If the minister has done so much good, why is he so feared all through the west?
In Saskatchewan we are in the process of fighting provincial by-elections. A party which had nothing two years ago, relatively 15 or 20 per cent of the vote, is now winning these by-elections. It is not so much because of dissatisfaction with the government in Saskatchewan, but with the fact that the issues are being fought on federal issues. The person who, above all, the farmers want to send a message to when they vote in these provincial by-elections in Saskatchewan is the Minister of Transport. They want him to know their philosophy is one of expansion in the west. Their philosophy is one of using the great productivity that they have to help feed the whole world. All they get from this government is restriction, restriction, restriction. They know that this man has to be removed from the decision-making of the government of Canada. We know what he is doing.
When the minister brought in the LIFT program in 1970 it was not an isolated act by a government. It was part of a philosophy that came out of an agricultural task force report in 1969. It said that all across Canada there were three times as many farmers as there should be, and we should deliberate-
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
ly, with government policies at the federal level and the provincial level, cut that number down to one-


Otto Emil Lang: That is not what it said, and you know it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That policy of the agricultural task force said that as far as the prairies are concerned, we should reduce the acreage to half. The next year the minister and his government brought in four bits of legislation to help carry out that principle. The LIFT program was number one. Look carefully at the LIFT program recommended by the farm organizations and accepted by the government because the men who wrote the agricultural task force report tried to tell the farmers that they had too much wheat productivity and that they should cut out wheat. They had a program called the small farm program to get rid of farmers. They set up a land bank. I was in Saskatchewan in Pelly constituency the last two days, and 20 per cent of the land is owned by the government. It is all part of a policy to take over the control of the individual and the decision-making on the farms of this country.
The Minister of Transport brought out the key question of the Crowsnest rate. He said he was for the Crowsnest rates and for putting them into a statute. Who is not? They have to be there. However, what he does not seem to face up to is the significance of what Hall has said about these Crowsnest rates and what the minister and his government intended. The minister wanted to change the Crowsnest rates from what they are, charge the farmers two or three times more and then come back and reimburse the farmer for the extra cost. He wanted to pay it back to the farmer as an individual farmer, either in acreage or by bushels. Hall saw the danger. Hall is from the west. He knew the deep fear in the hearts of western farmers when he wrote this, and I quote:
The commission recommends that the difference between the Crowsnest rate and the rate determined through costs found by the commission on the costs of transporting grain should be paid directly to the railways, and not to individual farmers. The very idea of sending out cheques to 160,000 farmers is appalling.
It is not appalling to the Minister of Transport. He knows that is how you can control the votes. He, the great Santa Claus of all times, wants to send out 160,000 cheques to individual farmers. We remember under the LIFT program before the election in 1972 the cheques that came out for the summer fallow, land which should have been in wheat. After the 1972 election they said, "You were overpaid, and we have to get it back." Before the 1974 election they came along and made payments for grassing.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, at the end of my speech. Then they came along and said they had overpaid them, and they had to get it back. All this was done so overtly that members of this House, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton), were able to report to the Auditor General that things were going on that
May 26, 1977

did not seem right. The Auditor General went in and photographed the documents of the organization carrying out that program.
We turned our information over to the criminal fraud squad of the RCMP. It is pretty hard to get guys who are into the pot to give evidence against themselves, but five did. One was charged, the head man. When the evidence was put before the judge, he said there was enough evidence to have this man stand trial for criminal fraud. In plain terms, that meant stealing money from the farmers and trying to persuade them to vote Liberal. That case has never been heard. Why? That will be the issue one of these days. We questioned the Minister of Agriculture on the same subject because beside the criminal fraud there was the political fraud. The minister stood in the House and said, "Well, they burned the records". When a matter is before parliament affecting the repeal of the PFAA, and when a matter of criminal fraud is before the courts, a government which would allow these guilty people to go in and burn the records of PFAA has a purpose in mind beyond just burning the records. The Minister of Transport has one purpose in mind-


Otto Emil Lang: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to be implying that I had some connection with the acts he was describing. He has heard that that is not true. He should withdraw any such suggestion or imputation. He has gone further than that and referred to "those guilty persons"-I believe those were his words-in relation to people who are not here to defend themselves and who are thus imputed by him to be guilty before court process has been completed. I think he ought to refrain from that kind of conduct even though he is protected in this House by longstanding privileges accorded to members of parliament. These are privileges which ought not to be abused and the hon. member ought, therefore, to avoid making statements of the kind he did. I say this without having connection with the individuals concerned, but out of a regard for a sense of fairness. I come back to my original remarks, that if he was imputing any connection between myself and any wrongdoing, 1 ask him to withdraw.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: What I am going to say, Mr. Speaker, is going to be loud and clear. The man who is charged with criminal fraud by stealing money from the farmers was an appointee of the government opposite, of which the minister is part. The hon. gentleman can make what he likes of that. Second, it was a colleague of his, the Minister of Agriculture, who stood up in this House, as the record shows, and said the documents were burned. When this subject goes before a committee, as one day it will, we shall ask the government why those women were dismissed just before Christmas. Why did they keep a director there who was fully paid but never allowed to go into his own office? There is no question of privilege there. The minister knows exactly what 1 am saying, and exactly who is responsible for putting
Hall Commission Report
that man, who is now before the courts on charges of criminal fraud, in his position.
Now I want to return to my speech. The minister has tried to obscure the fact that the Hall report strikes a body blow at him and all he has tried to do in western Canada in the last eight years. It is obvious that members on the government side do not like this message. But it is a message they have got to hear. People in this country do not want corrupt government, whether they live in Quebec or in Saskatchewan. They want vrai gouvernement, good government, true government, honest government.
Let us take another issue. In Bill C-33 the government brought in a measure to amend the Transportation Act. All the work parliament did from 1964 to 1967 in transferring the power to control railways, pipelines, airlines, trucking, everything involved in transportation, out of the hands of the minister and the civil servants-who were doing nothing with it, anyway-and into the hands of a board of 17 members of the transport commission-a board which did nothing with it, either-was brought to nothing. At this very moment there stands upon our agenda a bill to take all that power away from the commission which, as 1 say, did nothing with it, and put it again into the hands of the minister and the civil servants around him. When we see a political machine being built up in western Canada, sure we are going to fight. We had that under Gardiner for 25 years, and we are not going to tolerate that type of dictatorship any more from people who are expressing philosophies which are foreign to our western views and, I think, foreign to those of the whole country.
In conclusion, I want to say a word about the amendment put forward by the NDP. I do not think there is any question but that it is acceptable. But why did they limit their amendment to two specific principles-the Crowsnest rates and the utilization of Churchill and Port Rupert? What about the most important principle in the whole report, the rationalization of the grain handling system? There is no mention of the fact that we have five great inland terminals out there, owned by the people of Canada, standing empty and unused. Why? Because to use them would be to provide competition with existing grain companies. Why did the NDP not put that into their program? Why don't they talk about the rationalization of the grain handling industry? No longer will they be allowed to,build where they shouldn't, and to abandon where they should not. They will come under the control of the prairie railway authority, if the Hall recommendations are accepted. They will come under the control of the Board of Grain Commissioners and of the Canadian Wheat Board.
One of the great failures of the last 15 years has been the unwillingness of the grain companies in western Canada to modernize. The minister says the Diefenbaker government did nothing. The only person who will believe that statement is his wife. In 1962 I went to a meeting in Regina and in a public speech, speaking as a minister of the Crown, I asked the delegates of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to support me in two proposals. One was that they set aside 2 cents a bushel on every bushel they put into their elevators to help their own

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
companies modernize their elevator systems and get rid of the inefficient, costly and wasteful system they had. The second thing I asked them was to join with their rivals, the UGG, and go into operation with the Alberta and Manitoba pools and form a selling agency to sell Canadian wheat abroad, instead of just sitting there collecting money out of storage and handling.
The price I paid for making those two proposals was this: the leader of the official opposition at that time, Mr. Pearson, attacked me in the House, supported by the leader of the NDP, the present member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). The position they took was that one should not ask farm organizations to do anything for themselves. To do so is Conservative philosophy; their philosophy is to allow nothing to be done and continue to allow farmers to face those heavy costs. Yet after five days of debate in that farm meeting in Saskatchewan, those farmers voted 100 per cent in favour of my proposals. The question then arises: Why was nothing done? Their delegates supported it, but nothing developed. Only in the last five or six years have the grain companies begun to modernize under the threat of other companies coming in and building big elevators. Why is that not mentioned? Cannot the minister stand in the House and say, "I support the rationalization of the grain handling system"?
Then there is this business of not allowing farmers to haul their grain to CPR railway lines, barring them from sending their grain to Churchill or to Prince Rupert. All our northern grain at CPR points had to be hauled hundreds of miles south to the east or the west to avoid CP cars travelling over CNR lines. What a crime against the farmers of western Canada! Hall recommends that this be stopped. There is no mention of that in the amendment. The minister could have said, "I will accept that immediately". He does not need a statutory change; he passes an order in council that lines already abandoned can be abandoned. Then he puts in another order in council today, when he knew that this motion was coming up, which says, in effect, that the 2,000 lines which are considered marginal and will be put under the prairie railway authority will not be decided upon until January 1, 1979. That only tells me one thing, that we would not-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will not take too long, Mr. Speaker. I want to conclude with a rapid summary. It is the minister who is under attack here. He has failed to respond today to the challenge of the Crow rates. This report is not to be used for political monkey-shining; it is to be used to put the railways into a rational and profit-making position. In this debate today the minister has failed to support
[Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain).)
the principle of the rationalization of the railways-getting rid of lines running parallel, of cases where grain is hauled 100 miles to the east and 100 miles to the west, so that the railways not run over each other's lines.
The minister should have supported rationalization because it would mean less cost to the taxpayer and more money to the railways. There has been no response from the minister in regard to giving the prairie rail authority power to direct, which is key to the success of the Hall proposals. The minister has failed to mention the inland terminals' 50 years of crime against the farmers. This is now a clear recommendation in the Hall report. They belonged to us as a government.
Let me give the House one example. When you ship grain to the coast from these big new terminals at Thunder Bay or Vancouver there is a certain kind of tonnage which we call screenings. When you ship, say, to Vancouver the farmer pays the cost of shipping the screenings. Then it costs the grain company money to pelletize and sell the screenings. There are about 28 million bushels of screenings a year, and in marketable form they cost about $16 a ton. The price of the screenings, when sold to the poultry producer on the west coast, is $80 a ton. In other words, $64 profit goes to the grain companies, value that belongs to the farmer. By running the inland terminals, what you are saying to the farmer is that the screenings should be taken out in the west and utilized in the beef industry, with the value going to the people who produce the grain.
The minister has failed to see the significance of the Hall report and what it means to the development of Churchill and Prince Rupert, not to hinder and hurt but to help the ports of Vancouver, Montreal and those in the Atlantic region. The minister has failed to see that the whole thrust of the Hall report is not to add great extra subsidy costs but to run the railroads and the grain system rationally, so that costs are cut and the railways begin to make money.
This is why a northern railway was added, Mr. Speaker. The minister said that the northern railway was beyond the commission's terms of reference, but Mr. Justice Hall shot that down; he read the actual terms of reference. The minister does not even realize what Hall is talking about. He is talking about hauling more commodities by rail, such as gravel, mineral concentrates from the north, finished beef products, processed rapeseed, and so on. The cries of the west for the last 50 years have been answered by this report, yet the minister turns, twists and deviates, all to avoid saying it is a great report and that the government can accept every single principle which will be implemented as fast as humanly possible.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, if these principles are not in the statute books of this country and enshrined in some form of regulation when the government call the election, then they had better watch out. We have spent 40 years now waiting for some action. The government scuttled away from taking action on the MacPherson report. Are they going to scuttle away again? This is the issue in the west. If action is not taken, then hon. members opposite will have no further chance to say "No" all the time.
May 26, 1977

Incidentally, I heard the interjection of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) today. 1 was in the House watching the hon. member for Assiniboia when the motion of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar was moved. I saw the hon. member for Assiniboia say "No". I simply say to members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and B.C., "Vote for these principles. The people are not going to stand for any more delay. They want action. This report will not cost the taxpayer any more money. It will reduce subsidies. It is a good report".
I could make five suggestions which would improve the report, but they are all additions of principle. However, that is not my purpose here today. We have asked this parliament to accept the principles contained in the Hall report and to do those things that he recommends before we go to the country. Then we will know the government really means what they say. We do not want any more orders in council to the effect that the government is going to consider the matter on January 1, 1979. The government does not need any more information. We have had more reports on the subject over the last ten years than we need. I tell the government to act now so that hon. members opposite can stand up before westerners and tell them they were not betrayed when the chance came.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, it is always a real pleasure to listen to and become involved in debate with my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). Let me assure him that the government will undoubtedly follow his suggestion in terms of moving forward with the report of the Hall commission. In listening to my hon. friend I always have the feeling, when he recites the tremendous aims and goals that he and his party have for Canada, particularly western Canada, that he is suffering from deep frustration which goes back to the time when he and his party did have the opportunity to put forward blueprints for agriculture, for transportation and other vital areas, not only in Canada in general but in western Canada in particular. I can only conclude that this frustration stems from his difficulty in coming to grips with the problems, and particularly with the solutions, to those problems.
I want to thank the right hon. member and others opposite for the opportunity to debate this matter today and for putting the subject of the Hall commission report on the order paper. I think that a little bit of history might be in order in so far as the Hall commission report is concerned. In the early pages of the report it is pointed out that there have been 12 similar commissions or studies on this entire field over the last 60 to 70 years. I am sure that the essence of this report will not take as long to implement as the MacPhefson report and the legislation which followed. I think there was a time-frame of nine years from the time that commission was established in 1959 until we saw legislation in 1966, 1967 and 1968, some of which has not yet been proclaimed.
Now, less than 20 years later, we are again looking-as well we should as a parliament-at transportation needs and particularly at the grain handling system in western Canada. Only two years have gone by since the establishment of the Hall
Hall Commission Report
commission. It was established by a Liberal government through the auspices of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in charge of the Wheat Board and his predecessor, the former member for Langelier when he was minister of transport. Therefore, two years have elapsed already since the commission was established. I know we are not going to have to wait another seven years, as was the record with the previous Conservative government commission.
The Conservatives' record in transportation is almost an enviable one because it is almost totally clean. The one accomplishment they had was to establish and appoint that Mac-Pherson Commission. In their period of government, they never got around to doing very much about transportation, other than that one single step. Thus it is pretty difficult to go back and criticize that record, because it is so clean in that regard. They have done nothing; they have suggested nothing; they have proposed nothing; and, generally speaking, they have turned a blind eye to the economic facts of life in the country, as time has gone on and changed those economic facts.
The Minister of Transport pointed out in his remarks that they want greater subsidies in the east and greater subsidies in the west, and all the while they want reduced government expenditures-it is not supposed to cost any money. They do not want user-pay, and they do not want the user to know what is going on and what the economic facts of life are. It is not going to be difficult for the government and for the Minister of Transport to surpass the record of the opposition in transportation. It has already been done a number of times over.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) made reference to the history and the story behind the Hall Commission-where did it come from, why was it set up, and for what purposes did they go out and hold the tremendous series of hearings that they did across the prairie region? I would like to point out that it was two Liberal ministers and this government that established that commission, which did a fine job and gave us the finest report we have ever seen in transportation in the grain handling field. The report not only combines those aspects of it, but it also combines other social and economic aspects of western life. I am sure this report will be a blueprint for government action in that respect.
There was reference made to a number of the recommendations contained in the report. Some of the statements made and the recommendations deserve review and inclusion in the record to some extent. It is difficult to cover all of the things alluded to in this very comprehensive report. The commission members were to inquire into the rail needs of communities, and were to receive evidence from any person, interested agency, group or corporation. That was their mandate, and in that respect Chief Justice Hall and his fellow commissioners certainly carried out their mandate to the fullest. They had something like 15,000 people present at a wide variety of hearings, not only in the prairies but on the west coast as well. They did an excellent job in seeking opinions from western

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
people concerned with every phase of the industry, from communities, from grain companies and so on.
Specifically they were to deal with the question of 6,283 miles of branch lines which had been proposed for abandonment. This followed designation by the Minister of Transport in December 1974 of 12,000 miles of rail network in western Canada as a so-called basic network. The idea was to set those lines out as being a permanent network regarding which there was no need for people, communities or grain companies to be concerned about their futures. The commission was established to look into the rail needs of communities on that 6,000 miles which was proposed for abandonment. It became operational; it did a very thorough job; it heard many, many people; and it heard many suggestions-indeed suggestions which have been made frequently in the past. Now we have them all compiled and built into the Hall Commission report.
It is a blueprint of the concerns and aspirations of western people, not only in the field of grain transportation but in other aspects as well. What did the Hall report say? It covered a wide variety of recommendations. Before looking to any great extent at what the Hall Commission said and what it recommended, we should briefly look at the conclusions of the previous royal commission, namely, the MacPherson Royal Commission.
The deterioration of the railroads took place as a result of the deficits which were the plague of the railroads. The MacPherson Commission concluded that railway deficits were due to three factors: the collective burdens of uneconomic branch lines, the unprofitable passenger services, and the insufficiency of the Crowsnest pass grain rates. Those factors prevented them from upgrading the system and updating the system.
I would like to look at some of the points made by the Hall Commission, as they conducted their work and wrote their report. When you look at the branch lines and the railway network in western Canada, you are not only looking at the railroads and grain movement, but you are also looking at the effect the abandonment of these lines will have, might have, or could have on the life of various communities concerned.
I would like to quote from page 79 of the Hall Commission report which reads as follows:
It is the people and the spirit of the people which gives the community viability, not the railways nor the elevators.
The commission does not doubt the psychological effect that the removal of the railway will have on many residents. Many of the inhabitants of affected communities will have already experienced the loss of such things as the livery barn, the steam train, the school, or the telephone exchange. Whether we deem the phasing out of these elements of community life to be signs of progress or not, it is a fact that these facilities were the victims of our developing technology and social change, unrelated to rail abandonment.
I believe that is a true statement and a rather strong statement. There are communities, however, which will be affected by abandonment and might not believe that statement. It has been one of the things which has caused a great deal of concern in western Canada to people in all walks of life, and not only farmers, when we discuss, debate or look at this whole question of rail rationalization-whether to aban-

don or not to abandon; on what terms to abandon; and so on. It was one of the questions which was difficult to resolve with respect to the 1967 act, when criteria were set out by which the CTC would judge whether or not to abandon a railway line. I am referring to the whole question of social and economic cost-how do you define it and how do you put a handle on it? The Hall Commission report stated that, as a group of people out there, we over-emphasized that particular aspect of this whole question of abandonment.
There are other aspects and quotes in the report which should be discussed. I notice the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain referred to the question of screenings- where those screenings are, what could happen to them, and where they should be. The report covers that particular subject. That has a relationship not only to the grain industry and the transportation industry, but also to the livestock industry. Referring to the cleaning of grain and screenings, the Hall Commission report at page 153 reads as follows:
Considerable discussion ensued at some hearings regarding the cleaning of grain and the use of screenings.
The report continues as follows:
On the average one out of every 40 cars of grain shipped is screenings. Whether this represents a loss of cheap feed to the prairie livestock producer or a windfall to the grain companies is open to question.
The report goes on to say at page 155:
Screenings represent a large quantity of product, the 28 million bushels produced is equivalent to the total record Churchill throughput of 1976.
I think that is a pretty interesting observation. It goes on to read:
These are hauled from the prairies at a cost to the transportation system and represent no return to the producer except as an unknown reduction in handling tariffs and as patronage dividends.
Again, with reference to the point made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, the report states:
The interior government terminal elevators at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Lethbridge and Calgary have a combined cleaning capacity of 205 million bushels per year. These facilities are in place and it is a waste of existing resources if they are not fully utilized.
As I said, this report makes a number of observations in a great variety of areas that have been discussed before, and it is to be hoped that steps can be taken not only to recognize these facts but to try to do something about them.
A little later the report goes on to discuss further the aspects of the screenings. At page 158 and 159 it states the following:
6.	All of the screenings produced in western Canada could be utilized in western Canada for livestock feed.
7.	The screenings will be used for feed on the prairies when available and economics dictate.
8.	In light of the alternatives presented, the cleaning of grain at inland facilities equipped to do so appears to offer the greatest flexibility of exploiting market opportunities.
Western grain and livestock producers are in an improved position and will realize maximum returns if grain cleaning is carried out at a location with free access to all markets.
Screenings now constitute a hidden tariff as far as the grain producer is concerned. This should not be so.
May 26, 1977

Equity between the handling of products from both the grain and the livestock industries has been a sore point with me for many years. I am aware of the reasons for the situation being as it is today, with the grain companies doing the cleaning with the facilities they have built at the ports, but it certainly seems to be one of the trends that has developed and that has not worked to the advantage of the western livestock industry.
With respect to livestock, the report sets out at page 277 two important principles. With respect to the economic development of the prairie region it states:
. . . the commission subscribes to the following principles:
(1)	The prairie region of Canada is basically an exporting region, and hence a
major contributor to Canada's favourable balance of payments position.
That is a point which needs to be stated and restated. The report goes on to read:
Current and future transportation policies should not detract from disposition but should recognize its importance in the national interest.
(2)	The production and processing of agricultural products should take place
in regions which enjoy natural locational advantages for such activities.
Freight rates and other transport related policies should not destroy these
natural locational advantages.
Again these are two points which certainly have the endor-sation of all the western members and, I am sure, of members from other parts of the country, on both sides of the House.
On the question of livestock and equity between the livestock and grain industries, we find the following statement in the report at page 309:
The commission recommends that freight rates on livestock and meat be set at levels which do not discriminate against the natural locational advantage of prairie livestock producers and processors.
Then the report goes on to discuss malting plants, flour milling and so on with respect to the processing of western products.
At page 336 of the report there is another reference to statutory freight rates, and we find this statement:
How the difference between the new rate and the Crowsnest rate will be apportioned between the government and the producer is, of course, a matter for government decision. This commission feels that the government must continue to subsidize the transportation of export grain and that the whole cost, as deemed by the commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail, must not be imposed on the producer.
That recommendation will have the support of western members in any party.
As to how it will be implemented to bring equity between the livestock and grain industries-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Two minutes.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall only take two or three minutes more.
Hall Commission Report
I want to say in conclusion that I am very happy indeed with the recommendations contained in the report. I am particularly happy with the number of rail lines that were proposed to be transferred to the permanent network. There are some in my part of the province, and I can assure the Hall commission of the satisfaction with which those recommendations were received.
The establishment of a prairie rail authority is another recommendation that will serve to bring to western Canada some authority. Whether it is still linked with CTC or not remains to be decided, but certainly the authority and responsibility for those lines should be placed in western Canada.
I wish to express again appreciation to the official opposition for moving this motion to endorse the Hall report, and to say that this resolution certainly has my full support.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, together with other members of the House I am indeed eager and happy to take part in this debate on the Hall Commission report. Coming from a riding such as mine where perhaps 75 per cent of all the agricultural grain products are exported, the recommendations of the Hall Commission are very important to me.
As I mentioned previously the problem of the rationalization of the grain handling industry is very real. One has only to go to the Palliser wheat growers' conventions or other such conventions to realize that, in comparing the ability of Canadians and Americans to move grain in approximately the same conditions, most experts would say that we are probably ten years behind the Americans. While this does not necessarily impair our ability to export grain, until we make the necessary rationalization and expenditures, western farmers will be at a disadvantage in comparison with their American counterparts who are their main competitors, particularly in periods of good crops and high production and a depression on world markets, which is the case at present.
I would like to confine my remarks primarily to the port of Churchill as an added outlet for prairie grain. Although I believe the most important part of the report deals with rationalization, I must say that in my part of Manitoba the outline given by the Hall report seems to be particularly good.
The export of grain is vital to the farmers of western Canada, and there are really four main avenues by which the grain can be exported to the world. The first and oldest has been via Thunder Bay-Montreal and through the St. Lawrence ports and the port of Halifax. That route still takes 55 per cent of export grain.
Another main avenue has been through the west coast ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. There have been problems with the mountainous terrain, snowslides, and general congestion caused by superimposing on a system built some years ago the burden of a flow of grain that has become much larger due to the increase in trade with the Pacific Rim countries.

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
A third route has been through Churchill, the oldest route by which trade reached the prairies from Europe. It is one that has not been exploited to its fullest.
The fourth route is to the south through the Mississippi River system. Many feel that perhaps that route would be the best, if not the cheapest, if politics had not cut off its use. I think a small amount of exports go that way; exports of flax, malting barley and, of course, more might go that way.
Events in Quebec have brought much more sharply into focus the possibility of exporting grain shipments through Churchill, should there be any change in the outlook in that province on the export of grain. Certainly the major grain companies have large installations on the St. Lawrence, but the premier of Quebec has indicated that he would attempt to use all the leverage possible to extract from the grain trade as high a toll as could be levied. He regards the St. Lawrence Seaway as being very important for his province in dealing with the rest of Canada with regard to trade and other problems.
The port of Churchill has never had a fair shake from the transportation autorities of Canada. It is obvious that transportation interests in Montreal have never wanted the port of Churchill to become an important shipping centre or to develop in even a modest way so that it might provide a reasonable alternative for the export of prairie grain, and one cannot particularly blame them for this.
Churchill was one of the first areas in western Canada which was a prominent base for Europeans. They established a port there in 1689, and a route from York Factory to Winnipeg flourished until the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is to the credit of western farmers that they recognized early the great mileage that could be saved by the use of this route. It is closer, incidentally, than Thunder Bay is to most of the prairie region areas. The saving from Regina to Liverpool via Churchill is 1,000 miles over the Thunder Bay-Montreal route.
As early as 1885 expeditions were sent to investigate the building of a railroad, and finally Sir Wilfrid Laurier promised the Hudson Bay Railway. The railway from The Pas to Churchill, interrupted by the war, was started in 1911, and finally reached Churchill in 1929. The weight of the steel originally used was 80 pounds, but this was upgraded to 100 pounds, and work to upgrade this is expected to be finished by next year.
At Churchill the capacity of the grain terminal is five million bushels. Due to ice, the navigation season is restricted to approximately three months, from mid-July to mid-October. In recent years other bulk commodities such as sulphur have been added to the list of exports.
The proximity of the port of Churchill to the many producers of northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan has led prairie people to push for greater utilization of the port. Indeed for many producers the port of Churchill is not much more than half the distance to Thunder Bay. The Hudson Bay Route Association has been instrumental in promoting greater use of

Churchill, working, generally speaking, against the great indifference of the government, which is interested in preserving the port of Montreal.
The port of Churchill has certain disadvantages. One is that it is served only by the CNR and that there is no interchange of grain traffic to CP rail lines, although CP Rail is in the area. Studies undertaken by the two railways seem to indicate that there would be no savings brought about by the use of inter-rail exchanges. However, this seems to be doubtful, and one wonders if the railways conveniently found a way out because they were not interested in providing a true statement of what the situation was.
The Dominion Marine Association, based in Montreal, also strongly stated that the utilization of Churchill had reached its limit and that funds should be directed elsewhere to improve the efficiency of western Canadian grain shipments. However, I think they were definitely biased.
There are several pluses already going for the virtues of Churchill grain shipments. First, the CN rail line is in position and will soon be able to accommodate 100-ton hopper cars. Second, the Churchill terminal, with a five million bushel capacity, and almost as large as the largest anywhere in the country, is in good condition. However, it needs improved gallery belt capacity. In the 1976 season it handled 28 million bushels of grain, or a ratio of 6 to 1 in a three-month period. Improved technology could further eliminate the risk of ice. Furthermore, increases in Seaway tolls, or shipping disturbances in Montreal would make the Churchill route an attractive proposition.
Better sales planning by the Canadian Wheat Board and the filling of the terminal with clean grain would aid grain movements. Furthermore, the CP Rail study indicates that a saving of 762,000 loaded car miles over Thunder Bay is possible through interchanges, one at Tisdale and one at Yorkton, that is, interchanges between the CN and the CP.
There are some constraints. Cargo and haul insurance is still the same as that charged since 1956, even though technology has improved immensely since then. There are also constraints on the delivery system over the CNR, with the need for sidings on the Herchner and Thicket subdivisions, and a long track at Churchill. This would seem to indicate that with the use of hopper cars the rail capacity could be increased to 55 million bushels annually.
There was a great deal of dismay in western Canada when it was announced that the CN would not upgrade its work this year. That work had been planned for this part of the track. Obviously CN management, based in Montreal, has no concept of the needs of the western region, and I think CN did a great disservice to western Canadians when the management in Winnipeg was transferred to Montreal some years ago.
Furthermore, handling capacity could be increased by the use of pre-cleaned grain. The tight shipping schedule has limited the type and variety of grades to one or two. Also, some dredging and increased gallery conveyor capacity would accommodate considerably more use of the port of Churchill.
May 26, 1977

All of these are improvements which could be carried out with relatively small expenditure increases, when we consider some of the expenditures which are now undertaken. From the western Canadian point of view the administration set up-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I was about to mention the difficulties of the Port of Churchill having to make representations to the National Harbours Board through the same persons as those responsible for Montreal and Thunder Bay. Obviously Churchill will get short shrift.
The great port of Churchill which is very important to the autonomy and the independence and stability of exports of western Canadian grain, could also be used for sulphur, potash and other commodities. With the cost of transportation rising-and probably it will rise more steeply than other factors in the years to come-every effort must be made to ensure that our transportation resources are applied in the most effective and efficient manner. It should not be possible for the interests of the port of Montreal to hamper increases in transportation of grain that could be brought through the Churchill route.
Furthermore, the general feeling is that coal and other bulk products will overload the railway system in the next few years so that it may not be possible to ship all grain needed on the railway lines, at least when it is most opportune. Western premiers at their recent conference in Brandon called for the increased use of Churchill.
It seems important also that the provincial government of Manitoba, either by itself or in conjunction with the province of Saskatchewan, should proceed with the road to Churchill. The highway is already in place for much of the way. I understand that, from an engineering point of view, construction of the highway for the last 200 miles or so would be fairly easy.
The grain growing area, starting at The Pas in Manitoba and some of the Interlake country, would be less than 500 miles away, and when it is considered that trucking in the United States carries grain 800 to 1,000 miles in competition with the railways, a highway would make some good sense. Further, due to the long winter months and the freezing of the ground, the restraint factor on truck loads would not be nearly as great as it would be farther south. No doubt the shipping season at Churchill could be extended substantially. According to the most modest forecasts it could be increased 27 per cent. If icebreakers could be used, as in the St. Lawrence Seaway
Hall Commission Report
where the port of Montreal is, all year round, it seems likely that the shipping season could last six months.
The use of the port of Churchill has not been without its problems. CN rail lines have provided the port with its only rail service. This has meant that grain has been retained in northern Manitoba and north eastern Saskatchewan until the opening of the Churchill shipping season. The result has been that many farmers have been unable to deliver their quotas of grain until almost a year after their harvest and this has created hardships.
The Hall Commission seems to have worked out a logical solution to much of this problem. The idea of shipping precleaned grain to Churchill has much to commend it, and the use of Saskatoon and a new facility at Yorkton for carrying clean grain to Churchill would make a great deal of sense. It is estimated that the throughput of grain could be increased so that between 55 million and 60 million bushels could be put through with very little trouble.
The plan would also mean that CP rail blocks in the area would contribute to the total quantity of grain available for shipment. It is estimated that the area served would produce 240 million bushels so that, even if 60 million bushels were shipped from Churchill, the inconvenience of delayed quotas would be restricted. As well, the Saskatoon government terminal for cleaning grain is presently underutilized and the Hall Commission feels it could provide 30 million bushels of clean grain for Churchill during the season.
I am most intrigued by the possibility of Yorkton elevators providing another 30 million bushels of clean grain. It would have been nice to have the facility in Dauphin; I appreciate that that locality perhaps is not the most advantageous spot for it. Both railways would serve the Yorkton facility. In addition, the Hall Commission suggested that the use of screening in the general area of livestock feeding would be of advantage. The present situation has always seemed rather ridiculous. Dockage for which farmers are not paid is hauled to market and farmers are penalized for added weight. That is ridiculous.
I believe one of the factors militating against the enthusiastic use of Churchill has been this: if the grain handling companies send grain to Churchill, they deprive their terminals at Thunder Bay of revenue. Perhaps some way may be found whereby grain handling companies could have a share in the revenue accruing from the use of Churchill.
It also occurs to me that, instead of the Canadian government building the new elevator at Yorkton, one of the grain handling companies, private or co-operative, or even, hopefully, a consortium of both could build it. Although some resist hauling the grain long distances, many farmers would be happy to haul to a central terminal in Yorkton, say, particularly if the added efficiency of the handling system were compensated for in the prices received for haulage and convenience of delivery.

May 26, 1977
5988___________
Hall Commission Report
The use of Churchill is a symbol to the grain growers of the eastern prairies. Mr. McMillan, a farmer, had this to say at the annual meeting of the Hudson Bay Route Association:
If I am to increase my production, as I am being urged to do for moral and humanitarian reasons, and in the process, maintain a viable farm enterprise, it is essential that I have adequate port outlets to accommodate this increased tonnage. The Port of Churchill has the potential and strategic location to be such an export outlet.
A further indication of the thinking of many westerners on the value of the Churchill route can be noted in resolution 6, passed at the 33rd annual convention of the Hudson Bay Route Association held in Regina on June 21 and 22, 1976. It states:
Whereas a successful movement of 30 million bushels of grain through Churchill during the 1976 shipping season, could mean an extra 3 to 4'/2 million dollars for western grain producers and the western economy, and
Whereas the imposition and increase in tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway soon to be imposed, will make the strategically located port of Churchill the most advantageous, competitive and rewarding eastward facing port for the export of western Canada grain.
Therefore be it resolved that this 1976 convention of the Hudson Bay Route Association go on record as requesting the Government of Canada, its agents, grain merchants and others involved to prepare and execute action to maximize grain shipments through Churchill over the longest possible season.
I hope the government will soon put that resolution into effect.


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to participate in the debate on the recommendations of the Hall Commission on Grain Handling and Transportation. First, however, may I say how pleased I was this afternoon to hear the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) speak. I was greatly pleased because I saw a revival of spirit within the Conservative party. It was a grand old party, a party I once upheld greatly. I have been feeling somewhat sad lately because the present leader and the party seem to be in such a shambles. This afternoon the party seemed to rally around that grand Canadian who addressed the House on the question we are debating. That pleased me greatly. 1 think the House saw a little of the old form which Mr. Diefenbaker used to show in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the minister should refer to members of this House by riding, not by their personal names.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This is the minister's maiden speech from the opposite side of the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The right hon. gentleman spoke in many debates; this afternoon we saw him in his old form again. For a minute or two 1 saw a little glimpse of the spirit of the Conservative party which has not been evident in recent months, or even recent years. Apparently the Conservative party, not having been able to develop policies on anything, are greatly pleased because they discovered in the last weeks two reports they could endorse. Someone is making policy for

them. That, too, has enhanced their spirit. Finally they have found someone who can make a policy for them.


Walter David Baker: How are you getting along with your new buddy, Otto Lang?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I listened to the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) I wanted to hear some suggestions for solutions, or some suggestions regarding the Hall report, but neither of those hon. members dealt with the Hall report to any great extent.


Eugene Whelan: Shame!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert mentioned the railway to the north. It will not move much wheat for a year or two to Hay Lake. But you never know; it might. Really, I do not think Mr. Justice Hall went very far outside his terms of reference. He heard briefs from all oyer the prairies. Prairie people have always been interested in all parts of Canada and in developing Canada. No doubt some of them suggested building railways to the north, and no doubt Mr. Justice Hall examined the 13-volume study on that question.
No speaker opposite really dealt with the Prairie Rail Authority, or the 2,165 miles of track which is to be abandoned immediately. Nobody said that that was too much or not enough. I suppose, since 90 per cent of the track up for abandonment in the province of Alberta is in the constituency of Crowfoot, I could be excused for being vitally interested in the track which will be abandoned between the present and 1980. Actually, I am interested in the 2,344 miles of track which is to come under the Prairie Rail Authority. I wanted to hear the opposition speak on this. Is that enough track, or too much? Should the Prairie Rail Authority be a self-liquidating board? Should it go out of existence in 1990 as Mr. Justice Hall suggests? Should it have only a term life of some 12 years? The opposition does not know, although Mr. Justice Hall himself suggested that. The opposition has not directed its attention to that question. My opinion on that question is yes, it should have a term life. However, other speakers may express their views on this question.
Should that rail authority be a three-man board, as Mr. Justice Hall suggests, appointed by the federal government, or should some provinces have some representation on that board? It would have to be worked out with the provinces as to whether it should be other than a three-man board and whether there should be some provincial repesentation on it. Hall suggests that when a main track in the 2,300 miles is up for abandonment a provincial representative should sit in on those hearings as well as a municipal representative. You do not develop expertise in railroads in that way. You do not get a continuing knowledge being carried from one abandonment to the other. If that were the case, it would happen in the next 12 years with regard to the 2,344 miles. 1 do not think that is the best solution.
May 26, 1977

It would be better to have a larger board to start with, which has some provincial representation on it. I say that because much of the duties of the prairie rail authority will be to direct funds to either a highway, railway, railway maintenance or, as Hall says, the upgrading and rehabilitation of a railway track. It would be better to have knowledgeable people continue to sit on the board.
While the Hall Commission report is terrific and may well become the bible for prairie transport problems, it is not the absolute answer to all questions. It leaves many questions unanswered. I have mentioned a few with regard to the prairie rail authority.
I say to my friends in the Conservative party that the government does not have all the answers. We would like them to assist by offering suggestions rather going back to the year 1962.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is the role of the opposition, Jack?


Walter David Baker: Where is the speech you used to make in opposition?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Some members of the official opposition tend to live in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) referred to the port of Churchill. I concur in much of what he said in that regard. The Hall report suggests a terminal elevator at Yorkton to clean the grain. That is a good suggestion, one that is worthy of a great deal of study. I can assure prairie producers that the government will take a long hard look at that suggestion.
The suggestion that there be a CP hook-up for CP rail cars to go to Churchill is good. If any saving can be made in the transportation of grain, it should be looked at.
There has been no mention of the Hall report suggestion of a northern development authority in Alberta. That is a very novel idea. I believe it agrees with the thinking of the Alberta government. Therefore it is worthy of a great deal of merit.
I would like to see the northern development railway have a hook-up with the BC railroad. It should be used primarily to feed the Prince Rupert port which could then be used to greater extent.
The Hall report suggests a greater utilization of cars. His findings with regard to car utilization and the car cycle have been clearly evident for some time. The railroads, the government and the grain industry would welcome any constructive suggestions to speed up the car cycle. The cars sit on the railway track 25 per cent of the time empty, and 27 per cent of the time full. The report says that while they are sitting, they are not working. The complete cycle takes too long. The cars ought to be moving in some direction.
Hall Commission Report
The fundamental problem of getting grain into Vancouver has long been known to me and to many prairie people. There is a very interesting recommendation in the Hall report, at page 223. It deals with the Fraser River Bridge problem. It is owned by the government, but the controller of the traffic on that bridge is a despatcher out of Seattle. If what Hall says at page 223 is true, a lot of improvements could be made in that direction. It would improve the car utilization problem a great deal.
Mr. Hall dealt with the Crow rates. Many members spoke about them. Anyone who knows anything of my political history knows that I have defended them throughout the 19 years I have been in this House. 1 will, of course, continue to defend them.
The Hall report does not really give an answer with regard to what should be done about moving finished products. At page 309 he says they should move at the same rate, but he does not say how a railway should be provided with the revenue and what effect this will have on the finished products. At page 309 the report states:
The Commission recommends that freight rates on livestock and meat be set at levels which do not discriminate against the natural locational advantage of prairie livestock producers and processors.
What do the words "natural locational advantage" mean? How do you arrive at that? How do you maintain that? If the opposition has any solutions to offer to that problem, they would be welcomed on this side of the House.
The report refers to a terminal rail authority. However, Mr. Hall tends to reject the terminal rail authority, preferring a controller with power. There is really a very fine difference indeed. I would think that a permanent rail authority directing traffic into and out of Vancouver would have some power. A controller with power might well turn out to be a terminal rail authority. He really does not define how that power should be exercised, whether it would have authority over all commodities going into Vancouver, or just grain.
The report talks of a railway to the north, something that is particularly pleasing to me. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) agree on one thing at least, a railroad to the north. I find it interesting to see them agree on that.
There are many other questions that arise out of the Hall report. There is the whole question of the malting barley business and how to develop the processing business in western Canada without some kind of subsidy. The report does not go into that.
This is a very good report on railway problems in western Canada and on the movement of western Canadian goods to export markets. However, there are still many questions yet to be answered. I will be particularly pleased to help answer some of these problems when they come up.
I am pleased that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has said that he is prepared to accept the abandonment of the 2,165 miles, and that the other 2,344 miles will be safeguarded

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
until January, 1979. That gives the government ample time to discuss with the prairie governments the feasibility of setting up a Prairie Rail Authority, and whether that rail authority should handle the abandonment or upgrading of the 2,344 miles which Hall leaves in a state of limbo until 1990.
These questions will come up, for example, whether or not that rail authority should have the right to restrict the location of elevators along those lines. Some of the elevator companies are not too happy about that, and I note that members opposite have not given any clear expression of their views with regard to it. I believe the rail authority should have a great deal to say as to the location of these elevators on that 2,344 miles, but I have some reservations as to whether it should be the final authority.
In any case, I want to say that Mr. Hall has done western Canada a great service. He has produced a document which will enable the government to move forward with a transport policy which will greatly help the region. If we can iron out some of the difficulties which we see and which Mr. Hall sees, I believe the west will be well served.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I, too, welcome the opportunity to enter this debate on the motion of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) whom I commend for his excellent presentation.
I am pleased to follow the maiden speech of the latest addition to the Liberal cabinet, the Minister without Portfolio, my hon. friend from Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). I was most interested in his comments about certain policy positions taken by the Progressive Conservative party. I have in mind particularly his reference to the absence of policy within this party in the area of transport. Most members of the House recognize that the hon. gentleman himself had a lot to do with the position taken by this party in the area of transport, and if there is any absence of policy it should be pointed out that in that area the blame rests squarely on his shoulders.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: to overcome the anomalies and inequities mentioned. But if we are to believe the words of the Minister without Portfolio there is really little hope that this will be the case. Speaking on that bill as a private member from this side of the House he said:
I believe this legislation takes the government from the mess it was in and puts it in another mess.
If that is an accurate description of this piece of legislation we really do not have much to look forward to.
If the government had fulfilled the commitments it made at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference the Commission's report would have been altogether different in terms of its contents and its recommendations. I believe very profoundly that if the major recommendations of the Hall report are implemented it could very well serve as a catalyst to propelling the west into its mature stage of economic development. This is why we on this side feel so strongly about this report and have brought it forth for debate. It is an important issue and we feel there should be no delay in the implementation of this report.
We believe there is a time for decision and a time for action, and that the action should take place here in the House of Commons. We do not need any more conferences, studies, task forces or other groups. We have had Snavely, Hall, and WEOC. The time has now come for action. It is not the responsibility of the opposition to initiate that action; it is the responsibility of the government to take action to implement the recommendations of the Hall report. I want to reinforce that contention as strongly as I can.
In his contribution to the debate this afternoon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) made quite a political speech. He cited all the so-called good things which he has done for the west, and then he turned around and blamed the Conservatives for the fact that western Canada is mad at him. He spoke about a number of things, but he also omitted to mention a few others. He failed to mention the LIFT program. He failed to mention that his government followed a bible of agricultural policy known as the "Task Force Report on Agriculture," which was written by a group of economists, professors and accountants, and did not include one farmer. The major thrust of the agricultural policy of the former minister of agriculture came from that document. Out of it came the LIFT program, the stabilization program, and the marketing bill which caused a great deal of consternation across the country. The minister also failed to recognize that the second stabilization program which was brought in was a much improved version of the first one which he tried to ram through the House, attempting to buy off the western farmers using their own money in doing so.
The minister did say something positive and concrete, however. He announced that 1,813 miles of the 6,283 miles of line up for review will be transferred to the basic network, and that the freeze on 2,344 miles has been extended to January 1, 1979. We welcome that announcement.
We might ask, Mr. Speaker, why did we have a royal commission on this particular issue in the first place? The fact
Hall Commission Report
on the matter is that the commission was set up essentially to review and to sort out the 6,283 miles of branch line which were placed in the questionable category. The decision had to be made which lines should remain as part of the basic network and which lines should be abandoned. It was not an easy task. Because it was not an easy task and because it was an issue which was politically too hot to handle, the government decided to choose a royal commission to do the job. This royal commission has now brought forth its recommendations, among which is the recommendation that 2,165 miles of line be abandoned.
There is no question that the abandonment of these lines will cause a great deal of hardship to a number of communities and producers. There is no question that some areas have been dealt with rather harshly. But we have to recognize that rationalization on the part of the elevator and grain companies was taking place anyway, so that the blame cannot be laid solely upon the railways.
I am also concerned about the continuing uncertainty regarding the 2,344 miles of line which will be administered by the Prairie Rail Authority. Here too the grain companies will have a very large part to play in the success or failure of those particular lines.
Be that as it may, I think the commission approached this whole problem of abandonment in the most humane way possible. They tried to minimize the pain, distortion, and disruption which will take place as a result of the abandonment of these lines. The minister expresses concern about added costs. It should be pointed out that, as a result of the abandonment proposed by Mr. Justice Hall, elimination of these lines will result in a considerable saving to taxpayers. If I may quote from the Western Producer of May 19:
The elimination of some 2,160 miles of branch line railways in western Canada will save the Canadian taxpayers about $400 million, Chief Commissioner Emmett Hall told a May 16 press conference in Saskatoon following tabling of the grain handling and transportation commission report-
Rather significantly, the Western Producer goes on to say:
Regarding the federal government's proposal to build an additional 2,000 grain hopper cars at a cost of $80 million, Mr. Hall said while these may be needed some time in future, they are only "make work" projects for eastern industries and do not represent one additional dollar of revenue for western Canada.
We get the impression that it is all right to spend taxpayers' money in eastern and central Canada-the minister concurs with that-but he is very worried about subsidization of the Crow rate as it applies to western Canada. It is a very strange way for a minister from western Canada to react. More important, the report has come forth with some very positive proposals to improve and rationalize the grain handling and transportation system, a system which has deteriorated and become antiquated over the years. Certainly rationalization and improvement are long overdue.
Some will suggest that the commission went beyond its terms of reference. As a matter of fact the Minister without Portfolio, who has just spoken said he did not consider that the Hall commission went beyond its terms of reference. The Minister of Transport suggested that perhaps it did. Whatever

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
opinion we choose to listen to, the fact of the matter is that as Canadians, and particularly as parliamentarians, we should be extremely grateful for the work Mr. Justice Hall and his fellow commissioners carried out. Unlike any other commission, this is probably the first time that we have had a grassroots opinion documented in such a comprehensive way. Perhaps it is the most democratic report ever documented. But because it is a grassroots report which has been prepared in the most democratic fashion possible is no reason why the report should be suppressed or smothered by politicians or bureaucrats.
In large measure the major contents of this report clash with present government policy. The report alludes to many important aspects of the grain trade, and furthermore it covers many important aspects of the potential economic future of western Canada. As has been pointed out previously, the report reaffirms the principle of statutory rates. I should like to place on the record a passage in the Hall commission report at page 545 which states this recommendation in very clear and concise terms:
The Commission recommends:
(1)	The retention of the Crow's Nest statutory rates.
Not the "statutory rates", Mr. Speaker, but the "Crowsnest statutory rates".
(2)	That the difference between the statutory rate and the cost of transporting grain be paid directly to the railways.
The wording is clear and concise and beyond question.
Secondly, what this report does is destroy what I refer to as the "Lang user-pay concept". I think it knocks that concept full of holes.
The report has exposed the failure of the Canadian Transport Commission to hold the railways responsible in the maintenance of their branch lines and in the administration of their subsidies. It has pointed out the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission has failed to compel the railways to carry out repairs and to provide the kind of service which was their responsiblity under the provisions of the Railway Act. It also points out that the Canadian Transport Commission refused to provide certain pertinent information to the commission. I think the minister should take a very close look at that because I believe the Canadian Transport Commission is not only compelled to provide this information, but it agreed to do so. That was a commitment which was made by the president of the Canadian Transport Commission before a committee of this House of Commons.
The Commission cites the failure of the railway to discharge its responsibilities. I would like to quote page 23 which reads as follows:
The Commission views with concern the action of the railway to render service in keeping with the convenience of the carrier rather than service as required by the public and in keeping with the intent of the laws of the land.
There is nothing new in that. It has been stated over and over again in this House and in committee. That is another area which needs some quick and serious attention. The Com-

mission confirmed the fact that transportation must be a tool for economic development. In my view, regional disparities will continue to grow, unless deliberate efforts are made to reduce them. One of the logical tools for achieving a reduction of those regional disparities is by providing a fair and equitable transportation system-efficient, effective and safe.
I want to emphasize the fact that the commission made specific reference to the treatment of the malting industry, the flour industry, the rapeseed industry, and the livestock processing industry. I am not going to quote the pertinent sections because at page 534 of the report it is clearly documented. In all cases the commission emphasized the fact that the production and processing of agricultural products should take place in the regions of this country which have a natural geographic advantage for such activities. It is rather odd that the Minister without Portfolio finds that unclear. It simply points out that if you are going to process rapeseed in Canada it should be processed where it is grown. That is what Mr. Hall was saying. He is suggesting the same thing with the flour industry and the same thing with the malting industry.
I am not sure what the minister intends to do with one particular recommendation. Perhaps it is an area that can be considered by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I am referring to the very important recommendation having regard to the Prairie Rail Authority. This body will be a very important mechanism in determining the future of the 2,344 miles which are still under review- whether they will fall into one class or another. The unfortunate part of the 2,344 miles is the fact that there will be a period of uncertainty as to whether the line will stay or whether it will go. As the minister who spoke before me indicated, it may very well be logical to establish a prairie rail authority which has continuing powers similar to the CTC.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I shall not abuse the courtesy of the House. I appreciate being given the opportunity to conclude my remarks.
The recommendations having regard to the improved rail car utilization are very valid and could be acted upon very quickly. Utilization of the inland government terminals is certainly a very valid and worthy consideration. A controller with power, as described at page 222, is another important consideration. An improved co-ordination of the rail operation in the port of Vancouver, which has become a serious bottleneck, is another important consideration.
The commission points out that railways must be compensated for delivering reasonable service, but in turn the railways must accept their responsibility in ensuring that service is provided with all reasonable dispatch; that lines are maintained and upgraded in a safe and functioning condition; and
May 26, 1977

that the basic infrastructure remains solid and on a good foundation. This is certainly an area we must act upon because most of us who come from western ridings will realize railways have not discharged their responsibilities as they are obligated to do under the provisions of the Railway Act. Someone must be in a position of authority to ensure that that service is carried out on behalf of the western farmers, and indeed on behalf of all Canadians.
In summary, this report in many ways highlights the failure of the government to come up with feasible and equitable policies for western Canada to achieve its legitimate aspirations. The report suggests, and in fact may even demand, that it is time we in this House realize it is the responsibility of the government to take the initiative. I am sure it will find support on this side. It is time the government recognized the shortcomings which have plagued western Canadians and set out to establish and proclaim a new industrial strategy for western Canada based upon the recommendations of the Hall Report.
Mr. Speaker, we have the report. It is the responsibility and the duty of the government to respond, to act, and to do this without political motivations. I would hope it would do this as required and not simply for political maximization. It is time for decision. The report should not be allowed to gather dust. The government must not procrastinate. It is a grass roots report. The Commission has patiently and diligently sought out all those who wanted to be heard, and now it is the duty of the government to act. I am sure if it acts it will find this side of the House will support it in overcoming the barriers, the inequities, the discriminations, and the shortcomings of the transportation system which is so vitally important to the future and the economic lifeblood of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the report of the commission headed by Mr. Justice Hall dealing with grain and rail in western Canada is similar to the earlier report of the commission headed by Mr. Justice Hall which dealt with health services. The report's recommendations will play an important role in the life of western Canada for generations to come.
We in the New Democratic Party support the basic principles which Mr. Justice Hall and his commission recommended. That is why we support the motion put down by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Realizing the complexity of the many recommendations made by the Commission, we have singled out three particular aspects of the recommendations: first, that the Crowsnest rates be maintained; second, that the principle of the Crowsnest rates be extended to agricultural products processed in western Canada; third, that the utilization of the ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert be increased.
I believe that the Hall Commission has laid down a new socio-economic charter for western Canada. It has told both the federal government and the railways what their respon-
Hall Commission Report
sibilities are and what is required to redress the wrongs which have been done to western Canada over almost a century. What has the Commission said? It has said that it wants the retention and even the expansion of the Crowsnest freight rate. I know that there are some members of the House, and certainly many people in Canada, who do not know what the Crowsnest agreement was. So, for their information, let me summarize what that agreement says.
The agreement, made in 1897 between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Government of Canada, had three main provisions. First, the company agreed to build a railway line from Lethbridge to Nelson, B.C., crossing the Rockies through the Crowsnest pass. Second, the government agreed to subsidize the line to the extent of $11,000 per mile, which worked out to a total of $3,400,000. Third, the company agreed to reduce freight rates on certain specified commodities between eastern and western Canada, the most important of which were grain and flour eastbound to the lakehead for export and farm implements westbound to the prairies. In return, the company received a land subsidy from the government of B.C. for building part of the line, and the deal with Ottawa made it possible for CPR to take advantage of that deal. The CPR estimated before the MacPherson Commission some years ago that the revenue it received from Cominco, which was on land which the CPR got as a result of that deal since Cominco was formed as a company in 1906, amounted to almost $250 million. If you calculate what they have taken in since then, you arrive at a figure of over $350 million.
So anybody who thinks that the CPR got taken is, of course, completely wrong, and we see no reason why the CPR, having made a deal from which they did very well at the expense of the people of Canada, should not be required to continue with that deal. We think, therefore, it is reasonable that the statutory rates be continued. My colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), dealt with that earlier this afternoon.
The commission also said that the responsibility for the future use of prairie rail lines should be taken away from the railways and the Ottawa based Canadian Transport Commission and given to a separate prairie based organization. We support that. We have been, to say the least, critical of the somewhat incestuous relationship which we believe has continued for far too long between the railways and the CTC.
Lastly, the Commission recommended that western Canada get a better opportunity to diversify and expand its economic base. I want to spend most of the time which I have left dealing with that last recommendation, but before I do that I think we should get something clear. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) have spoken about how they agree with the recommendations made by Mr. Justice Hall. It is pretty obvious, as one reads the report and its recommendations, that the commission is against the user-pay transportation policy which has been enunciated and argued for by the Minister of Transport since he took over that portfolio. The commission is saying that grain is such an essential key to the country's future

May 26, 1977
(2110)
Hall Commission Report
prosperity that its transportation must be subsidized by the people of Canada as a whole.
It is interesting to compare the recommendations of the Hall Commission with the recommendations made by the four western premiers, coming from different political parties, which they made after the Western Economic Opportunities Conference a few years ago. Those recommendations, despite early endorsement by the then minister of transport who said publicly that transportation in Canada was a mess, have been almost completely ignored by the present Minister of Transport and the government. I think it is ludicrous for the Minister of Transport to be saying now that he accepts the recommendations of the Hall Commission when in fact he has been ignoring those same recommendations which have been made by the western premiers.
As I said, I want to deal in the main with one aspect of the recommendations made by the Hall Commission, that is, the recommendations made in the field of economic development. The key recommendation is summarized in Mr. Justice Hall's report on page 277, and I want to read just the paragraph in which he summarizes the principle in which he believes and which he recommends. Then I want to give some of the reasons and some illustrations of why he came to the conclusion which he did. This is what he said at page 277 of the report:
(2) The production and processing of agricultural products should take place in regions which enjoy natural locational advantages for such activities. Freight rates and other transport related policies should not destroy these natural locational advantages.
It is not surprising to me that in a country as large in geography as Canada ministers of transport who were elected from other regions of Canada, particularly those who came from Ontario or Quebec, should not understand the needs of western Canada or indeed of Atlantic Canada, and should not promote policies which would be helpful and advantageous to western Canada. But it constantly amazes me how this Minister of Transport, coming as he does from the province of Saskatchewan, should have consistently, and almost from the day on which he took office as Minister of Transport, enunciated and put forward policies which have been and are detrimental to western Canada. One needs only to read quickly through this chapter of the Hall Commission report on economic development and to compare what he says with what the minister has been doing to see how correct I am in what I am saying.
Mr. Hall pointed out that an analysis of the freight rate structure confirms that the prairie provinces have been victimized by discriminatory freight rates from the beginning. It goes on in this chapter to show in detail how that discrimination has continued right until today. He says:
Since early development the thrust has been to move raw materials to industrial central Canada for refinement and consumption ...
The continuous shift of an ever increasing proportion of the population to urban central Canada has been aggravated by the retention of policies which favour maintaining the west as a source of raw goods, and carrying out processing next to the populous centres of the east.

That population drift has continued for generations in western Canada, certainly in the three prairie provinces, with the exception of the period since the discovery of major oil and gas in the province of Alberta. It has continued at a slower or faster rate in the last 25 or 30 years regardless of what parties formed the governments of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. In the last couple of years there has been a slight increase in population in each of these provinces, but in fact we have had a continuous movement out of Saskatchewan and Manitoba because of this discrimination against the west with regard to freight rates.
Mr. Justice Hall found that the application of certain government programs, Canadian Wheat Board selling practices and ancillary rate charges have offset the natural geographic advantage which western flour mills should enjoy. One of the natural or locational advantages of locating a flour mill near the source of wheat is the reduced need for storage, Mr. Justice Hall points out, yet despite that the flour milling industry has increasingly been located in eastern Canada. So the commission recommends that the flour milling industry in Canada be permitted to enjoy the natural geographic advantage of locating in western Canada.
The Commission also recommends that railway policies and Wheat Board policies which discriminate against western Canada be discontinued. The Commission was referring to policies which have been continued all during the time that the present Minister of Transport has been in office.
Then the Commission goes on to analyze what has happened with regard to the processing of rapeseed. At page 287 of the Commission's report we learn that the cost of moving 100 pounds of rapeseed from Lethbridge to Montreal is 70.5 cents per hundred pounds and that the cost of moving the equivalent amount of oil and meal is calculated to be 90.2 cents. This difference of 19.7 cents makes it advantageous to move the rapeseed before it is processed. I could go on and on. The Commission recommends that freight rates on rapeseed and its derivatives be set at levels which do not discriminate against the natural locational advantage of prairie rapeseed crushers.
Then the Commission deals with the question of livestock and with the subsidies on moving feed grain. It points out that the feed grain assistance program has consistently been to the advantage of eastern Canada and British Columbia and against the interests of prairie grain producers. It points out that transport subsidies such as the feed grain assistance program encourage the shipment of feed grains rather than livestock or livestock products from the prairies to eastern Canada and British Columbia. That is what Mr. Justice Hall was talking about when he suggested that the processing of agricultural products be encouraged to develop near where the agricultural products are grown.
Then the Commission talks about the shipment of livestock and the advantages of shipping live cattle compared with the disadvantage to western Canada of first processing the meat.
May 26, 1977

Then the Commission goes into the question of the malting industry, and it recommends that the malting industry be permitted to enjoy the natural geographic advantage of locating in prairie Canada.
What Mr. Justice Hall says in this report is what western Canadians from all parties have been saying for more than 50 years. Western Canadians do not want to be subsidized by other areas. Western Canada has resources; it can produce a great deal more than it has been producing. Its people can live well with the resources they have. Western Canada cannot develop if the Government of Canada adopts policies which help move raw materials to central Canada for processing.
Mr. Justice Hall has laid down a policy which I think all western Canadians, regardless of where they live and regardless of what party they belong to, can support, and they will expect the government to implement that policy.
It may be that the Minister of Transport really means it when he says he accepts and supports the basic proposals made by Mr. Justice Hall in his report. As I have said, I find that difficult to believe because everything Mr. Justice Hall has recommended the minister has been working against since he became the minister. However, I accept his statement that he accepts the basic recommendations in the report. I hope and expect that he has really changed his mind and that, having read the report, he realizes that the recommendations are indeed worth-while, that they will improve the conditions of life for people in western Canada, and that he will implement those recommendations. To the extent that he does he will have the support of members of the New Democratic Party in parliament. To the extent that he fails we will continue to criticize him and to point out the differences between what he is doing and what he says he will do, and we will continue to urge him and the government to implement the report of the Commission, which the government in fact appointed.


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased indeed to have this brief opportunity to participate in this debate. 1 want to say at the outset that I was very impressed with the possibility of favourable response as outlined by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in his clear exposition of the situation as it now exists after the Hall report. I was also impressed with the statesmanlike character of the remarks made by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner) and with the constructive remarks of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), both of which I found extremely interesting because I think we have passed the stage of dealing with freight rates and questions of that kind in terms of rhetoric, and in this House this evening and today we were getting down to practical specifics and a willingness to deal with these questions as they ought to have been dealt with for some time. But we now have more knowledge.
Many in this House are far more qualified than 1 am to discuss the specifics of the Hall recommendations. I tend to think that the recommendation of a Prairie Rail Authority is an appropriate one, but I do not profess to have been able to study these questions in depth.
Hall Commission Report
Over the past six months I have had the opportunity to attend a number of conferences in western Canada. 1 attended a series of conferences known as the Meat-Grain Interface Conferences, and at those conferences 1 came to realize how complex indeed are the interwoven factors of transportation, processing, community development and so forth. Those conferences, sponsored by the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon under Professor Red Williams and Professor Grant Devine, were an eye opener for me, and 1 wish more people could have attended them.
I thought it might be useful for someone from central Canada to make a few remarks about the attitude with which people in Ontario and Quebec will approach the questions that the Hall Commission raises. I think it is true that, as the hon. member for Vegreville said, we too want action. We are fatigued with the rhetoric that we have heard for so long about discrimination and victimization. To the extent it exists, we want to see an end to it.
I think it is fair to say that in Ontario and Quebec there has never been a time when there was a more positive attitude toward prairie economic development and the resolution of these grievances. I personally am very pleased that the Hall Commission considered the social and community aspects whether of abandonment of rail lines or of the consolidation of elevator systems. I think we in Ontario and Quebec, and indeed in the rest of Canada, understand what is going on in the minds of people in the prairie provinces. After all, it was people from Ontario and Quebec who went west 75 years ago to build that region. They are ready now to face the developmental needs of the second wave, which 1 take to be not only reorganization and rehabilitation but development in the sense of industrialism. People came also from all over the world to the prairie region. They built it and became Canadians, settling along those branch lines, hauling grain to those elevators, many of which are now old and need rebuilding. Many of the branch lines also require expensive rehabilitation as a result of lack of maintenance.
I recall Mr. Snavely, the commissioner who looked into the cost of moving grain in the west, saying in an aside, not in his report, that in a few years trains would be derailed, standing still on those branch lines. We appreciate the need for rehabilitation.
I want to say again that I think the time for rhetoric is past but we want to make sure in very specific terms what is required and what would be useful. It seems to me that after WEOC meetings four years ago there was a decided cooling of the rhetoric. After WEOC there was full disclosure to the provinces of railway costs. There was a systematic attempt to look into those grievances which are simply referred to as freight rates by many. When one gets down to specifics, for example, the movement of rapeseed oil to Vancouver, or the anomalies between the short-haul and the long-haul charges, or the discrimination apparent between the costs of moving raw material and finished goods-when one gets past the

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
generalities as was done after WEOC, then it is very hard to document specific cases in proof of discrimination. I think we therefore feel cautious about a generalized approach that is not worked out in specific detail so that, after what might appear to have been a response, those grievances were still there as if untouched.
1 suggest we should deal with the Commission report on the merits of its recommendations but enlarge the context into a social and economic developmental approach to the prairie region. By doing that we will go beyond transportation and be obliged to bring in the Department of Regional Economic Development and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and we will be obliged to consider the trade initiatives that ought to be taken, for example, to sell meat in Japan, or in the Pacific northwest, and the tariff negotiations that will be required to sell polyvinyl chloride in the United States. We will be compelled to go beyond transportation because, unless we do we will not resolve the problems.
We may well need massive freight rate changes, rail rehabilitation, a remodelled grain handling system, new port facilities, and better labour-management relations at the ports throughout the system. Yet these things will not be enough as they are only one set of elements in the total developmental package needed for the prairie region.
What we require and are ready for now is a selective development strategy to undertake all of the best recommendations in the Hall report and reinforce it with policies setting a taxation environment for the prairie region, policies for DREE, as well as tariff changes and redirected government procurement policies. We need this plus greater assurance of markets in central Canada for the processed products of the west even as the west was an assured market through national policies for the manufactured products made in the central industrial heartland.
What we need therefore is an industrial policy which starts with the strengths of the prairie region, which starts with the primary manufacturing already based there on the existing resources, and find the policies which will aid that manufacturing to integrate backwards and forwards as it were-to integrate backwards to include more of regional inputs into the manufacturing process-to make compressors for example for the pipelines-and forward integration as well to make more and more end products as one goes down the processing stream. Those policies will not be easy to find or effect.
Reading the Hall Commission report I feel that the references to natural geographical advantages, or locational advantages as the hon. Minister without Portfolio put it, are not clearly defined and ought not to mislead us. There are very strong economic advantages to processing near the market. They are stronger than the economic advantages of processing near the raw material. Thus it will not be enough simply to change freight rates or change the transportation system. It will require a complete mix of development policies and a long-term convergence of those policies, together with the will to maintain them until these primary manufacturing industries

can move up the economic chain into further processing. It will require a good deal of inter-regional understanding.
The main point I am trying to make is that such regional understanding is already there so far as central Canada is concerned. We too want, as the hon. member for Vegreville said, a charter for western economic development. We too want to see a "way ahead" for the prairie region. Mr. Justice Hall and his commissioners have set us on course with this report.
In conclusion, I suggest that if I am right about the need for something more comprehensive than freight rates, better elevators and rehabilitated grain lines, all of which one accepts, we will need at the federal level some means to co-ordinate our responses, some means to go beyond the Department of Transport and include all other departments of government which have a vital role to play in that economic package. I am thinking of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Agriculture which has a central role to play, the Department of Finance, and so on. Do we not need to set up a task force? Let us not be blase about task forces. There must be a mechanism for co-ordinating the federal approach.
Second, we need a commitment from the federal government, which I am sure will not be difficult to get, that it will sit down with the three prairie provinces, and with each separately within the next few weeks, and seek to identify specific recommendations in the Hall Commission report which could be usefully implemented with early action.
Mr. Speaker, I have made my few points. I have tried to talk constructively in this debate about the real opportunity existing in the prairie region for dynamic economic development. This opportunity comes, oddly enough, at the very time when the dynamism of central Canada is perhaps declining. Central Canada therefore needs the development of the prairie provinces now more than it may have needed it in the past. Constructive responses to this shift in economic vocations, futures or possibilities, may indeed involve us in the very unifying activities into which we all now want to enter.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying this is a timely debate for western agriculture, western Canada and, indeed all Canada. I was privileged to present a personal brief in my Medicine Hat constituency at the hearing held in Schuler, Alberta, on March 23, 1976. Schuler is a small Alberta town, very close to the Alberta-Sas-katchewan border, and about 40 miles northeast of Medicine Hat. The town is located at the end of a branch line to a branch line which runs to a third branch line.
To me one of the highlights of that particular hearing, and 1 am sure to the Schuler community, was that all high school students were given the day off to attend this particular hearing, which was conducted by commissioners Reiny Lehr and Bob Cowan. I point out that Mr. Lehr is a near resident to
May 26, 1977

Schuler and Medicine Hat, where he produces grain and cattle.
It seems to me that there is, and should be, broad general support for the recommendation dealing with the abandonment within five years of some 2,165 miles of branch lines. Though there may be a few cases of inconvenience on these lines owing to abandonment, the need for such action seems both apparent and necessary. One such example is a 21-mile rail line from near Cardston to Whiskey Gap, in South-Western Alberta. It serves four elevators at only two points. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that the original line was built initially by the St. Mary's River Railway as a narrow gauge railway; later the line was taken over by the CPR. I also single out the Bassano to Leader line, which it was recommended should be added to the basic network. I concur with this recommendation, since it is part of an important alternate rail route to the main CPR line connecting Swift Current and Bassano, Alberta.
My remarks today will be specifically directed to the sections in the Hall report on statutory rates and economic development.
With respect to the question of the Crowsnest rates and/or statutory rates, and I think those terms are often used interchangeably, it seems quite probable that after the conclusion of public hearings and just before writing the report, the six commissioners must have agreed at the outset that the Crowsnest rates were too touchy a political issue and changes should not be suggested. They responded accordingly and built the remainder of their recommendations on this base, that the Crowsnest rates should remain. Having been a member of this House over four and a half years I can now understand this approach. At one time I might not have fully understood it. It also seems probable that most of the representations made to the commission hearings must have indicated a similar response.
Let us look at the actual recommendations of the report of this item. I am referring to pages 336 and 337 of the report. It states:
Regardless of what rate may be set for the transport of grain to export position that rate must be statutory, not variable. Anything else would be a violation of promises made to the producers of western Canada. If the government considers that the railways should have the amount suggested by the Commission on the Costs of Transporting Grain by Rail to transport grain, that amount, according to the findings of that Commission, will be in excess of the Crowsnest rate. How the difference between the new rate and the Crowsnest rate will be apportioned between the government and the producer is, of course, a matter for government decision. This Commission feels that the government must continue to subsidize the transportation of export grain and that the full cost, as deemed by the Commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail, must not be imposed on the producer.
The Commission goes on to make the following recommendation:
The Commission recommends that the difference between the Crowsnest rate and the rate determined through costs found by the Commission on the Costs of Transporting Grain by Rail should be paid directly to the railways, and not to individual farmers. The very idea of sending out cheques to 160,000 farmers is appalling.
Hall Commission Report
Please note the specific recommendation for payments made to railways not to farmers. Also note that in the passage quoted the phrase "export grain" is used twice when grain is referred to. I can only assume that this recommendation includes domestic feed grains which move by rail in western Canada, because this is the case now.
I now turn to pages 534, 535 and 536 of the report, to that part entitled economic development. It relates specifically to four agricultural processing industries, all directly involved in prairie grain production. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the four similar statements which follow a more general opening statement. I quote:
The production and processing of agricultural products should take place in the regions of this country which have a natural geographic advantage for such activities.
With respect to the flour milling industry the Commission recommends that the flour milling industry in Canada be permitted to enjoy the natural geographic advantage of locating in western Canada.
With respect to the rapeseed crushing industry the Commission recommends that freight rates on rapeseed and its derivatives be set at levels which do not discriminate against the natural locational advantage of prairie rapeseed crushers.
With respect to the livestock processing industry the Commission recommends that freight rates on livestock and meat be set at levels which do not discriminate against the natural locational advantage of prairie livestock producers and processors.
Finally, with respect to the malting industry the Commission recommends that the malting industry be permitted to enjoy the natural geographic advantage of locating in prairie Canada.
I suggest these four statements are deliberately vague and leave much to conjecture as to how these statements are to be implemented. My personal impression is that there is a clear indication in these statements that statutory rates should apply not only to domestic feed grains, but to products of domestic feed grains as well. These products are flour, rapeseed and rapeseed oil, livestock and meat, and barley malt.
By obvious implication, the report also suggests that the difference between statutory and compensatory rates be made up by government for all commodities and processed agricultural products from the prairies.
I suggest that if these assumptions are correct, there are some very serious consequences that until now have hardly even been mentioned. I will name only a few. What would these changes in rail freight do to the trucking industry? How would our two way agricultural trade with the United States be affected? Of course, there is the obvious question of what these costs will come to, including the cost of extending statutory rates to all sectors of agriculture in the west. The future of western Canada's feeding industry, especially cattle feeding, could be very well decided by how these questions are
5998

May 26, 1977
Hall Commission Report
answered and what policies are evolved for our domestic feed grain industry.
The west's feeding industry for both cattle and hogs is in serious trouble now because of two factors relating to freight rates. First, statutory rates now tend to increase the western domestic price of feed grains by the difference between the costs of statutory and actual rail costs by about 27 cents a bushel. Second, cattle and beef, hogs and pork are at the full compensatory rate when moved by rail.
The results of these two factors were almost predictable. Our western hog industry has shifted to the United States. We have seen a drop of about 40 per cent since 1941 and a near corresponding increase in Quebec, but the shift is really to the United States. We are now importing pork in substantial quantities from the United States.
Western cattle feeding could be headed the same way. This spring for the first time in years significant numbers of feeder cattle are moving south to the United States from western Canada and we can expect fat cattle to flow back north from the U.S. corn belt into central Canada, probably this fall or next winter. What a tremendous loss there is here in value added enterprises.
How can the natural comparative advantages, or as the report says the natural locational advantages, be assured for those value added agricultural industries like livestock and meat processing? To suggest a partial answer, let us go back to the recommendation that the difference between Crow and actual cost of moving grain be paid to the railways. I suggest this will continue to distort the natural comparative advantage of western value added industries. If such a subsidy is to be used, let it be paid directly to grain producers on an acreage base, not a bushel base. Existing permit books could be used quite readily for this purpose. I quote the Commission's comment or reason for not doing this:
The very idea of sending out cheques to 160,000 farmers is appalling.
It just does not make sense in this computer age when millions of cheques are being sent out, such as initial and final wheat board cheques. Direct payment of the difference to grain producers would eliminate that price inequity on domestic feed grains in the west, but payment to the railways would merely continue this inequity on western feed grains.
If this suggestion relative to the Hall recommendation on who should receive the subsidy cannot be agreed to by the government and parliament, all I can say is that there has to be some other way devised to return the benefits of the Crow rate to grain farmers, particularly domestic feed grain farmers, in order to remove price distortion from the market.
Cattle and hog feeders in no way want to eliminate the Crow benefits to grain producers. They are simply suggesting that these benefits be returned in some other neutral manner. Western Canada does indeed have a natural locational advantage, not only for wheat production but feed grain production, especially barley.
Western barley production is a big crop every year, usually around 500 million bushels. It is disbursed as follows: 200

million bushels are exported, 66 million shipped to central and eastern Canada and British Columbia, and the balance, the biggest amount, fed in the west. Not mentioned there is the barley produced on a farm and fed on that farm, and never goes to a market as grain.
The point I want to emphasize is that our western market for barley is our most important market, and it is right at our front and back door. Ways must be found, either through recommendations by Hall or by parliament, to ensure that this domestic market has a chance to operate in a proper natural advantageous climate.
There is a noticeable sense of expectation in the west now that is linked to the Hall Commission report. While there are many important details missing from the report, the opportunity is now here for parliament to bring about meaningful solutions to grain marketing and rail transportation problems for the first time this century. It is up to us to act now.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, this has certainly been a momentous day for Canada. We have heard much of the debate as it has taken place. The Hall report is a tremendous report for western Canada. As many westerners would say, and as my good friend opposite has said, when any one section of the country has increased in its strength, the whole country reaps the advantage.
I was pleased, as was my colleague who just spoke, to attend a local hearing when the Hall Commission was meeting. I attended a hearing in Stettler, Alberta. I spoke principally in terms of the importance of the prairie community system and the importance of the railway to that community system.
Because time is running short this evening, and there will be far more comments to be made than one opposition day will allow, or the short ten minutes I will have to speak this evening, I want to get to the heart of what the previous speaker has said, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave).
The motion put before the House today reads:
That this House agrees in principle with the recommendations of the Hall Commission on Grain Handling and Transportation.
Those general principles of agreement go without any question. However, we must take a sincere look at specific aspects of that recommendation because there is still, depending upon interpretation, the possibility for great jeopardy to western Canada.
I want to put forward one submission on some advantages and disadvantages, to the prairies. I quote from a gentleman in the beef industry in a very big way, Mr. Chris Mills, as follows:
"It virtually spells the end of the livestock feeding business in western Canada. Within five years the cattle industry will go the same way as the hog feeding industry has in the last two years," he said of the Hall Commission's recommendation that the Crowsnest rate be retained.
We are not talking simply about the retention of the Crowsnest Pass rates but also about the methodology. There is no question in anyone's mind that these rates are the Magna
May 26, 1977

Carta of western Canada, part of the way in which we are linked together. The whole rail system on the prairies is as vital to national unity in the eyes of the west as other aspects may be to different parts of the country.
I cannot help noting considerable opposition to the position taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). We note a headline in one of the papers, "Lang Upset." The report says:
Lang contended the commission's conclusion is unsubstantiated. He said the implied suggestion by the Commission that freight rates on processed commodities be brought into line with the current export grain rates would be a "very, very expensive solution."
I should like to remind hon. members of what Commissioner Emmett Hall stated in response to the argument put forward by the Minister of Transport. He said, and I am quoting:
I reject it in grain transportation because I consider grain so fundamental to the fiscal well-being of Canada that the national interest does not justify the user pay principle.
The Minister of Transport is quite willing to take the position that the recommendation is too expensive for Canada. But Mr. Emmett Hall has pointed out that grain exports have consistently, over the years, reduced the deficit in Canada's balance of payments. In other words, it was a great national advantage, not just a western advantage, and to think of this, in the words of the Minister of Transport as being a western issue rather than a national issue is to fail to understand where Canada starts or ends. It is a great shortcoming that the minister does not see this question in its international context. As Emmett Hall stated:
The contribution which grain makes to Canada's balance of payments position demands that a substantial part of any increase be borne by the federal government in the national interest.
I want to speak this evening about the "order-in-council government" we have at the present time, a government which has issued more than 3,000 orders-in-council during the past year. Speaking on this motion, the Minister of Transport told us earlier that the government had today put out yet another order-in-council. A couple of days ago an order-in-council was issued dealing with the Hall report. What makes me nervous about these orders-in-council is that they make an impression that the government is actually doing something, that it is implementing the Hall recommendations, while in fact it is not. By acting in this way it fails to give the prairie system the solid feeling of security which will come from parliament taking action by statute, passing legislation which could not be changed at the whim of ministers-any change would have to be made subject to public debate.
I deplore the fact that we are moving by order-in-council in the absence of the kind of debate on this subject in which we ought to be engaged. If the minister were really sincere about implementing these recommendations by order-in-council he might take some of the more fundamental recommendations of the report, such as the following:
The retention of the Crowsnest statutory rates. That the difference between the statutory rate and the cost of transporting grain be paid directly to the railways.
He might have considered enacting that by order-in-council. I am not suggestion he should, though. What I am saying is
Hall Commission Report
that this is not a new debate. As my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, it has been going on for 50 years.
Had the government followed the recommendations of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in 1973, the Hall Commission would not have been required. That conference put forward a manifesto for the west giving the kind of guarantees we are seeking here today. All that we are asking, and all that the report purports to do, is to give the prairies the same kind of natural economic advantages which are enjoyed and exercised by other parts of the country.
In its recommendations with regard to the rationalization of the grain handling system the report mentions the fact that at the present time five major government-built inland terminals are empty and unused. On our side we recognize there is a need for the rationalization of the system in order to make it efficient. We do not need another study.
The Minister of Transport told us today that studies have been going on since 1968. He went on to list ad infinitum the studies which have been conducted over the years. The people of the prairies do not want to hear of another study. One of the things we know about this report, even though we agree with it, or at least with its major principles, is that it offers nothing new, nothing which the farmers, the small businessmen, the industrialists, have not been saying in the western provinces over the years. Today we have trains which chase east to haul grain west, which chase north to haul grain south, all because we lack a rational system of train exchange on different tracks. I have in my constituency a line which must carry grain a hundred miles to the east before turning around and bringing it west again to Vancouver. That is a nonsensical situation, to say the least.
One of the fundamental things this report does is give fair warning to the government that it had better not plan to call an election before implementing some of these vital recommendations. If the government were to dare to call an election without acting on this report after 50 years of protest by the prairie farmers, it would be a snub to the people of the west. As for the Minister of Transport, I am not in any way persuaded that he is giving a full or firm commitment. That ought to be underscored.
We also need to take a look at the fact that in east central Alberta and west central Saskatchewan grain is shipped to Thunder Bay when ports have been frozen up during the past winter, as they are each winter. It is a nonsensical position if they do not empty the prairie elevators in the fall of the year and have the terminals at Thunder Bay emptied also. The minister today sought to leave the impression that there had been an improvement in the movement of grain under his administration. The fact of the matter is that in east central Alberta and western Saskatchewan there has been the highest congestion on both tracks ever experienced in recent years as a result of ill-conceived policy.
I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, and call it ten o'clock. I just want to make it clear that it is the time which
6000

May 26, 1977
Adjournment Debate
has run out, not the issues, and that there is a lot more to be said about this subject.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(ii), proceedings on the motion have now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of last week a catastrophe happened to the people of the town of Cobalt. Most people know Cobalt as a small mining community in northern Ontario. It is surprising how many people have come to know the town of Cobalt over the years. Very few people you meet have failed to hear of that small community. At one time it consisted of 20,000 people, but has now quietly dwindled to a town with about 2,000 residents who are very devoted to the community and proud of the efforts they have made to maintain it over the years in the face of great adversity.
The fire that struck Cobalt last week was a disaster. It started in a building which was being torn down, and with a 60 miles an hour wind it spread rapidly to other parts of the town. As many as five or six houses were burning at a time. I was there and observed the great efforts made by fire departments from the area. They came from the towns of Haileybury, New Liskeard, Latchford, Temagami, and as far away as Lorrain-ville and Ville Marie in Quebec. They fought very diligently, but against that wind not even the three water bombers which were sent in by the Ontario department of natural resources were able to help. The town lost about one quarter of its residences. There were 152 buildings burned. About 70 to 80 of these were dwellings, some multiple dwellings, which means that a very large part of the town has been destroyed.
It is almost impossible to imagine the kind of fire that we had in Cobalt. I have been through a number of fires, Mr. Speaker, and I have seen many forest fires, but I have never seen one of the intensity of this particular fire. The municipalities in the tri-town area met and offered assistance in the form of billets. Surprisingly 300 billets were available in the rest of Cobalt, 300 in Haileybury, and 300 in New Liskeard. Many larger towns would be proud of that kind of support. Interestingly enough, I sat in on council meeting the morning after the fire. The mayor had lost his home and was left with absolutely

nothing, apart from his clothes. Another councillor was in the same position. A third councillor saved his house which he recently built, but the house he lived in previously went up in flames. Three councillors, including the mayor, lost everything they owned.
The provincial government came through with help. The cabinet met and sent in two ministers who offered immediately half a million dollars and other assistance which would allow the town to raise money which would be matched by the province. I understand that the federal government was asked by my leader for unanimous consent to recognize that this was a tragedy regarding which everything possible should be done, but consent was not given. The former attorney general of Ontario did ask the Prime Minister a number of questions and, to summarize the Prime Minister said that everything possible would be done.
The other day I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) if he would send in senior officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to sit down with the officials in Cobalt, the provincial officials and others to help iron out the difficulties, because the people want to rebuild Cobalt-they want to rebuild the houses they have lost. The Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) has political responsibilities in that area, but he does not have ministerial responsibility for CMHC. I think it is unfortunate that politics should be played at a time like this.
I am well aware the Minister of State for Urban Affairs was still enjoying the fruits of efforts he had been making elsewhere in another field at that time. If he were to go to Cobalt to look at the situation, he would also be more interested in getting rid of the red tape. If we are going to rebuild Cobalt, all the help that is possible must be given to those people. They must be encouraged to rebuild and to make their lives as they were before.
It is necessary for us to cut through the red tape in the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other federal departments, including National Defence, which may be able to play a role through the Emergency Measures Organization by providing temporary housing. If that is all that is required, surely we are not going to play politics with it. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs could well have taken a ride on the same airplane in order to have a look at the situation. He could have been accompanied by some of his officials so that red tape would not be the bane, as it has been in so many other tragedies which have occurred in this country.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in agreement with at least the first part of the hon. member's remarks. Today I visited the town of Cobalt along with the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), who has regional responsibility for that area.


William Arnold Peters: Only politically.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: We were
accompanied by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister
May 26, 1977

of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Portelance) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley). As well, we were accompanied by officials from these departments and from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I agree with the hon. member when he says that the people there are devoted to their community. It was indeed encouraging to see the spirit of co-operation, the dedication to their town, the dedication to one another, and the absolute total dedication to efficiency of the mayor and his council.
There is a method by which the federal government assists in tragedies, and I believe the hon. member is aware of that. The federal government has committed itself to assist in any way possible through the disaster fund, and it will do so. I discussed with the mayor, and some of his people working in this disaster, possibilities for aid from the Department of National Defence. The others who were along discussed the possibility of aid from their departments as well.
I find it rather unfortunate that the hon. member decries what he calls the politics of the federal government playing with it, and he is the only one I have seen playing politics with it so far. I do not know what he expects from the ministry. As I mentioned, the Postmaster General is responsible for that area in his regional responsibilities. The hon. member says that it is only political, but the fact is we are all politicians here, as far as I know. The government makes decisions with political input, and it seems to me the minister responsible for that region is the obvious minister to deal with the people. I would like to point out that the minister dealt very effectively with them today. The federal government is not shirking its responsibility and its duty, and it will not do so.


CANADIAN EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-REASON FOR REFUSAL TO CONFIRM TRANSAIR AS PRIME BIDDER FOR UNITED STATES AIR FORCE CONTRACT
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I posed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) with regard to a bid that Transair had made for a contract with the United States Air Force to overhaul 97 Boeing 707 tankers over a three year period. This work would entail modifying the wing structures.
Since my question this afternoon to the Minister of Transport I have been informed that it is the Canadian Commercial Corporation which has refused to write a letter of endorsation for Transair which must accompany the bid to the U.S. Air Force. There is still time for the CCC to give written confirmation that Transair is a prime bidder for the $42 million contract as bids do not close until July 1, 1977. I hope that the parliamentary secretary to the minister will get on to this tomorrow morning first thing and will have this letter of confirmation transferred to Transair so that they can apply for this bid, as the signing of the contract is to take place on July 1, 1977.
The first plane is to be delivered for overhaul on September 15, 1977. U.S. Air Force officials visited Winnipeg around
Adjournment Debate
November 1, 1976, and approved the new $15 million Air Canada hangar as the proper facility to do the overhauls. They have all the facilities to handle the overhaul contract for U.S. planes.
This afternoon when I raised my question I received a very unsatisfactory answer from the Minister of Transport who said "Essentially, my understanding from conversations with Transair is that the difficulty which had existed in connection with this bid, which may have prevented the bid from being successful, will not be repeated in the course of successive bids."
We do not get $42 million opportunities for Canada every day. Transair is the only company in Canada that has submitted a bid, and the U.S. Air Force is looking seriously at this contract submitted to Transair in Winnipeg. We want to remove the roadblocks, never mind putting road blocks in front of Transair. We have record unemployment in this country, we have economic chaos. Remove the road blocks, have this letter submitted to Transair tomorrow, and let us get this $42 million into Canada.
I received also another mundane, secondary answer from the Minister of Transport when he said this afternoon, "My understanding is that there may not be possibility of a bid in relation to those particular aircraft, but there are many hundreds of others which will be coming along next."
There are no $42 million contracts coming daily. They only come once in a lifetime. I have been informed tonight that the Canadian Commercial Corporation which will not submit this letter to Transair, has stated that it is incapable of handling this bid. This bid is only to rebuild the wing structure of the 97 planes. In the past Transair has completely rebuilt the Canadian 707s from top to bottom-it was not only the wing structure but the engines and everything else. Therefore this is nothing but a phony report from the CCC which says it will not submit this letter.
This has a two-fold impact on the Canadian economy. On May 23, 1974, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a flying trip to Winnipeg at which time he said he would give us a $15 million hangar. In the meantime we have embarrassed the Prime Minister into building this $15 million hangar for Air Canada, but Air Canada says it does not want it, it has no requirement for it. However, it is being built with federal funds and paid for by the Canadian taxpayer. Air Canada, I repeat, has stated that it does not need this hangar, and it does not know what to do with it. If this contract to overhaul these American air force 707 tankers comes into Canada, the work will be done in this new $15 million hangar, and Air Canada personnel will be involved in working on this particular contract, so it is particularly important that we do everything we possibly can to get this contract into Canada. Otherwise we would have this $15 million hangar just sitting there. It would just be an absolute and complete white elephant, so we have a two-fold impact here.
It has been stated earlier that with this $15 million hangar Transair will start doing some work, and it will lease part of the hangar facilities, but there is to be a merger of Transair with Pacific Western Airlines. If this merger is completed,

May 26, 1977
Adjournment Debate
there would be no more overhaul work done in Winnipeg. All the Transair and PWA overhaul work would be done in British Columbia and Alberta where their overhaul facilities are now. They would not be doing any work at all in this new $15 million hangar, so it is obvious that we must make every effort to assist Transair to obtain this contract with the American air force. Otherwise Canada will lose $42 million and 500 jobs.
It would require 500 people to overhaul the American air force planes over a three year period, and there is a possibility of other contracts later. If we lose this contract, we lose $42 million and 500 jobs, and we would be stuck with this huge monstrosity which the Prime Minister said in an election promise that he would build for us. We must make sure that this facility is used. We must make every effort to assist Transair to obtain this $42 million contract.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, under the Canada-U.S. defence production sharing arrangements entered into in 1956, the U.S. Department of Defence requires that generally, all purchases in excess of $10,000 from Canadian suppliers, shall be made with the Canadian Commercial Corporation. In order for Canadian contractors' bids to be considered for contract award by the U.S. defence department, CCC is required to give its endorsement on each bid submitted. This endorsement by CCC is, in effect, a guarantee to the U.S. government that all commitments and obligations of the bid and any resulting contract will be met. To determine if any bid will be endorsed, CCC, through its products centres, examines both the bid and the contractor to ensure that the financial, management and technical capability exists to perform the required work.
If a Canadian bid is selected by the U.S. for contract award, the contract is then made with CCC, which in turn sub-contracts 100 per cent to the Canadian supplier.
In response to a U.S. Air Force request for proposal, Transair Ltd. prepared a bid for the replacement of the lower wing skins of KC-135 aerial refueling tanker aircraft for the USAF. The work was to be a three year project involving some 97 aircraft, with further options of 36 aircraft in each of the following two years.
The company's response was sent direct to Tinker Air Force Base at Oklahoma City; a copy of the bid was also sent to CCC. In order for CCC to consider the Transair bid for endorsement, the company was asked to provide the corporation with comprehensive evidence of its capabilities in terms of facilities, manpower and technical skills and necessary financing.
The company had arranged to rent a hangar from Air Canada and had requested support from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on tooling. The basis of costing estimates was examined and judged to be reasonable. On March 31, 1977 Transair informed CCC of last minute difficulties in presenting satisfactory evidence of availability of working capital. As the bid closed the next day, it was certified to the U.S. Air Force subject only to determination that

adequate management, financing and physical facilities were available to perform the work.
The U.S. Air Force advised CCC on April 5 that the Transair proposal was found to be non-responsive and could not be accepted for further evaluation because of information contained in the Transair bid and CCC's partial endorsement.
Although in this case the bid was not accepted by the U.S. Department of Defense, the Canadian Commercial Corporation has, in the fiscal year 1976-77, received contract awards from the U.S. defense department totalling in excess of $100 million.


HEALTH-POSSIBILITY OF STUDIES ON EFFECTS OF SACCHARIN ON HUMANS-REASON FOR FAILURE TO CONSULT MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS PRIOR TO IMPOSING BAN
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight as a result of the rather inadequate and almost irrational response by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) as reported at page 4285 of Hansard for March 24, to a question I asked on the subject of saccharin. I asked the minister if he would indicate to the House what retrospective and prospective studies he has authorized or has done on the effect of saccharin on humans. I will quote the minister's reply in full. He said:
Mr. Speaker, decisions have been made in that field following studies which have been confirmed by international and American authorities. I would suggest to the hon. member that he not be overly impressed by a decidedly American lobbying organization which has more than $1 million at its disposal to rally public opinion against this decision.
I cannot see what that had to do with the question of studies of a retrospective and prospective nature regarding saccharin.
Before I continue my comments I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary who is here to answer for the minister that he lay aside the prepared speech given to him by his officials. I see he has a pen in his hand so I would encourage him to jot down the eight or ten questions I will ask so that he can reply briefly to them.
My questions will be in two parts. The first part will be a request for some indication of the policy of the department relating to decisions regarding research projects such as in saccharin, and the second part will inquire to what extent the department followed through on this policy.
My first question is what the policy of the department would be when dealing with research of this kind. Do they consult the Medical Research Council before they proceed and as they proceed with the program? In the case of saccharin did they consult with the Research Council before they initiated the project and as they proceeded?
My second question concerns the policy regarding research projects and the execution of retrospective studies. When checking food additives and so on, does the department have a policy of doing retrospective studies on human beings, no rats, when they have something of significance to contribute to the medical community? If so, what was done on human beings in respect of this particular experiment on rats?
May 26, 1977

My third question relates to prospective studies. Does the department have any policy regarding prospective studies in situations where they are studying a potentially harmful product consumed by humans? If so, have they initiated prospective studies on human beings in the use of saccharin? It should not be difficult to do for either prospective or retrospective studies. Certainly retrospective studies would be easy because saccharin has been used for 98 years and there are three or four generations that could be checked.
The fourth question refers to consultations. I am not sure the minister knows what a consultation is. I believe he thinks a consultation is a briefing. Before an announcement is made such as the one on saccharin, or previous ones on the swine 'flu virus vaccine or cyclamates, all of which have been catastrophic as far as the medical community is concerned, does the minister or his department make a point of engaging in consultation as opposed to briefing? I understand consultation did not happen. I ask, did they consult, not brief, professional associations like the CMA, the Canadian Dental Association and other, similar professional groups?
Fifth, and this question is also about consultation, is it the policy of the ministry to consult lay groups interested in that field? Specifically, did it consult with the Canadian Diabetic Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Heart Society, weight reducing organizations, and so on?
My sixth question is this: what is the minister's policy regarding consultations with manufacturing groups? Did he discuss saccharin with manufacturers of diet drinks, diet foods, and so on? Did he consult the grocery products manufacturers of Canada? That association ought to have been consulted. Did he consult the Calory Control Council of North America, which is interested in these matters?
Seventh, what is the government's policy on releasing partial information before all tests are completed? Almost two months after the minister banned saccharin, he announced that subsequent tests showed that the problem may have been caused by impurities in saccharin. I am referring to the Ames test.
Since the minister knew perfectly well that those tests had not been completed, why did he not wait two months before announcing the ban?
I direct three more general questions to the parliamentary secretary. First, I wish to quote part of the minister's reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as reported on page 3836 of Hansard of March 10, 1977. Hansard reports the minister as saying in part:
We proposed the establishment of a committee, in co-operation with the industry and medical experts, to make a complete review of the role of saccharin in the diet of diabetics.
Has that been done?
Finally, since my time has almost run out, I make one last comment. The American Cancer Society publishes an excellent journal twice a month. In a recent article entitled, "The Environmental Time Bomb That Never Went Off' the editor
Adjournment Debate
of the journal, Arthur I. Holleb, wrote one particularly significant sentence, as follows:
Hasty judgments are a disservice to the serious study of environmental cancer.
I would welcome the parliamentary secretary's response to my questions.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult at present to answer the hon. member's specific questions. The answers will have to be provided, for 1 cannot say who talked to whom in each case. I cannot answer the hon. member's eight or nine questions in three minutes. I point out that all hon. members have had the opportunity to be briefed. I think it would have been possible to raise these questions in the presence of officials responsible for the studies mentioned. I do not recall many questions having been asked when the opportunity for briefing arose.
The hon. member raised the question of the Medical Research Council. I would not venture to say yes or not to his questions. The information will have to be provided.
I must make a strong point on the question of retrospective and prospective studies. As the hon. member knows, it is not possible to use human subjects in the study of carcinogenic agents. It would be unethical to attempt to induce cancer of the bladder in a human being.
The other point is that saccharin has been used for 90 years, but used extensively only for the last eight years. In two cases there is evidence to suggest that saccharin may have caused cancer, although that is not positive.
I come to the question of consultation. The department has consulted with officials of CMA, the Canadian Diabetic Association and the Canadian Dental Association, but the department itself had to make a decision. Certainly there was a discussion with the industry, the bottling industry and groups like that.
With regard to testing for the possibility of impurities, there are two problems. First, it would have to be proven that the impurities were causing the trouble. Second, it would have to be proven that a form of saccharin could be formed which did not have those impurities or other carcinogenic impurities. It is a problem.
If we had said we were not going to do anything about it, the Canadian Medical Association and the opposition would be telling us to ban that particular substance from our foods. That would have been the case if we had found strong evidence that it produced carcinogenic results. The department acted right away. Some changes may have to be made. I cannot say whether consultation has started with the Canadian Diabetic Association. I hope it has. If not, as the minister indicated, I am sure it will in the near future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:34 p.m.

Friday, May 27, 1977