1978-06-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
CONSTRUCTION OF LES TERRASSES DE LA CHAUDlfiRE- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-C'arleton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the revelation in today's Ottawa Citizen that Douglas Fullerton, former head of the National Capital Commission, strongly opposed the construction of Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere and accurately predicted that the construction would upset regional priorities and lead to a glut of office space, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That a public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act, be set up to determine the manner in which a decision was reached to proceed with construction of Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere and the extent to which the special relationship between the contractor and the Liberal party may have been a factor.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, on a matter of most urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the chaos and confusion that currently reigns in the fisheries industry, the concern of many Canadians that a similar atmosphere is beginning to affect sports fishermen, taking into account that the fisheries' conflict has resulted in media reporting in the United States that is adversely affecting travel plans of U.S. tourists to Canada, and a retaliatory move by the Canadian government will have a devastating effect on numerous small businesses and may cost 30,000 jobs and untold
millions of dollars in this area, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the federal government take immediate action and engage in consultations with the Ontario department of industry and tourism to clarify the situation and alleviate current uncertainty which could result in serious adverse economic consequences.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the federal government's Anti-Inflation Board held back wage increases for working Canadians, in view of the revelation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a top Hudson Bay Oil Company executive had his wages increased by $38,000 last year, from $141,000 to $ 179,000, up 27 per cent, that a Hiram Walker executive had his wages increased by $23,000 last year, up 22 per cent, and in view of the fact that these companies are not required to disclose this information under Canadian law, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls upon the government to require the Anti-Inflation Board to roll back these wage increases to the supposed $2,400 annual maximum, and that this House urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to bring forward legislation requiring corporations doing business in Canada to disclose their executive salaries.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate would require unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
6036

June 5, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency pertaining to the recent discovery and use by the Soviet Union of a tunnel and of electronic eavesdropping devices at the United States embassy in Moscow. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the House deplores and condemns such actions by the Soviet Union which are not at all in keeping with the spirit of detente which that country advocates between the east and west; further, that the House calls upon the Soviet Union to desist from such practices against the United States or against any other country and supports any protest on the matter made to the Soviet Union by the United States; and, finally, the House strongly suggests that the Secretary of State for External Affairs take whatever steps may be necessary to guarantee that no similar situation exists at the Canadian embassy in Moscow, if indeed such steps have not been taken already.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent priority. No serious effort is being shown by this government to increase grain shipments through the port of Churchill this season. The reduced rail distance from Yorkton to Churchill, as opposed to Yorkton to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, would guarantee a quicker turnaround time on boxcars, Yorkton to Vancouver being 1,301 miles, Yorkton to Prince Rupert 1,493 miles, and Yorkton to Churchill 722 miles. Therefore, bearing in mind that the port of Churchill is underutilized and that this port is the most efficient grain handling port in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the government direct the Wheat Board to increase grain shipments by a minimum of five million bushels this season through the port of Churchill to help relieve the intolerable tie-up at Vancouver.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the dubious legality and propriety of the 1972 memorandum of understanding between Revenue Canada and the Solicitor General's department, which has now embarrassed the RCMP to the extent that, as indicated by the Canadian press last week, quoting RCMP Sergeant Victor Pobran, the force has not yet found a way to close 993 files since special tax investigation units began compiling files in 1972, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the government immediately use its resources to assist the RCMP in extricating the force from this embarrassing, if not downright ludicrous position, since it is becoming increasingly evident that whatever officials "dreamed up" this agreement did not foresee either the consequences or properly assess the legalities.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact the federal government has refused to return the oil tax money to Indian bands in Alberta and Saskatchewan which totals approximately $4.5 million, in view of the fact the government's refusal to return these funds has prevented the Indian communities from developing the necessary infrastructure which is desperately needed to correct long-standing social economic problems, and in view of the fact the government policy increases the Indians' dependence on the public purse and a paternalistic government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the government immediately act on the suggestion of my colleague from Wetaskiwin and establish a tripartite meeting to resolve this important problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 5, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: 
Dean Waldon Whiteway: I have a question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. I would point out to him that, as he well knows, housing and urban affairs are within the jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government. It is clearly an intrusion into provincial rights for this government to initiate housing.
In view of the fact that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, one of our major mortgage lenders, has indicated that it will not participate in the new guaranteed payment mortgage program of the government, and that the Royal Bank has said it will participate only to a limited degree, would the hon. gentleman tell the House why he proceeded with the program without first obtaining an agreement or assurance from the major mortgage lenders in this country that the program was satisfactory? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, since the Canadian Bankers' Association told the minister in February that the program was unacceptable, why did the hon. gentleman proceed with such a project?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member finds his foundation for the statement that housing is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government clearly has a national mandate to ensure that all people living in Canada, whether in one part or another, have a right to decent housing. Throughout the years the Canadian government has been fulfilling its obligation in this respect and will continue to do so despite what the hon. member says or what may be the view of the Conservative party.
Oral Questions
In relation to the graduated payment mortgage, I wish to tell the hon. member that we do not ask that all lenders make such loans. We know that some lenders will participate and we expect that other lenders will not. I am not surprised by the conservative approach to the program taken by some of the banks, but I believe credit unions and caisses populates will support the program-one which has proved very popular and which has been actively supported in the United States. We believe it could be beneficial to many young families in Canada.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, the new graduated payment mortgage program is a replacement of the AHOP program, a program which has already run into serious problems with respect to default of payments in the first two months of this year. Nobody denies the federal government has an interest in housing, but the jurisdiction is clearly the right of the provinces.
In view of the fact that on a $35,000 mortgage, under the new program, a participant would pay an additional $10,000 over the life of the contract-a matter which was of concern to the banks-could the minister explain why he insisted on proceeding with the program? It would now appear that the banks and Anne Murray have more of a social conscience than does the government.


Mr. Speaker:: That is essentially the same question as the hon. member first asked. The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM
Stan Darling: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs if he is aware of the concern being expressed by a number of Canadians about the new regulations affecting co-operative housing which will seriously affect the ability of low and medium income earners to gain access to low-cost co-operative housing.
The changes announced will reduce incentives for cost saving, increase rental and operating costs and increase red tape in connection with new projects. Further, income profile requirements may place some co-operatives in violation of co-op legislation requiring open membership. I would, therefore, ask the minister to make the necessary changes and indicate to the House and to the Canadian people whether, in fact, a major shift has occurred in our social housing policy.


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, to date the minister has not acknowledged a request from the co-operative federation for a meeting and the officials of the federation were not consulted about the change. Why is the minister refusing to meet with co-operative federation officials on this important issue, and will he consider extending the current program to the end of
8004S-1 SVi

June 5, 1978
Oral Questions
1978 so that the major drawbacks raised by the co-operative federation can be ironed out in order to have a more orderly transfer to the new program?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the facts wrong. Indeed, I have agreed to meet the co-operative federation. There were discussions before the annoucement of the new program, and after the announcement of the new program because some of the clauses of the new program were misunderstood by the co-operative federation. After an explanation, the federation realized that the program is a proper step toward helping co-operative initiatives in Canada. We are looking forward to successful activities in this area.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House if the position he will take at the annual meeting of the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, in Edmonton, will be compatible with the position he will be forced to take when he meets his provincial counterparts in Toronto on June 12, in light of the fact that Quebec has indicated it will not go along with the program, and Ontario has expressed grave reservations?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, whatever may be the views of the two central provinces, I must say to the hon. members that it is essential that the Canadian government does not forget the interests of all provinces. I am not surprised at the attitude of the Quebec government which does not want the Canadian government to play a constructive and positive role on behalf of Canadians who live in Quebec. Then again the new Levesque-Davis alliance strikes me as being rather surprising and even astonishing since in some respects Premier Davis has completely contradictory attitudes in the sense that they change according to whom he is speaking. I will go to that Toronto meeting in a spirit of sincere co-operation. I am prepared to hear the suggestions of the provinces about the program, but one thing remains clear, the Canadian government does not intend to abdicate its responsibilities and wants to continue to play a constructive role in municipal finances.


FISHERIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: 
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, assuming there is clarification, and assuming the clarification is that the law will be applied as it stands, has the minister had carried out an economic impact study in terms of action by Canadian authorities to end sport fishing in Canada by Americans? Has the minister some figures with which he can demonstrate what the impact on our tourist industry will be in the event of such decision? Has he also had studies carried out in terms of the amount of salmon which would then become available to Canadian sport fishermen in the event that reciprocal action is needed?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have some information of the kind referred to by the hon. member. While the hon. member was asking me a second question, I was trying to make it clear to him that Canadian waters are, in fact, open to recreation and sport-fishermen at the moment and for the foreseeable future. We are seeking clarification.


REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. ON HALIBUT FISHERY IN BERING SEA
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would clarify something else regarding the note which was sent to the American ambassador. There was an attempt to exempt the halibut fishery in the Bering Sea from the effect of the Canadian decision. Can the minister advise the House whether he has received any communication from the United States that the halibut fishery will be exempt at the end of the interim agreement? Will we still have a halibut fishery for Canadian fishermen and U.S. fishermen, following the action taken by the minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question, purely by way of advising the House that I will be glad to table the note at three o'clock? Perhaps the answers will be contained in it at that time.
June 5, 1978


AIRPORTS
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns a question I put to him some time ago about a legitimate request from the isolated population of northwest Quebec, the Chibougamau-Chapais region, for the construction of a regional airport there. The minister then replied that this airport represented a priority for his department and that funds would probably be made available in his 1978-79 estimates. But in these estimates no funds have been provided for the construction of that airport. Would the minister tell the House whether he would consider the advisability of providing a certain amount, no matter how big, for the people of the Chibougamau region who have been waiting for years for the construction of that airport, so that we could at least proceed with the construction work?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refresh my memory on the situation in relation to the proposals for this particular airport. I will do so and inform the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it concerns the fisheries dispute. Reports suggest that the next meeting of the negotiators on the fisheries boundaries delineation agreement will not be until June 19. In light of what happened over the weekend, can the minister say whether he has decided to have that meeting updated and called earlier; and if not, why not? Why is it necessary to wait for a fortnight, for example? Does he expect that the U.S. Congress might be forced, as a result of this delay, to ratify the agreement?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of elements in the question. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the Congress from proceeding, nor have we heard anything to the contrary, with ratification of the agreement. I said on Friday, in answer to questions here, that it is more the interpretation of the agreement than a willingness to actually endorse it that is at the root of the present problem. Therefore, it could proceed. Whether or not it will, I cannot anticipate.
On the second question of the time delay between the decision to act as we did on Friday and the first meeting, this was discussed prior to the actual introduction of the measures and the conclusion was that this was, first of all, I think, the
Oral Questions
earliest practical date on which the two negotiators could get together. I might suggest, without going too deeply into it, that it may be useful to let a little time go by before the negotiators get back to the table, so as to perhaps get some evidence of what the public reaction is going to be.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to the ratification procedure in the U.S. If, for example-this might sound hypothetical-the Congress were to ratify the agreement, would the agreement be in effect and would we be going back to the discussions on the long-term agreement; or is it a matter of implementation? I think the House and the country should have clarification on that point.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is not at all hypothetical. There is, I repeat, some possibility that the U.S. Congress might wish to do so, if for no other reason than, for example, there were to be a permanent agreement put into place. As I understand it, there would be an interregnum period during which there would be no mechanism through which the U.S. authorities could act. It is complicated, and I would be glad to have a written answer given to the hon. member's question. If the written agreement were to be ratified by the United States, it would not be our intention, nor that of the United States, I suspect, to go back to negotiating the interpretation of that agreement for the next few months.
It is possible that something might be developed rather quickly, but it is the joint view of both countries that the negotiators should now proceed directly to negotiation of a long-term agreement and they will be concentrating their efforts on that. But if the agreement were in place in the U.S. and if there was a disposition, as a result of the actions of the past weekend, to put an end more formally to any tensions, then of course the means would be there by which it could be done.


TARIFFS ON FISHERY PRODUCTS EXPORTED TO U.S.
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As Senator Kennedy and some of his colleagues in Congress apparently were calling for retaliatory tariffs against the imports of Canadian fishery products into the United States because of this recent impasse, has any word reached the minister's department that such action might be contemplated by the United States which is raising tariffs on Canadian fish exported to the United States?
What steps are being taken to overcome any such threat, particularly considering that 80 per cent of our fishery exports go to the United States, or about $450 million a year? Can the minister let us know about that?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence whatever that the administration in the United States would be in any way disposed to introduce or to contemplate tariffs as part and parcel of this particular disagreement which we are having

JuneS, 1978
Oral Questions
over boundaries. I think they will wish, as we will, to keep it very much on the boundary issue and not to bring in what are essentially extraneous arguments.
However, there is an overhanging action in the United States, of about six months' standing now, under the trade act. This was as a result of action taken by some United States fishing interests on the west coast, but it was related to groundfish. Strong representations have been made to us under that particular action with regard to the subsidies which are now being paid on some east coast catches. There have been discussions on this matter. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, and I are seeking a means through which we can arrange a satisfactory undertaking with the United States which will phase out these particular subsidies but will not invite countervailing in the foreseeable future.


GATT NEGOTIATIONS RESPECTING TARIFFS ON FISHERY PRODUCTS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council, the gentleman who is in charge of the GATT negotiations. Will he tell the House whether the government is taking steps to find other markets for our fish products in case this becomes an issue, in case this threat is made? For example, I am thinking of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce looking for other markets.
In that connection, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what progress is being made at the GATT negotiations, where Canada is supposed to be making special efforts to get tariffs on our fishery products reduced, particularly in the European Common Market which would be a very good market for us if we could get the 15 per cent tariff reduced or eliminated? What action is the government taking so that we will not be caught with our pants down if this threat is made or if this threat is carried out?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the current dispute with the United States on the boundaries, the Canadian delegation at the negotiations in Geneva is pressing forward the Canadian case for greater access, not only for our fishery products but for our agricultural products in the European Community and other markets in which we are interested, including Japan.
We have not yet had the results we would like, not because of any final decision taken by our partners but because the negotiations have not reached the stage where final decisions have been taken and offers have been settled upon. But we are still pressing ahead.


DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. ON FISHERIES AGREEMENT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the influence of members of Congress, both

House and Senate, who are calling for tariff retaliation respecting Canadian fishery products, and the potential they have to succeed not only with the United States Congress but with the United States administration, what steps has the minister or the government taken to meet with these congressmen and senators, at least to sit down and have some useful discussions before we are faced with a resolution of both Houses?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, of course, there have been a number of both formal and informal representations made. Once again, the subject is complex in the sense that the trade act to which I referred enables any aggrieved party to take an action on which the administration must act. That is the situation I was referring to in relation to the question asked by the hon. member for St. John's West.
In connection with representations to congressional leaders, the hon. member's colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, on Friday proposed, or suggested, that a meeting of the Canada-United States parliamentary association might be useful. I believe the chairman of the Canadian section of that association, the hon. member for Gloucester, now is making moves in that direction. I would welcome, for instance, having members of parliament from both sides discuss this matter specifically with the congressmen in question.


FISHERIES
James Aloysius McGrath: 
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In light of the fact that an Ontario provincial police officer has admitted that the force was aware of private investigators having obtained confidential medical information from hospitals and doctors' offices on false pretences, can the Minister of Justice prevail upon his provincial counterparts to crack down on such invasions of privacy of Canadian patients and protect the confidentiality of health records?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as it is within federal jurisdiction, that aspect is being examined by the McDonald commission. In so far as it is within provincial jurisdiction, I think it is a matter which provincial attorneys general have in hand.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council would like to answer it. In addressing the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament, the Prime Minister developed what he called a strategy of suffocation which he illustrated by commenting on the President's farsighted wisdom in the postponement of the decision to produce the neutrom bomb. Also, he expressed the hope that the Soviets would enable this postponement to become indefinite, thereby indicating his lack of support for the production of the neutron bomb.
Apparently a different opinion was expressed before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence by Admiral Falls, Chief of the Defence Staff. In view of these facts, will the appropriate minister state definitely where Canada stands on this question of the neutron bomb? Is it for, or against, in light of the widely held view that the bomb is not only the last word in inhumanity but that militarily the bomb is, at best, dubious and, at worst, dangerous to world peace?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to the hon. member, my very good friend, I am afraid that I really cannot answer without looking at the long preamble to his question. Also, may I suggest to him that I have agreed to appear before the committee this week as a result of discussions in the House last week. Perhaps that would be a more appropriate occasion to give a reasoned answer to what I know is a very important problem. I am not sure if I understood the hon. member's question.
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


DEPLOYMENT OF NEUTRON BOMB-STATEMENT OF CHIEF OF DEFENCE STAFF
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. If I may, in doing so, pass a comment, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have no trouble whatever understanding my question if he looks at it, and I think the House wants an answer on this matter.
My supplementary question is this: Admiral Falls, Chief of the Defence Staff, has made statements of policy before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence with regard to the deployment of the neutron bomb. In view of the fact Canada has not expressed any position on the matter, will the Canadian government or the minister inform Admiral Falls that it is not his task to lay down policy for the Canadian government, but to carry out policies determined by that government?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. gentleman, knowing his sincere interest in matters of this nature, that Admiral Falls did not, indeed, express policy but I think went to great pains-I have read the transcript of the committee meeting-to indicate it was strictly a military opinion and not government policy. It is a military opinion which is held largely, but not unanimously, by military people about this particular weapon.
The hon. gentleman indicated that this was a particularly evil weapon. I agree with him that it is, as are all weapons. I wish the opposition here would consider the evil weapons that are being deployed at an even higher level by those who could potentially be our enemies, as they are far more destructive, in the view of any observer, than is the so-called neutron bomb. Unfortunately, the oppositions in their parliaments do not have a chance to raise this matter.


TOURISM
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss a matter with the minister in respect of fisheries. I understand that the Minister of Fisheries, in reply to the hon. member for New Westminster, clearly indicated to the House and the Canadian people, as well as the tourist industry in Canada, that the federal government had not issued any directives, orders or anything of that kind, and does not plan to do so, banning American tourists from sport fishing in any waters under Canadian jurisdiction.
Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries indicate, because of the great amount of media comment in the United States that is quite to the

June 5, 1978
Oral Questions
contrary, whether the federal government or the Canadian travel bureau, or perhaps together, in consultation with the provinces, will advertise in the United States to assure tourists that they are welcome in Canada and will be able to make full use of our normal sport fishing facilities as in the past?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if the situation were to develop to the point where that kind of ban was necessary, it would be considered. I am very hopeful, however, that within a matter of hours, and certainly within a day or two, that whole question will be resolved.
I have the impression-and it is purely that at the moment-that no one on either side wishes to seriously obstruct the tourist business, least of all we in Canada. I hope that statement on my part, coupled with that of the Minister of Fisheries, will be enough reassurance at the moment. The real answer is to eliminate this particular irritant, and I hope that will be the result.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that comment, which would again indicate that Canadian sport fishing is completely open to tourist fishermen from the United States. Could the minister confirm whether the United States ban on sport fishing is in respect of Great Lakes and salt water fishing for Canadian tourists going to the United States? Would they be prohibited from fishing off Florida, or perhaps even on the other side of Lake Ontario?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is to get answers to exactly that kind of question that our officials are now in touch with the United States. I will venture a speculative answer to the hon. member by saying that as I understand it, it has to do with licensed boats, not with fishermen. In other words, if a Canadian wished to go on a U.S. licensed boat to fish, there is no prohibition or anything of that nature.
As I understand it, neither does it apply to someone going across the border with his fishing pole, wanting to do some fishing. It is pegged squarely on the fishing vessels. There is even some question as to whether it is in respect of commercial fishing vessels or vessels for recreational purposes. These are some of the questions being considered, and I remind the hon. member of the statement of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, that no such restriction is presently in force or is contemplated on our side of the border.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. On May 15, almost three weeks ago, I asked the hon. gentleman if he would look at the restrictions which appear to have been placed on the right of Dr. Alexander Peter Treu in respect of commenting on the matter on which he was tried, convicted and sentenced to two
[Mr. Dick.l
years, during the time he is awaiting appeal. The minister indicated he would look at this and also some other documents, and have them tabled. So far they have not been tabled and I understand they may not be until this fall.
Is the minister prepared to instruct counsel on his behalf to appear before the appeal tribunal or the judge who granted bail, requesting that the bail order be varied to permit Dr. Treu to discuss with myself or any other member of parliament those aspects of the case which appear to us at this time to be repugnant to human rights and natural justice?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there are two points involved. The first concerns tabling the documents. I indicated in the House the other day that I was endeavouring to table those documents which I could. Some of them are impressed with the order of the court that they be secret, and I am considering what application I might make in order to free myself to table them.
In answer to the second part of the question, I have examined the bail conditions involved in public documents, which I will table very quickly. As I read them, Dr. Treu is free, through counsel, to communicate with anyone he wishes. Therefore, if Dr. Treu, through his counsel, wants to raise any matter with the hon. member for Peace River or any other member, he is perfectly free to do so.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, do I, then, understand from the Minister of Justice that it is necessary for myself or any other member to go through counsel and that Dr. Treu is prohibited from discussing personally with myself, or with the minister, for that matter, those aspects of the trial which I have mentioned?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I read the bail conditions, the prohibition on Mr. Treu is that he is not to communicate with anyone in respect of the case except through counsel. Therefore, as I read it, if Mr. Treu wishes to communicate with the hon. member-and I have no evidence that he does-he is free to do so through counsel.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Notice was sent to him earlier this day. President Carter has requested the United States Congress to postpone spending funds for the construction of the Garrison diversion unit until the report on the project by the International Joint Commission can be evaluated and potential modifications considered.
We have received word that if either the Senate or the House of Representatives refuses the request of the President, that government may be obliged to spend the funds appropriated for the construction of the Lonetree reservoir. Because
June 5, 1978

of the urgency of the situation, and the potential damage that a continuation of the construction of the Lonetree reservoir could have on Manitoba waters, would the minister make every effort to alert the United States Congress of Canada's concerns in this matter, making sure that the U.S. Congress is aware of our strong objection to any further construction?
Oral Questions
member that we are doing everything we can to do them justice, as he asks. As I indicated, it is a law issue, and I may contact the Treasury Board to try to get the necessary funds to solve this matter fairly.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The only hazard, as a result, is that 1 have a reply that is much longer than your Honour would permit me to make. I will read one paragraph, however, which I think will answer the question, and then transmit the remainder to the hon. member.
Our ambassador approached the State Department on Friday, under instructions. He reiterated Canada's concern over the potential dangers to Canada of the project as currently authorized, and expressed the hope that any decision taken by the United States government would not be of such a nature as to prejudice intergovernmental consultations on the question, Canadian interests, or the recommendations of the International Joint Commission. I repeat, I will send the remainder of the answer to the hon. member later.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. With reference to the reply of the Postmaster General to my question concerning unfilled, prepaid Olympic coin orders, reported at page 3831 of Hansard, March 16, when he said he thought a way should be found to help those who seem to have been cheated, and to assist them, and in view of the fact that the Olympic coin program will continue until December this year, that a balance of $18 million is being reserved for committed and winding-down costs, that the customer relations group is in the final stages of resolving customer problems, although all cheated customers have not yet received coins, can the minister inform this House whether or not a decision has been made as to how unfilled coin orders are to be handled, especially since some of these orders are in the $500 bracket.


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we are very sympathetic towards those who do not seem to have been dealt with fairly as far as this Olympic program is concerned, but we are actually reviewing the whole question to try and find a way to do them justice, as the hon. member of the opposition requests. This question is exceedingly complex because of the legalities involved and because the Olympic coins corporation has no legal responsibility whatsoever towards its distributors. However, I can assure the hon.


FINANCE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last week the minister indicated that he intends to back down from the sales tax measure that is now before us in the form of Bill C-56 and that, indeed, he has discussed some of the particular changes he is prepared to consider with the government of Quebec.
We now understand that the minister is considering closure to force parliament to approve in principle a bill that the minister intends to amend fundamentally. I wonder if the minister would tell the House how he intends to amend this bill before he uses closure to try to force us to accept it.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will have the motion later on, not for closure but for time allocation. I said there are two possibilities in view of the so-called Ryan formula and what I have in the bill, and both are included in section 30. I can only operate within what is in front of the House already.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a most extraordinary situation, probably-I say this quite sincerely-unparallelled in the use of closure in the whole parliamentary system.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Oh?


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre dissents. I certainly accept his knowledge in the matter and respect it more than the minister's.
What the minister is asking the House of Commons to do is to allow us to be forced to move through quickly, without adequate debate, a bill whose nature might be changed fundamentally. Surely, if he wants to force something through, he has an obligation to the House of Commons to tell us precisely what it is he is trying to shove down our throats.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have already debated this bill for nine days in the House of Commons. The hon. member is always saying that he has an amendment, but he has not laid out any indication of it. I just explained to the hon. member some lessons in procedure-that, first, time allocation is not closure. Perhaps he should talk to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who will give him a little lesson. We are doing nothing that is not included in the bill so far.


Charles Joseph Clark: To clarify this matter, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Finance tell the House, absolutely clearly, without any kind of equivocation, precisely what he intends to have the
6044

June 5, 1978
Oral Questions
House of Commons adopt; how he intends to amend Bill C-56, not giving us a choice of possible amendments, but telling us the amendment he intends, precisely, before he uses a form of closure to force that bill through the House of Commons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the best way to know will be for us to vote right away on second reading today and go right away, with the consent of the House, to clause 30. Then the hon. member will know.


SALE OF URANIUM BY CROWN CORPORATION-APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT SAFEGUARDS
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recently, a new company was established, Eldor Resources Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and was authorized by the federal cabinet to borrow four million pounds of uranium from another federal Crown corporation, Uranium Canada. Eldor was authorized to borrow up to four million pounds of uranium and to sell the uranium, which was to be replaced from the Key Lake project in Saskatchewan, by the year 2010.
Is it the intention of the minister to have the right to set the price and have a guarantee by the recipient country that all the safeguards are in place before approval is given to Eldor Resources Limited to sell?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I dealt with this question last week before the standing committee. If the hon. member would look over the transcript, he might find answers to some of the questions he has put. Generally speaking, this was a conditional agreement on the part of the federal government. It was conditional on the deal going through, which in turn is conditional upon the Bayda commission and the actions of the Saskatchewan government being conducive to the development of the Key Lake property.
It is also the kind of deal which I think hon. members would applaud, because it turns a non-revenue producing asset, that is to say, the stockpile of UCAN, into a revenue-producing asset.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What safeguards is the minister putting on the borrowing by a government corporation or private enterprise for Uranium Canada of uranium stock in a similar manner, to protect the rights of workers who may find the company using this borrowing to supply their customers during the period of a labour dispute? What protection is he providing against that eventuality?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it is not anticipated that any labour dispute will be involved in this question. The safeguard issue is addressed by government policy. There would be no

export by Eldorado, for example, to foreign customers of Canadian uranium unless that customer fully met Canadian safeguards policy and the contract fully met Canadian exporting policy.


PUBLIC WORKS
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Public Works, but I see he is not in the House so I shall address it to the government House leader. The question concerns a statement reported today and attributed to Douglas Fullerton, the former chairman of the National Capital Commission, that the project Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere proceeded to tender without the usual competitive matters on development of land under federal policy and that it proceeded on the basis that someone had an "in" with the Liberal party, that someone being Campeau, the developer of Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere. This charge has been around for some time: the former chairman of the National Capital Commission has made it publicly outside this House of Commons.
In face of this authoritative statement, will the government House leader arrange to have a public inquiry with respect to this matter, which is long overdue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr. Fullerton stated the decision had been taken against the advice of the public service. That often happens, and will continue to happen. I am not aware that Mr. Fullerton has stated that the contract was awarded because Mr. Campeau had an "in" with the Liberal party. Mr. Fullerton is not an authority on the Liberal party, and I suggest his comments are quite unjustified.


REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Minister of Public Works. The comment of Mr. Fullerton with respect to the matter, as reported in today's Ottawa Citizen, is as follows:
I have found that Mr. Campeau with his first-class political connections is a very persuasive fellow.
It has been common knowledge that, contrary to the advice of the public service, contrary to ordinary tender practices, contrary to a host of other things, this matter has proceeded. If the ministry will not agree to a public inquiry, will they agree to a reference of this whole matter to a standing committee of the House of Commons? As another approach, would the minister arrange to call in Mr. Fullerton to discuss with him the series of comments he has made as reported in the public press today, so that if the government has a case with respect to respectability in the matter, that case can be laid to rest?
June 5, 1978


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to discuss the matter with Mr. Fullerton. Let us make it clear, however, that there were reasons why this arrangement was entered into. The land in question was partially owned by Mr. Campeau's corporation. The question really is, are you going to expropriate the land of a developer and then offer it to other developers? There was some question of ethics involved in the matter as well, since he owned part of the land which is in play and which is, in fact, being used for this development.
The matter was looked at extremely carefully when I first entered this portfolio. We compared it with the possibility of a Crown construction as opposed to a lease-purchase arrangement. We were satisfied that it was a judgment call and it was, in fact, a reasonable decision to take.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there has been an undertaking, now, by the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology that he will call in the former chairman of the National Capital Commission, generally speaking. Can I have an undertaking from the minister that he will arrange for that meeting forthwith, and that if Mr. Fullerton is available the meeting will be held some time this week; and will the minister report to the House thereon?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to arrange to get together with Mr. Fullerton just as soon as it is convenient for both of us.


POINT OF ORDER
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because of what happened last week in the fisheries area. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and the Environment was not one of those which was included last week in the statement made by the government House leader to extend the life of certain standing committees so that they might examine estimates. Can the government House leader see his way clear to providing a reference for that particular committee to meet? I do not know the exact wording, but I suggest something along the following lines: "To examine the implications of the decision to suspend the implementation of the 1978 Interim Reciprocity Agreement on Fisheries and Boundary Delineation" so that we can have several meetings to explore this whole matter and clarify it for everyone.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the relevant committee has already spoken to me about the desira-
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
bility of providing such a reference. That is quite agreeable to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). Just as soon as the motion is ready, I will be pleased to put it before the House so that the committee can meet at an early date.

[ Translation]


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment shortly on the question of privilege raised last week by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). You have allowed me to wait until today to verify the French text of Judge May-rand's statement. With your permission, I would be prepared to make a few comments.
As regards parliamentary procedure in this matter, the question consists in deciding whether, at first sight, the facts relating to the request of the hon. member for Peace River allow us to believe there was interference with the privileges of that hon. member or with those of all hon. members and whether, consequently, the Speaker must ask the House to refer the matter to the appropriate committee of the House, that is the Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members. It is therefore important, Mr. Speaker, to scrutinize the facts which resulted from statements made in the House by the hon. member for Peace River as well as from Judge Mayrand's alleged statement.
Let us note first of all the discrepancy which you indicated during last Thursday's debate when you said that the original document in French indicated that "some members of parliament s'etaient permis of questioning ...", which means "have allowed themselves to" and which was rendered by "have taken the liberty to". There is of course a significant difference which indicates that the tone of the statement made by Judge Mayrand was a lot more sober than that which the translation implies.
Mr. Speaker, while reading the original text of the judge's statement, I noticed a major difference between the French and English versions in connection with the following basic fact: in the French text, it seems that the lawyers had agreed to this trial and preliminary hearing in camera, while the English version does not give this impression at all. In the French version, in the third paragraph before the end of the statement purportedly made by Judge Mayrand, and which is appended to Hansard for Thursday, June 1, 1978, it is said, and I quote:
Le depute Baldwin n'a pas a s'eriger en Cour d'appel pour etudier la conduite du juge presidant le proces, d'autant plus qu'il esl dans la plus complete
80045-16%

June 5, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
ignorance des fails mis en preuve et du consentement des avocats, tanl de la defense que de la poursuite, a ce que le proces se deroule a huis clos, comme le fut I'enquete preliminaire.
That clearly means, Mr. Speaker, that there was-and it is contained in the judge's statement-consent from Mr. Treu's lawyer to have the preliminary hearing and the trial held in camera. If you read the English version of that statement, it does not say at all that there was consent from the lawyers to have the trial held in camera. Here is what the English version says, and I quote:

-since he is totally ignorant of the facts presented as evidence and of the consent of the lawyers, both for the defence and for the prosecution, since the trial as well as the preliminary hearing were held in camera.
It should have said:
-and the consent of the lawyers-to the effect that the trial be held in camera. [Translation]
Now, the translation was extremely poor and did absolutely not convey the meaning of the French text which proves a fundamental fact, namely that the lawyer for Mr. Treu himself agreed that the trial be held in camera. Now, what the hon. member for Peace River in his motions under Standing Order 43 of May 12 and May 23, and his question of privilege, complains about is precisely the secret nature of the trial; he expresses doubts about the fashion in which the judge may have presided over that trial; when the hon. member for Peace River, on May 12, in his motion under Standing Order 43 says " .. . that judicial and bureaucratic officials shall not make improper or unexpected use of laws enacted by parliament", when he says in the same motion that "the committee be required to consider the provisions of the Official Secrets Act which permit this kind of Star Chamber proceedings"; and when the hon. member for Peace River, still under Standing Order 43, but on May 23 this time, refers to a motion of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who deplores the procedure followed for some trials in the U.S.S.R., which violate the principles of natural justice and the rules observed by Canadian courts of justice, and the fact that the hon. member for Peace River uses that motion to say, and I quote:
That this House deplores the dangerous form of secret trial and the continuing restrictions involved in the case of Alexander Peter Treu which are contrary to the usual practice of Canadian justice.
I have the conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Peace River, with all his experience as a lawyer and parliamentarian, could not have made those statements had he known that Mr. Treu's lawyer had agreed to both the preliminary hearing and the trial being held in camera, which can be deduced from the statement issued by Judge Mayrand, and I cannot blame the hon. member for Peace River for not having understood it, since the translation of that part of Judge Mayrand is very poor.
[Mr. Pinard.l
Well, those facts I just summed up and which are alleged by the hon. member for Peace River are exactly reproduced in the statement made by Mr. Justice Mayrand, who merely criticize the way in which the trial has been conducted, and here I quote Mr. Justice Mayrand:
Some members of parliament, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, have taken the liberty of questioning and criticizing the way in which the trial was conducted before Justice Luc Trudel of the sessions court.
There is nothing reprehensible in this fact, Mr. Speaker; it simply confirms the remarks made previously in the House by the hon. member for Peace River.
There is a second fact in Judge Mayrand's statement. It says: "Mr. Gerald Baldwin, M.P., . .. was wondering whether the law had not been well understood or had been wrongfully applied by the judges." Once again, it merely reflects the facts, it reflects the very words of the hon. member for Peace River.
Finally, the judge said that the hon. member for Peace River, and I quote,
... should not pose as an Appeal Court to study the conduct of the Judge of this trial, especially since he is totally ignorant of the facts presented as evidence and of the consent of the lawyers,. . . since the trial was held in camera.
Mr. Speaker, those facts do not in themselves constitute prima facie evidence that allows you to conclude that the privileges of hon. members or the privileges of this House were affected or are in any way jeopardized. Those facts merely reflect reality, they only state things as they are, and judge the attitude of the hon. member according to his statements in the House.
That being the fact, one must also ask oneself, Mr. Speaker, if the principles contained in the judge's statement lend themselves to a question of privilege. Now, there are two of these principles which are unequivocal and which, I believe, contain nothing irregular or reprehensible. The first principle set out by the judge is as follows, and I quote:
Although it is admissible to make comments about a judicial decision and to disagree with the Official Secrets Act or with the fact that authorities do not use the notion of national security with enough reservation, the judge himself cannot be blamed for his obligation is to apply such a law.
That is the first of the two principles set out by the judge in his statement. It is a principle that is absolutely true, there is nothing wrong to that and it does not in any way interfere with the privileges of the hon. member.
The second and last principle set out by the judge in his statement is as follows, and I quote:
In any circumstances, public interest and the preservation of individual liberties demand that we strictly adhere to the principle of separation of the three powers, that is the executive, the legislative and the judiciary; each citizen must respect their rights and privileges and especially those who hold a position with great responsibilities as is the case for a Member of Parliament.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, this is a very valid principle which does not in any way interfere with the privileges of the hon. member and those of the House.
June 5, 1978

What I just summed up are the main facts contained in the statement purportedly made by Judge Mayrand and what 1 just summed up, in addition to the fact, are the principles set out by Judge Mayrand in the same statement and in both cases-the facts and the principles-one realizes obviously that they do not interfere in any way with the privileges of this House.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, the issue remains whether in its form that statement interferes with or could be a threat to the privileges or the rights of the hon. member for Peace River or, generally speaking, hon. members of this House. In that respect, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to three sentences contained in Erskine May and I want here to refer to that allegation made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre last Thursday, as reported at page 5956 of Hansard, where he refers first to May's nineteenth edition, page 150, as follows:
To attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing in Judge May-rand's comments that is a real threat to the hon. member's privileges or rights. There is no threat of steps to be taken against the hon. member, there is no threat that the judge adopt any behaviour or take any measure to limit the privileges or the rights of the hon. member or of members of this House.
So this fine principle of Erskine May could not be applied here because the facts do not justify it. Nor do the other two fine principles of Erskine May at pages 151 and 153, as referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The second principle was, and I quote:
It is a breach of privilege to molest any member of either House on account of his conduct in Parliament.
What molestation is there in this statement by Judge Mayrand? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no molestation involved.
And the third principle raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, still based on Erskine May, was, and I quote:
Wilful misrepresentation of the proceedings of members is an offence of the same character as a libel.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the facts contained in this statement as well as the principles and their form do not constitute in any way a wilful misrepresentation of the proceedings of members of this House.
These worthy principles which do not have any reference to the facts contained in the statement of Judge Mayrand cannot be applied here and give ground to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River. On the contrary, the only passages which might be interpreted as indicating to that member a line of conduct, these only passages, I repeat,
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
are literally reverential. You just have to take a look at what is suggested by the judge: First he says
We respectfully advise him to content himself with doing his own work,-
And the second passage where the judge might be interpreted as giving a piece of advice to the hon. member is, and I quote:
It seems to us that it would be preferable to leave to the courts the delicate task of drawing the line between the rights of the individual and the rights of a nation in the application of the law.
So when the hon. member is respectfully being advised about something and when the judge says:
It seems to us that it would be preferable ...
I respectfully submit this was suggested in a reverent fashion, to say the least, and there is nothing in the nature of a threat to the hon. member, neither in the comments nor in the form of the statement by Judge Mayrand.
Mr. Speaker, I would note further that this is neither a judgment nor an order, but a mere comment, a mere criticism. Since there is nothing in the statement made by the sessions court deputy chief judge, either in fact, in principle or in form, that might be considered even a beginning of an infringement on our privileges, it would be surprising if the title or function of the originator justified the proposal made by the hon. member for Peace River. Whether he is a judge or a private citizen, because this has been raised, is not relevant in the circumstances. And therefore the distinction made by certain speakers, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, for the reason that a judge may or might hold the hon. member for Peace River for contempt is groundless. The hon. member for Peace River has enjoyed and still enjoys parliamentary immunity. Therefore, the danger that some high-tempered member of parliament be held in contempt by a judge he criticized is no greater than that of his being sprayed with water by some fireman he might criticize. Whether it be a judge or a fireman, or anyone for that matter that the hon. member may criticize under his parliamentary immunity, there is absolutely no danger for the member.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the judge's statement is neither a judgment nor an order, but a mere comment included in a release. It is not even an obiter dictum in the body of a judicial decision. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, may I refer to a decision made by yourself on December 5, 1977, in the matter of a judgment by Mr. Justice Evans, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario, on the motion by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the portions of the judgment of Chief Justice Evans of the Supreme Court of Ontario, given November 9, 1977, which appear to restrict the right of members of parliament to full and accurate reporting in the press, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Speaker, you stated in your ruling, and I quote very briefly from that decision on page 1541 of Hansard for December 5, 1977:

June 5, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
I understand the reasoning of the Chief Justice in having to do so, and in the generalized way in which he dealt with matters outside Parliament. In my opinion, he created no addition to the law which in any way lessens the privileges of members of this House.
Finally, even if he had done so, his pronouncement is obiter dicta clearly, by any understanding of any lawyer who examines his reasoning and is entirely theoretical in nature.
Mr. Speaker, may I remind the House of the merits of your own remarks which were made before the House last Thursday, as shown at page 5953 of Hansard, and I understand that it was not a formal decision, but I want to conclude with the following remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I quote:
Of course my obligation may be to find whether the matter does in fact come within the strict and classic definition of privilege that we have followed in the past, whether there has been an affront or contempt of parliament, or whether there has been a molestation or interference in some way with the hon. member in carrying out his duty.
And you added further, and I quote:
... and since language has often been set aside as an actual molestation and interference, and since obviously the hon. member and other hon. members are not in the slightest intimidated in their desire to pursue this matter, by whatever language was used ...
... but it may be difficult to fit them into the specific and classic definition of privilege...
Finally, I would to remind the limit of our privileges as it is very clearly prescribed in the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliament Rules and Forms, page 94, and I quote:
... the only privilege remaining to members beyond the walls of St. Stephen's were freedom from arrest, assault, insult or menace in their coming and going from the House, and inviolability, so far as the outside world was concerned, for their utterances within the Chamber; and these are the only privileges enjoyed to-day by the Canadian Parliament under section 18 of the B.N.A Act...
Therefore, if under the cover of parliamentary immunity a member of parliament can say anything or almost anything without running the risk of being sued, we cannot extend the present scope of our privileges to the censorship of what has been said by people from outside who comment honestly on the use which has been made of these privileges. As to knowing, Mr. Speaker, whether the statement issued by Judge Mayrand was timely or not, and whether judges should make declarations at all on highly political questions, to debate this matter here would not help whatsoever in solving the question of determining the privileges of hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The discussion on this matter is closed. I would not want to recognize other hon. members whose intention it might be to get into the argument on the general question of privilege. However, a somewhat unusual situation arises here in that the foundation for the question of privilege was a text, the best one available to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). He attempted to get a rapid translation of it; he admitted the translation was not necessarily an official translation, but it was the best he could obtain in the circumstances. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) asked for an opportunity to examine the
[Mr. Pinard.l
original French text and to make his argument after he had done so, which was only reasonable.
I am not disposed to hear further argument, but I will hear the hon. member for Peace River in these circumstances if he has anything to add with respect only to the text. I will then take the matter under reserve and try to render a decision either tomorrow or Wednesday.


Gerald William Baldwin: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I should not comment on the views expressed by the parliamentary secretary; they will be the subject of discussion if we ever get into a committee or further consideration of the issue. I would, however, compliment him on his ingenuity in rewriting the words of the learned Acting Chief Judge. Now that the Acting Chief Judge is in Greece he may have had a chance to consult the oracle and wish he had written what the learned parliamentary secretary has suggested he did write.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Be that as it may, I have now had an opportunity to read the French. Judge Mayrand did ultimately comply with his undertaking, and I had an opportunity this morning to see the French text which came in very good form. I sent a copy to Your Honour which you should have by now. I have consulted those in my party who are experts in French-


Mr. Blais:: That would not take very long!


Gerald William Baldwin: The Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) says that would not take long. Well, it wouldn't take very long for him to tell us what his knowledge of justice is in this House.


An hon. Member:: Or law!


Gerald William Baldwin: Or law. I would make this point to Your Honour-it will not take me more than a few seconds to do so. Go to the deep wellsprings of the law of privilege which, of course, is the Bill of Rights of 1688. There, it is very simple. The freedom of speech of members of parliament in debates and proceedings of parliament "shall not be impeached or questioned." I draw attention to the words "or questioned".
I have read the French text as well. It is not all that different in what I consider to be the offensive parts of the English text which was tabled by agreement, and which Your Honour ordered to be appended to Hansard, I think it was June 1. I suggest that any ordinary individual with knowledge of the rights of parliament could not but say that it falls within the four corners of the statement of Judge Mayrand. He has, in fact, questioned my right to speak in this House. That is what I complain of.


POINT OF ORDER
Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,
I rose about a week ago on a point of order to request guidance from the Chair in regard to the manner in which members of this House are recognized during the question period.
June 5, 1978

I did so at that time because it was almost two months since I had been recognized for a question, and like many other members who do not sit on the front benches we are forced to indulge in the use of motions under Standing Order 43, points of order, questions of privilege and so on, in order to get our views before the House.
It is now two months today since 1 was last recognized by the Chair for a question, if my records are correct. If that date is wrong, I stand to be corrected, but I think it is not very far out. I would ask guidance of the Chair because-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I have a right to finish my point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not raising a point of order. The day after he raised this point the last time, he was in the House and was not seeking to be recognized. Since that time he has not been here. Or, if he has been here, he has not attempted to be recognized.
I am very conscientious in trying to share the question period equally. But I have no intention, regardless of how that distribution may work out on any given day, of accepting, by way of a point of order from any member who is not able to be recognized, questions with regard to it. I will be glad to send to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) the list which I carefully maintain each day of the name of every one of his colleagues who is not able to be recognized-some of them are sitting around him right now; they were not able to be recognized yesterday or the day before. I carefully keep track of those who endeavour to be recognized and, when they are not recognized on any one day, I do everything to ensure they are recognized the following day, if they are here and if they are seeking the floor.
If the hon. member for Leeds wants to discuss this further in private I would be glad to show to him his own record of attendance and his own record of effort to be recognized, and he will have the opportunity to compare that record with the remarks he has made. However, I have no intention of allowing a point of order every time an hon. member cannot share in the question period. To do so, in my opinion, would grossly and unfairly hold up the proceedings of the House on matters over which the Chair has absolutely no control. I do not propose to hear further from the hon. member on this point, but if he wishes to discuss the matter privately I am prepared to do this with him.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The tabling of documents.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Business of the House



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table, in both official languages, two copies of a document entitled Canada-Ontario Radioactive Waste Management Program, and a supporting background document.


FISHERIES
Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I wish to table a note received from the Department of State of the United States on the 1978 interim reciprocal fisheries agreement.

[ Translation]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 75C, I wish to advise the House that the representatives of parties have been unable to reach agreement under Standing Order 75A or 75B on the allotment of time on second reading of Bill C-56, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions.

Therefore I wish to give notice that the minister will move, at the next sitting of the House, that one additional day be allocated to the second reading stage of the said bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hurray!


An hon. Member:: One day!


Walter David Baker: Unprecedented!


FISHERIES AND FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
1978 CANADA-UNITED STATES INTERIM AGREEMENT ON FISHERIES-REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like the

June 5, 1978
Order Paper Questions
consent of the House to move a motion authorizing the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to hold two meetings this week on the interim fisheries agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: I would certainly give my agreement on condition that, should developments occur which would warrant more than two meetings, further meetings could be held. We have just heard we are to have one more day for the debate on Bill C-56. Now we are to be allowed just two meetings of the fisheries committee to deal with a most important matter. If circumstances warrant, I do hope that there will be flexibility on the government side too.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give its consent for the presentation of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be authorized to hold not more than two meetings on Tuesday, June 6, and Thursday, June 8, 1978, to hear witnesses on the subject of the 1978 United States-Canada interim agreement on fisheries.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,309 to 1,313 inclusive, and 1,482.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On July 1, 1867, was Canada in debt and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what did the debt consist of (c) who were the creditors?
2.	What percentage of the Budget was appropriated to the service of the debt?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. As at July 1, 1867 the total liabilities of the federal government amounted to $93 million, the excess of liabilities over recorded assets amounted to $75.7 million. The first Public Accounts statement was for fiscal year ending June 30, 1868, at which time the debt consisted mainly of debentures of Canada and the provinces. The distribution of the debt outstanding is not available through the Public Accounts of Canada.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On March 31, 1914, was Canada in debt and, if so (a) in what amount (b) who were the creditors?
2.	What was the amount owing to (a) chartered banks (b) taxpayers?
3.	What percentage of the budget was appropriated to the debt?


Edward C. Lumley: 1. As of March 31, 1914 the total liabilities of the federal government amounted to $544.4 million, the excess of liabilities over recorded assets amounted to $336.0 million. The distribution of the debt outstanding is not available through the Public Accounts of Canada.
2.	As noted above distribution of the debt outstanding is not available through the Public Accounts of Canada.
3.	Gross public debt charges for fiscal year ending March 31, 1914 were equal to 7.0 per cent of budgetary expenditures, public debt charges net of return on investments were equal to 5.9 per cent of budgetary expenditures.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On March 31, 1939, was Canada in debt and, if so (a) in what amount (b) who were the creditors (c) what was the average interest rate?
2.	What percentage of the budget was appropriated to the debt?


Edward C. Lumley: 1. As at March 31, 1939 the total liabilities of the federal government amounted to $3,711 million, the excess of liabilities over recorded assets amounted to $3,153 million. The distribution of the debt outstanding is not available through the Public Accounts of Canada. The average interest rate on the unmatured debt was 3.52 per cent.
2. Public debt charges for fiscal year ending March 31, 1939 were equal to 24.1 per cent of budgetary expenditures.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On March 31, 1968, was Canada in debt and, if so (a) in what amount (b) to whom (c) what was the average interest rate?
2.	What percentage of the debt was owed to (a) taxpayers (b) chartered banks?
3.	What percentage of the estimates was allocated to the debt?


Edward C. Lumley: 1. As at March 31, 1968 the total liabilities of the federal government amounted to $32,924 million, the excess of liabilities over recorded assets amounted to $16,760 million. The average interest rate on the unmatured debt was 5.06 per cent.
2. The distribution of the debt outstanding is not available through the Public Accounts of Canada. However, the Bank of Canada Monthly Review (table 21) shows the following distribution of Government of Canada direct and guaranteed securities as of the end of 1967 and 1968:
Distribution of Holdings
Bank of	Chartered	General Public (Estimated)	Canada	Banks	Residents	Non-Residents($ Millions)	3,807	4,630	12,065	6953,942	5,573	12,099	958
June 5, 1978

3. Gross public debt charges for fiscal year ending March 31, 1968 were equal to 12.9 per cent of budgetary expenditures, public debt charges net of return on investments were equal to 6.7 per cent of budgetary expenditures.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	On March 31, 1977, was Canada in debt and, if so (a) in what amount (b) to whom (c) what was the average interest rate?
2.	What percentage of the debt was owed to (a) taxpayers (b) chartered banks?
3.	What percentage of the estimates was allocated to the debt?


Edward C. Lumley: 1. As at March 31, 1977 the total liabilities of the federal government amounted to $67,075 million, the excess of liabilities over recorded assets amounted to $29,586 million. The average interest rate on the unmatured debt was 7.53 per cent.
2. The distribution of the debt outstanding is not available through the Public Accounts of Canada. However, the Bank of Canada Monthly Review (Table 21) shows the following distribution of Government of Canada direct and guaranteed securities as of March 31, 1977:
($ Millions)
Bank of Canada	8,665
Chartered Banks	8,603
General Public (Estimated)
Residents	22,670
Non-Residents	2,293
3. Gross public debt charges for fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 were equal to 12.1 per cent of budgetary expenditures, public debt charges net of return on investments were equal to 5.7 per cent of budgetary expenditures.


Mr. Howie: Did the government make any payments to the province of New Brunswick for second language training of federal public servants and, if so, what was the amount?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: The Public Service Commission has up to now reimbursed the province of New Brunswick in the amount of $202,737.70 for the period between April 1, 1977 to February 28, 1978, for second language training of federal public servants under the terms of the existing contract, which was due to expire on March 31, 1978. The above sum is for services rendered between April, 1977 and February, 1978. Still to come under the same contract which has now been extended from March 31, 1978 to June 30, 1978, will be an estimated amount of $88,000 for the four months remaining (i.e. March, April, May and June, 1978).
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) attempted to get the floor on a question of privilege. He was not recognized by the Chair. That may have been in some anticipation of what the hon. member for Leeds intended to raise but, as I understand it, a member is entitled to rise on what he believes is a question of privilege. It is, of course, the responsibility of the Chair to say to the hon. member that what he raises is not a question of privilege or that he is mistaken, but I hope we are not adopting the practice of anticipating questions of privilege.
I merely rise to support the right of any hon. member-and I would do so whether it was the hon. member for Leeds or anyone else-to raise a question of privilege, even if it might be regarded in the eyes of some as a frivolous question of privilege. An hon. member still has the right, as I have always understood the rules-and I could be wrong-to raise a question of privilege, and this takes precedence over other matters. I merely want to raise this matter as a caveat. I suppose that is the best way to put it, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I made the assumption from the chair that the question of privilege to be raised by the hon. member was directly connected with his point of order, which I said was not a point of order. If I am mistaken in that, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) is welcome to the floor now.


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to do anything which would go beyond the rules of the House in raising a question of privilege. I intended to say that I felt that one aspect of this matter was a question of privilege, namely, that if my right to ask questions in the House is being

June 5, 1978
Business of the House
interfered with, my privileges are being interfered with. I therefore accept Your Honour's suggestion that we confer on the matter but not having been permitted a question in the House for two months, I feel that that in some way reflects on my privileges as a member of parliament and makes me wonder what purpose might be served by continuing in this place if the attitude of the Chair continues to be exercised against me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is going to discuss the matter, he must put it on an accurate basis. To describe it accurately, what he should indicate is that on a number of occasions during whatever period it is in which he may have been in the House and attempting to be recognized, he was not. That is quite different from failing to be recognized for a two-month period. However, I keep a very careful record. When a member attempts to be recognized I carry it forward, and on a day on which a member who has for the second time not been recognized, under almost any circumstances and being given precedence over any of his colleagues, he is given the floor at some time or another during the question period. That is within certain limitations, of course, depending on the subject matter on any day.
However, the hon. member will want to address himself to the situation, for example, which arose today toward the end of the question period when, although the hon. member might have been scheduled for recognition toward the end of the question period, his leader and his House leader sought the floor. That is a situation which arises quite frequently. I do not say that in any prejudicial way, obviously, but when that happens, it is not easy to carry on with a plan I may have set out at the original part of the question period.
A priority must obviously be accorded to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and to the hon. member's House leader. I think that is only appropriate. Therefore, the mix between those who have been endeavouring to get recognized can be complicated when, on a day on which one who had been attempting to get recognized on a previous day is scheduled for recognition, something like that happens at the end of the question period.
In addition, I can say that some of the hon. member's colleagues who were recognized today were attempting to get recognized, yesterday or the day before, and that is a list which I do keep. Certainly the hon. member last day, which was Friday, was not among those who were here and endeavouring to get recognized. That is a factor which ought to be noted. I am prepared to discuss that with any hon. member at any time privately, as I think it ought to be done.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the main order of the day, I should like to indicate that there have been some discussions amongst the parties about speaking time today. In view of the fact that we

have lost some time already and that many hon. members would like to take part in the debate, I believe Your Honour will find that there is agreement amongst all parties that no one should ask for or be given any extended time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
BUSINESS OF SUPPLY ALLOTTED DAY S.O. 58-MOVEMENT OF GRAIN Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to expand Canada's capacity to move grain to export position thereby jeopardizing the Canadian Wheat Board's ability to compete successfully for expanding grain sales opportunities, and has failed to implement fully the major recommendations of the Hall commission report, and this House therefore calls on the government to take the following action:
{a) to implement the Hall commission recommendations to maintain the statutory grain rates for producers and pay directly to the railroads the actual difference between statutory and compensatory rates for grain transport;
(b)	to implement the Hall commission recommendations on economic development by extending the statutory freight rate to other commodities in the prairies and to other regions;
(c)	to require the railways to purchase four thousand hopper cars and to repair and return a minimum of five thousand box cars to grain movement;
(d)	to reimburse the Canadian Wheat Board for costs of demurrage charges on ships delayed in loading through no fault of the producers or grain companies;
(e)	to increase immediately and substantially the amount of grain to be moved through the ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill; and
(/) to strengthen the principles of orderly marketing by returning the marketing of feed grains to the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to include as well the marketing of flax, rye and rapeseed under the said board.
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will recall that proceedings on this motion will expire at the ordinary hour of adjournment later this day, in accordance with Standing Order 58(11).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to make this motion an all-encompassing one. Your Honour probably realized that when reading it. I will not belabour the House with that again. However, I want to deal with the motion section by section. I want to begin by saying, for the benefit of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, that all sides of this House have always approved of the acquisition of hopper cars. It has received the support not just of members of parliament but also of grain organizations, grain producers and, I think, the public generally.
We recognize and applaud the amount of grain that is being moved, and that we may obtain a record grain movement, or close to it, this year. We say thank you. We will even give some credit to the minister. I hope he will not use up any time in his speech repeating what he has been saying to us in this House ad nauseam, and what we already know.
June 5, 1978

I want the minister and the government to address themselves, in spite of the fact that the taxpayers of Canada have provided 8,000 hopper cars since 1972, to the fact that our capacity to move grain by rail is less now than it was prior to the time we started providing hopper cars for the railroads.
The Minister of Transport, the government, this House, and the people of Canada have been misused and abused by the two national railway companies. In 1972 there were in excess of 26,000 railway cars available for grain movement. Since then we have provided 8,000 hopper cars, which is equivalent to 12,000 boxcars in grain movement; while the railways have taken 13,000 cars out of grain service; half of what there was in 1972. In other words, our capacity for moving grain by rail is not only no greater than what it was before we started supplying hopper cars but, I submit, our capacity is reduced. We have not increased the capacity of the grain handling system so far as rail transportation is concerned. We have not increased it to meet the expanded grain export objectives that the minister wants, the Wheat Board wants, and all of us want.
Why is there a backlog of 17 ships waiting to be loaded in Vancouver again this week? There is certainly no bottleneck in our country elevator system, and certainly our efficient farmers cannot be blamed for it. There is certainly no backlog in terms of the job which the Canadian Wheat Board is doing. It is doing the best job it can possibly do in the circumstances under which it has to operate, and the farmer-owned grain terminals are doing the best job they can, particularly on the west coast. In fact, west coast terminals could handle more grain to fill the boats than they are getting if the railroads were not dragging their feet.
I am sure the minister will tell us of the number of cars loaded and unloaded at Vancouver in March, April, and May. These are pretty good figures, but all they are doing is making up what they did not get done in November, December, January, and February. There are not enough railway cars to move the grain that we need in order to reduce, if not eliminate, the amount of time the ships wait in the ports. I do not suppose we could ever totally eliminate the waiting, but we could certainly substantially reduce it, this in spite of the fact that the taxpayers have provided the railways with 8,000 hopper cars.
As the federal government buys hopper cars for grain movement, the railways phase out their boxcars, so our capacity to move grain has not increased. We have "been had" by our two major railways, one publicly owned and one privately owned, and they are both guilty.
I will give you the exact figures, Mr. Speaker. Over 26,000 cars were available for grain movement at the end of 1972. By April of this year the number dropped to 15,200. By July 1 it will drop even further to 13,319 as a result of more cars which the railroads will remove from the grain service, which they are doing right at this moment.
Grain
By the end of this year the number of boxcars which the railroads have will be reduced to 12,083, and the projection of the railroads is that by 1981 they will only have 6,000 boxcars in grain movement. That might be a good deal for the railroads, but it is no bargain for the taxpayers, no bargain for the farmers, and certainly no bargain for the people who wish to buy our grain. What we need is a lot more control over the railroads to require them to provide adequate service.
The railroads cannot justify this, and I hope the minister will agree, because not only am I saying it but so are others outside of this place. The railways cannot justify refusing to supply adequate service to the grain industry because they claim to lose money on hauling grain. They, as utilities, are expected to provide service to all customers and to make money on an over-all basis. The valuable concessions and the large amounts of money, including the land grants that were given to the railroads at the beginning and the funds that have been given to them since then, are in exchange for the obligation that the railroads have to maintain sufficient rolling stock and locomotive power to meet the requirements of transportation in this country.
I hope the minister will not again try to make the excuse for the railroads that, because they are losing money on the movement of grain, they evade an obligation which they have to this country. It is not an excuse that we or anyone else can accept. We have provided tax write-off improvements in the last budget for the railroads, an additional 6 per cent on their rolling stock so that they can increase the amount of rolling stock they have.
What do the railroads do? Canadian Pacific Limited can spend $20 million on buying Syracuse China Corporation, in Syracuse, New York. Why did the minister or somebody else not direct them to put that $20 million into the purchase of more rolling stock? According to CPR's own statement, they are going to spend $50 million repairing 6,000 railway cars, but none of those cars are for grain movement. The minister is aware of this as much as I am or anyone else is.
I want to say that this does not apply to grain cars only. This is not a new problem. In 1947 there was a shortage of railway cars to move grain, but there was also, and there is still now, a shortage of stock cars. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) can tell you about that. The problem is chronic and continuous. In fact, when I attempted to move a motion under Standing Order 26, in ruling out the motion you said, Mr. Speaker, that the situation was chronic rather than acute, and you were perfectly right, sir.
Every year there are not enough cars to move potatoes out of the Atlantic provinces, not enough cars to move lumber out of British Columbia or northern Ontario, not enough stock cars to move livestock, and, most of all, not enough cars to move grain.
We say in our motion that the government has failed to expand Canada's capacity to move grain to export position, and while I recognize the contribution that the government and the people of Canada have made in their efforts to increase that capacity, it has been subverted and nullified by

June 5, 1978
Grain
the actions of the railways, because the minister and his government have failed to prevent the railroads from taking the wrong actions, and the minister and the government have thereby failed to expand our capacity, and that jeopardizes the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to compete successfully and to expand our grain sales opportunities.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is predicting that China in particular, and possibly the Soviet Union, will want additional grain over and above their present contracts, and the U.S. questions Canada's capacity to apply for, and successfully get, additional contracts because of the record of our railroads in the movement of grain.
We say in our motion that the minister and the government have failed to implement fully the major recommendations of the Hall commission report. I hate to say this because I do not mean it personally about the minister, but he is giving failure a bad name. If he will act upon the six items that we list in our motion, and if he will act on two or three others that I know my colleagues in my party and my colleagues to my right in the official opposition will point out, he will have the full support of this House. It will cost money, it will not be easy, and it will certainly require the government and parliament to make the two railroads perform better.
First, the minister should implement the recommendations of the Hall commission to maintain the statutory grain rates for producers and to pay directly to the railroads the actual difference between statutory and compensatory rates for grain transport. The minister bandied around the figure of $200 million to $250 million a year in the debate on this subject which took place approximately two or three weeks ago. 1 imagine he arrived at those figures by basing them on what Mr. Snavely recommended.
On behalf of my colleagues, I should like to indicate that what Mr. Snavely recommended was ridiculous and overly generous. Mr. Snavely proposed to build into compensatory rates for the railroads a 30 per cent return on equity investment or 20 per cent on the cost of capital. No self-respecting businessman or banker would ever talk in terms of a return of that nature. Not only is it greedy, but it is unconscionable. It sounds like something Household Finance or the lovey-dovey finance company would want. It is not a compensatory rate, it is a gift. The minister does not need to rely on the recommendations of Mr. Snavely in that regard.
If the Snavely formula were adopted, the railroads would receive 15 per cent more for hauling grain on an average than they would for hauling non-competitive other bulk commodities in the west. They would receive 27 per cent more per ton mile for hauling grain than they would receive on the average for hauling all other commodities in western Canada. I hope the minister is not considering allowing a compensatory rate for the grain companies on the basis of what Mr. Snavely recommends.
In our motion we refer to the actual difference between statutory and compensatory rates for grain transport which

should be paid directly to the railroads. Paragraph (b) reads as follows:
to implement the Hall commission recommendations on economic development by extending the statutory freight rate to other commodities in the prairies and to other regions;
Particularly we are referring to the Atlantic region. Then the same principle should apply. It takes into account our geography and climate. It takes into account where we can produce, manufacture, and process commodities in our respective regions. It takes into account the markets of the world and the need for an opportunity to compete in those markets.
Paragraph (c) is a follow up to paragraph (a). I hope the minister will take this paragraph into account. It reads as follows:
to require the railways to purchase 4,000 hopper cars and to repair and return a minimum of 5,000 box cars to grain movement;
We all know of the removal of thousands of boxcars from grain movement by the railroads, many of which were scrapped. Some of them were repaired and put into the movement of other kinds of merchandises such as furniture, newsprint or whatever. The minister was had. As and when hopper cars came on stream, railroads moved boxcars normally used for the movement of grain into the movement of other commodities. That was not good corporate citizenship on the part of CP or CN.
As the Premier of Saskatchewan and I have said, railroads cannot justify refusing to supply adequate service to the grain industry because they claim to be losing money. After the gifts, concessions, subsidies, funds and assistance from the federal government, as well as from the provinces and municipalities, they have no excuse.
Paragraph (d) reads as follows:
to reimburse the Canadian Wheat Board for costs of demurrage charges on ships delayed in loading through no fault of the producers or grain companies;
Since our grain exports, whether a record or a near record is set, are of benefit to the nation as a whole, and do wonders for our foreign exchange situation, our balance of payments, and our export situation, surely that paragraph in our motion is reasonable. Since grain exports are of benefit to the entire nation, surely the nation as a whole should pay this cost which is incurred through no fault of grain producers or grain companies. Not only are ships being delayed because of the inadequate number of railway cars, they are being delayed because of the inadequate use of facilities already in place. This morning I had a telephone conversation with the manager of a grain terminal in Vancouver. That terminal is cleaning and drying grain 24 hours a day. Also 16 hours a day are being spent unloading cars and loading ships.
The prairie provinces have five government elevators with a capacity of 17,100,000 bushels. As of today, slightly under four million bushels are stored in those terminals at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, and Lethbridge. Those five government elevators could be drying 50 to 100 carloads of grain a day. That grain could be delivered to Vancouver and would be ready for onship loading, unless it had to be cleaned.
June 5, 1978

In any case, there are facilities in the prairies which are not being used.
Mr. Justice Hall and his commission recommended the abolition of stopoff charges. Grain companies are not anxious to pay extra charges to stop cars off at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon or Edmonton. These charges, of course, come out of the pockets of farmers. They are not anxious to unload the grain at those points, dry it and reload it. Thus the grain is sent on to their own terminals which have limited drying capacity. At the moment large volumes of tough grain are arriving in Vancouver where it has to be dried before being loaded on to ships. Approximately 10 per cent or 15 per cent can be mixed with dry grain, but the rest of it is delayed in the terminals for the purpose of drying. The capacity for drying at the government elevators is not being used. I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will have something to say about that matter before this day is over.
Paragraph (e) of my motion reads as follows:
to increase immediately and substantially the amount of grain to be moved through the ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill;
For years we have known that the amount of grain going through Prince Rupert could be doubled with the existing facilities in trackage, storage space, loading and unloading capacities. The CN line to Prince Rupert is being used to about a 25 per cent capacity. Why are we not diverting some ships from Vancouver to Prince Rupert? Why are we not diverting rail cars of grain to Prince Rupert which are otherwise destined for Vancouver? A similar argument can be made in respect of Churchill. With the present facilities, the movement of grain through Churchill could be increased by at least five million bushels. The capacity at Prince Rupert could be increased by at least 20 million bushels with its existing facilities.
Why are not the Vancouver terminals operating three shifts a day, seven days a week? If that were done, those terminals would be faced with the same situation which occurred three or four years ago. The minister knows about that situation, as does the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and myself. If the terminals called in shifts to work at midnight, enough cars are spotted to keep them working two or three hours, and then the workers must be sent home. Three shifts a day for several days a week are not feasible, unless and until a sufficient number of railway cars are spotted to keep them working.
I give credit to the minister, the government, the grain companies, and the Canadian Wheat Board for the efforts which have been made to date. But we are not keeping up, and we will not be able to make further gains unless the government or the minister requires the railroads to carry out the responsibilities and obligations that belong to them and to no one else.
I never thought for one moment that the railroads would use the provision of hopper cars as a means of reducing their own efforts. It was my belief they would remain good corporate
Grain
citizens and carry on to the capacity they had before we started providing hopper cars. I am not aware of any purchases by the railroads of rolling stock for grain movement as a result of the new budget provisions. I know of no railway funds that are to go into the purchase of cars for hauling grain.
When I mentioned this chronic shortage of rolling stock for a number of commodities, and the minister knows this as well as I, I had in mind that hopper cars for grain had helped the situation, but there was also a problem in respect of a shortage of hopper cars for the movement of potash. At one point in time the railways were running a thousand cars per month behind for the movement for potash.
On the other hand we have heard reports, and one or two of my colleagues will be going into this in greater detail, that hopper cars suitable for the movement of potash are sitting idly on sidings. They could be cleaned and used for grain. Many of these cars are owned by private companies for leasing. The minister should give the Canadian Wheat Board the money to clean these cars up and put them into the movement of grain. We have only one and a half months left of this crop year in which the minister can take further action.
If the projections of the United States Department of Agriculture are accurate, we are going to be in real trouble by November. That country will be picking up additional sales that we could otherwise have obtained if we had increased our capacity to move grain by rail.
I have tried not to harp at or nag the minister on the subject of arguments we have had on many other occasions. We have tried in this motion to make some positive proposals and suggestions. We have said to him that we support his efforts, the efforts of the government and of the Canadian Wheat Board, particularly in the provision of hopper cars and the job the Board has done in obtaining grain sales. Surely the minister should listen to and accept what we are saying in a positive manner about increasing our ability to transport grain to our export positions. This really should be done by the railroads.
The situation would improve if the minister implemented the Hall commission recommendations regarding rates. Never mind buying all the recommendations of Snavely. This would not cost much more, and perhaps not as much as it is presently costing the government in the purchase of hopper cars, as well as the funding for other purposes. By implementing the Hall recommendations the railroads would be required not only to purchase the rolling stock and repair what they now have, it would require them to do their own rebuilding of the branch lines, instead of the taxpayer having to put up the money in a different way. Given the difference between the statutory rate and a reasonable compensatory rate, they could be required to do the job which, after all, is theirs to do. It is not up to the minister or an agency such as the Canadian Wheat Board to bail the railroads out of trouble continually, while the railroads run off into other more lucrative fields, both in and outside this country.
It is time we required the railroads to accept their responsibilities and carry out their obligations. They have been unfair to the Minister of Transport, who is also in charge of the

June 5, 1978
Grain
Wheat Board. They have misused and abused him, as well as the grain producers of this country. They have misused and abused the Canadian Wheat Board. They have placed our dealings with nations which are considering buying more grain from us in jeopardy. Surely it is time for the minister and the government to kick those two outfits around and make them produce. If the minister does that he will have the support of members on all sides of this House, as well as of the farmers, farm organizations, and the Canadian Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: And even the NFU.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, and even the NFU. They might even starting talking again.
I appreciate that the final paragraph of this motion contains a bone of contention so far as this party, the government, and the official opposition are concerned. However, if the minister would accept and implement the other points, this would improve the situation immensely.
I hope the minister will accept my suggestions to increase grain movement capacity. In this way the terminals in Vancouver would receive less tough grain because more of it would be dried in government elevators on the prairies. We could enable the terminals to go on three shifts a day, six or seven days a week, unloading grain cars and loading ships. Some of the ships could be diverted to Prince Rupert where they could be loaded. I am sure some of this would not make the Wheat Pools and the grain companies happy, but that is just too bad. We have to get the job done. I hope the minister will accept and consider these positive and objective proposals, and will act accordingly. He does not have much time. We have been arguing about this since last November.
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) made an announcement last Friday that there is to be a special investigation into grain movement. I do not know why the minister did not make the announcement. Good God, how many more do we need? The minister has access to more figures than do I, and he knows the ones I have given him. He does not need another investigation. I hope he will take hold of this in a stronger way than he has in the past. He need not argue with myself or the hon. member for Vegreville. He can, if he wishes, and we will enjoy it. He should get into a winning fight with management, the board of directors and the operating personnel of the railroads so that we can accomplish what we are aiming for in the motion.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to begin by dealing with one of the last paragraphs included in the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) because it does not really fit consistently with the picture created by the other parts of his recommendations dealing with transportation and the Hall commission report. I refer to his suggestion that marketing of certain feed grains rapeseed, flax, and rye, be placed under the board.
When referring to this paragraph the hon. member acknowledged that he was reaching a little beyond the scope of the rest

of his motion. He said it probably would not sit very well with the government or the official opposition, at which point the critic of the official opposition across the floor was heard to say "nor with the farmers". This is because included in the motion is a reference to rapeseed, in respect of which a plebiscite was held among farmers to determine their wishes. In allowing rapeseed to be marketed as it had been marketed before the plebiscite, we are simply following the expressed wishes of the farmers. At the very most I might have thought the hon. member would suggest that the time was ripe for further consultation with the farmers, rather than simply to presume to override their wishes recently expressed in a plebiscite.
I was delighted to get the advice from the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre that I should not refer to the fact that we are having a record year for export, with improved prospects for meeting the transportation challenge with which we are faced at the present time. I am sure he would like me to avoid any reference to that, because for some days he and some of his negative friends have managed to leave the impression about the country that everything is in a disastrous state. The fact of a record being moved does not exactly fit into that picture, so he would prefer me to be silent about it.
In the same way, the second last paragraph of the motion contains the following suggestion:
to increase immediately and substantially the amount of grain to be moved through the ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill:
I presume he includes that paragraph by way of congratulations to the government for doing exactly that, although being in the New Democratic Party it would not be his ordinary practice to extend congratulations-so he puts it in the negative form.
Just today a telegram came to my hand from Dr. Hick, chairman of the grain co-ordinating committee in Prince Rupert containing congratulations for the government. He says that our continued commitment to the port is much appreciated, and he notes a tremendous volume of grain being moved through Prince Rupert this year.
In the same way I have said to the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-who continues to sound off negatively about that port when he asks questions with dismay-that once again this year, and likely for the third year in a row, we will notch up the amount of grain moving through Churchill. It may not seem to be a great deal when we just edge up the volume, but it means that in each of these last three years, and this year again, I predict, if things go at all half decently, we will set another record in Churchill. That will be the third record in a row.
In the case of Churchill, previous to this we have announced various expenditures of $5 million to $7 million for improving to capacity the state of the elevator and the state of the harbour, in our continued commitment to the port. We have also announced, as part of our rebuilding program of rail lines, the commitment of the money to add a couple of sidings to the
June 5, 1978

Herchmer subdivision and, in effect, to increase greatly the capacity of that line to carry grain to Churchill. This would mean that we could go after a further record in the following years, although the construction itself will take some time.
There we have our commitment and our constant improvements in the way in which we use these two important northern ports.
In Prince Rupert, of course, in addition to setting very high levels of exports this year, we have indicated our willingness to support, financially, the improvements in the port. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), is at work on improvements to the existing grain terminal there to increase its capacity and ability to handle grain. Along with a variety of elevator companies, we are hoping to be in a position to ensure the construction of a major additional terminal facility in the port of Prince Rupert designed to handle the increased volume of grain which we see, in our optimism, in the years ahead.
I say in our optimism, Mr. Speaker, because when I say that this is a record year for the movement of grain into export, and that we expect to set another record and surpass the other two times in our history when we exceeded 800 million bushels of exports of grain and grain products, the significance is not just in the fact that it is a record on its own, but that in this volume of 810 million to 850 million bushels of grain-and with the lower figure plus grain products-we are moving into export effectively more than a mere record or record crop or the part of that crop which is available for export.
In 1976 and in 1977 prairie grain farmers produced the best two crops in our history, yet with the 1977 crop which is close to the record of 1976, when we export 800 to 850 million bushels, we will be moving the whole of the available grain from that crop plus a significant amount from the previous crop, and that was available because it also was such a record.
I am optimistic about the future, and about these production levels being repeated more frequently and not simply standing as records for a long time. For that reason we want to build and expand the system. We will be looking to every technique we know to improve the system and its capability of handling grain to export.
The development of Prince Rupert, eventually to be able to handle perhaps 150 million bushels of grain in a year by 1982, in my view is consistent with a target of perhaps one billion bushels of export within a year or so of that time.
The problem we have in finding enough equipment and terminal capacity to handle grain is the problem of finding that capacity when we are moving an amount we never moved before. How much capacity should we have on hand to move a crop or handle a product? I know that no one would be satisfied if we only had enough capacity to move an average crop in a year. That would mean that any year we were above average we would be restrained from seizing markets by moving that additional production.
It is also obvious that as you have capacity, whether in railway cars, freight lines or terminals, to move more than the
Grain
average amount of grain being produced, then you have some of that equipment sitting idle in a certain and significant number of years. The economic question that always has to be asked is how much we should have on hand, and how much we should be able to move. The point is that in receiving from producers, perhaps for the first time in history, one billion bushels of grain, we are testing the system to the full.
As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said, a great deal of the credit for the fact that we are testing the system goes to the Canadian Wheat Board. I was happy that he gave some credit to the government. I think it is deserved in terms of the credit facilities provided and the encouragement given to the Wheat Board to go out and sell. Not long ago, Mr. Jarvis, the chief commissioner, said that one of the objectives, one of the ways of going about marketing, is to push the system to the full. The other way would have been to tailor sales to a comfortable margin of ability to handle. He said in effect they chose the route of pushing the system to the full.
I should like hon. members to know that last fall when the Canadian Wheat Board asked me about their willingness and desire to go in that direction, I was full of encouragement even though I knew there would likely be tightness in the system and problems of ships waiting, as there have been in years gone by when less grain was moved.
Not long ago I saw a clipping dated February, 1961, when the Conservative party was in power. In those years we never got close to 500 million bushels of exports, yet this clipping bemoaned the fact that great numbers of ships were in Vancouver waiting to load.
This negativism on the part of hon. members is unfortunate for the country as a whole. I am sure it sometimes leaves a bad impression in the minds of our buyers. Perhaps it should be put into the context that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool put it in during a radio report not long ago. They pointed out that the fact of ships waiting is not an uncommon thing in the world of shipping. On May 19, according to their calculations, in the gulf and in the United States nine ships were loading, and 39 ships were waiting; in Argentina 45 ships were waiting in three separate ports. A waiting period of 15 to 20 days was common, according to the report. This is as long or longer than the few worst days in our recent period of ships being delayed.
Many others have explained that the world of shipping is not a regular one and that delays, and therefore demurrage, are an expected part of a rapid movement of product, particularly when we are, as now, setting a record.
We have done many things to improve the system and to improve our ability to handle grain. When those who want to be negative speak about the decline in the number of boxcars, ignoring the purchase of hopper cars which are worth one and one-half boxcars each, they are being misleading. They further ignore the fact that we have gained in efficiency by getting a better turn-around time for boxcars and hopper cars-that by appointing co-ordinators at Thunder Bay and Vancouver, by the introduction of the block shipping system, with the hopper cars themselves and their more efficient handling and breaking system, with the agreement we were finally able to work out

June 5, 1978
Grain
between the railways so that cars no longer pass one another loaded, going north and south between Edmonton and Calgary but instead were exchanged by the railways at those points and went directly to port-that these things have created improvements and helped shorten the turn-around time, which means that we can handle more grain like the record we are doing this year with less equipment than would have been required a few years ago. We are not resting there.
We have a branch line rebuilding program. Obviously, in addition to creating certainty throughout the province about branch lines that will be there and in operation for many years to come, this will allow cars to be moved more quickly onto them and off them. Therefore it will again lower the amount of time to be spent by a car on that line.
We have mainline improvements which will likewise improve our system. Some of these are again the direct result of government action. I think particularly of the developments which are taking place on the mainline of the Canadian Pacific Railway through the Rockies. These were brought about because of budget changes which allowed faster write-off of those sorts of investments, because we could see on the analysis that was given to us that the cash flow of the railway would not have induced it to make those improvements without that change. Those changes will lower the incline of lines, improve capacity, double track the lines, and improve our chances of getting the better turnaround.
The improvements at Prince Rupert and in the Herchimer subdivision are other examples of what will expedite movement of cars.
So, the question is, how many cars should we have? There is no secret that we are looking now, as we did on three occasions in the past, at the question of when cars will be required, whether boxcars should be rehabilitated, more new hopper cars purchased, or whether we should go forward with some combination of those things.
We have the cars today to handle the 850 million-bushel record which was our target for this year. With the problems of delays during the winter, it became very tight to do that, and we may not quite achieve that total. We need more cars for the prospective movement, the prospective replacement of cars that are gradually dying because of their age, and the growth production, which 1 foresee and the Wheat Board and I believe in as a reality, and for which we want to provide for by investment in cars as well as terminal facilities to handle the needs of the future.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said that we have failed to implement fully the major recommendations of the Hall commission report. Members opposite have said so many times too. I have asked them to give me a document, or to document in their speeches which recommendations it is they want us to implement faster than we have been doing, how they want them implemented and whether they want them implemented, even if the consensus of the Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta pools is against particular recommen-

dations, and likewise the grain industry and farm organizations generally.
In that regard I refer to the question of whether to set up an operating rail authority called the prairie rail authority where we have the support of all of these organizations in not moving in that direction but instead seizing that part of the recommendation from the Hall commission report to create a western arm of the Canadian Transport Commission to deal with future branch lines and the conditions under which the railways will operate them. So far as I know, every significant farm organization in the west supports that course of action and supports the setting up of the prairie rail action committee because what the railways wanted, what the farm community needed was certainty about that remaining 2,000 miles of line which were left uncertain as to their long-term future by the Hall commission report.
We have implemented the major recommendations. We have transferred to the basic rail network the 1,813 miles recommended by the commission. Not a mile has been changed in that regard. We then moved immediately to begin the rebuilding of those lines.
Here I would like to refer to a few other recommendations, and the only ones to which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre refers. He says that we have failed to implement the Hall commission report by-what does he say-not taking the following action: He wants us to take this action and says, "Implement the Hall commission report and the recommendation to maintain the statutory grain rates for producers". We have done so. We have maintained the statutory grain rate for producers. Then he says, "and pay directly to the railways the difference between the statutory and compensatory rates". In saying that we have one authority on what that difference was, and that was the Snavely report. He immediately rushes forward and says that he does not think we should rely on that. We presumably need another analysis and another report to satisfy him. I am not altogether sure that I would go along with the final figures of the Snavely report either, particularly because the Snavely report itself points out a couple of areas where serious judgment would have to be exercised.
I agree with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre that the appropriate return on capital would have to be looked at very carefully in any final analysis. The member for Regina-Lake Centre wants us and urges us to pay the difference to the railways. He says that he does not know what the difference is, but we should pay it. If we did pay it and had paid it quickly, he would have screamed "gift" from one end of the country to the other, But he says pay the difference to the railways, if we can figure out what it is.
What did we do? We moved on two specific fronts first, in the purchase of hopper cars with the provision of $255 million worth of railway equipment for moving grain; secondly in a repair program for rebuilding cars a couple of years ago, which he may ignore; and now in the specific program of rebuilding branch lines where there can be no argument about whether this is too much or not enough for the railways. In 1977-1978 we put in $100 million for rebuilding. We had a
June 5, 1978

full and detailed agreement which specified the equipment which was to be purchased with that money, $47 million worth. Why? Because the railways needed more ballast cars to carry the gravel and crushed rock. They needed more equipment such as the sleds to lift the lines, and more dump cars, in other words, more of the equipment than they had to rebuild the lines because of course the regular rebuilding and repair programs had to go on. As well there were $53 million dollars more for specific and on-line improvements such as you now see on the Conquest subdivision through Beechy and Lucky Lake in Saskatchewan which, in the next few years, we will see in terms of ballast and improved road beds and improved lines throughout the prairie region. Some $75 million a year has now been committed through the railways for that very specific purpose. Dollar for dollar we are getting value in improved rail lines.
Whether the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre could argue that we are giving the railways too much if we adopted the Snavely report, or not enough if we adopted another figure, I say to him that at least he should be able to accept that when we are buying hopper cars, which he agrees are needed-he, unlike Mr. Hall in a recent news report, agreed that buying hopper cars was a good thing and still is a good thing- whether we give the $100 million to the railways and then demand they buy hopper cars and make them available to the railway, this is not a matter of great fiscal moment nor a moment too soon in regard to the handling of our grain.
It is the purchasing and acquiring of that equipment which is important. At least when we put our money into the hopper cars and make sure that every dollar goes into them, and we put our money into the rebuilding of branch lines and make sure every dollar goes into them, there can hardly be an argument that a dollar is being misspent and benefiting the railways unduly.
I calculate that today even taking a fairly modest view of the Snavely figures, it would require, taking the 1974 figures and updating them, something over $100 million a year in addition to the branch line subsidy amount to compensate the railways for moving grain. We are providing $70 million this year and $75 million next year for cash for branch line rebuilding. Surely hon. members opposite would not want that program to go more slowly. Indeed, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) said at one point it should go more quickly. The unions which were to be working on that repair program urged me to take just that kind of time over it. They do not want to see a great surge of building and then idle capacity while rebuilding lines, which would occur if you build and rebuild them in a hurry. It does not make economic sense to rush in that fashion.
What we have been doing is identifying lines. I could go through the lists of the hundreds of thousands of miles of line which are going to be improved throughout Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba during the course of 1978, and identify the additional schedules for the years to come.
Grain
Therefore, in effect we maintain the Crow rate. We have paid to the railways a very large part of the difference between that rate and the cost of carrying grain through our hopper car purchase programs, our rebuilding programs, and by our indication of our belief in going in that direction and making sure that the grain handling system is in order.
The hon. member says the next thing we should do in the Hall commission report is to implement the recommendation on economic development by extending the statutory freight rate to other commodities in the prairies. He does add "and to other regions".
The Crow rate is a traditional rate of the prairie farmer. I have always seen it as a classic offset against the tariff system, which has not helped him but hurt him in his costs, while he sells in an international world. I have said time and again that I would fight to maintain the benefit of the Crow rate for the prairie farmer so long at least as the tariff system exists.
I think, and farm leaders seem to agree with me, that if we can move toward freer trade, there would be a bargain one could strike, and the Crow rate would be thrown into that bargain because the farmer would be much better off by freer trade than he is from the benefit of the Crow. That aside, since we are a long way from that by any sign in the world and where it is going, the Crow rate is a traditional benefit. It now represents in today's cost terms approximately $200 million in this year, $200 million that has to be supplied, even according to Hall, and endorsed by members opposite, to the railways or through the railways by the government.
That is the $100 million I referred to earlier, plus the branch line subsidies, which is effectively part and parcel of the same program. That $200 million a year commitment will be ongoing from the people of Canada in relation to the Crow rate.
The Hall commission has said, "extend that to other products." I am not sure the commission said "in other regions". Perhaps that is a little addition by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. He acknowledges it is. I am glad to see his logic, at least in being bold enough to say this.
I would like the Conservatives in their turn to analyse how far they would go in this payment of compensation in lower rates on other products. I presume that while the Crow rate applies only on grain moving to Thunder Bay, Vancouver, or the west coast for export, it would be very difficult not to extend any rate that was lowered in relation to meat and other products to the domestic market on the west coast as well as to export. It would be very hard politically not to do that.
It would be very difficult not to extend the lower rate in some other form of subsidization to anything that moved by way of truck as well as by rail or, indeed, any other method of transportation. Therefore, we would extend it to the movement of all products, at least to Thunder Bay, Vancouver and the west coast generally.
Then I would ask about whether that rate would have to be applied in some system of justice to those products moving

June 5, 1978
Grain
shorter distances within the country, stopping at Edmonton, Calgary, Thunder Bay or any place in the east.
I ask the opposition as well, would they extend that lower rate on truck and rail, and then water presumably, to every movement of product, such as grain, meat and other products, wherever it is in the country, or would they defend a lower rate on meat in one region of the country and for a similar distance in another region?
If I put all of those things together, by political calculation and by political analysis of what would be required eventually because of complaints from other regions, quite justified, I would not be surprised to come up with a figure of another $200 million a year for those lower freight rates. Indeed, it could be a good deal higher than that. Therefore, we would be asking the treasury to add to the $200 million a year, of which $100 million is a brand new commitment, another $200 million.
In addition, they would defeat another recommendation of the Hall commission report which is that production should occur according to natural advantage. In taking a real cost like the freight of moving a product, and either eliminating it or lowering it, you encourage the shipment of the more bulky form of that product farther than would be the case if you leave the rates at their natural or real cost level.
The very existence of such a subsidy program would make it less likely than the reflecting of real costs through to the person shipping the product, that he compacts his barley into meat before he moves it on any great distance. The over-riding question, of course, is the cost which would be involved in doing this and the burden upon the treasury which would be built into the system. I say it will be difficult to justify this burden upon the treasury.
I know there will be spokesmen from the Conservative party who are from the west, and also from the New Democratic Party, who will say quietly that this will be a great thing and not worry too much about the question of how far they would have to extend it into other regions. As a spokesman for the official opposition, I would like the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) to make clear it is the official policy of his party. I would like to see that said by his leader some time. His leader, of course, may want to backtrack on that at a later date. He has said that he would like to have the wheat board competed with in international markets by the international traders. I am not sure whether all of his colleagues go along with him on that. He may not have known what he said, although he is an Alberta boy. In any event, I would like to know whether that is the official policy of the party. I would like to see them spell out step by step what is included. Then I would like to see them explain whether it would be an advantage or not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the minister at this time, but his time has expired. As he knows, an order of the House was made that no extensions be given. Before recognizing the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), I might inform the House of the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Payment of legal costs of member of force; the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-National Security-Right of ministers to know how security personnel operate-Government position; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-Labour Conditions- Young Canada Works program-Funds to assist students.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benjamin:
-That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to expand Canada's capacity to move grain to export position thereby jeopardizing the Canadian Wheat Board's ability to compete successfully for expanding grain sales opportunities, and has failed to implement fully the major recommendations of the Hall commission report, and this House therefore calls on the government to take the following action:
(a)	to implement the Hall commission recommendations to maintain the statutory grain rates for producers and pay directly to the railroads the actual difference between statutory and compensatory rates for grain transport;
(b)	to implement the Hall commission recommendations on economic development by extending the statutory freight rate to other commodities in the prairies and to other regions;
(c)	to require the railways to purchase four thousand hopper cars and to repair and return a minimum of five thousand box cars to grain movement;
(d)	to reimburse the Canadian Wheat Board for costs of demurrage charges on ships delayed in loading through no fault of the producers or grain companies;
(e)	to increase immediately and substantially the amount of grain to be moved through the ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill; and
(/) to strengthen the principles of orderly marketing by returning the marketing of feed grains to the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to include as well the marketing of flax, rye and rapeseed under the said board.
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Progressive Conservative party welcome debate on this motion at this time. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, the motion is fairly comprehensive. It has many facets.
I have to agree with the minister when he observes that paragraph (/), which has to do with the orderly marketing and returning of marketing of feed grains to the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, is really not very compatible with
June 5, 1978

the thrust of the motion. I can agree with the minister's summation in that regard, but that is about as far as I can go, because once again he is attempting to leave the impression that all is well, things could be worse.
Quite frankly, I find little reason to be optimistic in listening very carefully to what the minister had to say. In spite of what he said, this debate comes at the height of a very serious and major breakdown in our grain handling and transportation capacity. Right now in the port of Vancouver we have something like 20 or more ships waiting, and ten in Thunder Bay. Our country elevator system is plugged. Producers are up in arms. We have a 35 million or 36 million bushel shortfall in our anticipated target. There is a shortage of equipment. There are severe cutbacks in the available number of boxcars and hopper cars in the country elevator system. Demurrage costs are piling up.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) seemed to lay the total blame on the railroads. The grain carrying fleet is being reduced at a dramatic pace. In addition something like 23,000 CN cars are away in the United States compared with 13,000 as a normal average over the year. These figures were given to us by the president of the Transport Commission on Thursday last. He went on to say that these cars were being used on a no-charge basis for the transportation of goods in the United States. Surely the minister has some authority over an organization which is, after all, a Crown corporation. Surely there must be some means by which these boxcars can be brought back to Canada and used to transport our grain.
The appointment of a tribunal to inquire immediately into certain aspects of prairie grain handling facilities by the hon. gentleman's colleague, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), contradicts what the minister has been saying. It proves that a serious problem exists. Yet the minister has the audacity to stand up here and tell us everything is fine. It is a deplorable situation, and it is well summed up in the comments made by a couple of members of the unions involved. This is what a Canadian Press report on the subject had to say:
Canada will lose its foreign grain markets if the federal government doesn't smarten up and make sure the grain is delivered to waiting ships, Henry Kanes, head of the Grain Workers Union said Friday ...
Dennis McDermott, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said in a news release that the railways have failed to deliver grain to the ports for export and that "the credibility of Canada in world grain trade is endangered and demurrage fees on ships waiting to load grain in Vancouver could approach $17 million ..
McDermott said the federal government should not have allowed the deterioration of railway boxcar fleets.
"The government has known for a long time there would be heavy shipments but it has done nothing to increase capacity" McDermott said, following a meeting earlier in the week of a CLC grain-handling committee.
Kanes and McDermott said if Canada loses its export markets for grain "major ports and other sections of the grain-handling system will face major lay-offs..
Those are not statements by members of the opposition. Those are not statements by people engaging in a parade of
Grain
negativism. These are views expressed by people who are deeply concerned about the ability of this country to discharge its responsibilities and meet its commitments. They are anxious Canada should maintain its credibility as a reliable supplier of grain.
This situation should be considered against the background of the Liberal election promises in 1974 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that a Liberal government would "revamp the grain handling system from the granaries to the ships in the harbour."
Today's debate comes at a time when the government must make some serious decisions about the Hall report. It must decide either to put up or shut up. It cannot continue to say that it favours the report, while at the same time subverting, twisting, and undermining the central recommendations of the report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hall report is not only a transportation charter, it is an economic manifesto for Western Canada. It is not enough to implement some of the recommendations, those which are easy to put in place, such as rail line abandonment, those which result in reduced services for customers and pressures upon the producer. The minister should not implement the less attractive features of the report without moving toward the adoption of the entire package. I listened very carefully to the minister and found him very defensive on this subject. I heard what he had to say about the basic network. He did not come clean on this issue. I say you cannot adopt one part of the report without the other, without adopting those recommendations which tend to compensate and offset those less attractive features. The Hall recommendations must be considered as a total package.
The minister has told us the government is moving in some areas. There is no doubt that with regard to certain of the recommendations it is moving quickly, indeed with indecent haste. In this process the interests of the producers are being forgotten though the interests of the railroads and the grain companies are being given consideration. As I have indicated, a number of the recommendations are very beneficial, and it is [DOT] these which the government is implementing only very slowly when it is not ignoring them entirely. Yet I believe these latter recommendations are part of a catalyst which could revolutionize grain handling and transportation.
The continual conflict between the minister and Mr. Justice Emmett Hall must be resolved. I hope that the proceedings in our committee will help bring the two parties together. In spite of the minister's kicking and screaming because he did not want Mr. Justice Hall to appear before the committee-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I understand that the minister met with Mr. Justice Emmett Hall for the first time last Saturday, for the first time, I suspect, since the report was released more than a year ago.

June 5, 1978
Grain
There is in this country a tremendous amount of confidence in Mr. Justice Hall. He has been appointed commissioner in a contract dispute involving the western grain industry. Those people have confidence in him. The farmers have confidence in him. The people of western Canada have confidence in him. The only person who does not have confidence in him is the minister. If the hon. gentleman did feel confidence in him, Mr. Justice Hall would be free to come before the committee and state his case.


Otto Emil Lang: He is coming before the committee.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Against the minister's wishes.


Otto Emil Lang: I appointed the commission.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I commend the minister for that. I commend the work the commission did. They did a thorough and comprehensive job. And I wish the minister would not treat the gentleman and his colleagues with the contempt he has shown them in the past.
Many of us feel the minister has failed to grasp the real significance of these recommendations. He has told us he set out immediately to transfer those 1,800 miles to the basic network. But there are other areas which are far more important to the future of transportation and economic development in western Canada. It is about time the minister got on to the same wavelength as the authors of this report.
Now we have another commission, with a new set of recommendations. Then we have the Snavely report which, in many cases, challenges the major recommendations of the Hall report. In fact, it challenges the major recommendation regarding payment to the railways by the public treasury of the difference between the statutory rate and a fair compensatory rate. Clearly, the government will have to make up its mind as to which royal commission it is going to follow. Whose recommendations will the government adopt? I think that is very important.
No doubt Snavely is an expert in the field of freight rates, and I would be the last to argue with his findings. I understand that his statistics and figures are reasonably accurate, but his conclusions are another matter. I would much rather accept the conclusions of Mr. Hall than those of Mr. Snavely. Quite frankly, I do not believe that anyone can measure with any degree of accuracy the social and economic impact of the Crow rate and the impact of extension of that Crow rate sitting in a board room in the city of Washington.
Quite frankly, I place my credence in the recommendations of Mr. Hall. He knows the west. He has visited practically every community in western Canada. He has talked to the people, to the grain companies and to the transportation companies, and he really understands not only the problems but also the social and economic impact of any major deviation or change in the transportation system.

What has been the response of the government to the Hall recommendations? The minister has said that the government has acted decisively and quickly. I agree that in some areas it has. It has done so where it has been advantageous to the government and probably to the railways and grain handling companies. However, our analysis suggests that less than ten recommendations have been fully or partially implemented. There are some 90 recommendations in the Hall report. Fifty-eight have not been implemented at all. There has been no action on them. Statements have been made on 24. Six have been fully implemented, and four partially. That is not a very good record.
I said earlier that the minister did designate 1,813 miles into the basic network. He is proceeding with 2,165 miles of abandonment. However, with respect to the 2,344 miles put into that uncertain category there is a major deviation from the Hall report in the method which the government has adopted. There is a major deviation in the method of the government and in its timing, because we find that the minister is insisting on proceeding on the category with undue haste. I say that time is required to determine the status of these lines. Time is required to determine what kind of rationalization or consolidation will take place as far as grain-handling companies are concerned. The requirements of 1977 might be quite different from the requirements of 1985, so Mr. Justice Emmett Hall recommended a prairie rail authority which could monitor and run these lines.
1 am not suggesting that a prairie rail authority would be the be all and end all, but something like that certainly is necessary. I might say that this seemed to have widespread support from grain companies and from the railways. The government has proceeded with setting up a prairie rail action committee and, quite frankly, it is moving ahead very swiftly. The minister wants the committee to report back on the status of these lines by the end of this year. There does not seem to be the kind of consultation that is necessary. The producers are frustrated and very concerned.
I have in my hand a letter from Kelwood, Manitoba. It is from a Mr. George Carr, who is the secretary-treasurer of the Neepawa-McCreary Branch Lines Association. He indicates that an official report has been received from the Railway Transport Committee regarding applications for the abandonment of certain branch lines in Manitoba. This includes the line on which two of that association's elevators are situated, the Neepawa Junction to Rossburn Junction line, 32.8 miles. Should this be implemented there would be no elevator between Neepawa and McCreary, a distance of 40 miles. Mr. Carr felt that this decision was far too abrupt. The lines association wrote to the CTC in Ottawa last August regarding some of its concerns, and the reply it received stated that no line could be closed without a public hearing. It is now found that this line is finished, and much frustation has been created. To say the least, it has been very disconcerting to the producers who are affected.
Regarding rehabilitation, Mr. Hall said that an adequate network configuration will require capital funding of about
June 5, 1978

$445 million for upgrading and rehabilitation. The government responded, first, by committing $200 million, but it backed off and said that because of fiscal restraint it had to cut that back to $100 million.
That has since been supplemented by $75 million which is part of an additional $600 million program over five or ten years, I am not sure which.


Otto Emil Lang: Eight.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister says it is eight years. In the meantime the railways are committing additional expenditures. CN says it will commit at least $200 million over the next five years. It should. We just wrote off $808 million by way of a bill in this House. That bill will provide CN with a profit well in excess of $200 million by 1981. CP is also proposing expenditures to upgrade and rehabilitate its lines. The budget proposals should assist, but the $600 million seems to us to be more than generous, particularly when we consider that we do not seem to have adequate commitments and safeguards, when we see the railways reducing their grain-carrying fleet, and particularly when we see we have no control over the cars that go to the United States.
This ad hoc approach that we have bothers us very much, and I think that Justice Emmett Hall may have had the right idea: pay the railways a fair return for hauling grain, and charge them with the responsibility of maintaining their track and their infrastructure. Charge them with the responsibility of providing sufficient equipment and rolling stock.
I now turn to the Crow rate and the extension of the Crow rate. These two sections are very central to the thrust of the Hall report. They are very important to western Canada. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall said that the railways must be compensated for the cost of moving grain by rail and that the railways must in turn be responsible for maintenance and upgrading of lines in the basic network or those lines subsequently added to it. Mr. Justice Hall went on to say that the present statutory rates should be retained and that the shortfall between the cost of moving grain and the statutory rates should be paid directly to the railways. The belief that the Crow rate was in the national interest-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the discussion on the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). Naturally, I will not repeat all the terms of the motion and I will simply say that it concerns the lack of co-ordination among various government agencies. They are the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Transportation Commission and the Canadian National Railways. These various agencies simply do not have the same objectives as concerns the economic development of our country.
Grain
The motion of my colleague for Regina-Lake Centre notes first of all chaos which surrounds rail transport in Canada. And yet it took the railroads to save Confederation and achieve the Canadian union. The motion states with reason that the government has not seen fit to promote the expansion of Canada's capacity to move grain to export positions thereby reducing our foreign sales opportunities.
Everyone knows that our railway system has become somewhat outmoded. Indeed, on October 26, 1974, I proposed a motion in the House of Commons to study the need to institute a royal inquiry commission concerning the well known deficiency of the Canadian National Railways in relation with the many deficits and the high number of accidents in the Canadian National system. As concerns the deficits, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National has accumulated each year for nearly 20 years phenomenal deficits that the Canadian people must pay with their taxes.
In this 20 year period, the deficits accumulated by the Canadian National have reached $675 million, while the Canadian Pacific, which provides services in nearly the same areas, has had benefits often in excess of $100 million a year. And, as far as I know, in relation with the high number of accidents in the CN system, both as concerns costly derailments and employee safety, nothing has been done to correct the situation.
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to ignore the very stern comments of coroner Heroux about the CN following the death of a CN employee in disturbing circumstances. On that occasion, it had been impossible to submit a report drafted by CN policemen and I still maintain that it is essential to launch a public inquiry on the CN administration. The purpose of such inquiry would be to investigate promotions and expenditures in the CN.
It is sad, Mr. Speaker, to note how the CN has for some ten years neglected its passenger services, so that it was necessary to reorganize recently those services within the framework of VIA Rail. As for freight, the CN has never been an innovator. We should be looking at what has been done in European countries where immediately after the war modern and rapid railways were developed.
In short, our railroads are in a pitiful condition. Instead of indulging in second class operations like building communication towers and commercial centres and owning real estate like luxury hotels, railways should commit themselves to maintaining adequate facilities and services as well as an appropriate number of freight cars and engines and, particularly they should develop new lines where it is required for our economic welfare.
Mr. Speaker, in the last four years, many questions have been put and many motions have been presented to the effect that railways in western Canada were not maintaining decent services for grain and cattle transportation from west to east. In the last report of the Canadian Wheat Board the growth

JuneS, 1978
Grain
rate of operations is said to have increased by 11 per cent at Churchill and 12 per cent at Prince Rupert. Those figures are encouraging as concerns the development of our secondary harbours.
I am particularly interested in the third part of the motion. It requires that CN and CP buy 4,000 hopper cars and return a minimum of 5,000 boxcars to grain movement. I think this request tells much about the present situation. We must improve it immediately and see to the maintenance of the rolling stock and the building of additional cars as needed. The efforts made until now to modernize the system have been certainly inadequate. Let us take again as an example the passenger train service. The public has been complaining about it for several decades. Pressure groups have been formed. Following the establishment of VIA Rail not much has been done and the bus and airlines companies are getting the major part of that market. However, VIA Rail is a step in the right direction. The creation of that company has made possible the redirection of railways towards passenger services.
As far as freight is concerned, it might be more realistic to create a joint corporation similar to VIA Rail that would include freight services of both railway companies. Then we would make sure that the economic interest of our country override private interests. It would be easier to redirect railways development in Canada to facilitate better services throughout our country.
My colleague for Regina-Lake Centre has given us a great opportunity by presenting his motion. It allows us to reflect seriously on the future of our railways and the development of our economy.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to participate in this very important debate. In the 1974 election campaign the Liberal government promised many times to overhaul the entire grain transportation system. In fact, it promised $1.5 billion to be spent on transportation. Since that time very little has happened. Our system of moving grain to export, which is one of the major revenue sources for this country, is in serious trouble.
What are the signs of trouble that we see at present? There are three main signs which we have been seeing in the past few months. The first sign was when China, one of our major customers, started complaining that they were not getting the proper kind of service. As a result they turned to the United States for the first time in a number of years for additional purchases of grain.
The second sign of trouble which was apparent to most people was when the Canadian Wheat Board wanted action taken on its request for hopper cars and asked for a program for rebuilding of boxcars. That does not happen very often, Mr. Speaker, but it happened some months ago.

The third sign of trouble, which was perhaps the most obvious sign, was given last Friday when a Liberal backbencher made a press statement in his home town stating that a special and immediate investigation will be carried out into the efficient use of the prairie grain handling and transportation facilities. That was a true sign of trouble for this government and for the hon. member who made the statement.
Why is the industry in trouble? The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in his speech glossed over the problems which the industry is having. What is the situation of the industry at present? As of June 1, last Friday to be exact, we had 7 ships on the west coast loading, 17 ships waiting, and 17 more ships due, for a total of 401,000 tons waiting to be loaded. In Thunder Bay, we had 6 ships loading, 18 ships waiting, and 8 more due, for a total of 185,000 tons. In the St. Lawrence ports, there were three ships loading and 14 ships waiting, for a total tonnage of 645,000. As of June 1, the total tonnage in all ports was 1.2 million. In effect, over one month of grain transportation and hauling is required to fill the ships which are there at the present time. Approximately ten days earlier, there were about one million tons.
What is happening is contrary to the press release put out by the Liberal backbencher, and to what the minister has stated. We are slipping behind in our grain transportation. We are not catching up with the system at the present time. For example, the terminals at Thunder Bay approximately ten day ago were being used to a 40 per cent capacity. At the present time, the utilization is under 40 per cent and is continually dropping.
What are the effects? I have mentioned three before. One can understand why an investigation will be undertaken by someone in western Canada into the entire question of the movement of grain in Canada. We are faced with a somewhat difficult situation. China has bought grain from the United States at new high prices, in the neighbourhood of $4.55 per bushel. Canada is locked into contracts until the end of this crop year. Canada's contracts are over $1 per bushel less than the price being paid by China. The effects of the grain backlog will be a loss of shipment from country elevators.
The Canadian Wheat Board has commenced to revise downward the various quotas it expected to fill. Barley is an example. On the weekend I believe it was revised downward from 15 bushels to 12 bushels. That is an indication of the situation in which we find ourselves. The Canadian Wheat Board had counted on moving over one billion bushels from country elevators. At the present time the board has indicated that this will not happen. Also we are looking at demurrage charges caused by the waiting of ships which the farmers have to pay. The demurrage charges will amount to between $17 million and $20 million, which is the highest on record.
Some months ago the minister indicated that a record would be broken in the area of total exports. The Canadian Wheat Board indicated that the exports will amount to approximately 800 million bushels, which certainly will not break any record.
June 5, 1978

Substantial demurrage is being paid at both west coast and St. Lawrence ports for the first time in our history.


Otto Emil Lang: That is not true.


Jack Burnett Murta: I would like to indicate to the Minister of Transport that the Canadian Wheat Board indicated this is the first time it has happened. Furthermore, the total carryover will be much larger than anticipated.
All hon. members would urge the government to act on the Canadian Wheat Board request for some 4,000 additional hopper cars, and funds for refurnishing an extra 5,000 boxcars. One important factor which we tend to overlook, and to which the government has not addressed itself, is car turnaround time. In other words, I am referring to the amount of time necessary to ship a car of grain to one of our coastal ports, unload it, and return it to western Canada. According to the grain trade, the length of time required is approximately 20 days. That has not dropped significantly over the last 15 to 20 years.
The situation regarding grain export is so bad at the present time that an official of the Alberta Wheat Pool in Vancouver stated that the wheat pool is forced to write off Friday as a work day, because railways run out of cars on Thursday. The cars are available once again on Saturday, but the pools are forced to pay workers double time to load them on weekends.
In his speech before the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Minister of Transport stated that bad weather, late arriving ships, and the temporary loss of a rail bridge have delayed deliveries. He said, "We are only now inching back". According to the Canadian Wheat Board, that is not true. Also he said the following:
We are looking this year at exporting 850 million bushels, which means a total delivery by the producers of one billion bushels.
Also that statement is not true. This statement was quoted in the Canadian Press on June 1, just a few days ago. In fact, it was on the same day when the startling figures regarding the amount of tonnage waiting in our various ports were made public.
How bad are the rail lines in western Canada? The rail system in the west has been neglected for such a long time that great sums of money will be needed to rehabilitate many lines. Certainly that statement does not have to be made in western Canada because everyone is aware of it. The Hall commission reported that branch line subsidies have not gone back to the branch lines. These subsidies have gone to the railways. In turn, the railways have taken this money and used it where they saw fit. Over the years the system has been neglected. We are paying the price of close to $20 million in demurrage this coming year. Also there are the international problems we are having with our customers. Carl Snavely, the Washington economist who conducted the studies on the cost of transporting grain by rail, indicated that the current state of branch lines is fairly bad. Also he suspected that without major repairs the system could start to break down within a very few years. Of course that is happening at the present time.
Grain
Mr. Jim McDonough who was the executive director of the Hall commission before going to the Canadian Transport Commission, has echoed the same concerns. When the Commission started its hearings, he reported that railway officials were asked to estimate the life expectancy of prairie rail lines. Those officials indicated that if no significant maintenance work was done the life expectancy of various lines would vary from one year to 15 years. That possibility is rearing its ugly head at the present time.
The report of the Hall commission is a central issue to this motion. The government announced that it was going to look into the entire question of western rail lines in April, 1975. Mr. Hall tabled his report on May 19, 1977. Thus, it has been well over a year since the results of the study were made known. Mr. Justice Hall made approximately 92 recommendations. Six of those recommendations have been implemented, three have been partially implemented, 25 apparently required further study, and 58 have not been commented upon at all.
It would be interesting to have a look at some of the recommendations brought out by the Hall Commission and compare them to the responses given by the government. We should be provided with an opportunity to view both the recommendations of the commission and the responses of the government in as impartial a light as possible.
The first recommendation of the Hall commission was the establishment of a prairie rail authority. The government has established the Prairie Rail Action Committee.
The second recommendation was in the area of compensating the railways for the cost of moving grain. The Hall commission recommended the actual cost of moving grain minus the Crow rate level. The government's response was that it would cost $200 million, which was too expensive, and it could not afford to do this at the present time.
Another recommendation had regard to the fact that it would cost some $35 million annually, including inflation, to close the discriminatory gap between raw and finished products. The minister's response to that was that he thinks the figures are wrong and does not believe them.
The commission recommended the establishment of a northern development railways department of the CNR. The minister has indicated he will review that.
The Hall commission recommended that we eliminate the railway stop-off charge for in transit grain, to which the government has said no.
The commission recommended the utilization of the Canadian government elevator at Saskatoon for cleaning, storage and shipment of grain to Churchill, to which the government has said no.
The Hall commission recommended the construction of a government elevator at Yorkton. There has been no construction started, so that represents the government's reply. In that regard perhaps the House would be interested in hearing a

June 5, 1978
Grain
paragraph from the Western Producer report of April 20, 1978, where it is stated:
The report on the feasibility of the port of Churchill and the proposed terminal at Yorkton was solicited by the federal government after the Hall report was published.
Mr. Hall's report recommended that stop-off charges at inland terminals be eliminated so grain can be cleaned and reshipped from inland terminal points. He recommended a 25 to 30 million bushel terminal be built at Yorkton to provide surge capacity for the port of Churchill and the insurance rates be readjusted to allow for a longer shipping time.
With these and other recommendations the port of Churchill could realistically handle 55.5 million bushels, Mr. Hall says. Last year 30 million bushels were shipped from the Hudson Bay port.
The Bryden report-
That is the report that really cancelled the recommendation of Mr. Justice Hall. It states:
The Bryden report didn't share Mr. Hall's optimism for the Churchill facility.
The article goes on to state:
"From beginning to end it is loaded against not only the facility at Yorkton but also the feasiblity of the port of Churchill as an ongoing force in western Canada-"
The report concludes by stating:
"We have a report downgrading the Hudson Bay Route, downgrading the port of Churchill and negative to a grain handling facility at Yorkton. I might say this is a serious problem" Mr. Hall told the 75 Bay supporters.
Mr. Hall said it was strange that no one from the port of Churchill, the manager of the port of Churchill or the federal port authority was interviewed when the Bryden report was tabulated.
He goes on to be very critical of the government for its handling of what he considers to be certainly one of the commission's more central recommendations. That is the kind of stonewalling tactic that we have seen on this side of the House, and that Mr. Justice Hall has experienced.
As the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has indicated, the government has to make a commitment to this report in its totality.
Another recommendation of the commission was to enlarge and modernize the terminal at Prince Rupert to a capacity of some 6 million bushels. The government has started in this regard and has allocated some money, but at the present time it is waiting to see whether or not the grain companies will utilize that facility.
Mr. Hall also recommended that we eliminate the additional charge by the railways of 14 cents per 100 pounds levied on rapeseed meal on hopper cars. The government's response to that was no.
The commission recommended that abandoned rights-of-way be returned to provincial Crown. The response to that was that it will go back to the federal authority and then to the municipalities.
The commission recommended the establishment of a Canadian Wheat Board regional liason office in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but certainly up to the present time the answer has been no.
There are many other areas and recommendations in the Hall commission report that have not been implemented. Mr. 
Justice Hall recommended that the Canadian Wheat Board should provide information to producers on rail car allocation to specified stations and blocks upon request, but to my knowledge that has not been implemented.
The commission recommended the establishment of an offline elevator at the Fisher Branch, Manitoba. Of course, that has not been done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it may seem odd to some hon. members that a member of parliament from British Columbia should be involved in a debate basically dealing with the movement of grain in western Canada. Hon. members should recognize the fact that British Columbia, through the port of Vancouver and the port of Prince Rupert, plays a very important role in the movement of grain to our customers around the world.
There is no question but that the port of Vancouver has on occasion received odd knocks from people regarding the shipment of grain out of that port, but the facts indicate that the port of Vancouver is developing into the largest exporting port on North America's west coast. Vancouver leads every other port on the western seaboard, with 47 million tons being handled in 1977. Canadian Press reports indicate that port general manager, Fred Spoke, claims he can see the day when Vancouver will equal all the west coast ports combined.
It should be remembered that grain handlers are making major improvements in their handling capacity, and railways are also busy with substantial improvements to their west coast efforts. According to Mr. Spoke, Burrard Inlet, a major grain outlet, can handle ships up to 120,000 deadweight tons which, he notes, is something that almost no other harbour in North America can boast. In short, the port of Vancouver is doing its job well, and is gearing up to do even better in the future.
It has been estimated that in the calendar year 1978 shipments of grain out of the west coast will total approximately 300 million bushels. I understand the minister's target for the west coast in the early 1980s with the Prince Rupert and Vancouver facilities enlarged, is in the neighbourhood of 450 million bushels.
It may be that many residents of the province of British Columbia are not aware of the significance of the grain trade through our two major ports, or what this means to the economy of British Columbia. 1 do not have the figures before me, but I can assure hon. members of this House, as well as British Columbia, that with the expansion of port facilities, the trans-shipment of grain through the two ports will contribute more and more to the economy of British Columbia in future years.
In his remarks the minister stated that by the year 1982 over one billion bushels of grain will be shipped out of the
June 5, 1978

Lakehead through Thunder Bay, Vancouver and Prince Rupert. At the present time there is an imbalance in the amount of grain shipped out of Thunder Bay compared to the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I understand that by 1982 the two areas of shipment will be almost equal with approximately 500 million bushels to be shipped out of British Columbia and approximately 500 million bushels to be shipped out of Thunder Bay.
There are plans for expansion of grain storage facilities in British Columbia. Hon. members will be aware that not too long ago an elevator burned down and destroyed part of our capacity for shipping out of the port of Vancouver. I understand the Alberta Wheat Pool is planning to expand storage facilities by 2.8 million bushels, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is planning an expansion of 3 million bushels of storage, the United Grain Growers is planning an expansion of 2 million bushels and the Pioneer Grain Company an expansion of 2.6 million bushels. In the next few years we can foresee an additional 10.4 million bushels of storage capacity added to the existing 23 million bushels storage facilities in the port of Vancouver. At the present time we have 2.25 million bushels storage capacity which would give us a total of approximately 35 million bushels of storage capacity in Prince Rupert and the port of Vancouver. Storage in Prince Rupert will be increased also and I will touch on that later.
It seems to me that the government's position on the statutory grain rate issue is crystal clear. The railways are ordinarily expected to make the major move with regard to the provision of adequate capacity as movements are projected and foreseen. I think it would be fair to say that up to this time the railways have been doing a competent job. To assist them and to assure that they would do the job, in each of the last two budgets there have been significant changes and improvements in the capital cost allowance for the railways so that their cash flow may be improved. It would also be fair to say that they responded with plans to expand their capacity more rapidly where they foresaw increased freight.
The big exception in the railways' capability to do what is needed for freight has been in the area of grain. As the Snavely commission pointed out, the railways receive very little for grain movement compared to the cost of moving it. The Hall commission stated that there is a call upon government to do additional things in the way of financing, to ensure that the railways have the funds, notwithstanding the continued existence of the long standing statutory Crow rate on grain.
It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, that in this House on many occasions I have criticized the CPR, especially in British Columbia and on Vancouver Island, for their insensitivity to the travelling public in asking for cessation of passenger service. We have the situation in western Canada, however, that with the statutory Crow rate, funds are not generated to enable the railroads to maintain their road beds and to retire and purchase rolling stock in order that we can make the continued expansion of exports which, as I indicated earlier, it had been estimated by the year 1982 would reach one billion
Grain
bushels shipped out of Canadian ports. The money has to come from somewhere, Mr. Speaker.
The government foresaw the Hall commission's recommendation regarding financing for the railways. In our 1975 policy statement we made clear that, where it is a matter of policy to maintain rates at a level below cost, the government should be willing to identify that policy and its cost and pay the amount of money to the transportation system expected to bear the burden. Therefore, it would not have to pass the costs of that transportation system on to other people or, indeed, need it be inadequately provided for.
The government responded to the spirit of that requirement for an additional infusion of cash with the provision of 8,000 hopper cars for the movement of grain, at a cost of $255 million. That was the first real, important move forward toward improving our grain handling system in some 40 years. The government also set up the Hall commission and the Snavely commission and have been dedicating themselves toward implementing their reports. In this moment of fiscal restraint we do not have the ability to move at once to pay to the railways what the Hall commission recommended, I think that point must be underlined: in this moment of fiscal restraint we do not have the ability to move at once to pay to the railways what the Hall commission recommended. There is no question that many of the recommendations are worthy of consideration. There are many other areas, however, that demand government attention.
If we had unlimited funds to enact the Hall commission's recommendations, we would still require additional funds for the enlargement of port facilities. It would be foolish to have one billion bushels of grain moved across the prairies through British Columbia only to find that the terminals could not handle one billion bushels of grain. I therefore believe that we have to look at the total transportation system and not just rely on certain sections of it. This is what I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has done by announcing funds to be allocated to the port of Vancouver and the port of Prince Rupert.
What the government and the minister did was immediate and of fundamental importance. The most important thing was to see that the railways went ahead with investment in grain lines on the prairies which had been neglected. Within a matter of a few weeks of the tabling of the Hall commission report, the government transferred to the basic rail network the additional 1,813 miles which the Hall commission identified for that purpose.
Likewise, the enormous additional expenditure required to extend the Crowsnest rates to processed grain products is beyond the capability of the federal government at this time. If this subsidy were extended to processed products, it would be very difficult to limit it just to the products that currently move by rail. Products presently moving by truck would quickly move by rail if this subsidy were not extended to truck movements of such products. It would also be argued that processed products in the east as well as those in the west should move under these rates; otherwise there would be a
6068

June 5, 1978
Grain
preferential rate which would not be accepted by other regions of the country. We would have to extend it to all modes of transportation and all regions of Canada, not limiting it to one carrier or one region.
If all such movements were included under the Crowsnest rate, the cost could conceivably be in excess of $200 million annually. This is in addition to the $200 million which would be required to compensate the railways for the full cost of moving the products currently covered by the Crowsnest rates. Day in and day out in this House we hear it argued that the government should spend wisely and be an example to provincial and municipal governments as well as to the individual. I suggest the additional funds required by the program I have just outlined would not be in the best interests of the country at this time. I am sure that further studies will have to be carried out to determine whether a policy of this type would ever be beneficial to the country.
I feel that the more you subsidize, the more you dislocate the natural patterns of transportation. One could get into an area where plants, whether they are manufacturing plants or otherwise, would be located in areas which would not normally be economically feasible for transportation reasons. As a result of subsidization further inequities are built in by locating plants and facilities in areas where they should never be located.
In his remarks the minister also included the embarkation by the federal government on a program to rehabilitate and upgrade the prairie rail network. I agree with this. The first phase is to cost $100 million and I understand will be completed by this summer. A second phase planned for 1979 and costing approximately $75 million has already been authorized by the Government of Canada. I would hope that the entire program costing over $700 million will be implemented during the expected eight to ten year period. I further hope that at the end of that period of time the basic rail network will be capable of handling hopper cars on a year-round basis.
I should mention a point that has been brought up in this House before, namely that we are in a record year of grain shipment at the Lakehead, the port of Churchill and also in the two B.C. ports. What has happened and what has not been recognized by some people is the fact that we experienced a very rough winter on the prairies. As a result of that we fell behind in the loading of ships at Vancouver and Prince Rupert and we are unable to catch up. There will always be problems in Canada with shipments of grain and other materials, for example potash, because of the climatic conditions. It does not matter what government is in power, climatic conditions will influence the transportation of goods and grain in this country. That is a fact of life that we have to look at.
We do not live or operate in a temperate climate, such as that in the southern United States. It is interesting to note that the port of New Orleans, which does not have the problems that we face in northern Canada, has approximately 30 ships waiting to load grain. And yet here we are in a record year in the shipping of grain, having had bad loading conditions

during part of our winter, and not being able to utilize hopper cars that traditionally switch over from the shipment of potash back to the grain trade, because fortunately or unfortunately the potash business is also having a record year. We have not had either the fast turnaround or the availability of cars which we have had in other years. This point should be stressed because variances in weather affect transportation in Canada. A second problem is the immense distances we must ship our goods. This sometimes is a blessing, at other times it is not. But obviously these things do play a role in transportation in Canada.
As I have stated, with the upgrading of the rail lines during that eight to ten year period of time and, with the expenditure of $700 million, we will have a first-class rail system. But again variances in weather will be a factor. These variances, of course, do not fall in the hands of politicians. After years and years of neglect and years and years of nothing being done with regard to the grain handling system, we have not only had in the last few years 8,000 hopper cars, but we have also had the commitment of the full amount of money required to put the basic rail network into first-class shape. That is an improvement and I congratulate the Minister of Transport, who is not the only Minister of Transport, Liberal, Conservative or otherwise, who has faced this problem. However, he is the minister, I believe, who has initiated a solution to this problem, and we are far along from what we were five, ten, 15 or 20 years ago.
The Hall commission recommended action with respect to Churchill and Prince Rupert. In both cases action has been taken and I am extremely pleased to see it, especially in the case of Prince Rupert. There will be advocates for Churchill among members from the prairie provinces, but in Prince Rupert the potential to move grain has always been there. However, for a variety of reasons that potential has never been achieved. Those of us who live in the southern part of British Columbia, which includes approximately 90 per cent of the population, have ignored areas such as Prince Rupert.
I am most pleased to see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Transport are redressing the balance which has always been in favour of Vancouver. It is a bold concept to have two major grain facilities in the province of British Columbia. I hope the day will come when Prince Rupert will play its proper role as a transshipment point for Canadian goods, not only grain. We are all aware that Prince Rupert is closer to the Asiatic markets than is Vancouver. I hope that those people who make decisions as to where goods are shipped from will recognize the importance of Prince Rupert-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentlemen but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that could be said in a debate of this sort. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has outlined in his motion some seven or eight specific items and I would like to cover two or three areas which I
June 5, 1978

think are important. One is the question of rail line abandonment as it pertains to my riding and to some of the Hall commission's recommendations. Another point is the whole area of grain movement.
One of the things the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board failed to discuss was the whole question of government elevators in Canada and why those elevators are not being used to full capacity. We have five grain elevators owned by the Government of Canada, or inland terminals. Which are not being used to full capacity. If we were to use them to full capacity to dry the wet, the tough and the damp grain that is now being dried on the west coast, I maintain that we could be shipping much more grain and would be able to meet our commitments. As a result we would not be keeping ships waiting and paying demurrage fees.
Specifically, in this country we have five government elevators. There is one in Saskatoon with a capacity of some five and a half million bushels of grain. At the moment, according to our check, there is some 1,820,000 bushels of grain in that elevator. In Moose Jaw the capacity of that elevator is 5.5 million bushels of grain with some 955,000 bushels of grain presently stored there. In Calgary with an elevator capacity of some 2.5 million bushels some 625,000 bushels of grain are presently stored there. In Edmonton with an elevator capacity of some 2,350,000 bushels, only 378,000 bushels are in store. Lethbridge has an elevator with a capacity of 1,250,000 bushels but in store it has only 164,000 bushels. These five terminals owned by the Government of Canada, with a capacity of 17,100,000 bushels, at the moment have in store some 3,942,000 bushels.
I would like to ask, and perhaps the minister or someone else can reply later in the debate, why we are not utilizing more fully and efficiently government elevators on the prairies. Most of that tough and damp wheat that is now being cleaned and dried on the west coast comes from northern Saskatchewan and northern Alberta. If it does, why? Why do we not do as Hall recommends and drop these stop-off charges, and try and store some of that wheat on the prairies?
We have a capacity of 17 million bushels in those five government elevators. We could at least put 12 million bushels in them, but we now have slightly under four million bushels stored there. That means we are under-utilizing those facilities to a large degree. We have only about one third of the amount of grain in those elevators that we could have. That demonstrates a lack of leadership, a lack of efficient planning and a lack of seriousness in trying to move grain in this country on the part of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang).
There is something else I find rather strange, and the minister did not refer to this in his speech. The railways are not doing as well as they should be, particularly the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have before me the list of boxcars that have been hauled by the CPR and the CNR since the beginning of the current crop year until the end of May. As we all know, the CPR lines cover the area of the prairies where the majority
Grain
of the grain is grown, hauled and marketed. Despite that, so far this crop year CP has hauled less grain than the CNR.
The CNR has delivered to the west coast, Vancouver and Prince Rupert together, 58,322 boxcars. CPR, which has the obligation to haul more because it services more communities with more grain, hauled to the west coast some 49,287 carloads of grain. That is not good enough. The Minister of Transport should use his influence and power to ensure that the CPR hauls more grain to the west coast.
I look at December, which is probably the best month to get a comparison, to show where the CPR is falling down on the job. In December, CP hauled 2,750 carloads while CN hauled 4,284. I say to the Minister of Transport that I believe there is a lot more he could be doing. He could use his influence with CP. In fact, he could use his influence with both railways to make sure they are repairing and purchasing more cars, that they are hauling in a more efficient way grain to the west coast. Those government terminals could be utilized to a larger degree. He should ensure that grain being dried on the prairies and stored on the prairies could be moved to an export position when the rush and the bottleneck is not as great as at this moment.
The second matter I want to refer to in my all too brief 20 minutes this afternoon and this evening is another aspect of the Hall commission report that we should be talking about more than we do. That is the whole area of rail line abandonment as it pertains to ordinary communities in this country. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) mentioned that Hall recommended the establishment of a prairie rail authority to make a decision on over 2,000 miles of rail line on which Hall could not make a decision. He wanted more time to study the available data. He suggested that the PRA be established to look at these facts and make the decision as to whether these lines should stay or go.
I want to make a case for three lines that lie within the boundaries of my constituency. They are absolutely vital, not just to the people but to the communities and everything that one would call a community in about ten, 20 or 25 towns in my constituency.
The first line goes from Thunderhill Junction in Manitoba, which is near the town of Swan River, right on through Kelvington in central Saskatchewan. Mr. Hall recommended that that line be placed under the PRA. The line is 113.6 miles in length. It has 12 delivery points, namely Kenville, Durban, Benito in Manitoba, Arran, Pelly, Norquay, Hyas, Stenen, Sturgis in the eastern part of Saskatchewan, the division of that line, and also Preeceville, Lintlaw, Nut Mountain and Kelvington on the western portion of that line in Saskatchewan. The ten year average of hauling grain has been some 8.3 million bushels per year, or an average haul of some 73,000 bushels per mile.
For some reason, the Hall commission divided that line into two parts. They took the eastern part, from Thunderhill Junction near Swan River to Sturgis, and recommended that it be placed under the basic rail authority. The minister agreed and put it there when the Hall commission report came down a
80045 - 1 IV2

June 5, 1978
Grain
while ago. The rest of the line, from the town of Sturgis out west, which is Preeceville, Lintlaw, Nut Mountain and Kelv-ington, was to be put under the auspices of the prairie rail authority.
As I said earlier, that does not make much sense. They are big communities, particularly Kelvington and Preeceville. They are centres for a whole series of farms and villages. They have good business sections and well over 1,000 people each. They are well established, progressive communities. They haul a lot of grain. It was a surprise to me, and I suspect from what he said privately to the minister himself, that that part of the line was not put under the basic network. The minister should take action at this time and place that line under the basic network and make sure that it is protected.
After the news came out, those communities decided to set up "save our rail line" committees. I was present at three public meetings in those communities, and at one meeting of the steering committee since then, to discuss ways and means of saving that rail line. I want to say as strongly as I can that it must be saved, not just for the farmers who haul their grain- although it is obvious that it must be saved for them because of cost and convenience-but for the business community and everyone who lives in those towns. If it is not, the towns will gradually dwindle in size and eventually disappear. While the whole thing is uncertain, it will be very difficult to persuade a new business to open or an existing business to expand because of the fear that the rail line will disappear.
As I said, under the leadership of some of the people in the areas, "save our rail line" committees have been set up and are working. The Minister of Transport should be in communication with those communities. May I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was presenting an argument to the effect that the minister should move to retain the Preeceville-Kelvington rail line in the northern part of my Saskatchewan constituency. I made that argument on behalf of the farmers and townspeople there and I would point out that they have established a save-our-rail-line committee under the chairmanship of George Derbyshire of Kelvington and the secretaryship of Nora Vansdal of Lintlaw.
The second line about which there is uncertainty in my constituency is the line which runs from Canora to MacNutt. Under the Hall report this Canora-MacNutt line is divided into two regions; there is the MacNutt-Wroxton portion which is 15.7 miles in length. There are three delivery points in that

area, namely, MacNutt, Calder and Wroxton, and over the last ten years they have averaged some 1.7 million bushels of grain, which works out to about 105,000 bushels of grain per mile of track. The northern portion of that line runs from Ross Junction, which is right next to Canora, to the village of Wroxton and includes the delivery points of Hampton, Ryan and Stornoway.
There are ten elevators serving four different companies along that particular part of the line. It covers some 37.8 miles and over the last ten years the average amount of grain which moved over that line was 1.6 million bushels, or 42,000 bushels per mile. Once again, as in the case of the line, this line would serve six delivery points, and it is of keen interest to the people there that these rail communities are going to suffer and that the farmers will be spending a lot more money in transportation of their grain. Also, the towns and villages along the line will dwindle and so on. As in the case of the other line to which I have referred, the local people have also set up a save-our-line committee. It has been a very active committee; I have had a chance only to meet with them once at a meeting and once at the executive level. They are making progress, I think, in their fight to save the rail line. That committee is under the able chairmanship of Albert Zelaney of Wroxton and the secretary is Clarence Laidlaw of the town of Calder.
The third line in my area is a line which is slightly different from the first two. It was recommended by the Hall Commission that the first two go under the prairie rail authority. With a good fight I think there is good reason to be optimistic that they will be placed under the basic network, particularly if the Minister of Transport will listen with a positive attitude. I have always said there will be a tougher battle for the third line. It is the line that goes from the city of Yorkton to the little town of Willowbrook and to another little town called Jedburgh. That line includes some 26 miles of track. Over the last ten years an average of 900,000 bushels of grain per year have gone over that 26 miles of track, or about 34,000 bushels per mile. That line serves two very important communities in my riding which will be hurt if the rail line is abandoned, as it will be prior to 1981 unless something can be done to stop it. As in the other two areas a rail line committee has been established under the chairmanship of the reeve of that municipality, Mr. August Fenske, and the secretary of the rural municipality is also the secretary of the committee, Mr. Jerry Kuziak. Both of these men are from the Jedburgh-Theodore area.
I have before me a copy of an article which appeared very recently in the Yorkton newspaper This Week. The headline is: "Jedburgh starts fight to keep last elevator". I point this out because I think this is a new angle to use to help keep rail lines. The article says:
Last fall, the residents of Jedburgh and area formed a committee to organize a fight to keep their rail line to Yorkton, which under the Hall Commission recommendations could be abandoned in 1981.
But now the community and surrounding farmers find that even if they save the line, it might not be any good to them.
June 5, 1978

Three weeks ago, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool informed the local Pool committee and members that its elevator will close down at the end of the crop year, July 31.
With the United Grain Growers (UGG) elevator already closed, and being torn down this winter, that would leave the community without a delivery point for grain.
Save the Rail Committee chairman August Fenske told Yorkton This Week Saturday that the group has switched the emphasis of its efforts: right now it is working to keep the pool elevator open.
With the support of the local pool committee, the group has circulated petitions in the community and district demanding that the Pool keep its elevators open, and a meeting will be held this week to gather together the petitions and discuss the next course of action.
Wherever the petitions have been taken, they have received strong support, Fenske said.
"We'll either force them or convince them to keep it open," he added.
Here is a community which has to fight with the wheat pool itself to keep its elevator open. I encourage that community in that fight because back in 1974 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that as long as there are elevators on a line, that line will not be abandoned. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board also said something very similar back in 1974, and I want to put on the record one of his comments. He said, and I quote:
As long as the Liberal party forms the government and as long as producers wish to continue to deliver to the elevator of their choice, not one rail line will be abandoned.
That was the Minister of Transport speaking on June 11, 1974. If people in Jedburgh and in other communities get commitments from their elevators that those elevators will stay, then I want to make sure that the minister will remain true to the commitment he made. If the elevators stay, the lines should stay. If that happens, people will have their elevators and their lines to pull their communities closer together in the years to come.
I would like to make one other point about complaints we have been receiving in the last few weeks from the local level about the unorganized way of delivering grain to ships on the west coast, Thunder Bay or at the port of Churchill. This lack of organization affects many farmers in my area. Just today we completed a survey of some elevators in my constituency. A lot of grain is produced in the Melville area, and the Melville pool elevator is plugged. It cannot take any more wheat, and 25 per cent of the farmers in the area will not get their seed quotas in. Car orders this week are for numbers two or three wheat, oats and barley. Most of the other elevators, as well as Melville's, on this block are also plugged or will not get the seed quota hauling completed. I suggest that the time has come for the Minister of Transport himself to intervene to make sure that the seed quota is extended and that boxcars are available so that farmers can haul their grain and can get money to pay for their seeding expenses. The Carberry block is also in my area. It now overlaps with the part of my riding which goes into the riding of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He is also having similar problems.
The Langenburg elevator is plugged, and 50 per cent of the farmers in the Langenburg area will not get their seed quotas
Grain
in. Much of the same is happening in the Bredenbury block. The Wishart elevator toward the western fringes of my riding is plugged, and a substantial number of farmers in that area also will not get their seed quotas in. I think the minister should be making sure that the seed quotas are extended beyond the June termination date so that these farmers can deliver their grain. The minister should be saying to the railways that they have an obligation to provide boxcars so that farmers can deliver their grain and can have income to meet their spring seeding expenses.
That is one specific example of the problems farmers are having at the local level. They cannot deliver their grain, despite the fact that the minister boasts about tremendous sales this year and the fact that the price of wheat is to go up in the future. Farmers in my riding and in every other riding across the country cannot deliver their grain. The minister knows this, and I wish he would exercise some of the authority and power he has as Minister of Transport and minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. I wish he would crack the whip-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the short time which is available in this debate I am not going to talk about the difficulties and the opportunities this Hall commission report gives to the government to get our rail systems working. Hon. members who have already spoken have made clear the difficulties farmers are now facing, particularly in the eastern half of the prairies. Farmers have a very violent type of feeling because all winter long they have been told how much grain the minister has been sending out of the country, but they know it is not going out of their districts because there is nothing moving to any great extent yet to the east.
I want to comment on the larger aspects of this problem. I see that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) is back in his seat. Today we in western Canada received a news release from the hon. member which says:
Assiniboia M.P. Ralph Goodale says the Government of Canada will initiate a special, immediate investigation into the efficient use of prairie grain handling and transportation facilities.
The very moment this press release was going all over the prairies telling people the government would investigate the grain handling system, the minister was here in this House telling us how well the grain system is working. Either the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the hon. member for Assiniboia have their wires crossed or the hon. member issued this statement without the permission of the government; but if the hon. member is correct and this is the view of the government, it proves the very basis for this motion of no confidence moved by the New Democratic Party. The NDP has moved this motion expressing no confidence in the government. I will quote from the opening part as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government has failed to expand Canada's capacity to move grain to export position thereby jeopardizing the

June 5, 1978
Grain
Canadian Wheat Board's ability to compete successfully for expanding grain sales-
My comment on that is very blunt and to the point: where was the NDP this last ten years when this government systematically has been following a policy of trying to get rid of farmers on the ground that there were too many farmers and too much production? The NDP has supported this government and kept it in power for most of the last 15 years. Every time there has been a minority government the NDP has kept the Liberal party in power. It was the NDP which put the government into a minority position in 1963. Now the NDP at long last recognizes that its allies which it has been supporting all these years have not done the job they were supposed to do.
I want to quote into the record what the minister himself has said. A year ago when the commission's report came down, all members of parliament and, I suppose, all members of the news media received a report from the minister's office called "The Hall Report: An Inviting challenge for Prompt Action", a commentary by the Minister of Transport dated May 27, 1977. In it he uses the following phrases: "we will establish in western Canada a modern, top quality handling and transportation system for prairie grain". Boy, was that definite action! Another phrase reads: "we have had two years of study-we know the problems. Now we must move with solutions".
Where was the hon. member for Assiniboia yesterday and today when this press statement was issued? Has he heard about the solutions? The minister has gone up and down the prairies and has repeated in the House ad infinitum that they are building box cars, that they are rebuilding rail lines, they have done this, that and everything. But why, then, is there a tie up?
I know the reasons. One is that ten years ago the government decided, and has let the railways and the grain companies know, that we should get rid of a large number of grain farmers in western Canada and reduce the acreage by half. Program after program has been brought in, such as the program on supply management, the LIFT program, and the stabilization of income program which was brought in seven or eight years ago. All those programs which were brought in in 1970-1971 were designed to get rid of farmers and to reduce acreage by half. Now, it became clear in 1968 and 1969 that the world's grain markets were going up at a tremendous rate; this dawned on the minister only recently, so now he admits his policies have been wrong for ten years. That is why the government has failed. Why the NDP, which used to have an interest in farm problems, took so long to realize that this mess was occurring, I do not know, but I will come back to them in a moment.


An hon. Member:: Better late than never.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: They have called for some parts of this program. Paragraph (f) was referred to by the mover of the motion. It reads:

To strengthen the principles of orderly marketing by returning the marketing of feed grains to the sole jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and to include as well the marketing of flax, rye and rapeseed under the said board.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The provincial governments in the west put this before the farmers in the form of a referendum. What did the farmers say? They said that they did not want it. The farmers believe in the Canadian Wheat Board, but they want some part of their produce available through the alternative marketing system, and this the NDP has failed to recognize. They have failed to recognize that one cannot take the words of wisdom from the leaders of the grain companies. Whatever the grain companies' leaders say, that is what the NDP says. And who tells the grain companies what to think? The Minister of Transport in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board does. He has these boys in his pocket.
When I see the NDP going along with this, I am ashamed of them. They used to be a strong voice for agriculture. What are they now? Just the spokesmen of the grain companies. The Minister of Transport today nailed those grain companies when he said why he had not brought in the prairie rail authority. He said it was because it was not wanted by the head of the Alberta Wheat Pool and the head of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. Where are those two guys going to hide, because the great majority of farmers in Alberta and in Saskatchewan want the prairie rail authority? They look on it as the Magna Carta of the whole economics of western Canada. But he nailed their hides to the cross today when he said they did not want it. So he was glad they put in the Prairie Rail Action Committee which was designed to keep any action from occurring.
All we have heard from the minister so far is when one of his colleagues said that we must set up a committee to study the studies. We have been studying the railway problems in western Canada since the 1930's and every royal commission until now has reported that we should rationalize the railway operation. The last study was undertaken by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. He said now is the time for action; let us set up a rail authority controlled by westerners in charge of running the railway system over its marginal 2,000 miles until it can be demonstrated that the lines can be run for a profit, at which time they should be turned back to the railways. But the minister did not want that. So we have the prairie grain companies and the minister saying they will set up a cover-up called the Prairie Rail Action Committee, which will set up hearings but whose primary and only purpose is to try to keep action from being taken.
Now I will come back to what I believe is the key question in this resolution. Why did the NDP put in paragraph (f)? It is a motherhood paragraph but the farmers do not want it, just the grain companies. Actually, it is quite simple why the farmers do not want it. If you are selling grain to your neighbour or to the local feed lot or feed mill, if it comes out of the Wheat Board under the present rules, you have to take the grain to the elevator and the person who buys it has to pay for
June 5, 1978

the handling charges, the freight charges, the drying and cleaning charges, and all the other charges. If he has to ship that grain down to Thunder Bay, he takes it out to feed his stock and he is stuck with the 40 cent charge for services he did not get.
Because of that the farmers want the right to be able to deliver their grain to their neighbour or to the feed lot nearby. Many farmers have organized into co-operatives to do just that. That is why a great majority of the farmers in the west turned down the idea that all grain should be put into the Wheat Board by being put into the elevators. Everyone knows that the Hall commission report gave a lift to the livestock farmers in western Canada because it stated that now is the time to give livestock producers a fair break under the Crows-nest Pass rates. However, the report did not state how it should be done.
The commission wanted to end the discrimination which exists against farmers who have to buy their grain from the elevators and pay 40 cents for services they did not get. It wanted parliament and the government to come up with a way of handling this. As a matter of fact, the Conservative party has considered the recommendations of the Hall commission and looked for various ways in which this particular recommendation of Chief Justice Hall could be put into effect, and we have come up with three or four ways. All I will say is that these proposals, I think, try to meet the farmers' needs and still give them the benefits of the Crowsnest rates if they are livestock producers.
The first proposal I call the Devine proposal because it was thought up and first mentioned by Professor Devine of the University of Saskatchewan. I know he has been around to see the farm leaders and the heads of the governments of each of the provinces and he has made his ideas known far and wide, so I think he deserves the right to call his proposal his own. One of the Devine proposals to get around all these difficulties and come up with a workable solution to the problem of giving equal treatment to livestock producers and grain producers is that farmers haul their feed grain to the elevator, pay a service fee for the weighing and ticketing and let the buyer get his ticket as well.
As a result of this service, the seller of the grain gets the initial payment according to the daily reported price set by the Canadian Wheat Board, and in return for selling his grain through the system he becomes eligible not only for the initial payment of grain as set by the Canadian Wheat Board but also for the final payment, if there is one. On the other hand, when the grain has gone into the elevator and out, the buyer gets it at the going price of the day set by the Canadian Wheat Board, less the handling charges, less the storage charges, less the freight charges, less the cleaning and dockage charges and all the rest of it. Therefore, he gets the advantage of 40 cents a bushel, which puts him on a par with the eastern livestock feeder.
That proposal has both advantages and disadvantages, as do other proposals. I was interested in reading the other day about the government of Saskatchewan. At the present time
Grain
the government of Saskatchewan is NDP. The policy of the NDP was strongly stated a year ago, namely, that all grain should come under the Canadian Wheat Board. That is what the motion before us tonight calls for as well. After the vote by the farmers, who indicated that they did not want it in the first place, the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture had a change of policy. Now he is coming up with a new feed grain policy.
I should like to refer to The Rural Councillor of May 1, 1978. I hope hon. members of the New Democratic Party listen to what I am about to read. The Hon. Edgar Kaeding, the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan, on March 15 said the following:
Under the proposal outlined by Mr. Kaeding, farmers would arrange farm to farm sales but such sales would be subject to quota restrictions and would be recorded in the sellers permit book. He would receive the initial payment and be eligible for any final payment that might be made. The elevator agent would weigh, grade, assess dockage and record the transaction on a fee-for-service basis. The purchaser would pay what Mr. Kaeding called a "revised corn competitive price for western Canada." This would be the lower of the Thunder Bay corn formula price or the Canadian Wheat Board asking price less the cost of getting the grain from Saskatchewan to Thunder Bay.
This is exactly the same system which I have just outlined called the Devine proposal. I gave credit to the author of the proposal. I am not stopping at Mr. Devine's proposal. The Conservative party is looking at several other proposals. I give credit for this proposal to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). He was the first member I heard talk about that, but other people have talked about it since. He comes from the province of Alberta, which is the biggest beef producer in Canada, producing approximately six million head of beef cattle. This is a simple system as well. The proceeds from the feed grain sales could be used to pay farmers the equivalent of the Crow rate in the form of a pro rata amount on the finished beef. In other words, the livestock producer would be given an amount equal to the cost of grain which went into raising the animals shipped for export under the Crowsnest rates. This could be done simply. It could be payments based on the differentials in various cities such as Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, or any other market centre. These would be added to the agricultural price support payments on a quarterly basis when they became due. This would provide a reward for finishing the animal in the west and would make the western feed grain user equal to the eastern feeder. It would mean an end to seeing our livestock industry moving out of western Canada.
That proposal contains good, simple points as well as bad ones. We cannot see ourselves as a Conservative government coming in here on the basis of the proposal of the hon. member for Red Deer or on the basis of the proposal by Professor Devine of Saskatoon and saying that this is the program. These programs are to remedy injustice and discrimination. Farmers should be consulted in a real way, rather than going ahead and consulting with the grain companies. One does not consult a weasel to learn how to run a hen house. One does not consult the grain companies alone concerning the interests of farmers. I do not care what grain companies call themselves.

June 5, 1978
Grain
They can call themselves the Alberta Pool, the Saskatchewan Pool, UGG, Pioneer Grain or anything else. As far as farmers are concerned, they are the boys they have to get by.
Consultation does not mean only talking to one or two farm leaders and a grain company. There must be genuine consultation with the farmers. In that event agreements would be easier to reach. They would know that we are putting policy alternatives before them in order for them to express support or disagreement. Also they will know we have consulted them. This would take away the great anger and alienation on the part of farmers in western Canada. Some of these farmers feel that all the government does is meet with one or two of the grain companies and decide government policy on that basis. We would like to see genuine consultation.
With regard to the NDP motion before us, that party should be congratulated for realizing there has been a failure on the part of the government to provide infrastructure in order to move Canadian grain to market. The government is quite correct in saying that it cannot be stopped, and that the world will want at least one billion bushels long before 1982. In fact, the world wants that from us now, but it cannot be provided because the government sold all the 1976 and 1977 crops at $3 a bushel, which is below the current world price. With the current price of $4.50 at Vancouver, farmers are not very happy to see all their grain going out at low prices.
Therefore, our real job is to accept the Hall commission report. The guts of that report was the prairie rail authority. The prairie rail authority is a western board looking after western problems. For years the civil service took us through the hoops. The old transport board was in the hands of the railways. Then the Canadian Transport Commission was set up. That commission did not even wait to get out of the hands of the railways; it was there before the railways were. Now we have a bill to bring us back to the civil service again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering a very important subject. I believe it is totally appropriate for parliament to devote this time to the question of the prairie grain handling and transportation system. The value of the prairie grain economy to the over-all national economy of Canada cannot be overemphasized. It is important to the west, indeed to all of Canada, to ensure a healthy and vibrant grains industry. Anything parliament can do through discussion of this kind to bolster the industry and to augment grain handling and our transportation capacity certainly is a worth-while undertaking.
Today I noticed a very interesting argument between hon. members of the New Democratic and Conservative parties concerning their respective positions regarding the strength of the Canadian Wheat Board. The position of the New Democratic Party probably is spelled out reasonably well in the motion before us. Members of the Conservative party take a different view. We have the publicly reported comments of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who suggested that the Canadian Wheat Board should be open to internation-

al competition. As well, the Conservative premier of Alberta launched a variety of attacks in recent weeks upon the Canadian Wheat Board.
For the benefit of hon. members opposite, and perhaps as a way for them to resolve this dispute among themselves, I should like to quote an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal dated June 3, 1978. It was written by a Saskatchewan journalist, Mr. Marc Lisac. He wrote a general commentary about the political scene in Saskatchewan. The article in part reads as follows:
Saskatchewan New Democrats tend to paint the minister as a Professor Moriarty of the grain trade. They fear for the future of the board under Lang.
At the same time, the board has been under attack recently by Premier Peter Lougheed. The Alberta government seems increasingly to view grain as a natural resource like any of the others now owned by the provinces. Lang has emerged as the federal agency's staunchest defender against Lougheed.
The conflict of opinion between the two opposition parties as expressed by Mr. Lisac is interesting. Perhaps he will assist opposition parties in sorting out their respective positions.
Our grain handling and transportation system is facing an enormous immediate challenge. Grain producers are concerned about it. They are concerned about keeping up with the ambitious shipping program of the Canadian Wheat Board for this season, and about keeping demurrage costs to the bare minimum. It is not uncommon for farmers to express worry about this kind of thing. Indeed, virtually every year when we get to about this point in the grain shipping season there is likely to be a good deal of concern about the allocation of quotas, the use of railway cars, the condition of branch lines, the cost of demurrage, and so on. For decades we westerners have grown rather accustomed to these sorts of worries, and to an almost constant flow of apparent bad news about our grain transportation system.
I suggest that in this year, 1978, the story is in fact fundamentally different. The immediate challenges are still there before us, but some basic initiatives are being advanced to cope with those challenges in an effective, long-term fashion. Major steps are now being taken to build toward a Canadian capacity to move one billion bushels of prairie grain to export markets each year.
If we must face a problem in the Canadian grains industry, the challenge of keeping up to our export opportunities is probably the best kind of problem. Surely the sort of situation we face this year, as troubling as it may be, is a far cry from the serious depression in grain incomes we had to face in the early 1970s when markets were tight, quotas were low and prices were painfully inadequate.
The fact that we are now facing a challenge in moving our grain fast enough means that market conditions are in fact good and that Canada occupies a strong position as a major world exporter. This has resulted from a number of factors over the last few years, including the market development programs of the federal government and of the Canadian
June 5, 1978

Wheat Board, the credit terms made available to foreign buyers by the federal treasury, key diplomatic and trade missions by Canada to major importing nations such as China and Russia, and federal encouragement for diversification into export sales of grains and oilseeds like barley and rapeseed, which were not major selling items for Canada before about 1970.
Fundamentally, of course, there are two key elements in our strong marketing situation; first and foremost is the excellent quality of the grains and oilseeds produced so efficiently by Canadian farmers; and secondly, the superb, continuing work of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Wheat Board and its agents have obviously done an excellent job in winning sales contracts and, consequently, the board has had to develop a vigorous grain shipping schedule for this season, demanding that virtually each month we set a new all-time monthly record in terms of the grain volume moved.
When we hear news reports about our being behind in moving grain this year, it is useful to note that this really means behind the record breaking target levels being set by the board itself. In fact, we are a considerable distance ahead of most actual past performances, and even with the peculiar difficulties we have had to cope with this winter-heavy winter weather through the Rockies, a major derailment, a key bridge that was damaged in the Vancouver area, the severe February storms on the prairies, and so on-we are still likely to set a new annual record or near record by the end of this crop year.
Another factor to bear in mind is that since late last summer export prices have been consistently moving upward. At the moment the price for number one C.W. Red Spring wheat is well in excess of $4 per bushel. Naturally, when you shoot for an all-time volume record you are going to tax the transportation system to its absolute limits, and that is what has been happening this year. We expect to move nearly 850 million bushels of grain this year. That is about twice as much as would normally have been moved, say, 12 or 15 years ago, which means we are clearly within range of hitting the billion bushel mark in just a very few years from now.
In respect of the current situation this year, I think it is important to get our problems and our challenges in perspective. In this respect, Canada's largest and most vocal prairie grain handling firm has had quite a lot to say in recent weeks about the grain handling situation. I am referring specifically to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and for the record I would like to quote an important series of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool radio reports on this question. First of all, I would refer to the radio report published by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool for May 19. That radio report in part reads as follows:
There has been a great deal said about shipping delays in Canada's grain industry this year but little, if anything, has been said about similar problems in competing countries. The result has been an impression that only Canada is the laggard while competing countries snap up the business that should be coming to this country. What are the facts?
Reuters news agency reported that New Orleans, a major American grain outlet, had nine ships loading grain and 39 vessels backed up and waiting.
During the first week of May, the United States Department of Agriculture set up emergency service in conjunction with the Interstate Commerce Commission with a view to sorting out the problem of an extreme shortage of rail grain
Grain
cars. Apparently, the situation is a "mess". It should be remembered that U.S. grain is also moved down a less costly internal river system.
In Argentina, the last report was that grain carriers were experiencing a 15 to 20 day delay in seeking loads. Buenos Aires reported 27 boats were waiting at Rosario Roads and nine at Santa Fe. In Buenos Aires itself, nine vessels were waiting. Argentine sources said delays of up to 30 days could be expected for vessels loading up river and completing cargo in Buenos Aires.
In Australia, strikes have caused considerable congestion and shipping delays in grain shipments over the past month. Remember that Australian grain is grown near the coast of that country.
Recognizing that there have been some problems in Canada, in mid April the Canadian Grain Commission reported total exports of Canadian grain were up by 17.5 per cent above those of a year ago. Producer deliveries to primary elevators were up by 10 per cent over the same 37 week period of a year ago. The commission reported that as of April 12th, Canadian bread wheat exports were 35 per cent higher than last year, durum was up 45 per cent, rapeseed 7.5 per cent and rye exports were running 75 per cent ahead of last year's comparable figure. It should also be noted that Canada has increased her percentage of world wheat sales, mainly at the expense of the United States.
Quite naturally, we can't afford to take any comfort from or be complacent about grain shipping problems in Canada or the countries that we compete with. On the other hand, we need to keep things in perspective and not swallow the nonsensical impression that Canada is some sort of inefficient exception in the world of grain exports.
On May 24, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in another radio report had this comment to make:
Despite the difficulties encountered in moving grain from the prairies to export position on the west coast during the winter months, the Canadian Wheat Board reports its west coast shipping program is running well ahead of last year.
Figures for the end of March, show 5.5 million tonnes shipped through the West Coast, as compared to 4.6 million tonnes at the same date in 1977. Total Canadian grain exports at the same date were 1.8 million tonnes ahead of last year, and the board says they will approach the all-time record set in 1972-73 by the end of the year.
Finally I would refer to the pool broadcast of May 26 of this year which reads in part as follows:
With all that has been said about the cost of demurrage payments in recent weeks, it may be helpful to examine just what demurrage has cost over the past 10 years.
An analysis of demurrage paid during the crop years from 1967-68 to 1976-77 shows the average cost of demurrage per bushel of wheat marketed was 0.54 cents per bushel. Even when calculated on the basis of cost per bushel of wheat exported, it was only 0.61 cents per bushel.
The highest demurrage charges recorded were in 1973-74. Even then, they were only 2.14 cents per bushel of wheat marketed. The lowest demurrage was in 1967-68, a minuscule 0.002 cents per bushel of wheat marketed.
A similar analysis of demurrage paid on barley over the same period shows average demurrage costs of 0.30 cents per bushel marketed, or 0.38 cents per bushel exported.
Demurrage must be recognized as one of the normal and necessary costs incurred in the international grain marketing business. At a 10-year average of 0.54 cents per bushel of wheat marketed, it certainly is not out of line. Talking about lump sums can be very misleading. The objective should be to pay the least demurrage possible but again, it has to be kept in perspective. Remember that no demurrage is paid when grain isn't being sold.
I would make one more reference to the comments of this very large important grain handling organization across a good part of western Canada, particularly the province of Saskatchewan. I refer to a recent edition of the Regina Leader-Post where the Canadian Press was reporting on the general grain handling situation across the west. A part of the article reads as follows:
6076

June 5, 1978
Grain
E. K. Turner, president of Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, said no one is ever satisfied with the way things go, and it is always a source of concern to see ships waiting for grain.
'But invariably, when you book heavily, it doesn't take much to disrupt the program,' he said.
'We are running at volumes comparable with last year and are in a position where we can set export records this year before the end of July.'
'Given that, things haven't been going as badly as people have painted. It also indicates our capacity for export is greater than it has been in the past.'
Obviously, if we now have the capacity to transport nearly twice as much export grain as could be handled by the system in the early 1960's, the grains system must have been subjected to some pretty important improvements in recent years.
In this connection we can think of the 8,000 grain hopper cars, the port co-ordinators, the rail cost disclosure legislation, the reciprocal railway routing agreements, the Mants report on boxcar allocations, the new quota system, the block shipping system, the Snavely investigation of railway costs, the special boxcar repair program, all the good work being done to implement the Hall report, and so on. These are all federal initiatives to help upgrade the system, taken during this past decade or so.
More modifications are obviously required and several key federal efforts are already under way. For example, there is the prairie branch line rebuilding program which will invest something in the range of $700 million of federal money to upgrade the prairie grain network to top notch condition in the next five to seven years. There is a major storage expansion now moving toward completion in Vancouver to boost our capacity and our flexibility in that port by something in the range of 40 per cent. There are the multi-million dollar development plans now in place of Prince Rupert and Churchill.
We have heard recent demands, of course, for more grain hopper cars and another grain boxcar repair program. Those demands in themselves demonstrate the success of those two federal initiatives which have been undertaken in past years. The federal government has been considering those ideas for some time and I would expect a positive response to both suggestions.
All of these measures will help, particularly in terms of our long-term prospects. But for the period immediately ahead we have to be certain we are getting the very most out of the facilities we already have. Efficiency in grain transportation and handling is extremely important in maximizing sales and minimizing demurrage-and that means dollars in the pockets of farmers.
That is why I was pleased to see this past weekend that the Government of Canada is initiating a special, immediate shortterm investigation into the operations of the railways, the grain companies and the transportation section of the Canadian Wheat Board to ensure full co-operation among all agencies with grain moving responsibilities, and the most efficient possible use of all available equipment and facilities. We have got to get the very most out of the system we have now.
[Mr. Goodale.l
The investigation, to be undertaken by an independent analyst with proven experience and expertise in the railway industry, should have the active co-operation of the railways, the grain companies and the transportation section of the Canadian Wheat Board. The objective is to ensure that maximum advantage is taken of every Canadian grain selling opportunity and that demurrage costs are kept to the absolute minimum. Farmers on the prairies are concerned that we make the very most of every sales opportunity, and that we stay on target with the Wheat Board's delivery program to satisfy our customers and avoid demurrage. In addition to the long-term measures already initiated to build toward a billion bushel export target, we need immediate short-term measures too to assure that the existing rolling stock is being used to the best possible advantage and that we are getting the very most out of what we have now.
I applaud the efforts to add more hopper cars to our existing fleet of 8,000 of these ultra-modern, federally-financed grain cars. I also agree that another repair program to save additional boxcars for grain movement is a useful effort for the government to undertake.
These initiatives-along with the federal government's prairie rail rebuilding program, the storage expansion at Vancouver, the development plans for Prince Rupert and so on-will help enormously in meeting that billion bushel target that is just ahead of us. But for 1978, the rest of this crop year and the rest of this shipping season, we have to be sure that we are getting the very best out of the system that exists at the moment. That is why I believe a serious, independent and expeditious investigation of the current efficiency of the operations of the Wheat Board's transportation section, the railways and the grain companies can help to achieve the best shortterm results for producers. That is obviously a priority concern. I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will get this effort under way quickly so that we can begin to see some benefits in time for the rest of this crop year and the balance of the 1978 shipping season.
Undoubtedly we have some significant challenges ahead of us in the short term and the long term, Mr. Speaker. We also have every reason to believe we will be able to meet those challenges effectively to the advantage of the grains industry, to the advantage of the Canadian grain producer in particular, and ultimately to the advantage of the national economy.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on this motion. I feel it is a timely motion in that there is a great deal of concern in western Canada regarding the movement of grain, particularly in this season.
While the minister is still optimistic that grain exports will reach a record level, we are faced with the prospect of the inability to fulfil our export commitments on schedule. This, of course, could result in our customers losing faith in our delivery capabilities and looking elsewhere to fill their needs. In addition, we are faced with the possibility of demurrage charges estimated at between $17 and $20 million, possibly the
June 5, 1978

highest we have ever seen. As the law now stands, this $17 to $20 million will be charged to the Canadian Wheat Board and taken out of the producer pools. In other words, this money will come out of the pocket of the producer.
It has been suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) that we should not talk about bulk figures but, rather, that we should be relating this $17 to $20 million to the number of bushels involved so that we would end up with a fraction of a cent per bushel in demurrage charges. Whether we talk about cents per bushel or the over-all total, it is still dollars and cents out of the pocket of the western grain producer. A buck is a buck, Mr. Speaker, no matter how you look at it. Added up, this is a substantial sum.
If you consider the multiplier effect on our economy, which is usually estimated at three times the initial amount, then if we hit a $17 to $20 million demurrage charge this year it means an over-all loss to the western economy of between $50 and $60 million, a very substantial amount. In fact, if you consider the cost of a hopper car at $40,000 and look at a loss of $60 million, this means that with that money we could purchase another 1500 hopper cars.
It has been suggested on the government side of the House that there is little we can do to cut down on demurrage charges. Mr. Speaker, boats do not suddenly appear in port without warning. They move relatively slowly. They have continuous radio contact with the shore and Canadian Wheat Board officials must know well in advance what ships will be arriving, when, and the grade and quantities of wheat required. If this information is known, I find it difficult to understand why the scheduling of grain movement cannot be carried out in such a manner that the types, grades and quantities of grain are available for loading when the ships arrive.
I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board has done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. As has been pointed out by previous speakers, despite the fact that the taxpayers of Canada have supplied the railways with some 8,000 hopper cars since 1972, our capacity is now less than it was when we started purchasing hopper cars.
In addition-and this was mentioned by a previous speaker-as a result of questions asked in the transport committee it was determined that 23,000 CNR boxcars are presently in use in the United States on a no-charge basis. While I appreciate there is always an interchange of grain cars between Canada and the United States, these 23,000 boxcars are some 10,000 cars more than normal. If these 10,000 cars were presently operating in our system, we could have moved a tremendous amount of grain to export positions and we would not be faced with the possibility of very high demurrage charges which the Wheat Board is now anticipating.
I am sure that the hon. minister in charge of the Wheat Board must have been aware for some months of the problems at the west coast. As minister in charge of transport, he must have been aware of the boxcar situation. It would seem to me that he personally, or his senior officials, should have been
Grain
continuously monitoring the boxcar situation. They should have anticipated a problem and kept in touch with senior officials of both railways in an attempt to alleviate the problems we are now facing and have been facing for many months. Surely that is the responsibility of the minister, Mr. Speaker?
Over the past several years I have urged the further utilization of government inland terminals. I have asked questions and I have made recommendations without success. The five terminal elevators located at Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Lethbridge have a storage capacity of some 17 million bushels. On a two-shift daily operation they have a cleaning capacity of some 440,000 bushels per day. On a five-day week operation these plants, working on a three-shift basis, have an annual cleaning capacity of 114 million bushels, or a six-day capacity of 205.9 million bushels. It is interesting to note that the terminal elevator at Moose Jaw which has a capacity of 5.5 million bushels can handle in a year a throughput of between 25 and 30 million bushels. That same elevator in a 24-hour period, using unit or solid trains, is able to load sufficient cars to fill a one million bushel boat. Yet, we are not using these facilities.
Mr. Justice Hall and his commission did a study of inland terminals. He had this to say, and 1 will read from page 235 of the report:
The commission recommends the full use of the government elevators and the construction of another one at Yorkton.
The commission does not look upon the government elevators as replacement for any of the current terminal capacity facilities, but as an addition to systems capability of handling grain.
The commission recognizes that even with the elimination of the stop-off charges that there are going to be additional handling costs associated with the utilization of the government elevators. However, these should be more than offset by the ability to respond to market opportunities; to achieve such things as the elimination of demurrage of waiting ships, and the ability to use all the ports more effectively.
I am satisfied that the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have little interest in the utilization of these facilities because to date they have taken no steps in that direction. Had they done so, we would have at least reduced the tremendous demurrage charges that the Canadian Wheat Board is now estimating. It must be remembered that these charges are incurred through no fault of producers. The producer has no control over them, yet he is expected to pay for them.
I concur with subparagraph (e) of the motion that is before us today which calls on the Canadian Wheat Board to be reimbursed by the treasury for the demurrage charges. As a matter of fact, on May 24 I put a question to the minister in the House. It is recorded in Hansard at page 5682. I asked the minister, without going into the preliminaries, the following:
Will the minister give an undertaking that all or a portion of the demurrage charges will be borne by the public treasury for this year?
The minister, with his usual skill, sidestepped the question and accused me of using imaginary figures when I quoted $17 million to $20 million. The figures I used, Mr. Speaker, were figures that came from the Canadian Wheat Board, the board
80045-1 8 Vi

June 5, 1978
Grain
for which he is responsible as minister. He then went on to pat himself on the back and talked about the record movement of grain. He said this at page 5683 of Hansard:
We have a system that can handle twice as much as ever had to be handled during the regime of the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert, because we are up to twice as much in our regular pattern.
A few minutes later the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) stood up on a question of privilege to clarify the situation at page 5687 of Hansard. This is what he said:
In 1963, the last year of the Diefenbaker administration, when wheat was still king, we exported wheat and flour to the tune of 592 million bushels, an all time record, representing 28.4 per cent of the world market. In 1976-77, the record year under the present minister, it was down to 494 million bushels, 21 per cent. This year so far 350 million bushels have been exported-below 20 per cent of the world market.
That is an interesting fact when one considers that 1963 was the record year for wheat and flour exports, and that record has not been exceeded since that time.
People on the prairies are extremely disappointed, as are members of the opposition, that the minister has shown such reluctance to implement the provisions of the Hall commission report. We are disappointed as well that it was more than a year after the report was tabled that the minister first met with Mr. Justice Hall. He has been reluctant-and I am being kind when I use that word-to have Mr. Justice Hall appear before the transport committee. Had it not been for a renegade member of his party who voted with the opposition in committee, Mr. Justice Hall would never appear before the committee. Yet what did the hon. minister say in May 1977, 11 days after the Hall commission report was handed down? He said in his news release before he spoke at a meeting of various farm associations in Regina, and I quote:
With the unanimous urging of westerners for prompt, decisive responses to the Hall report, I am determined to act as expeditiously as possible to deal with the commission's proposals.
We will establish in western Canada a modern, top quality handling and transportation system for prairie grain. We have had two years of study-we know the problems. Now we must move with solutions. Now is the time for action. I look forward to your active participation and co-operation in the task ahead.
Almost in the next breath in the same speech he shoved aside one of the major recommendations of the Hall commission, a recommendation which the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) calls the backbone of the Hall commission report. That was the setting up of a Prairie Rail Action Committee. If one refers to the Hall report, one will find that the idea of the setting up of the authority was to study the rail lines that were in doubt. I quote from page 31 of the report:
This commission is not recommending the addition of another permanent branch to the already over-burdened bureaucratic tree. On the contrary, we believe that self-liquidation should be the ultimate goal of the Prairie Rail Authority, as will become apparent in what follows:
Time will not permit me to list the purposes of the organization, but the idea was that this prairie rail authority would monitor the lines that were in doubt, the lines that were being
(Mr. Neil.)
considered for abandonment. What happened? The minister set up what he calls the Prairie Rail Action Committee which is required to make decisions on rail lines by December 31 this year, decisions based primarily, I suspect, on some of the evidence which the Hall commission gleaned since the Prairie Rail Action Committee does not intend to hold any public hearings.
In my own area, I have a line, the Euston Junction-Colonsay line, made up of some 108.5 miles. This line carries annually over five million bushels of grain. Mr. Justice Hall and his committee made certain recommendations, one of which was to turn a portion of that line over to the prairie rail authority for consideration. The prairie rail authority, of course, would consider it over a period of three years.
What did the Prairie Rail Action Committee do? It arbitrarily decided against the recommendations of the Hall commission report and chopped off a substantial portion of the line that was to be studied. I will quote briefly from a letter I received from a gentleman in my district who, I believe, is secretary of an organization which is most concerned. He says this about the abandonment of that portion of the line from Liberty to Dilke:
The Prairie Rail Action Committee has given its recommendation without consulting anyone in this area and has done so in a very secretive manner. The pros and cons of abandonment are many and varied. We feel that the pros balance the cons and we need an explanation for the actions of the PRAC. This committee, we feel, is operating in a manner that can be described as approaching "total abandon".
That is the manner in which PRAC is operating. It will not listen to the people involved. In this instance, I understand that the elevator companies, the railways and the people in the districts were anxious that the line remain, yet the Prairie Rail Action Committee arbitrarily, without consultation, recommended the abandonment of a substantial portion of the line.
When I raised a question in the House, the minister suggested that the matter would be considered by the Canadian Transport Commission. A day or so ago I was at the transport committee meeting. Mr. Benson, chairman of the CTC, was in attendance. With regard to the lines which the PRAC is recommending for abandonment, he said his committee would not on its own take any action to hold hearings and it would only be on the basis of strong representations or recommendations from people in the various communities that they would hold hearings.
I see my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate briefly in this debate to deal with three narrow aspects with regard to the motion before us. The first aspect, which has not been dealt with in any specific way by the minister, is item (d) which calls on the government:
-to reimburse the Canadian Wheat Board for costs of demurrage charges on ships delayed in loading through no fault of the producers or grain companies;
I hope the House will pay careful attention to that provision. Coming from the Pacific coast, I have some sympathy for western grain farmers who are continually forced to pay demurrage. This year it is estimated it will probably be
June 5, 1978

between $17 million and $20 million. They are continually forced to pay demurrage through no fault of their own. The fault lies with the minister and his failure to pressure the railway companies to provide sufficient rolling stock to move the grain so that the 20 ships sitting in the harbour of Vancouver will not have to wait and wait while the farmer continues to pay and pay.
Inherent in that provision of the motion before us is that the minister be provided with some incentive to get to work and have the rail cars provided so that we can move our grain. It is not as though there are Canadians sitting idly by not wanting to build those rail cars. As the minister knows, there is in Squamish, B.C., a rail car plant that would be very anxious to get contracts to provide those kinds of railways cars.
What is the minister's basic response in terms of some incentive to get the railway companies to build those cars? Of course, there is the business of the 6 per cent. I quote from the Star Phoenix:
The latest government incentive to the railways came in the April 10 budget when it was announced that railways can claim another 6 per cent a year depreciation allowance on equipment purchased between now and 1983.
That is a typical Liberal government response, not tying the 6 per cent to the kinds of cars needed to move grain. The railway companies are not going to throw in a whole pile of money to support the Crow rate, which we on this side continue to support. They will buy oil cars to move oil and other cars where there is some profit. Where there is a low profit margin, they are not going to buy the hopper cars.
The minister has failed to use the muscle he should in terms of such things as the budget. That 6 per cent should have specified hopper cars. They should have specified the kind of rolling stock that is necessary to move grain out of the prairies to the Pacific in order that we can satisfy some of our customers.
Since 1972 I have sat in this House listening to this government blame the grain handlers' union for failing to move the grain, and blaming the bridge in New Westminster, which always seems to be out somehow so that they cannot move the grain. That bridge is very rarely out. It is not often that a ship hits that bridge. So that approach is ruled out. But excuse after excuse continues to come from the other side of the House for failure on the government's part to deal with problems which have been apparent for years. The grain handlers cannot be blamed this time. I want to quote Mr. Henry Kanes, head of the grainworkers union:
Canada will lose its foreign grain markets if the federal government doesn't smarten up and make sure the grain is delivered to waiting ships.
That is from a story in the Star-Phoenix. Mr. Dennis McDermott, president of the CLC, said the federal government should not have allowed the fleet of railway boxcars to deteriorate. Mr. Kanes further stated:
The Americans are going to pick up the Chinese trade and now the Japanese are complaining about delays in delivery.
Grain
That is the opinion of the head of the grainhandlers union. The grain handlers want a chance to co-operate with prairie grain growers to move the crop but the minister has not taken the aggressive action necessary. I think the grain handlers are now prepared to work around the clock. The trouble is they cannot put in three shifts in 24 hours if there are not enough cars to carry the grain from the prairies to the coast. The blame lies on the minister's refusal to put pressure on the railway companies to provide the cars which are needed. It is no good offering an incentive in a general way; the 6 per cent depreciation allowance does not apply specifically to the railway companies or to the boxcar shortage. It is interesting to note that a shortage of cars always occurs where there is a fixed statutory rate. As long as there is free enterprise and managed rates a need for intervention arises if an appropriate supply of boxcars is to be maintained.
The motion says that the government has failed to expand Canada's capacity to move grain to export positions. The operative word there is "capacity". In 1972 we had 26,000 rail cars for grain movement. Now, six years later, we have 13,000 cars and 8,000 hopper cars. So there is less capacity than in 1972. Responsibility for this situation lies with the minister: it is the result of his failure to understand that we must maintain and improve the carrying capacity in order to move grain quickly into position so as to satisfy Canada's customers.
The port of Vancouver is not taking the blame for this one. The workers there are ready to do their all to move the grain. The government has failed to give the necessary instructions, or, if you like, the incentives. We would like to get some jobs in British Columbia. We have a rail plant under-employed at Squamish while the country is chronically short of rail cars. It boggles the mind that the management of our affairs should be so poor. Why cannot we put those two factors together- unused capacity to build rail cars and a shortage of cars not only to move wheat but lumber, cattle, potatoes and other products. This minister cannot piously wring his hands and suggest that difficulties of one kind or another are always with us and that, after all, we are moving more grain than ever before. Mr. Speaker, wheat sells itself. The Wheat Board sells wheat.


Mr. Alexander:: Even the minister smiles at that!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The minister takes credit for what others have done. The world is starving for our wheat. The Canadian people know that credit for selling it does not belong to the minister.


Mr. Andras:: That's a lot of bushels!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They don't need the minister taking credit for every bushel the Chinese people decide to buy. We could lose our markets as a direct result of the government's failure to plan for the provision of rolling stock.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I see that the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) is trying to

June 5, 1978
Grain
catch your eye. I assure him my remarks will be brief and that he will have an opportunity to contribute to the debate before ten o'clock.
As I followed the discussion it seemed to me that most of the comments were related to the export of grain and wheat. Little was said about the importance of moving grain to eastern Canada where it is used in great quantities as feed for poultry and other livestock. I am pleased we have a minister who has done so much for the industry, particularly in connection with the transportation of grain. If the system had not been rationalized and if many difficult and expensive decisions had not been taken, much more of the market would have been supplied by grain from the United States. So we would not underestimate the importance of the efficient transport of grain from the west to eastern Canada.
I was introduced to the subject matter of this motion long before the hon. member tabled it. When I was a small boy, my father and cousin would go together in the winter time and buy a carload of grain. It was my job, along with my cousin, to bag the grain and we would team it back home. We have short memories but sometimes I remember those days not long ago, and the tremendous amount of labour involved in moving a relatively small amount of grain. I wish I could find time to go to the farm and look up some of the old waybills which are undoubtedly still there; in those days the loads were much smaller than they are today. When I am at the farm I sometimes see how the grain comes from the west now-the size of the cars and the ease with which their contents are unloaded and put through the milling process. I marvel at what has been achieved but I cannot help thinking back to the days when the work was all done by hand.
Earlier this year I had an opportunity to visit many farm communities in Saskatchewan while I was in western Canada.
I listened to the comments of people in many farm communities on the subject of the rebuilding of rail lines and the movement of grain. I was much impressed by what I heard. There is no doubt that when we are thinking in terms of the best possible use of money available to the government a commitment to the western grain system of $600 million or $700 million is a very large one indeed.
I think for members of parliament from areas of Canada who are not in the prairie or grain growing regions, this is one of the things we most strongly support. Many times in this parliament people might get the impression that the country revolves around eastern Canada, and members from western Canada are asked to support many money items which are large and mainly for the benefit of people in the east; but in terms of national unity I think one of the most important aspects of a united country is that we share strengths as well as weaknesses. In terms of the over-all importance of the grain industry to Canada, this is the type of expenditure which permits the support of all members from all parts of the country.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It should be $1 billion.
[Mr. Milne.l


William Ross Milne: I would like to take issue, not with members of the official opposition but with whatever comes after that. Members of the NDP give much vocal muscle to whatever the problem of the moment is in this House, but if they were to read some of their own records, they would see much inconsistency.
I do not believe there can be much doubt that the business of railroading is extremely capital intensive. I believe that if someone was clairvoyant enough to predict three record crop years in succession, three successive record sales years, and a rail system built to move those crops within that short period of time, and then all that did not come about, the same people over there would be complaining about the tremendous growth in a transportation system which was not adequately used. They would be asking why so many rail cars had been purchased when there may or may not have been so much need.
I think anyone who has had experience in the past or responsibility for managing systems which are capital intensive must certainly understand that it is a judgment factor, and one of the things which has to be accomplished is to have a very high load factor or maximization of the use of capital. From the figures I have been able to read and from listening to speeches in the House, I feel that perhaps the railways and the government in concert have been able to predict fairly accurately. It may well be that the requirement to move the amount of grain which has been committed for export into eastern Canada will completely tax the system. In fact, it may not be able to deliver as quickly as one would hope. On the other hand, in terms of such tremendously capital-intensive industries as railroading perhaps investment decisions have not been all wrong and have come close to creating an optimum system.
I am quite interested in railroading. I have made it my business to learn a little about this industry. Hon. members who are contributing to this debate might be well advised to spend some time investigating the improvement in efficiency with which rolling stock is now used. I do not have any hard figures to illustrate the change in efficiency, but it has obviously improved very substantially. I suppose the introduction of computers and tracking systems by which railroads are able almost constantly to locate any rolling stock at any point in time has made a tremendous difference in terms of the effective use of the railway network. While railways are under severe criticism today by members of the New Democratic Party, I think the North American railways should at least be congratulated for operating one of the most effective networks I know.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It does not move enough wheat.


William Ross Milne: Members of the NDP very seldom if ever have the time or the interest to read business magazines. However, if they were to do that and if they were to read a number of American business magazines, they would find that one of the most often written about facts is the desperate state the U.S. railway system is in. As a matter of fact, in terms of investment in the state in which most of the U.S. railways have
June 5, 1978

maintained their stock, there is concern about being able not only to meet commitments in terms of moving grain, but also about the vast opportunities they have for developing coal mines and delivering that coal for export to Ontario and to other places. The industry is in serious jeopardy. When we talk about operating railways, given roadbeds and cars I do not think either Canadian Pacific or Canadian National need take a back seat to anybody. In terms of the size of the network these companies are operating, they should be congratulated on running a good railway.
I certainly do not stand here as any authority on how rates are established or on how demurrage is charged, but when the grain crop and the corn crop were being planted in eastern Canada this past spring, there was very serious concern about the availability of potash. For a period of time there were a number of fertilizer-blending plants which did not have the necessary potash available. I made inquiries about this. I was concerned about the number of railway cars which were available. In spite of the fact that there was a late spring, orders were not placed as soon as they normally were and deliveries were not accepted. I think this has a bad effect on the grain industry as well.
We cannot overlook the fact that one of the major reasons was the large number of cars which were in the United States. I noticed a number of reports in the press about the large number of cars still in the United States and about why the United States takes so long to turn cars around in their system and return them. I suppose it may well be that we have better cars in our system than they have in theirs, and they like to hang on to them and use them as much as they can; but in terms of this whole question it seems to me that that might be one of the areas which might be improved.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that in terms of the economy it seems to me that rebuilding the western railway network at this point in time is a very good decision. It seems to me that the many programs always being proposed by members of the NDP for making work and for providing more funding are no more important than this type of expenditure which is in the national interest. This type of expenditure would have a long-term effect. It would expedite the movement of one of our largest renewable resources. Surely it should have some precedence over some of the other proposals put forward by hon. members opposite.
I just wanted to make these few comments in this debate on the question of wheat, grain and grain movement. Grain movement to eastern Canada is a very important part of this. In terms of improvement over the past years, the great majority of the livestock and poultry feeders in eastern Canada will want to join me in congratulating the minister on the many forward steps he has taken.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member who has just spoken has not used up his full 20 minutes, I wonder if he would permit a question.


William Ross Milne: Certainly.
Grain


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the hon. member's comment that we cannot expect railroads to maintain all this equipment just to use in peak periods, I would like to ask him if he would then follow that through. Is he saying that bus companies, city transit companies and companies which move people on rails should maintain surplus equipment to take care of peak periods? Would he apply that also to people as he would to grain or any other products?


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I come from an area which is very close to one of the largest cities in Canada, and I think it is just a plain fact that the same problem exists for moving people as for grain. There are a number of times in the peak requirement periods when a transit system does not have enough equipment to operate and they make the same judgment as the railways-the optimisation of their capital while providing the best level of service they can. I do not think either the railways or any of the other authorities moving people are able to invest economically in the kind of capital stock which would meet all needs at all times.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate on this opposition motion. It seems to me, after listening to the speakers who took part in the debate today, that to say that the grain situation in Canada is critical is an understatement. That is what we have heard from almost every speaker who has spoken in this debate, and they say it is because of the bottlenecks that have occurred at the Pacific ports, the other problems we encounter in trying to get the grain to those ports, and the fact that this will probably reduce Canada's opportunities not only to deliver the grain that is now sold but to compete in any new wheat sales that may come about.
The Canadian Wheat Board has confirmed that there will be a carryover of about 350 million bushels at the end of the current year. At present, most estimates show a 35 million bushel lag in the government's grain delivery schedule. According to the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association, the carryover is about 200 million bushels greater than the ideal minimum, which means that the grain economy will lose approximately $800 million in cash receipts which would accrue if the grain was delivered. Over the past few weeks we have seen reports and read in the newspapers that there have been up to 35 ships anchored in Vancouver harbour, some of these ships waiting up to five weeks to be loaded. According to one report, of these ships only two were at the loading berths. Of course, we have grain overflowing the elevators at most of the prairie points, and there is still a lot of grain in storage on the farms. Also, we have ships crowding in at both the western and eastern ports, but we cannot deliver the grain because of the lack of boxcars.
This boxcar problem is the result of an inadequate turnaround time, and also the result of difficulties in getting cars back promptly from the United States. This does not only

June 5, 1978
Grain
pertain to boxcars but also to hopper cars. Each ship that is laid over in the port costs the Wheat Board, the farmer, the consumer and the taxpayer demurrage costs amounting to some $5,000 a day. What we have is a minister who has not really taken any positive action to rectify the situation. He said in Winnipeg on May 11:
We may be getting close to what we can actually move out of the country during the course of a year.
In my estimation, that is not a very positive approach for the minister who is in charge of the Wheat Board to take. I should like to inform the minister and the federal government that there is more to Canada than the confederation-old transportation habits of moving goods inland east and west. There is also the north and the Hudson Bay Strait navigated by Hudson's Bay Company ships since 1668 and by grain ships through ports other than the port of Churchill since 1932.
The port of Churchill, as I have said in the House time and time again and as has been said by the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Wheat Board, is the most efficient grain handling port in Canada. Churchill's grain elevator operation has a turnover six times its storage capacity in less than the 100 days of the shipping season. That was the case in 1977. In the same year, the four dumpers allowed the elevator to unload slightly over 16,000 boxcars in 87 days of unloading. This gives an average of 184 cars per every eight hour working shift. This is what makes this port such an efficient grain handling operation. It handles no other commodity at present than grain and, believe me, it can handle grain without any problem. Thirty million bushels have been put through the port last year and 50 million bushels have been put through the elevator at a very small extra cost. I am glad to see the Chief Justice Emmett Hall has stated in his recommendations that the port should be upgraded to handle 55 million bushels a year. This would certainly take some of the pressure off the western ports.
Of course, the turnaround time on the boxcars is what must be considered. At present, the turnaround time out of Churchill is four days for a boxcar that goes up to Churchill, as compared to a five weeks waiting period for boxcars going to western or eastern ports. The travel distance from Yorkton, Saskatchewan is 722.5 miles. If you extend that to Moose Jaw, it is only a little over 100 miles more, which makes it only 822.5 miles as compared to the 1,301.7 miles to Vancouver from Yorkton or from Moose Jaw, give or take 75 to 100 miles. When you are shipping from Yorkton or Moose Jaw to Prince Rupert, it is 1,493.1 miles. The distance that has to be travelled to haul this grain to the west ports is twice that much, and when you consider the efficient turnaround time in Churchill, these cars could be back in service in one eighth of the time if more grain was moved out through Churchill instead of being hauled in these boxcars all the way out to the west coast.
I am not saying that the port of Churchill can compete with the western sea ports, but it would certainly relieve those sea ports if we only took the initiative to put on a double shift at the port of Churchill. CNR says it can handle more than 30 million bushels, and I want to compliment that company at

this time because in 1977 they had a well co-ordinated season and shipped 30 million bushels up to Churchill with no problem. It was in the elevator by October 1. However, no one really knows why the last two ships did not arrive in Churchill. This meant that three million bushels were left in storage in Churchill where we have a five million bushel storage capacity. It means money in the pockets of the port authorities when we have some grain stored there.
On May 2, 1978 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) told the House of Commons that modernization of the outmoded prairie rail system and expansion of Pacific port facilities will increase grain exports by another 100 million bushels. The Federal government must take the initiative now to improve our economic position, ensuring that our raw resources reach export positions on time and help our balance of trade deficit. If the government would take action now and just give Churchill the opportunity, I am positive that 55 million bushels could be moved through the port.
Chief Justice Emmett Hall backs this up in his report, and the Churchill Development Board certainly substantiates those figures. Shipping through Churchill has increased by 7 per cent in the past year, and Lloyd's Underwriters of London have indicated that they would be more flexible in setting dates for the Churchill shipping season. Last year that extra 7 per cent was certainly a big benefit for us. At present, cargo and hull insurance is available only for ships which pass through the straits no earlier that July 23 and clear Churchill by October 20, with high risk insurance premiums charged after October 15. So we only have an 88-day shipping season.
The National Research Council has published a study indicating that the Churchill shipping season could be extended by 24 days on the average, an increase of 27 per cent in the season. The province of Manitoba royal commission inquiry into northern transportation indicated that the close of the season could be extended by 13 to 28 days. Can one imagine such an extension? That would provide the port of Churchill with another 10 million to 14 million bushels. With little capital investment and an extended season to November 10, more than 50 million bushels could be shipped annually through the port.
In conjunction with the Hudson Bay Route Association and the Port of Churchill Development Board, I urge the government to disregard the Bryden report and studies by the National Harbours Board condemning the future of the port of Churchill. Certainly that is what the Bryden report did. The minister found someone whom he knew would come up with a written report speaking out against the port of Churchill.
After the government spent $1.7 million on the Hall Report and $50 million to upgrade the town and port of Churchill, surely the Minister of Transport will not allow the findings of one or more reports to jeopardize the future of the port of Churchill. There has been a series of studies dating back as early as 1811 when Lord Selkirk settled the Red River Valley on the recommendation of his report on the Hudson Bay route by his peers in England. In the near future we may have oil
June 5, 1978

tanker traffic, uranium exports, increased grain shipment because of the world food crisis, sulphur from Alberta and potash from Saskatchewan.
Repeatedly I have asked the minister to consider shipping CIDA grain through Churchill. Those grains come under the direct control of the Canadian Wheat Board. When CIDA grain is being shipped through other ports, those ports are tied up, whereas Churchill could handle this additional grain. It could be scheduled not to interfere with the other grain shipping which goes through that port.
Must we wait for a second and third transportation foul-up before the minister takes action? In 1974 the government promised that the total grain handling system from the granary to the ship in the harbour would be revamped. Where is the long-term strategy? Why have western producers not been informed about it? Will the government tell the House why it is still unprepared to allow for greater provincial power-sharing in grain marketing?
The Hudson Bay Route Association unanimously passed a resolution this spring at its 35th annual meeting. The resolution cited increased operating costs of the St. Lawrence seaway, the political uncertainty of Quebec and the potential of the port of Churchill as being reasons for developing the northern port with provincial funds. It wants to see the three prairie governments taking a leading role in extending the shipping season out of the port of Churchill, expanding port traffic and enlarging port facilities.
If the federal government does not have the foresight to develop and utilize the port of Churchill to its full capacity, will the minister give that power to provincial governments? Will he turn that port over to provincial governments? Perhaps they can give the government $1 for that port. I am sure provincial governments would have that port working in no time. At this particular time, western premiers are prepared to take whatever action is necessary. If the minister would turn that port over, I am sure they would grab it.
The following resolutions were passed unanimously at the Hudson Bay Route Association annual convention: extension of the insurable shipping season out of Churchill; use of M. V. Arctic, a new semi-icebreaker bulk carrier, for grain shipments out of Churchill; construction of a new larger tug to assist ships when they arrive at Churchill; and the resumption of flour shipments through Churchill. The people in the Hudson Bay Route Association and the Port of Churchill Development Board are taking initiatives now to ensure the present and future success of Churchill. They have a commitment to the people of western Canada, the grain producers, the harbour people and overseas markets.
Where is the commitment of the federal government? Where is the commitment to fulfil the recommendations of the Hall report to meet the needs of people? We have been waiting a long time, and we are still waiting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few minutes available I should like to bring into perspective some of the remarks which have been made today concerning this particular motion.
I want to highlight one glaring weakness in the positions of the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in respect of a very important part of the policy governing grain delivery in western Canada, that is, the Crowsnest pass rates. On a number of occasions the minister stated that he has maintained the Crowsnest pass rates. No one is taking issue with that. We are concerned about the minister's and the government's intentions for the future of the Crowsnest pass rates.
During the 1974 election campaign I ran for the first time. I was very attentive as to what the government said in respect of grain transportation and matters relating to agriculture. During the course of that campaign, the Winnipeg Free Press of June 11, 1974, reported the following:
Otto Lang said, "as long as the Liberal party forms the government and as long as producers wish to continue to deliver to the elevator of their choice, not one rail line will be abandoned.
Also, the Winnipeg Free Press of June 15, 1974 reported the following:
He (Trudeau) also reiterated his party's pledge to end any freight discrimination on the movement of meat, livestock and feed grains across Canada. This would not affect the Crowsnest special rates to aid the movement of grains for export to the west coast.
No sooner was parliament in session than the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in an address to the Canada Grains Council in Edmonton said the following:
As part of the complete overhaul of the transportation system, we may have to examine the effect of the Crowsnest rates, particularly as they apply to domestic movements of grain.
Also he emphasized that the change was only a suggestion, and that the Crowsnest rates are a detriment to both rail carriers and producers.
In conclusion, the fact of the matter is that the minister has not given an unequivocal commitment to the Crowsnest pass rates in statutory form. In fact, Liberal candidates across western Canada are suggesting other methods of paying western Canadian farmers at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to declare, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), that the proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
June 5, 1978
Adjournment Debate

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on April 25 I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) whether he would be prepared to pay the legal costs of a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who won a precedent-setting case. Perhaps I could have asked other ministers or members opposite if they were prepared to pay the legal costs of individuals who also won their cases against the government, such as Mr. Larry Stopforth and Mr. Walter Rudnicki.
I asked my question in the connotation as to whether the same consideration would be given to RCMP Corporal John Danch as was apparently being given to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). I raised this matter previously in correspondence and verbally with the present Solicitor General and his predecessor, but so far RCMP Corporal John Danch has not had his legal costs paid. His counsel, a distinguished Ottawa barrister, put the matter this way:
The simple fact of the matter is, that this man was dismissed, and in order to put the record straight and by reason of significant lapses on the part of the officials in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it became necessary for him to appeal. His appeal was successful, resulting in his reinstatement which has the effect, apart from anything else, of setting the record straight. He has since gracefully retired. It seems to me, that it was never the intention of those who drafted this appeal procedure, that a successful appellant should swallow the substantial legal fees involved in putting the matter right.
The House would perhaps be interested in knowing a bit more about the way Corporal Danch has been "looked after", after twenty years on the force, after winning his case, and so on. After he resigned he was raided by about half a dozen members of the force and his house was searched and even socks and children's colouring books were taken pursuant to the search warrant, which stipulated only that they were looking for a tape recording, a copy of an RCMP report dated July 15, 1977 and a typewriter. Despite this, the members took away a host of memorabilia and personal items, in my opinion exceeding the jurisdiction of the warrant for search. They have since, I am informed, returned most if not all of what they took.
In addition, Corporal Danch, because of the delay in processing his appeal, had to draw unemployment insurance, and when reinstated he ran into administrative problems in the arrangements to repay. The force deducted a larger sum than agreed upon, and when Danch sought clarification weeks passed without any response, without any answers to his letters. I understand this has now been rectified.
My point is that John Danch has not been treated very well. He finally wrote a letter to a Halifax newspaper after I raised the matter in the House. It was a very reasonable letter and I should like to read part of it into the record. It states in part: When the recommendation for discharge was first made, I felt there were injustices implied and involved. I therefore pursued my rights through the proper channels, the courts, and did this not with the idea of personal material gain, but with a sense of obligation instilled in me through my many years of service.
From the events that have since transpired, whereby I have been harassed, and intimidated, I would have just cause for bitterness and animosity. This is not my

stature as I continue to have a high regard for the force. Even now with all the adverse publicity that is being generated against the force, my sympathies go forth to all the dedicated field personnel. It is indeed unfortunate that the force's problems and troubles can in large part be attributed to the treatment of its own personnel. It is in essence a strange attitude they possess whereby it is more important to justify matters than to correct procedures;-
Corporal Danch's letter in this Halifax newspaper has drawn comment and one 20-year veteran of the force responded. I am not going to mention his name for obvious reasons. He also had some interesting things to say about this matter. He said:
I read with great interest your letter to the editor in Saturday's Chronicle-Herald and for what it's worth, I say a very hearty "Bravo" to you.
He goes on to state in the letter:
You mention in your letter that we have no way of knowing whether unfair processing has really been stopped. I rather suspect that you inserted that for the benefit of the reading public. You can bet your life that it has not and will not until some drastic changes are effected in force policy.
I omit language which you might find unparliamentary, if not unfamiliar, Mr. Speaker. The letter continues:
Hats off to you. Keep up your fight. You won't get anywhere in the force (I'm assuming you're still a member) but you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you stood up for what you knew was right and that's a heck of a lot more than far too many of those-
I would censor the next word, Mr. Speaker, concluding the quotation as follows:
-management types can honestly tell their mirrors.
In conclusion, I want to suggest to the minister that the field personnel of the RCMP, the real backbone of the force, are apprehensive about what is happening. They know a double standard exists. They know, too, that there is not very much aid or comfort for them just because they follow orders. This is something that they were always taught-that if they followed orders they would be looked after. Now they are beginning to realize that unfortunately this is not always the case.
I would urge the minister to be equitable in cases such as this which can be symbolic and to bring in improvements in the way lower ranking personnel are treated. I ask once more, knowing this is the right and equitable thing, that the minister consider seriously exercising the discretion he has to pay the legal costs of an RCMP corporal who had no recourse but to resort to the courts regarding what he justly felt was a grievance, who won his case and is now faced with a legal bill for several thousand dollars and a very vindictive attitude expressed toward himself as a result of his success.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, Corporal J. Danch was discharged from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by the commissioner under authority of RCMP regulation 173 on 15 December 1976. Subsequently, Corporal Danch made representation to the Federal Court of Appeal to review the matter of his dismissal. As a result of their review, the Federal Court, in a split decision, set aside the decision of the Commissioner due to a procedural error in the processing of Corporal Danch's recommendation for discharge. The court's decision then
June 5, 1978

meant Corporal Danch had been and continued to be a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and he was notified accordingly.
Following the federal court decision, Corporal Danch was again notified that his discharge was being recommended and he was given an extended period of time in which to submit an appeal. At the conclusion of the appeal period, Corporal Danch advised that it was his wish to voluntarily retire to pension.
Before resigning, Corporal Danch made application to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for reimbursement of his costs in presenting his case to the federal court of Canada. His request was reviewed and the legal opinion expressed was that the federal court dealt with the subject of party and party costs in rule 1408, which states:
No costs shall be payable by any party to an application to another unless the court in its discretion for special reason, so orders.
In the circumstances of this case, the federal court of appeal did not see fit to exercise its discretion in favour of Corporal Danch regarding costs.
The matter of solicitor and client costs was also considered. Corporal Danch is not entitled to costs from the Crown and there is no liability, therefore, whatsoever either in fact or in law.
The matter of an ex-gratia payment to Corporal Danch for his costs also received careful consideration but in view of the fact the commissioner's decision was not set aside on the merits of this case, but rather on a technical issue, neither the commissioner nor the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) are prepared to support a submission to Treasury Board. However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member that while the Solicitor General is not supporting the payment of his legal fees, Corporal Danch's file is being reviewed with respect to the question he has raised concerning the payment of unemployment insurance benefits.


NATIONAL SECURITY-RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO KNOW HOW SECURITY PERSONNEL OPERATE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to the attention of all hon. members that on December 14, 1977, at page 1856 of Hansard, I asked the then solicitor general, who has since left that post, whether he agreed with the novel theory the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the solicitor general should not have any knowledge of whether or not the security forces of our country are acting legally or illegally, and whether or not he also agreed with the right hon. gentleman's novel theory that where security forces act secretly and illegally, the courts will protect us.
The solicitor general did not answer, apparently because the right hon. gentleman interrupted. I had occasion to ask the same question of the present Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) on February 6, 1978, as recorded at page 2571 of Hansard. I just want to put the position so that there is no doubt. The Prime Minister's reasoning is very strange indeed. He says that
Adjournment Debate
protection against illegal police activity lies with the courts. It is of benefit to look at exactly what the Prime Minister said:
We have the protection of the courts. If you want to break into somebody's house, you get a warrant. A court decides if you have reasonable and probable cause to do it. If you break in without a warrant, a citizen lays a charge and the police are found guilty. So this is control on the criminal side-
The trouble with this notion is that, first of all, the control by the courts which the Prime Minister refers to in the example he gives is only there if the police act lawfully and apply for a warrant. It is true that the application may be refused, not because there is illegality, but because the court decides there are insufficient grounds for granting a warrant. But the example used to support the Prime Minister's argument stops way short of meeting the real problem which is in issue, and that is the case where the warrant is refused and the police break in anyway, or when the police may well know there are insufficient grounds for obtaining a warrant and decide to break in, not just illegally, but secretly, without reference to a court.
Suppose I return from a weekend away from my residence and find there has been a break-in. Trusting the police, I call them to investigate. If they are the ones who committed the illegal break-in, does the Prime Minister really believe they will tell me about it and lay charges against themselves? The court will never even find out who broke in, let alone "protect us" from such illegal action.
Assume further that because I have practised law for years, I get suspicious and I go over the head of the police and ask the Solicitor General to investigate, which surely I have a right to do because he is the elected person ultimately responsible for police action. What is the Solicitor General going to say? Acting on the Trudeau theory, I will be told that the Solicitor General "should be kept in ignorance of the way in which the police are doing it". So how can I expect the Solicitor General to know, or even find out, because, again quoting the Prime Minister, "the government should keep its nose out of the operations of the police force".
It does not take a great deal of intelligence to realize that the courts can only act if someone lays a charge, or if the police lay a charge. Let us remember that the courts cannot convict unless someone proves the case with evidence. As is usually the case, the police investigate and produce the evidence. If the police are acting illegally and secretly, there is not much chance of an individual citizen ever finding the evidence. The court, or a judge, has no power to order charges or commence proceedings. In the absence of any responsibility to know or to act on the part of the Solicitor General, it is foolishness talk of the courts protecting the citizen from illegal activity of security forces or any other police force.
The Prime Minister went on to say that the government does not "have the authority" to act "in so far as the operations are concerned on the criminal side". This is bunkum. The Solicitor General, to whom security services report, certainly has the authority to act.

June 5, 1978
Adjournment Debate
The Prime Minister then remarked: "On the security side if you are fearful that this kind of thing is happening"-that is, illegal acts-"we have a royal commission of inquiry". Who orders the inquiry? Obviously, the government orders it. But can anyone believe that the only way the Solicitor General is to find out this is necessary is after some citizen, on his own, collects sufficient evidence, and, I suppose, makes it public, so that political considerations compel the government to act? The whole thesis of the Prime Minister has already been contradicted by former solicitor general Fox. It was because the then solicitor general finally decided to ask questions that caused him to act by setting up the present royal commission under Mr. Justice McDonald.
The entire argument of the Prime Minister is wrong. It is wrong because it contravenes the principle of ministerial responsibility which secures the rights of innocent people and is based on the premise that ultimately our elected representatives must ensure that those who report to them, and for whom they are responsible, exercise their functions within the law.
But it is also wrong because, when it comes to secret illegal activities of a police force, the courts cannot protect the citizen unless charges are laid, and it is highly unlikely that those who are breaking the law will investigate themselves and lay charges against themselves. The Prime Minister may not like our traditions of parliamentary democracy and responsibility under the rule of law, but he must not get away with changing them. I would like to know whether the present Solicitor General subscribes to the dangerous nonsense promulgated by the Prime Minister.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question posed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on February 6, 1978 which is found at page 2571 of Hansard in which he refers to the theory of ministerial responsibility as advanced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at his press conference on December 9, 1977.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) agrees with the position as expressed by the Prime Minister during the course of his press conference. Surely the hon. member recognizes that in order to preserve the independence of the law enforcement agencies from political interference in their day to day operations, the politicians-and here I quote the Prime Minister- "who happen to form the government should be kept in ignorance of the day to day operations of the police force and even of the security force."


John Allen Fraser: Even in the way they are doing it?


Roger Carl Young: If the hon. member had read further the transcript-


John Allen Fraser: I have the whole thing.


Roger Carl Young: -of the Prime Minister's press conference, he would have found that the Prime Minister stated on the security side that the principle has been that the police do not tell their political superiors about daily operations, but they do

have to act under the general directives and guidelines laid down by the government of the day. On the criminal side, members of the RCMP are accountable for their actions because of the necessity to present evidence in a court of law.
Theoretically, Mr. Speaker, an illegal act which remained secret could not be brought to the attention of any court. However, by the rigorous implementation of the RCMP commissioner's policy internally within the force and the safeguard, as proposed in the recently introduced act to amend the RCMP Act, of an independent third party review in the public domain as recommended by the Marin commission, illegal activities, if they occur, will certainly be brought to the attention of the courts.
In conclusion, it bears repeating that if the government finds any evidence of illegal activity, that evidence is turned over to the attorney general of the province in which the alleged illegal activity took place. This has been a long standing policy on the force and has been exemplified by the recent series of referrals to the provincial attorneys general as the result of the work of the commissions of inquiry.
The interest and concern of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) in this matter is certainly appreciated by the Solicitor General and I would like to thank the hon. gentleman for this opportunity to reply to his concerns this evening.


LABOUR CONDITIONS-YOUNG CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-FUNDS TO ASSIST STUDENTS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, since I first raised this question of Young Canada Works with the minister in this House on April 3, 1978, 1 have raised it on three different occasions. In correspondence and conversation with the minister's special assistant, Mr. Matt Graham, he has assured me that if there was to be a redistribution of funds, my constituency, along with Gander-Twillin-gate, would be first and second.
What bothers me is that we meet now on June 5, and having recently returned from my riding after interviewing a good number of university students who have been idle for over a month, and seeing the numbers who are graduating from grade 12 in the various high schools in my area, I see a crisis situation developing.
On March 2, I sent to the minister a special study that we had done on the grade 11 and 12 students in the high schools of Cape Breton-East Richmond which revealed that last summer 59 per cent of them were unemployed. A study that was done during the previous summer for the Department of the Secretary of State showed that in the Glace Bay area itself there was approximately 72 per cent student unemployment, and 44 per cent unemployment of non-student youth.
On April 25 I finally received an answer from the minister. He replied that he apologized for the delay, and I quote:
June 5, 1978

-because your letter and brief contained a great deal of material that needed to be examined in detail.
The major criticism offered by the minister of the results of the questionnaire was, and I quote:
It only contained high school students and not university students.... In comparing your 1977 allocation with the current one, you said that last year you received $424,000, while this year you received only $283,000.... I should point out that these figures are not entirely comparable as the former includes an additional amount that was granted through the reallocation of those funds that some constituencies were unable to use, whereas the latter does not.... Of course I am unable at this time, to determine the amount that will be available for redistribution this year but you may be sure that your constituency will be given every consideration when the redistribution exercise is undertaken later this spring.
It is now well beyong spring and we are into the summer season for college, technical and university students and will soon be into summer for high school students too. May I ask the minister, or his representative here this evening, to tell me truthfully whether a redistribution exercise is going to take place at all, or have the constituencies been allotted the total amounts they are going to get for Young Canada Works? There are a lot of very concerned students who are involved.
Just recently, a high school teacher in my riding from the town of New Waterford did a study in even more depth, using a better methodology than we used last fall, called the opinion analysis group technique. They found projected summer unemployment rates for high school graduates in the town of New Waterford of 71.6 per cent, and of these only 17.1 per cent would work long enough to be eligible for Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits. The percentage of students who see any possibility of getting jobs by moving out of the area was 11.3 per cent. Mr. Hollohan and his group went on to extrapolate from their sample and estimated there are over
14,500	unemployed people on Cape Breton Island and that 71.6 per cent of these are in the age group 16 to 24.
We recently witnessed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) postponing what was expected to be an election in June or July because of what he termed the economic message for the government which was revealed by the polls. I think the government, in taking away the $2.5 million from the Young Canada Works program this year, has done a major injustice to the young people of this country and their parents, especially to those who have the misfortune to live in the low income and low employment areas. It is a sad thing to see a government so callous about what happens to its young high school graduates and to its college and university graduates that it will not make money available even on a short-term basis, knowing how difficult it will be for these people to find longer term employment. I wonder how many of the sons and daughters of MPs will be without employment this summer.
The government's policy is creating cynicism and alienation among many young people in this country. Many grade 12 students will have to cut out further education or demand increasing loans which will make the whole situation more expensive or self-defeating in any case. As a member of parliament from an area of heavy unemployment I can say it is
Adjournment Debate
a sickening experience to face this situation, and one can hardly exaggerate its effect in creating an increasingly negative attitude toward the country on the part of our young adults.
The figures which follow show the amount of money allocated through the Young Canada Works program in each of the three constituencies in Cape Breton for 1977 and 1978. For Cape Breton-East Richmond the amount was $283,000; for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso it was $289,000, and for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, $316,000. Those were the figures for 1978. I should have read the 1977 figures first. They were, for those three constituencies respectively, $424,000, $365,000 and $438,000. The number of registered student clients at Canada Manpower centres without employment was 3,505 in May, 1977, 3,986 in June, 3,613 in July and 3,513 in August when the largest number should have been working. This gives us a rough idea of what we can expect. In fact, the situation will be worse this summer.
And still we have a Prime Minister who talks about a just society with equal opportunity. To that, I say baloney-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, in responding on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) I want to say that the concern expressed by the hon. member is most certainly shared by the minister and by others on this side of the House. The hon. member's interest in employment opportunities for youth is well documented as the result of his many interventions in this chamber on their behalf. I want to assure him that he is joined not only by the minister but, I am sure, by all members in the House.
Might I comment that the commission is making every effort possible to alleviate the student unemployment situation with the amount of funds which are available to it. Should additional funds become available the minister gives the undertaking that he will immediately inform members. The minister realizes that the Young Canada Works program has received a reduction in its level of funding over last year. However, it is not as extreme as the hon. member has stated. Under the 1977 Young Canada Works program $46 million was allocated to constituencies across the country and for the summer of 1978 the sum of $43.5 million has been allocated.
Young Canada Works is only one of the elements of the government's 1978 Canada summer youth employment program which has been funded at $96.2 million. Other elements include such other activities as the Canada Student Employment Centres, the job exploration program and the summer job core program which had its level of funding increased from $10 million to $12 million last year. As I mentioned in the House on April 3, 40 per cent of those who participate in the Canada Works programs are young people.

June 5, 1978
Adjournment Debate
As to the hon. member's question concerning the economic growth component, the minister forwarded a letter to all members of parliament on March 3, 1978 which explained this new initiative in detail. Some $50 million will be available to this program in 1978-79 for the funding of projects which will directly or indirectly result in the creation of continuing employment in the private sector. Available funds will be distributed on a provincial-territorial basis in approximately the same ratio as Canada Works funds are presently made available.
Projects are proposed by federal departments and agencies. In fact, the Treasury Board has approved some nine federal proposals involving approximately $27 million in economic growth component funds. Details as to the activities approved by the Treasury Board have been or will be announced by the ministers involved over the next few weeks. At that time the
initial impact of this program on the Atlantic constituencies will be available. Further proposals are still under review, and the minister hopes to be able to recommend the best of these to the Treasury Board as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I would like to add that, in addition to the initiatives we are considering under the economic growth component, the commission is looking at a variety of schemes through which Canada Works funds can be made available for activities of major economic benefit to regions. The minister points out that many of these discussions have centred around potential activities in the Atlantic provinces, particularly in the area of forest management.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 6, 1978