1983-10-11

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 7, 1983 consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 33 (Mr. Mazankowski).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: When the House adjourned on Friday, the Chair was listening to Hon. Members on the procedural admissibility of motions in amendment to Bill C-155. So far, almost five and a half hours have been devoted to these points of order and the Chair feels that the major procedural issues have been addressed and will want to begin consideration of the points that Members have made in order that a final ruling may be rendered as soon as possible.
However, as a courtesy to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), who had the floor when the House adjourned last Friday, the Chair will hear his argument and invites him to complete his statement. After the Hon. Member has been heard, the Chair feels that the House should resume consideration of Motion No. 33.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that it is the Chair's prerogative to make such decisions. However, during my presentation I indicated that the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) would raise a particular argument on one matter that 1 felt was beyond my competence in terms of its technicalities. 1 wonder if you would consider allowing a brief intervention by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.
[DOT] (ino)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Chair to take it, then, that the Hon. Member for Regina West does not wish to contribute further to his point of order?


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have an intervention on one more motion and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, has an intervention on
another motion, as the House Leader has said. If we can proceed with those two interventions, then I think we will have pretty well completed our interventions on the matter of the admissibility of motions.
I would particularly like to refer to Motion No. 51; I did not speak to that motion on Friday. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that that motion does not exceed the Royal Recommendation because the funds for branch line rehabilitation are provided for both in this Bill and in other measures. Therefore, the Royal Recommendation for the expenditure of funds is not exceeded in Motion No. 51.
Second, the Government has announced on numerous occasions its commitment to provide for the rehabilitation of branch lines, particularly those that have been put in the basic network, until the year 2000. All this motion does, Sir, is place in the Statute a provision for the carrying out of that commitment.
Rehabilitation is now taking place and has been for the last two or three years. It was the Government's intention, I believe, to have that branch line rehabilitation completed by the year 1986. My motion provides for it to be completed by July 31, 1987. This is another one of the fears of the people of western Canada. They want to see that that commitment by the Government cannot be undermined or revoked by either this Government or any succeeding government.
We were very careful with the wording of Motion No. 51. It does not go beyond the scope of the Bill because provision for the rehabilitation of those lines is in accordance with the long title of the Bill, which is to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. It is certainly within the scope of the Bill. It does not provide for any additional funding by the federal Government. Those funds were already committed both in this Bill and, as in previous years, through other means. Therefore on both counts, Mr. Speaker, I submit that Motion No. 51 is in order. I would urge upon the Chair that the final ruling of the Chair would be that it is in order and that it can be debated and voted upon.
The passing of Motion No. 51 is very crucial to the three prairie Provinces. As I said, we were most careful with the wording of it so that we would not go beyond either the scope of the Bill or the scope of the Royal Recommendation. I would urge the Chair and the officials to take a second look at that motion and I would hope that Madam Speaker would agree in her final ruling that it is in order.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order and I will be very brief. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) outlined the acceptability of the motion and the necessity for it. I

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act should like to elaborate on some of the reasons why we would like to support the motion if it can be found to be in order- and we think it is in order.
1 think the way the Bill stands indicates that the motion is admissible. The Government has made commitments for the next three years on branch line rehabilitation. There is no change in the Royal Recommendation with respect to the expenditure of funds.
Without presuming to say whether Motion No. 33 will pass or not, we know there is a recommendation for the retention of branch lines to the year 2000 and that exchanges of branch lines have been required by the Canadian Transport Commission to be extended to the year 2000. An example is the CN takeover from CP on the Matador sub in my part of the country, and the Dodsland sub with the reverse taking place. Those transfers cannot take place until the rehabilitation has been completed.
We would like to see this motion put because it would be consistent with the rulings of the CTC and the expressed desire of the Government that those transfers should take place. As things stand, they cannot take place until the lines have been rehabilitated or upgraded. Therefore, the requirement in the Bill for that that to take place does not change the intent or the Royal prerogative. It only puts into legislation something that would make the people who use the branch lines feel more secure than they would if it rested in an order in council or some other place. I hope that, in considering Motion No. 51 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West, the Chair will consider the statements of the Government and the fact that this does not in any way change the intent of the Government with regard to Bill C-155.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to discuss the ruling made on Motion No. 89 which was referred to my colleague, the House Leader of this Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. 1 am sure the Hon. Member appreciates that he is not questioning a ruling but a preliminary ruling. We are still discussing the general matter in that spirit, naturally.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; 1 had temporarily forgotten the word "preliminary". We have been discussing a preliminary ruling in the last day or so. The point I was making referred to the preliminary ruling on Motion No. 89. The preliminary assessment was that it was considered to be beyond the scope of the Bill.
I would remind the Chair that the Bill deals with the transportation of western grain. Motion No. 89 is a motion to clarify in that it describes what is and what has been the current practice. The motion itself is consistent with current practice regarding the rates for rapeseed and canola beyond Thunder Bay. Those rates are currently set at a minimum compensatory rate under Section 23 of the National Transportation Act. In committee the shippers expressed concern that, as it stands, the Bill may leave the impression that those rates would no longer be applicable. We are therefore anxious to have the Bill make clear that the rate provisions now available to them would still be available for shipment beyond Thunder Bay. In fairness, I think that is the intent of the Government.
During consideration of the Bill we heard many arguments from Members of the Government and the Minister to the effect that one of the secondary purposes of the Bill is to encourage processing in western Canada. The maintenance of these minimum compensatory rates would assist in this. I believe, therefore, that the title of the Bill, "an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain", should be interpreted broadly enough to include rapeseed and canola oil, and for clarification purposes the policy outlined in Motion No. 89 should be described in the Bill, so that what is now in effect can continue and the producers of those particular products in western Canada will continue to be treated on a basis consistent with what has been the case up until this point in time.
I suggest that the Chair review its initial ruling to call this particular motion beyond the scope of the Bill. Given these circumstances, I hope you will find that it is indeed within the scope of the Bill and should be allowed to be debated.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would like to add to what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre, has said on Motion No. 89. The intent of the motion is to continue the present practice.
I would again like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this does not exceed the Royal Recommendation and it does not go beyond the scope of the Bill, which says it is "to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain".
Without Motion No. 89 Mr. Speaker, the intent of this legislation can be thwarted. Without this motion the intent of the Bill could be prevented from being carried out. That is the reason for the motion. We endeavoured to word the motion carefully so as to remain within the two bounds which must guide us on motions at report stage-that it does not exceed the Royal Recommendation and that it stays within the scope of the legislation. Surely, the scope of the legislation is the facilitation of the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. Without this motion, Sir, the intent and scope of this legislation can be prevented in the case of a number of grains which move to eastern Canada either raw or processed. Certainly, it was obvious in committee from all sides that this was one area which needed to be addressed in this legislation, so that the intent of the legislation could be completely carried out. Therefore, Sir, I ask you to consider this additional point raised by myself in the course of the consideration by the Chair and by the officials in reaching a final ruling. I urge this motion be considered in order.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would simply want to support the
October 11, 1983

two Hon. Members who have just spoken with respect to the admissibility of Motion No. 89.
There are two points which I want to make very quickly, Mr. Speaker. My first point relates to facilitating the movement of grain. As "grain" is described under the interpretation clause of the Bill, it is clear that the production of rapeseed or canola oil are included within the context of this Bill. Those products should be included when dealing with the movement, collection and handling of grain. Therefore, it really does not go beyond the scope of the Bill in so far as the definition of the product is concerned.
Second, if there should be any suggestion that it goes beyond the Royal Recommendation, 1 would simply like to say to you, Sir, that in my humble view it does not. What this motion is really asking for is the retention of the status quo on the freight rate beyond Thunder Bay, namely the minimum compensatory freight rate which is established by a formula through the Canadian Transport Commission. The amendment seeks to ensure the retention of that rate, because quite frankly with rapeseed and canola considered as grains under the statutory freight rate regime, it would move at the statutory freight rate from any point in western Canada to Thunder Bay and beyond that at a commercial rate. So the net effect on those two products would be perhaps worse than it was before. All this motion will do is compel the railway to prescribe a minimum compenstory rate beyond the Port of Thunder Bay. That in no way affects the Royal prerogative or the money package included in this Bill. I think that point has to be made abundantly clear.
To reiterate, if you are talking about the broad concept of the Bill, and since it appears the statement of purpose 1 so eloquently described is under attack, it is fair to say that one can only rely upon the broad title, which is an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. Processed canola and rapeseed is classified as a grain.
So on those two counts, Mr. Speaker, the Royal prerogative, and qualification within the content and purpose of the Bill, I think this motion qualifies on both counts.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, and I see the Parliamentary Secretary and the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport here, if the Allan Report had been made available to the Committee as we had requested, in al likelihood there would have been more amendments similar to Motion No. 89. That report was a study done by the Government which directly reflected what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski), has expressed on the ramifications of this motion. If the report was available to you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would be able to see that it does not in any way affect the Royal prerogative.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 1 am afraid the Hon. Member is discussing the relative merits of the substance of
Western Grain Transportation Act
the amendment, not its procedural acceptability in the strict sense of the word. I invite him to address himself to that point.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, that brief statement of purpose was so that Table officers and you, Sir, could ask for something we have been unable to obtain, the Allan report, which would allow them to reflect clearly on your judgment to be made on Motion No. 89, as to whether it is admissible and, within the Royal prerogative, whether it changes the intent of the Bill and its interpretation of grain as put forward by my colleague for Vegreville or the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), and whether that interpretation in any way, shape or form changes the intent of the Bill. That is the reason 1 was addressing myself to that report. It has not been available to members of the Standing Committee on Transport, but it may be made available to you. Sir.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The House will now proceed with debate, resuming consideration of Motion No. 33. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North (Mr. Orlikow).


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, while we have been debating the Bill for some weeks now, I could not help but think of last Thursday afternoon when we heard the very eloquent speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party about how they foresaw Canada in the future as being a democratic, tolerant country in which the people who helped form this country, with its two official languages, would have equal rights. I could not help but think that none of that could have been made possible-in fact, we would not have had a country-if the Fathers of Confederation had not been far-seeing and daring enough to ensure that a railway was built from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Any person who looks at a map of North America will realize that the economic line in this continent runs not east to west, but, rather, north to south. The people of Vancouver have much more in common with the people of Los Angeles and San Francisco than they have with those in Ottawa. The people of Halifax have much more in common with the people of Boston, New York and Philadelphia than they do with those in Winnipeg. The people in Winnipeg have much more in common with the people of Minnesota and Minneapolis than they have with those in Halifax. Therefore, without the railway there would not have been a country.
Sir John A. Macdonald gave all the support necessary, and that meant tens of millions of dollars and millions of acres of land, to the promoters who built the CPR. Then certain other businessmen who thought they could make a profit started to develop other railways. Eventually, we had not two railways but, rather, at least five railways. We had the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific, the Grand Trunk Northern, and several other railways.
Then it was realized that we had overbuilt railways and that they could not manage financially. They certainly could not all operate and make a profit. If they had not already become

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
bankrupt they would shortly be bankrupt. Therefore, the Government of the day nationalized the railways, took them over and amalgamated them, and created the CNR. We essentially had two transcontinental railways, the CPR and the CNR, one privately owned and the other supposedly publicly owned.
Both railways, like most other corporations, try to operate as profitably as possible, and that means profitable for themselves, not necessarily in the best interests of ordinary people. Therefore, we have two railways, each one determined, and we can understand why, to handle as much traffic as possible and to receive as much revenue as possible.
There is a ridiculous situation in many parts of Canada, although I will speak only of how it affects the movement of grain in western Canada, where grain is being shipped on cars belonging to the CPR or the CNR for hundreds of miles unnecessarily because the CNR and the CPR do not have lines which go directly to Vancouver, where most of the grain is going.
Let me just quote from the testimony of Mr. Justice Hall, who has done a great deal of work and headed a Royal Commission in this field. On August 9 of this year, he gave testimony to the Standing Committee on Transport, and I will just quote a part of it as follows:
We heard a lot about efficiency, and the whole idea of the railways about efficiency was to get rid of the branchlines. That would have been very efficient from their standpoint. But on this question of efficiency, I am told by senior railway people, there is a railway philosophy that once the line gets hold of a commodity for transport, it will hang onto that commodity to the delivery points, come hell or high water. That works out this way and this is what we found, great quantities of grain grown on, say, the Goose Lake line ... and now that may not mean too much to members from the east, but it is one of the great grain-producing areas in Saskatchewan between Saskatoon and Calgary served by the Canadian National Railways: it is closer to Vancouver at Rosetown than to Thunder Bay, so the trend is westward. Grain was taken to Calgary, but the CN has no line going from Calgary to Vancouver. So they hauled it then northward 200 miles to Edmonton so they can take it south again to Vancouver. That was the CN.
Then he went on to give a similar example about the CP, and I will quote again as follows:
CP with the Hardisty line, which is another line going through Edmonton ... all that CPR grain went to Edmonton, but there is no line from Edmonton into Vancouver so it went south to go to Vancouver. Trainloads of grain were passing each other like ships in the night between Calgary and Edmonton.
I am not being critical of the railways. As I have indicated, they are out to move as much freight on their tracks as possible, to have as much traffic as possible, to move as many cars as possible and to make as great a profit as possible. However, that is not the efficient way. That adds to the cost and reduces the net return which the farmer receives. Because that is the situation, we believe it is necessary to give the Administrator the power to direct the railways to move grain as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.
While we argue there is no need for the Grain Transportation Agency, and that the Administrator already has too much power in the sense that his power would encroach upon the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, we believe this is a good amendment and should be supported, because no matter what public agency has control over the transportation of
grain, whether it be the Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission, the Grain Transportation Agency or whatever, that person or agency should have the ability to direct the railroads to exchange cars to promote efficiency.
Mr. Justice Hall pointed out that the railways now hang on to loaded cars of grain for movement to export position even though the other line could move them to port over a more direct line, cutting the distance and costs and adding to the efficiency of the system. We say that this tends to undermine the assertions of the railroads that they lose money every time they move a carload of grain. If that were so, presumably they would lose more money for each additional mile they haul it and would do everything possible to get rid of it as soon as possible and stick their competition with the losses. We say that without the authority of the amendment, which we support, which would be vested in the hands of a public agency, we can be sure that there would be little, if any, exchange of cars of grain between the railroads for efficiency's sake.
What the Government is proposing in fact is that the railways should be paid for the grain they move on a cost-plus basis; in other words, the more their costs, the greater their profits. The longer they hang on to the grain, the more miles they move it, the greater the cost, and therefore their profits.
The Administrator on the Wheat Board-and in this case the Hon. Member proposes that there be an Administrator-must have the power to direct the railway to move the grain as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. There has been a great deal of evidence over many years that the railways have not done that and that they will not do it voluntarily. That is why we support the amendment.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Motion No. 33 which is in the name of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). The effect of this motion is simply to change Clause 17(l)(d) so that it would then read: "The Administrator may "promote and shall require if necessary -the words "shall require if necessary'' are vital parts of this amendment-"reciprocal and other arrangements between the railway companies to facilitate the efficient and reliable movement of grain for the purpose of maximizing returns to producers". We support this amendment because we see the Administrator as being part of the Canadian Wheat Board, as was proposed in our Motion No. 32 which is yet to be voted on.
We believe that this authority is necessary for several reasons. Let me outline two or three cases in which we think this power could be used to increase the efficiency of the grain transportation system. Basically, the problem lies in the railways' insistence upon maintaining control of carloads of their own grain traffic over their own lines regardless of whether it is the shortest route to the port. In fact, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) just stated, since the rates are distance related, the further that grain is transported the more money the railways can make because this Bill provides for their being paid on a cost-plus basis.
October 11, 1983

In spite of their allegations of losses, the railways seem to insist upon holding on to their own traffic over longer routes even though they allege the current rate structure loses them money. Their actions are not very supportive of their argument, however, since it is very difficult to believe that any corporate body would do something which would increase their losses.
The prime example which has been used in this debate to show how railways could co-operate and save producers money is that which Justice Hall raised in committee. Canadian National grain that is gathered in southern Saskatchewan must make the trip from Calgary to Edmonton in order to get across the mountains on CN lines. Meanwhile, Canadian Pacific grain which is gathered in northern Saskatchewan is normally transported to Edmonton and then south to Calgary in order to link with their main line across the mountains to get to the Pacific ports.
The railways have been convinced of the necessity to switch that traffic and have been doing so an experimental basis for a number of years now by simply switching cars at Edmonton and Calgary so that CP cars would go down CN lines and an equal number of CN cars would go through the mountains on the CP main line to Vancouver as well. This has been accomplished quite easily by keeping an equitable accounting of the bushels of grain transported. At the end of the year when an accounting is done, accommodation is made to equalize things between the companies at that time.
The grain companies established a similar arrangement through the Canadian Wheat Board where only certain amounts and grades are dumped at terminal locations on the West Coast and at Thunder Bay in order to avoid the necessity of breaking up the trains and sorting each individual company's grain for disposal at the required terminal. This procedure of dumping all the grain in each train at the terminal and using on accounting method to ensure that each gets its kind and grade of grain which has been shipped over a period of weeks or months has worked out quite well.
Rapeseed has been dealt with separately for some time but I understand that an agreement has been reached whereby rapeseed is bulked together and dumped at the terminal where the train is sent. An accounting is simply kept of who owns the rapeseed.
The interchange of rail company lines is extremely important not only in the Edmonton to Calgary corridor, where that co-operation pays the railways very well, but in the Vancouver area and in the shipment of grains to Churchill.
Travacon Research Limited issued a report on Vancouver rail access. It suggested that the rail lines in that area should be treated as if they belong to one company which could do an accounting procedure very similar to what the Canadian Wheat Board does with respect to the various grain companies. In other words, the transportation services could be treated as one company while ensuring that each participant is paid for the amount of work completed. It suggests that rather than a company shipping grain up to 60 miles further in a long, extended loop, simply to stay on its own tracks, the shorter
Western Grain Transportation Act
distance provided by another company's line could be used to get the grain to port a day or two earlier. This would speed up efficiency while providing a lower cost to the companies involved, and ultimately a lower cost to the user, who in this case is the grain producer.
The use of other companies' lines has been practised at Churchill only in one season. While the CNR owns the line to Churchill, a good part of the CP gathering area exists in that Churchill corridor. Churchill usually requires one particular type of grain. Recently, this requirement has been barley, which is mostly grown in northeastern Saskatchewan and northwestern Manitoba. Half of that area is serviced by CP Rail, which has no access to Churchill without a reciprocal agreement. Therefore, the requirement of a reciprocal agreement would hasten the gathering of that grain, provide a shorter route to Churchill and make it far more efficient for both the railway company and the marketing system itself.
The railways say they are loath to do this because they like to maintain control of their cars. I suggest that is an important point to remember, particularly when one considers to whom these cars belong. The railways have not bought grain cars on their own since the early 1950s. Those boxcars are fully depreciated and they are only used in the rail system because the federal Government paid to have them refurbished so they could still be used on the low volume branch lines that are unable to facilitate hopper cars. The cars that the railways are fighting over are essentially cars that were brought by the people and farmers of Canada. Therefore, the railways' argument as to ownership and control is fairly weak.
The administration which has the overview of transportation-whether under the Wheat Board, as we prefer, or a separate transport authority, as the Government prefers- should have the power to require the railways to enter into reciprocal agreements to provide the shortest haul and reduce the costs to producers and, if this Bill becomes law, the federal treasury. We believe that it makes no sense to pay the railways for shipping on a circuitous route simply because they are being paid for the number of miles they must travel. When a shorter route exists, the Administrator should be able, as this amendment would provide, to force them to reach a reciprocal agreement to move the grain over the shortest possible haul.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
27886_________________________
Western Grain Transportation Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Pursuant to Standing Order 79(11), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After having discussions with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) and the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), I ask leave of the House to introduce a motion and to withdraw by leave Motion No. 10 standing in my name.
The motion I wish to introduce at this time with leave of the House reads as follows:
"export" in respect of grain means shipment by vessel within the meaning of the Canada Shipping Act to any destination outside Canada and shipment by any other mode of transport to the United States for use of the grain in that country and not for shipment out of that country;-
When I gave notice to the Chair last Thursday, I provided one English translation and two French translations of the motion. I would leave the correctness of that to the discretion of the Table officers. This motion would be seconded by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and 1 hope the unanimous agreement of the House would occur when it comes time to vote affirmatively on the motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, there was lengthy discussion on this in committee. Both the Hon. Member and I had motions in the committee attempting to accomplish what we were all agreed upon. The wording the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) has now presented was on the advice of the legal counsel for the Department of Transport. We are perfectly prepared to give unanimous consent to Motion No. 10 being withdrawn by leave and to have the substitute motion put on the Order Paper in its place. Would Mr. Speaker entertain argument now as to its acceptability, or would you prefer to obtain unanimous consent first?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair would want clarification by the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) as to whether or not the lead-in to the text of the proposed new amendment is the same as Motion No. 10 as printed on page VI of today's Order Paper, which has the effect of striking out certain lines and substituting the following therefor. Is that the intent of the new amendment?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Yes it is, Mr. Speaker. The lead-in is to amend Clause 2 by striking out lines 7 to 9 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor. It would remove those words that appear in the Bill as amended from committee.
October 11, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am sure the Table officers will be satisfied with that explanation.
Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the existing Motion No. 10 as printed on today's Order Paper?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. McKnight) withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the House give leave to the Hon. Member to present his new Motion No. 10?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should indicate that this does not infringe in any way on the Speaker's obligation to rule as to its procedural acceptability.
If Hon. Members wish to contribute argument as to its procedural acceptability, the Chair is disposed to hear those arguments at this time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Chair made a preliminary ruling on the original Motion No. 10. We now have a motion from the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster reworded in a manner recommended by legal counsel for the Department of Transport on which there was unanimous agreement in committee and unanimous agreement in the House.
That does not gainsay that the Chair may have a problem about its acceptability. It is within the scope of the legislation. The legislation would provide for a statutory rate regime to export position which would be Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Churchill, Thunder Bay or any other port of exit between Canada and the United States in the western region. Up to the point of exit, whether it is a sea port, an inland port or a port of exit along the forty-ninth parallel, it would be eligible for the statutory regime.
This would ensure that grain or grain products from western Canada would not get the statutory regime, then cross the border into the United States and be exported a second time from the United States to some overseas point at the expense of Canadian shippers and Canadian ports. By Canadian shippers, I am thinking of barley maltsters and other grain producers who would be put in somewhat difficult positions.
The motion does not exceed the Royal Recommendation. The cost will be no more with this amendment than it would be without it. It is purely for the protection of Canadian grain producers and processors.
Second, it remains within the scope of the legislation. As was argued on the first dozen or 15 motions following Madam Speaker's preliminary ruling, on both those grounds those motions, like Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and so forth, remain within the scope of the Bill and do not exceed the Royal prerogative. We appreciate that the Chair and the officials may not be fully up to date on all the details and ramifications regarding the movement of grain and grain products to export positions in Canada, but we want to assure

October 11, 1983

the Chair that Members on all sides were very alert when presenting motions at report stage after what we found in committee. We made every effort to word it in such manner as to be acceptable.
I find no grounds for its not being acceptable. The motion meets the two criteria. 1 urge that the Chair rule that it is in order, not only because it is, but because there is unanimous agreement on it following much discussion and consultation among ourselves and with legal counsel. 1 hope the Chair will be guided by that and will find the motion acceptable.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to make a few remarks on the acceptability of Motion No. 10. The guides used to present this motion were guides that Members of this House and members of the Standing Committee on Transport used in presenting all of our motions. The rationale for the motion which makes it acceptable is that it treats all parts of Canada equally.
When the Bill was presented, the intent of the Government was to provide a less than commercial rate for the movement of grain and grain products both east and west. Through an oversight, the transportation of grains to western Canada for export to the United States was not included whereas the transportation of grain east to Armstrong and Thunder Bay and for export to the United States was included. The intent of the Bill was to facilitate the movement of grain and grain products. Through an oversight, the drafters neglected to look at western Canada in the same way as they looked at the eastern section.
After consultation among all Parties in the House and with the Department of Transport on the acceptability of Motion No. 10, it was agreed that the intent was carried out in this motion. The increase in cost to the public treasury was not evident. Grains moving westerly would be at the statutory or less than compensatory rate regardless. If they are moved west at the statutory rate, the final destination of those grains does not impinge upon the public purse. That is movement from the western part of Canada into the western United States for consumption.
That briefly is the rationale as to why Members feel that Motion No. 10 is in order. It carries out the intent of the Bill. It may in some way relieve the public purse of some transportation costs, because it is very explicit that grains shipped under the statutory rate or less than compensatory rate are not for export after arrival in the United States. The concern has been expressed by some people across Canada and by some members of the Transport Committee that the cost to the public purse could be increased by the movement of grain into the United States and then further exported.
I thank my colleagues for consent in giving me leave. I await the Chair's ruling as to the acceptability of this motion.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in, hopefully, assisting you in making a ruling. The original definition for export in the Bill was a very easy one, but it caused a great deal of difficulty, particularly for maltsters in western Canada.
Western Grain Transportation Act
The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) made several attempts in committee to amend that definition. He was finally successful, only for the committee to find that it would cause great consternation for the Port of Vancouver, a consternation which some members of the committee did not share but which nevertheless was very disturbing to port authorities in the Port of Vancouver.
In committee we made several attempts to find an acceptable definition of "export". I believe the definition which the Hon. Member is proposing is acceptable and will not cause difficulty for either the Port of Vancouver or the maltsters. In fact, it will include the maltsters in the purview of this Bill. I am sure I speak on behalf of the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary when I say that we find the motion in order and acceptable. I would therefore urge the Chair to rule in that regard. It is my opinion that the motion does not exceed the Royal Recommendation and will not place an additional financial burden on the Crown. Nor will it in any way subvert the meaning and intent of Bill C-155.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 34
That Bill C-155 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 20 to 25 at page 8.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motions Nos. 34 and 35 are related. Madam Speaker said that they should be debated separately and voted on separately. The intent of my motion is to delete lines 20 to 25 at page 8.
Before speaking in support of my motion, as all Members are aware, tens of thousands of farmers truck their grain to the shipping points. Many hundreds of small commercial truckers haul grain for grain producers to the local shipping point, alternate delivery point, flour mill or rapeseed crushing plant. They have been doing that for a number of years and they have been doing an excellent job of it. Those small commercial truckers have meshed in well with the farmers' own trucking operations. However, Mr. Speaker, the legislation without this amendment allows for a commercial trucking system that can do nothing more than speed up the abandonment of branch lines and transfer costs from the federal treasury to the treasuries of the municipalities and provincial Government.
A week ago, Mr. Speaker, some members of the railway unions reminded me of their experience with the railways. As soon as officials of the railways saw an opening that would allow them to move into the trucking business, no matter what the commodities were, that is exactly what they did and they did it in a big way. I recall many years ago a railway officer said to me: "Heck, if we can haul it on a right-of-way that has been built and maintained by somebody else instead of ourselves, we are going into the trucking business". In my own experience with the railways, Mr. Speaker, I have seen many little commercial truckers run right off the road by the big guys who quite often were from CN and CP.

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
1 say that this legislation would hasten the abandonment of branch lines, but I would like to remind the House that the Government gave a commitment of $1,072,000,000 for the rehabilitation of branch lines. Department of Transport officials have said that it will cost $1,600,000,000, leaving a $528 million shortfall, to rehabilitate the remaining branch lines that are in the basic network of lines which are supposedly guaranteed until at least the year 2000. The Government, on the pretext of giving the little truckers a share of statutory and subsidized grain rates and products, is doing nothing more than abandoning at least another 1,500 miles of railway lines in western Canada, an area that has already lost something in the order of 3,000 miles of railway lines.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House a telex sent by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to the Minister on September 21. That telex pointed out the extreme concern of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool at the inadequate level of funding to upgrade the western network of grain-dependent branch lines and it pointed out the shortfall. It was obvious from the answers of the Minister in the House the other day that at the moment the Government wants to be able to abandon 1,200, 1,500 or 1,800 miles of branch lines and shift the cost of moving the grains from those lines to the municipalities and the provincial Governments.
I would like to describe the experience of the State of Iowa a few years ago. A large number of branch lines were to be abandoned in Iowa and many of them were abandoned. The State of Iowa after a few years found that it would have been cheaper, as a result of the higher county and State road and highway construction and maintenance costs, to subsidize the railway to allow for it to maintain the branch line. Iowa then began to do so because it had already lived through the bitter experience that is now being planned for us in western Canada.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is not intended to harm and will not do any harm or damage to the many hundreds of small commercial truckers who are currently trucking grain in western Canada. They will still have an important part to play. However, if the door were left open for the Administrator to make agreements, that Administrator would, I predict, make agreements in relatively large volumes and would endeavour to make those agreements with one or two of the larger trucking companies. The little commercial trucker would be left out in the cold. That is the reason for this motion, Mr. Speaker.
The main purpose of this motion is to preserve that basic network of branch lines so that an opening would not be provided for CN and CP trucks to move into the large towns and small cities in rural parts of the Prairies and run the little commercial truckers off the road. This has been known to happen on many other occasions with many other kinds of commodities.
It is most important that the Government has made a commitment to rehabilitate those branch lines. We look upon the provision for the Administrator to make agreements as a neat method for the Government to get out of that commitment and transfer costs that would otherwise fall upon the
railways and the Government of Canada. I submit that those increased costs would fall upon the grain producers, rural municipalities and provincial Governments.
The national railway systems are the responsibility of the federal Government. I would not like to see the situation that occurred in the State of Iowa occur in my Province. If that were to happen, the Province would find itself faced with two choices. It could either pay more direct expenditures for provincial highway and municipal road construction and maintenance or pay a subsidy to keep the branch lines. Surely that is not the role for a municipality or provincial Government to play. That is the responsibility of the federal Government.
There are several kinds of betrayals contained within this legislation and I think this is another one. Announcements have been made two and three times a year in the last six or seven years with reference to the Government's commitment to rehabilitate the lines in the basic network. Some lines are still in question, Mr. Speaker. A decision has not yet been made as to whether some of those lines would go into the basic network or would be subject to abandonment. Until all that is sorted out, the Government should not have the opportunity through this legislation to speed up the abandonment of lines so that those lines cannot be put in the basic network or to allow the abandonment of lines that are already in the basic network. That is the intent and the purpose of this legislation.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might think that I am being a little paranoid or falling victim to a conspiracy theory, but our experience with the federal Government regarding branch lines has in the past been bitter, to put it mildly. I believe that in this instance it is the intent of the Government to use the little truckers as the vehicle by which it can abandon more lines. As larger and larger trucks haul for longer and longer distances, the big trucking companies move in and the little commercial truckers on the Prairies have not got a chance to compete with them. The small truckers do not have the capital and resources to purchase a fleet of trucks. I know one of my colleagues will illustrate how a little trucker in Saskatchewan has already been taken over by CP trucks in anticipation of this kind of legislation, because CP wants one of its branch lines abandoned.
As I said, if my motion were to be accepted by the House, it will do no harm to the many hundreds of small commercial truckers who are presently operating in the three prairie Provinces and it will certainly do much to protect and preserve the branch line system and get the balance of it rehabilitated.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this amendment which is meant to undo the harm done by the Conservative-Liberal coalition in committee. The motion would amend Clause 17(4), which reads as follows:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
October 11, 1983

We recognize that truckers need a fair deal, even to the extent that, in the situation in which they find themselves on the Prairies when moving grain, there is possible justification for a subsidy. The trouble with subsidies is that they seem to help out the larger operations the most. At the present time the grain on the Prairies that is moved by truck is moved by the small operators basically, although they are having a difficult time making a go of it. Although we would support the truckers in this way, we do not want to assist by allowing this clause to stand and our amendment would delete it. If the clause were to stand, we believe it would assist in the abandonment of branch lines and we do not want to assist the CNR and the CP to take over the small trucking industry on the Prairies, which would be the result.
Our amendment would delete Clause 17(4) of the Bill and it is based on trust. If we could trust the Government of Canada not to use the clause to abandon lines which are necessary for the continued movement of grain, we might consider its retention.
Anyone who has attended a hearing on rail line abandonment anywhere in Canada will recognize that the railways have a propensity for using any excuse available in order to abandon lines. When the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and I attended a hearing on the Carleton line which goes through communities in both our constituencies, the railways took a variety of suspect positions to attempt to put that line in a light that would justify the CTC's abandoning it.
This Party believes that if the clause is retained it will give the railways one more vehicle, one more trick, one more instrument with which to aid the abandonment of lines in western Canada which are needed to move grain. Those lines should be retained in order to keep down costs, not only for the farmer but for the municipalities and Provinces which are responsible for road building. We feel strongly that the clause should be deleted, Mr. Speaker.
It may be asked why we are so sure that the clause would be used to promote the abandonment of railway lines. I just have to refer to the proceedings of the Transport Committee which show that a number of members asked where the money would come from. Obviously if it were to come from the Crow benefit fund, the clause would have been ruled out of order because its effect would have been to increase costs. It was not ruled out of order, however, and so it is still in the Bill. Members asked where the money would come from to pay for the implied cost of agreements with truckers. It would not come from the Crow benefit but from the money allocated for the rehabilitation of branch lines.
We have the word of the Deputy Minister of Transport for this. In answer to a question by the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) in Committee, as reported at page 128:9 of the proceedings, Mr. Kroeger said:
No, Mr. Chairman. 1 think the trade-off most likely to be made, certainly the trade-off foreshadowed in the CCA Task Force report, is a trade-off between branch line rehabilitation money, which is not part of this bill, and some kind of trucking assistance program. The analysis in the CCA Task Force report
Western Grain Transportation Act
indicates that potentially very large savings could be achieved if instead of transporting grain on certain high-cost branch lines-
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is proof enough for us who have little trust that either the railways or the Government wants to maintain those branch lines. This is proof enough that the clause is meant to eliminate as many branch lines as possible. The money for the rehabilitation of branch lines is available to keep them going. If that money is going to be available, there is the implication that it is because the branch lines are to be abandoned and therefore it could be used to assist truckers.
The Central Co-ordinating Agency Task Force report referred to in Committee by Mr. Kroeger states that payment should be made not only to the truckers but also to producers in order to help them effectively deliver to alternate points, if they are on an abandoned branch line, to municipalities which, in many cases, will have to improve the roads and pay considerably more to maintain them when the amount of grain being carried is increased. This task force report suggests that payment would also have to be made to the elevator companies who may require some capital increase. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the money which is to come from the rehabilitating of branch lines is going to be used to abandon those branch lines, and this clause will assist them to do that.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity once again to enter into the debate on the Crow rate. I wait with interest to see whether or not the Tories are going to take their turn and enter into this debate, but they continue to sit there and allow this Crow Bill to go through the House, easing its passage in order to facilitate a quick adoption. It is really sad, Mr. Speaker, that the Tories are not speaking on this amendment and are not really helping us to fight this Crow legislation, particularly with this amendment.
When the Party first enunciated its position with regard to the Crow rate, Mr. Speaker, it was not sure whether what the Government was doing was right or wrong. It was pretty wishy-washy about its position. Later on, though, Mr. Speaker, we welcomed the fact that it firmed up its position and indicated the Crow rate should not be changed, "at least right now", as it was put.
Therefore it is with some dismay that I observe the lack of participation by the Tory Members of Parliament in this debate. I call upon those Hon. Members to rise to their feet at the earliest opportunity in order to offer their views with regard to this amendment. I would like to hear the Conservative Party speak out with regard to this amendment, which allows the Government to subsidize the trucking of grain-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It does not say that at all.


Cyril Keeper: -because I would like to know whether or not it is going to support our amendment. I wonder if that Party is as concerned as we are with the abandonment of branch lines and the closing of country elevators. I wonder if it is as

October 11, 1983
27890________________________________
Western Grain Transportation Act
concerned as we are with the threat that this change in the Crow rate has-particularly this aspect of the Bill-with the continued survival of small town prairie Canada.
We have put forward this amendment, Mr. Speaker, to eliminate the possibility of the Minister entering into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport in a subsidized fashion. We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, that what is going on here is not a way of making the transportation of grain more economical and efficient, but rather is a move which simply involves the transfer of the cost of the transportation of grain from the railroads to provincial and municipal governments and farmers. If grain starts to be moved on the Prairies in an increasing way by trucks rather than by railways, this will cause greater wear and tear on the roads and increased expenditures for provincial Governments.
I see one of my Liberal colleagues smiling. I would say to him, Sir, that in the case of Manitoba, for example, this particular move by the Government will mean an additional $40 million in road costs. This is a significant figure for a Province like Manitoba. Not only is it a matter of dollars and cents, Mr. Speaker, and the transfer of costs from the railways to provincial and municipal Governments and the property taxpayer, but it is also going to cause considerable inconvenience. We know that once these heavy trucks start chewing up the small country roads and wearing them down, the people who presently live along those roads, which were not designed for this heavy traffic, will have to suffer the inconvenience of cut up roads. In these days when governments are so reluctant to spend money, obviously these people will have to wait a long time in order to have those roads repaired.
We in this Party are concerned that, if we allow this provision of the Bill to go through, advantage will be given to the private sector of the grain industry and much will be taken away from the orderly marketing of grain. Larger costs will be placed on the pools. In this country, Mr. Speaker, there is a long tradition of the orderly marketing of grain, with good reason. Farmers in this country have experienced the wilful action of international grain markets which can bankrupt the farmer and leave a family without income, and can even leave whole communities devastated because of the difficulties associated with not being sure of a fair price for their grain at the end.
Because of the vagaries of the international grain markets, it has been necessary in this country to move to a system of orderly grain marketing. This has benefited not only the farmer but the consumer as well, because it assures people of a continuous supply of grain, that the basic ingredients for the making of bread are there and are not subject to the whimsy of some fluctuation in international markets. We have set up a system to supply ourselves with these basic human needs. We in this Party are concerned that this provision in the Bill will mean that the orderly marketing of grain will be threatened, that the prairie Wheat Pools, along with the provincial and local governments, will be paying the costs, and the real beneficiaires of this change in policy will be the railroads.
I would like to give an example of the reason why this change, which envisages the greater movement of grain by trucking rather than by rail line, is not necessarily a cost saving arrangement. There is some experience in this area. The State of Iowa went into a program which involved the transfer of grain movement from rail to road and from country elevators to inland terminals. It was very similar to the program envisaged today. The result of that program was that the State of Iowa found its highway system being worn out by trucks at a rate two to three times as fast as the government of Iowa could afford to repair those roads. Are we asking the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to face this kind of situation?
It is not good enough simply to bow to pressure from the railroads. It is not good enough for the Conservative caucus to sit in silence while this Government moves to transfer costs from the railroads to provincial and municipal governments, to the farmers and to property taxpayers. I call upon the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, to enter into this debate with regard to this specific amendment. Speak up for the Prairies! Join our Party and fight this transfer of costs from the railways on to the backs of the farmers.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my colleague says I should not really bother speaking, but I am sure those who are watching this debate must find it amusing to watch the NDP. They say they are engaged in this all-out fight against the dismantling of the Crow, but instead of dealing with the specifics of this legislation and chastising its authors, they choose to fight the Conservative Party.
I think it is fast becoming quite evident that their so-called fight to retain the Crow is becoming phonier every day. It is pretty shallow because we all know that through the course of this summer the Bill was fought in committee by the "Lone Ranger", the very dedicated Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). All these fellows come in here now, the instant experts, and read out speeches prepared by their researchers which really do not add a whole lot to the debate.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think the NDP should be ashamed, because if anyone is responsible for this legislation, they are. They are the ones responsible for returning the Liberal Government to office and thereby bringing forth this legislation. They should hang their heads in shame. I will tell you something else, Mr. Speaker. If they were given the chance, I would lay you ten to one odds they would do the same thing again. Rather than attacking the authors of this Bill, they choose to attack the Conservative Party. That is consistent with the same old hypocrisy we have heard from that corner ever since I have been a Member of Parliament.
The NDP proposes to delete those words which say that the Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.
October 11, 1983


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Chairman of the Committee asks, how did it get there? It got there because of an amendment proposed by our Party and supported by the majority of Members on the Transport Committee. The actions of the NDP, in its desire to withdraw that particular clause, demonstrate two things. First of all, the NDP are against the trucking industry, the little trucker who buys his vehicle, has it serviced in a small town and hires local people to do the job. They are against the small trucking industry in western Canada. They are also against the producer because the motive behind this amendment is to maximize the return to the producer.
The authority of the Administrator is based upon the fact that the trucking of grain should be done only when it is in the best interests of the producer to do so. So that is a concomitant of this Party's determination to bring about a transportation system which is not only effective, efficient and reliable, but indeed one which will utilize all modes of transport to the greatest possible extent to ensure we can move more grain efficiently and reliably.
I find it very difficult to follow the twisted and warped logic of the NDP. I guess it is because they really do not know what is going on. They do not have representation in the farming community. If they had, they would know that producers are very keenly interested in bringing about a system which will be efficient, reliable and utilize all modes of transport. But once again they are employing their traditional scare tactics. They are saying: "If you do this, you are going to wipe out all the branch lines, destroy the Wheat Board and orderly marketing". That is all they rely on, scare tactics and their own ideological and philosophical beliefs. I submit to you, Sir, that following that logic is not in the best interests of the grain producer. That should be the bottom line of this whole Bill, even though there is much in it which will be very detrimental to the producer.
It has been universally accepted by everyone in this House, and anyone who knows anything about grain handling and transportation, that we do need an efficient, effective and reliable handling system. That really has a nice ring to it, but really there is not much in this legislation to promote efficiency. What we are doing is promoting the status quo, promoting a cost-plus regime. We are promoting a guaranteed annual income for the railways, which the NDP so universally embraces. They support that guaranteed annual income to the railroads and then cry about the fact that there is not enough efficiency. There again is the hypocrisy of the NDP. There are no rewards in this Bill for cost cutting, streamlining, speeding up deliveries or improving dependability. This particular clause we believe at least opens the door to allowing some of those things to develop.
In order to have the kind of system we are all desirous of achieving, we must make the best available use of all transport modes. Very basically, Mr. Speaker, trucks can play a complementary role in facilitating grain movement, all in the name of the producer. The trucking industry has been involved in the movement of grain for many years, they are not strangers to it,
Western Grain Transportation Act
but this Bill really closes the door to their involvement. The fact that the Government switched its option of payment really closed the door to any meaningful participation by the trucking industry.
We should really consider this very carefully, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is fair to say that in some instances savings can be accrued. The NDP asks who is going to pay the additional subsidy. We are looking at this as a cost saving to the producer and taxpayer, not as an additional expenditure. That is why the Chairman of the Committee ruled this particular provision in order. The Central Co-ordinating Agency Task Force report outlines the potential on some light and medium density branch lines to save something in the order of 41 cents a bushel. That is the difference between maintaining a branch line with light density and moving grain by truck. I suspect in some cases the individual producer would end up getting better service. So those are things which should in fact be taken into consideration.
We have the concept of the off-line elevator advanced in the Hall Report, which goes on to say this:
There are stations where some type of transportation service to grain elevators is imperative in order that producers in that area are not left in an impossible situation. The Commission has examined and evaluated a number of suggestions for the retention of service. In many cases present rail service was the more expensive option available. The Commission examined in some depth the concept of a mini-train operation, involving the use of lighter power and car equipment and transloading facilities. The Commission found that the mini-train concept while operationally feasible was not as practical a solution as the establishment of certain elevators as "off-line elevators". Grain receipts at these elevators would be transported to main line elevators by commercial truck at no additional cost to the producer.
Here we have the NDP wanting to close that option, a very important recommendation advanced by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. We always hear them heaping accolades of praise on the former Chief Justice, but here is one very important recommendation, and all this enabling provision will do is give the Administrator the power to do some of those things advanced by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall.
I could go on and speak of the importance of the trucking industry and how it can play a more vital and integral part in facilitating the movement of grain, but perhaps I can save that for the debate on the next clause.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, it may be a good idea to set the record straight with a few facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: First, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) accused the Government of putting this amendment in the Bill because it wanted to abandon branch lines. I think that was his contention. 1 would like to point out to Your Honour and to the House that the Government did not have this provision in the original draft of the Bill. As the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said, it was he who proposed the amend-

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
ment in committee, the amendment that the New Democratic Party would now like to remove. It concerns a subclause of Clause 17.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: They don't believe in democracy, either.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The committee decided to accept the amendment because, in its view, it would provide more efficient transportation of grain.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) really said nothing, because I suspect he does not know anything about the Bill. Rather, he filled his speech up with "Mr. Speaker', repeated over and over again. Whenever one hears that, one knows an Hon. Member does not know very much about what he is discussing. Otherwise, he would be able to make a speech without constant reference to Mr. Speaker every second or third word.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What he said was "Mr. Keeper".


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I can discount that intervention because it did not have any substance to it whatsoever.
There are areas in western Canada, and we had these kinds of representations before the committee, where at times it is more efficient and cheaper to move grain by truck than by rail. The NDP has constantly harked back to the damage it will do the highways of the various Provinces if the grain is hauled by truck. I have some difficulty accepting that argument because trucks move on the highways all the time, whether they are hauling grain, gravel, fertilizer or any other commodity. The highways, one would assume, are built to a standard that will sustain that kind of traffic. If they are not, then I suggest it is time they were.


An Hon. Member:: They are heavily subsidized.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The various provincial Governments have means at their disposal to raise funds for the construction of highways, and trucks pay a very heavy part of those means of raising funds for the construction and maintenance of highways. I do not believe it is the concern of the Bill or the role of this Parliament to decide how the highways in any particular Province are to be utilized. I think it is the role of the House at this time to deal with the provisions of the Bill. I hope we can go on and do that without, as the Hon. Member for Vegreville has said, the instant experts, suddenly rising to remind us that there is a Speaker in the House by constant reference to him, without there being any substance to their speeches.
1 agree with him that the Hon. Member for Regina West spent much time in the committee. In fact, he barely missed a sitting at all. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) spent much time in committee as well and certainly knows the Bill. The same is true of the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo). When those three Hon. Members speak, I assume they have something to say and at least they know what they are talking about.
However, this particular amendment by the Hon. Member for Regina West is, in my opinion, one which will weaken the Bill. I believe the Bill was strengthened in committee with the 89 amendments that were accepted, this particular subclause being one of them. I would certainly hope that the House would now deal with it expeditiously and defeat the amendment so that that subclause will stay in the Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments with respect to this particular amendment presented by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I have waited this long to comment on the amendment. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) has asked where Members of the Conservative Party are with respect to this matter. Quite frankly, I was waiting to see whether or not I would hear an explanation of the purpose of the amendment. I was unable to understand its purpose on the basis of the provisions of the particular subsection of Clause 17 of the Bill, which does provide for the possibility, in the interest of the producer, that provision will be made for the trucking of grain.
1 simply want to bring a couple of examples of the availability of such provision, as brought forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), in the committee stage, with reference to my own constituency. I know the New Democratic Party has now trained its guns on the Conservative Party. Its Leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), said that his Party's preoccupation is now to attack the Conservative Party. That was his objective at the beginning of this sitting of the session.
I want to tell the NDP that that has never succeeded in the past as a way by which to accomplish what must be done for western Canadians. The people of western Canada are fed up with the kind of attitude that has been taken by the Leader of the NDP, of cosying up to the Government on every occasion, supporting it whenever it comes close to a confidence vote, and attacking the Official Opposition, the Conservative Party. The people of western Canada do not understand that. What they do understand is circumstances such as those in my own constituency.
In the Asquith subdivision, there was a very serious situation over the course of the last year, one in which we came very close to violence. I called upon the former Minister of Transport to have a meeting with representatives in my constituency regarding rail line abandonment. The Minister would not meet with my constituents and the order proceeded for the removal of the branch line. The results are now being manifested in the village of Arelee, which has now lost its village status. It has turned in its village status because the elevators are gone.
One of the proposals that I wanted to make to the Minister at that time concerned alternatives which should have been considered in terms of keeping the elevators operating in that particular community. One of the possibilities concerned trucking. However, the Minister refused to meet. He was insensitive to the needs of people in that very important area, one which is growing in terms of production of grain and population, but which is now faced with the situation where
October 11, 1983

the branch line has been torn up, removed by the CPR. What is wrong with having the option available under this legislation, in the interest of keeping the elevators operating in the community, to allow the community to carry on with its small businesses as a centre of commerce for farmers who come in to deliver grain? What is wrong, I ask Members of the NDP, with having the option available in Arelee Saskatchewan, to truck grain?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: And Sonningdale.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The same situation obtains in Sonningdale, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), points out. Members of the NDP want to remove from the legislation the possibility of alternative methods with respect to the shipment of grain and maintenance of elevators.
What about the other branch line which is under review in my constituency, the Carleton line, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert? This line extends from my constituency. Mr. Justice Hall, in his examination of that particular line, did not allow it to be maintained as part of the permanent network.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that it is now one o'clock. I would like to continue my remarks after resumption of the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, world history has proven that the matching of aggressive power with the balancing power structure tends to maintain peace, but any signs of weakness simply invite an aggressor to move forward.
Let us remember and state very clearly that we wanted no missiles but that the Soviets would not have a zero zero solution. Let us not forget that while Cruise missiles are said to be unverifiable, Soviet proposals have never allowed for verification. Let us remind ourselves also that the Soviet Union has already tested the Cruise missile.
When we weary of being told that we must not deploy, that we must negotiate, and that we are fuelling the arms race, recollect for a moment just who has hundreds of intermediate
range nuclear forces in the field and who has none. NATO has none at the present time but, as a contrast in part, the Soviet Union has more than 360 SS-20s with a range of 5,000 kilometres, or more than 3,100 miles, and each SS-20 has three warheads.
Who proposed negotiations in the first place? NATO. Who dismissed negotiation out of hand four years ago? The Soviets. Who is withdrawing more warheads than may be deployed? NATO. Who deploys new missiles and keeps the old ones as well? The Soviet Union. Who is seeking balance? NATO. Who is threatening to field even more weapons if current imbalances are remedied even partially? The Soviets.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time is finished.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, it has finally been announced publicly that Bell Textron has received the contract to build helicopters. Every Canadian man, woman, and child will be subsidizing the plant to the tune of $10.60. That represents over $5 million from the Niagara region alone, a region that is known as the unemployment capital of Canada, with a staggering unemployment rate of 21.7 per cent as of January, 1983. In September that figure was still 16.3 per cent, the highest in the country. Yet the Niagara region, where plant, facilities and skilled workers are available, loses contracts to other areas of the country where unemployment is less serious.
The Bell helicopter decision is only one example. Another is the case of the Port Weller drydocic which did not receive a contract for building an icebreaker despite all the money which has been directed to improving the shipbuilding industry.
Most of these funds, unfortunately, end up in the ridings or home towns of Liberal front benchers. When will the Government throw aside political considerations and give thought to the crucial issue of regional unemployment levels, expertise, and plant facilities, in deciding where the taxpayers' money is directed for creating jobs in this country called Canada?



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Madam Speaker, last Friday, the Government of Canada announced that Bell Helicopter would establish a plant at Mirabel for the manufacture of light twin-engine helicopters. Contrary to what my hon.

October 11, 1983
colleague said earlier, this plant will represent an investment of $514 million and create 2,775 high tech jobs. The Canadian Government will contribute $165.2 million or 60 per cent of total government subsidies.
Bell Textron will create a new Canadian company that will build and run a plant covering 27,000 square metres in the Mirabel industrial park. The plant will start manufacturing helicopters in 1985. The Canadian Government will invest another $100 million in the manufacture of helicopter engines at Pratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada in Longeuil. Together, these two projects will create 3,775 high tech jobs, in addition to considerable economic spin-offs for the greater Montreal area and neighbouring counties.
Through these subsidies, the Canadian Government is demonstrating the importance of maintaining and developing expertise in the Quebec aerospace industry. Job creation is the Government's foremost priority, and I think this proves once again that it has not forgotten the Mirabel area.


Madam Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Member's time has expired.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, the Government announced last Friday that the unemployment rate was declining. That was good news. However, good news sometimes covers up the reality of the situation.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House that there were 499,000 more unemployed Canadians last month than were unemployed on the day that the Liberal Government took office in 1980. That is one-half million more unemployed Canadians as a direct consequence of government economic policy.
We have heard statements in the House about public expenditures for huge signs to be put on buildings that are make-work projects. While that is good news for the few Canadians who get to work on those projects, it is Government economic policy over all that has thrown an additional one-half million Canadians out of work in the last three and a half years. It is time for all Members of this Chamber to consider Government economic policy and examine whether a proposed change in policy will have a positive or negative impact on the labour force.
When the Minister stands outside the Chamber and announces he will pinpoint the new job locations in the future, we are wise to remember-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY INCREASED TOLLS-COST TO WESTERN GRAIN PRODUCERS

Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise the problem created by legislated increases to costs. I am speaking of the proposed increases to St. Lawrence Seaway tolls. Just over half of western Canadian grain goes through the St. Lawrence Seaway. The tolls are set by the federal Government through law. This year they averaged more than $1.60 per tonne, and are paid in full by the western grain producers. Last year's toll cost western grain producers just over $24 million. These increases have been ongoing from the period 1977 to 1980 when the tolls increased by just over 100 per cent. In the last two years, notwithstanding the six and five guidelines, the increases were a total of 28 per cent in the two years.
Through an Act of Parliament the Government is required to recover all operating costs regardless of traffic conditions. I suggest that when considering these traffic conditions we should take into account that grain traffic has increased but the rest of the traffic through the Seaway has declined abysmally to the point where the formula will require a large increase in grain tolls even though the Seaway is well maintained and has shown a real cost decline per unit of about 12 per cent over the last two years.
I submit that an increase is unfair and uncalled for in light of current economics, and that the whole process should be reviewed.

[ Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, on February 7 of this year, I said the following in the House: "If the situation continues, the entire Gaspe area is heading for an economic and social catastrophe in 1983". Today, Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about that situation. It is often said that where there is a will, there is a way. However, when the decision-making power is in the hands of Government, what are people going to do, when they have been waiting for years and years? Something had to give, and it finally did last week at Grande-Vallee, which is typical of the situation in the Gaspe area, and especially in the riding of Gaspe which is now in a very serious economic slump. Four sawmills are shut down, the newsprint industry in Chandler and the copper mine in Murdochville are operating at a fraction of their capacity, the fishing season was one of the worst we ever had and the tourism industry is only seasonal. Elected representatives and organizations that are concerned about the region's economic development have submitted briefs to government authorities and have even suggested solutions, but all this is taking a very long time. The people have no choice but to demonstrate
October 11, 1983

openly. It is sad but true. It is high time both Ottawa and Quebec showed some political will and tackled these problems seriously. We have been able to clear up worse situation in the past, and it is time to show that distributory justice is possible.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, the sudden resignation of James Watt as U.S. Interior Secretary drew cheers from a wide array of Watt's foes. As someone put it, for people concerned with natural resources, the environment, acid rain, and so on, he was the epitome of all that is not good. Now that all of the politicking and fuss is over, let us get back to the important issues.
Over the weekend I was delighted to hear the Governors and officials from various midnorthern U.S. States met and discussed in earnest the issue of acid rain. In view of Mr. Watt's resignation and the importance Canada places upon his position, it is hoped the American administration will make an early appointment of someone who is more acutely aware of and sensitive to the international importance of air pollution, especially the acid rain issue.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in marking the tenth anniversary of the Murdoch case last week I was able to note that substantial progress had been made in redressing the injustices committed on Canadian women. The House will remember that the amendments passed last Spring on unemployment insurance corrected the discriminatory measures against which Stella Bliss had unsuccessfully complained. Regrettably the same cannot be said for injustices to native women.
Ten years ago the Supreme Court of Canada decided against Lavell and Bedard. With an astonishing lack of logic the Supreme Court held that no discrimination had taken place, although the loss of Indian status through Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act deprived these women of the right to live on their reserves, run for band council or chief, be eligible for education grants, housing, welfare, and ultimately even burial on reserves. Since then Canada has been humiliated internationally by being convicted of violation of the United Nations Human Rights Convention.
There is still no action on the part of the federal Government, only excuses about the delicacy of the situation and advice to native women to be patient. The word "soon" has become a four-letter word to Canada's native people. We need
a firm promise and an early date for repeal of Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act and reinstatement of the women who were deprived of their status, with their children.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, last Thursday in an exchange with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) I suggested that the federal Government should discontinue its tacit support for a regressive form of taxation in its contribution to hospital insurance premiums of federal public servants. In a subsequent exchange between the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the Minister said that the premiums were a very regressive form of taxation. 1 was happy to hear the Hon. Member for Provencher say in response:
-if the Minister says this is a regressive form of taxation, I agree.
I suggest that the federal Government discontinue as quickly as possible its contribution to the payment of hospital insurance premiums of federal public servants in the three provinces where they are paid, inasmuch as the Provinces are now using the non-payment of a regressive form of taxation in order to stop benefits to which every citizen should be entitled.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, everyone knows that the taxation problems facing residents of northern Canada will not be solved until the Income Tax Act is amended to reflect northern financial realities. Indeed it is unfortunate the liberal Government obstinately refuses to address the issue except to demand more and more taxes from northerners. Now the Government has sunk to a new low as it seeks to penalize and harass employees of small businesses.
Ottawa tax sleuths have been examining the books of small companies and, if there has been the slightest possibility that their accounting terminology or practices do not correspond with the Remission Order, employees have been assessed back taxes of which they had no prior anticipation. It is grossly unfair to single out employees of small usiness for discriminatory and arbitrary tax treatment. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) ought to reconsider his jaundiced procedures in light of the spirit, not just the strict legal interpretation, of the Northern Remission Order.

October 11, 1983
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Over the weekend the Minister mused publicly about new initiatives, saying that new training programs aimed at young people would be announced within a few weeks. Given the fact that, even though the figures, generally speaking, are encouraging, the labour force survey on Friday indicated that we still have 19 per cent unemployment among young people, representing about 556,000 unemployed young people, are there new initiatives? Why cannot we have these new initiatives announced now because the need is urgent?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, it is not a problem that was discovered by us simply last Friday. We have a variety of proposals, programs and initiatives which we are considering. There have not been definitive decisions taken about which of these would be the most cost effective way of responding to the problem. I would hope we could bring forward these initiatives in the broad framework of a Speech from the Throne so that it could be seen how they would relate to the whole variety of government programs we would like to bring forward. I urge Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House to help us arrive at that position by expediting the passage of the Crow Bill.


James Aloysius McGrath: The only program we have so far is the Access Program. It represents if it reaches its target-and it is just starting-31,000 jobs and 4,000 conservation jobs, or about 6 per cent of the total unemployed youth in the country.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT OF PROGRAMS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, since youth unemployment has been at 20 per cent proportions for the last several months, why is it necessary to wait for a new session of Parliament? If there is anything left in the cupboard, why cannot the Minister announce the programs now so that desperate young people can take advantage of them?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I would partially reiterate my previous answer. We are considering a whole variety of approaches that we think would be beneficial. It is a question of trying to determine which of these will be most effective.
I would like to point out to the Hon. Member, as we have in the past-and I suppose we will have to do it again in the House-that at the present time the federal Government is spending approximately $2.5 million a day to help young people with employment problems, across the country. Close to $1.5 billion for the year 1983-84 will go to assist young people
with training, job creation, and matching their capacities to job opportunities. A great deal is being done within the context of the revival of the economy as a whole to help them, but we have some new ideas we want to bring forward. We want to bring them forward in the proper way after we have ascertained they are cost efficient and see how they relate to other government programs.


USE OF SKILLS TRAINING FUNDS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Minister complained about having surplus funds in a program called the Critical Trade Skills Training Program. So far this year only 11 per cent of those funds has been spent. This means there is still $70 million sitting in that Program; we know that is in the cupboard. Last year only 66 per cent of funds for that Program was spent. Why cannot that money, which is not being utilized, be redirected to wage subsidies to the private sector to provide jobs now, not some pie in the sky musings of the Minister about some pre-election Speech from the Throne?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, as I have already pointed out to the Hon. Member, there is money available now under the Career Access Program which is directed toward providing, through job subsidies, assistance to young people entering the labour force. Our estimate is that something close to 25,000 young people have been helped by that Program or predecessor programs in this year. We expect another 33,000 or so to be assisted in the forthcoming year. There are already these programs in place.
The reason the Skills Training funds have not been taken up to the degree we expected has been a certain reluctance in the private sector to use the funds, given the overhead costs involved. Given the strength of the recovery that is taking place in the country we believe there will be an opportunity, not only this year but next year, to use these funds. I am not convinced by the Hon. Member's argument that the appropriate thing to do at this time would be to shift funds away from training into the Career Access job creation program. As I said earlier, that program is operating and seems to be operating effectively and, who knows, may be able to be expanded in years ahead.
* *
*


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to one of the Government's harshest critics, the Minister of State for Economic Development. According to reliable reports the Government is lagging by one-third, $250 million in the present fiscal year alone, on the planned projects which were to be fast-
October 11, 1983

tracked under the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program announced by the Minister of Finance on April 19. Are these delays in any way a consequence of the kind of ministerial laziness or incompetence cited in the documents authored by the Minister of State for Economic Development and widely publicized in Macleans's magazine last week?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I will deal with the last part of the question first. There is no such criticism that has been uttered by me verbally or in writing to my colleagues, as they testified during their responses to a barrage of questions last week.
With respect to the fast-track program, I hope the Hon. Member has had the opportunity of reviewing the material which 1 promised to send to him and which I have now provided to him. Indeed, there is less money being spent this year because of the management of the program as we tried to ensure that it was managed effectively and efficiently. We are certainly not going to throw out money in order to meet a target which was established before even preliminary project approval had been given to a number of these projects. However, 1 am pleased to report that, as matters stand, more than the 60 per cent that is to be spent within the first two years will in fact be spent by March, 1985.
During the period when Canadians will be looking for work across this country, in hamlets, towns, villages and major centres, we will have a lot of work that will be performed. I might also say that a great deal of construction is already under way in the current period, as the Hon. Member knows from the material which I furnished to him.


REPORTED DELAYS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, noted economists have indicated that these delays could indeed contribute to further inflationary pressure by the middle of this decade. If these delays are not the fault of Ministers, how does the Minister of State explain statements in his own secret status report to Cabinet on the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program, dated September 16, to the effect that "the New Brunswick regional Minister has yet to advance proposals", and how does he explain Annex F to that report which lists specific projects valued at over $1 billion where slippage has occurred or acceleration is required? What success has the Minister of State had in getting these negligent Ministers, who are fingered in this cabinet document, moving down the fast track, or are Canada's unemployed to be left sitting in the station?


Donald James Johnston: Frankly, Madam Speaker, I find those allegations quite extraordinary. Since the Hon. Member likes to read publications, I suggest he look at The Financial Post of last week where he will see an article which expressed surprise at the extent to which this program has been implemented in such a
Oral Questions
short period of time. With respect to New Brunswick and his statement that projects have not proceeded, some of the most significant projects which have been undertaken within this program are taking place in New Brunswick. Ask the people what they think of the work created at the Saint John Drydock and the Maritime Forestry Research Centre at Fredericton. The facts are there for all to see. New Brunswick has been looking ahead rapidly. Those are only two of a number of examples which are available.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the fact that over 500,000 young people are unemployed today, as they were in September, August, July, June, May, all the way back. 1 return to the Minister's answer which he gave just a minute ago. He said the reason the Government has not announced something, if I got the phrase correctly, is that it wants to get the cost effectiveness of the programs assessed. The Minister has now had this job for about two months. Is he telling us that two months are insufficient time for him as Minister, with that important kind of responsibility, to make up his mind on the relevance of his own programs?


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Madam Speaker, that is not what I was saying. I was saying that there are a whole variety of programs worth examining. That examination is taking place within the Cabinet system. Ministers, including myself, are assessing the alternatives available to us to try to understand the way in which we can get the most effective creation of jobs for young people, given the funds available to us.


REQUEST FOR EARLY ANNOUNCEMENT OF JOB-CREATION PROGRAMS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister has had the job for over two months. The problem for one out of five young people has gone on for over six months. The Minister's own Department says that one out of five people will remain unemployed through 1985. As every Canadian knows, the situation worsens in the months and weeks ahead of Christmas. Will the Minister tell us why the Government will not make an announcement within the next week in terms of job-creation programs so that young people who want work instead of collecting some form of welfare will be able to get jobs?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker. I indicated to the Hon. Member earlier my view about that. The problem has been a continuing one and a great deal has been done about it in terms of the funds which we are expending this year. As I mentioned

October 11, 1983
Oral Questions
earlier, we are spending something like $2.5 million a day. In the year 1983-84, close to 180,000 young people will have been assisted by these programs. The most expeditious way the Hon. Member could help would be by getting his Party to let the Crow legislation pass through the House because that would create jobs for young people as well as others. It would enable us to bring forward within the structure of a Speech from the Throne those programs which are needed by this country. He can help a lot more. He has been in his job more than two months and he still has not responded to that problem.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE ANNOUNCEMENT WITHIN TEN DAYS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister talks about what the Government has done. I repeat, there are over 500,000 young Canadians who are out of work. The Government's total program so far for the youth of this land are concerned will provide jobs for fewer than 5 per cent. Considering that legislation is not required, will the Minister give a promise to the young people of this country that, within the next week or ten days, he will make an announcement about job-creation programs so that at least a number of them will have jobs by Christmas who would not otherwise have a job?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the implications of the Hon. Member's question, which are in effect that nothing has been done, are entirely inaccurate. Close to $600 billion has been spent on training programs. Almost $400 million has been spent on direct job creation. Something like $136 million was spent on matching opportunities and training for jobs for young people. A great deal has been done. He could get a lot more done quickly if he would get the Crow through the House.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is it his intention to delay the appointment of a Newfoundland Minister and Minister of State for Mines until the charges now pending against the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's have been finally disposed of by the courts?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Possibly, but not necessarily, Madam Speaker.


POSSIBLE REAPPOINTMENT OF FORMER MINISTER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has bungled this appointment, caused great disappointment to the people of Newfoundland, and has left a
very important portfolio vacant while he muses about whether or not to make an appointment. I would like a clear answer as to whether it is now the Prime Minister's position that, if the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's is successful in his defence of this particular charge, which we all hope he will be, he will be reappointed to the Cabinet in the position from which he resigned? Also has the Prime Minister any thoughts at all about the position he takes as Prime Minister of interfering with the judicial process, that is to say, giving clear signals to the prosecutors and judges that, if the Member for Burin-St. George's is successful in his defence, he will receive the reward of being reappointed to the Cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the question regarding portfolios, the Hon. Member will know that we already have an excellent Minister of Mines, Energy and Resources.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Not in that order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He is doing a very good job. I am not saying that assistance would not be welcome, but I am sure he can bear the burden for another few weeks or months according to what the Cabinet decides. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, if the Hon. Member is concerned about the judicial process in the sense that he indicates, he should rule himself out of order.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, in what appears to be a sham and a cover-up, the President of Air Canada, Mr. Claude Taylor, has seriously, intentionally or otherwise, misled the Minister of Transport on matters relating to the safety procedures of Air Canada. In turn, the Minister, intentionally or otherwise, has misled the House and the Canadian people into believing that Air Canada is clear and free of any problems dealing with safety. We have learned just today that the Gimli incident was not-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the Hon. Member is aware that this is Question Period.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, we have learned just today that the Gimli incident in which an airplane ran out of fuel was not discussed at the hearings on air safety conducted by Bob Buck. Would the Minister now call for a public inquiry without asking the Cabinet for permission? Will he demand a public inquiry into the safety of Air Canada, and not go by the word of the President of that Crown corporation?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is either unintentionally or deliberately misleading the Canadian public with the kind of
October 11, 1983

question that he is asking. If he would examine the facts he would see that we are proceeding with the utmost care to ensure the safety of the travelling public. One of the important steps in that direction was to have a discussion with the management of Air Canada to determine what steps they have taken in terms of their own authority, and at the same time to come to an agreement to go ahead with a public examination of the Gimli incident. That is exactly what the Hon. Member has said should be done and in fact that is what we are doing. However, we must follow the proper procedures, acquire the proper person, and develop terms of reference which must be approved by Cabinet. If the Hon. Member is not aware of those basic preliminary steps, then he should go back to school for a primer course.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the Minister review his own statements about the public inquiry. After eight weeks of questioning in the House, we had not been assured of a public inquiry until just now.


DISCIPLINING OF EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my second question is also directed to the Minister. Would he agree to a stay of execution for five employees of Air Canada until such time as the public investigation takes place? Why is the Minister prejudging five employees of a Crown corporation, using information wrongly supplied to him by the President of Air Canada?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, if anyone in the House is guilty of prejudging it is the Hon. Member who in his statements and questions has made a number of assertions concerning the actions taken by the management of Air Canada, without knowing whether they are correct or not. That, Madam Speaker, is the height of irresponsibility for a Member of Parliament.
We are proceeding as we should by asking for an open public examination, and that examination will reveal all of the relevant and pertinent facts. I would expect that the Hon. Member would wait for that open examination without going ahead with the kind of witch burning that he is engaged in this afternoon.


THE ARTS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Minister will of course know that a very prominent Canadian artist from the West coast will be burning a number of his art works on Thursday morning rather than be forced to pay income tax on art works that are not yet sold. He is doing this as a consequence of a long period of harassment by tax officials of this particular artist and of artists in general. I
Oral Questions
would ask the Minister if he has done anything to intervene with his Cabinet colleagues in order to put a stop to this shameful situation and save this Canadian art, or if he expects to sit there while the art burns.


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the question he is raising at the moment is essentially a tax matter and should be directed to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. As Minister of Communications I personally have indicated, time and time again, our interest in seeing that people in the cultural and artistic community are dealt with as fairly as are other Canadians under the tax Act. I have already drawn this case to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue and I am told that he is examining the real facts of the case.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, for a Minister whose responsibilities include defending and advancing the causes of artists, that answer is a cop-out.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, on Thursday morning that artist will burn his art works unless something is done. As recently as September 23, 1983, the Minister received a copy of a long letter from representatives of Canadian artists. That letter described this situation and asked for a moratorium on harassment until the tax laws dealing with artists can be re-examined. Is the Minister prepared to stand in the House today and say that that will be done and that this shameful situation will be put right? If not, we will become the laughing stock of the art community.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member very much enjoys playing games in Parliament, and he very much enjoys the charade he has just put on. He knows full well that this is a matter that falls under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. He also knows full well that these questions must be handled directly by the Minister of National Revenue. I have clearly indicated to the Hon. Member, in response to his first question, that I had already brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue. I have done so, and I will continue to pursue the matter with the Minister of National Revenue. To take the attitude taken by the Hon. Member is to play a charade in an attempt to score a few political points.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. He, on behalf of his Government, has entered into agreements under the Special Recovery Program with the Regional Municipality of Sudbury, the Regional Municipality

October 11, 1983
Oral Questions
of Niagara, the City of Timmins, and the Province of Ontario. These agreements provide for the federal Government to share 50 per cent of the costs of water and sewage projects in those areas. Will the Minister enter into the same agreement with the Province of Saskatchewan and the City of Regina in order that Regina may receive the same treatment as those other municipalities?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, the agreements the Hon. Member has just referred to were made under that special program. We have taken into consideration the elements of high priority and urgency which are the main guiding principles under which these projects are undertaken. Each case has been and will be considered on its own merits.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, the municipalities involved are of equal or larger size than the City of Regina. The matters of putting people back to work in steel mills in Regina and of supplying the citizens of Regina with drinkable water should have high priority.


REGINA WATER SUPPLY
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I would ask the Minister again if he would consider treating the Province of Saskatchewan and the City of Regina in the same way as he has treated the Province and municipalities that I mentioned previously.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the people of Regina do have drinkable water. However, I will keep my mind open to further suggestions made by the Hon. Member.

[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY MR. ABDOU DIOUF PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence of His Excellency Mr. Abdou Diouf, President of the Republic of Senegal.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker,
I would suspect that every Member of Parliament has, on his or her desk, a stack of letters from constituents who have been trying to renegotiate their mortgages out of the 18 per cent to 22 per cent range and are quite prepared to provide the
necessary prepayment of a three-month penalty but have in some cases been asked to pay many thousands of dollars more.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, in March, said that a three-month penalty would seem reasonable and that if there were such cases as those that had been mentioned, they should be brought to his attention and he would undertake to have them submitted to the institutions involved in an effort to prevent those financial institutions from being unfair to some citizens. We have received letters two and three times from those same people saying that absolutely nothing has been done. I know it would not be the intent of the Minister of Finance to mislead the people, but what on earth did he mean by that comment?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I myself have received many similar letters and have handled them personally. When Hon. Members referred the letters to me, I had them sent to the authorities concerned at the various financial institutions, asking them to give particular attention to those cases. The Hon. Member is of course aware that I sent each Member of this House a list of the names and addresses of mortgage officers in all financial institutions. From the results that were obtained, I know that in many cases it was possible to renegotiate mortgages on the basis of a three-month payment. It seems there are a number of cases that have not yet been settled, and I shall continue to put pressure on the institutions and hope my hon. colleague will do the same, as is his duty, so that only a three-month penalty will be required.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I want to remind the Minister that he is responsible for the banks.


PROVISIONS OF BANK ACT
Nelson Andrew Riis: We understand that the Minister and the Government are now prepared to open up the Bank Act for the first time in some 60 years that this has been contemplated, other than on the regular ten-year period. The Minister is prepared to do that to assist the foreign banks in this country. Is he prepared to do the same thing to assist the hard pressed Canadian home owners? Is he prepared to give them the same treatment that he is giving the foreign banks?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the probem concerns not only the banks but all lending institutions in Canada, including trust companies and all other institutions that are involved in loans.
I feel that my hon. colleague is making a very superficial analysis of the situation. The point he has raised is one that I
October 11, 1983

am concerned about, however, and quite frankly, I think the financial institutions in question should be satisfied with a three-month payment, and I am now re-examining-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Do something. You said you would do something in this House.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member should be as polite as I was in listening to his question and try to listen to my answer. It will not cost him anything.

Madam Speaker, I said that I was re-examining the situation in the light of the fact that a number of institutions do not seem to be willing to co-operate.
I am discussing the matter with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and we are trying to find out whether there are any specific measures that should be taken in this respect.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In 1982, 685 people were unemployed in Bow River and we received a grant of $200,000. In 1983, 1,893 people were unemployed and we received a grant of $100,000. Could the Minister outline the formula that gives this result?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker. Indeed, the formula is outlined in the correspondence that was sent to the Hon. Member and he might refer to it. In the allocation of funds under the Canada Works Program, which is the equivalent of the Community Development Program of the past, a minimum of $100,000 was spent for the constituency and the rest of the funds was allocated to those areas which had a higher than average labour surplus rate. The information is contained in the material that has already been sent to the Hon. Member. He can find it in great detail in that kit.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, it is an odd formula that provides that, the higher the unemployment, the lower the grant.


APPLICATION OF GRANT FORMULA
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Minister if the same formula is used in the ridings held by Liberal Members.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker, the answer is-
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: The answer is yes, Madam Speaker. 1 admit that this sometimes brings forward rather bizarre results.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nielsen:: Look at them all over there.


Mr. McDermid:: Keep going.


John (Moody) Roberts: For instance, the allocation to the constituency of Central has dramatically increased this year.


UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. On previous occasions I have asked the Minister what he would do to assist the United Empire Loyalists' bicentennial activities in the Province of Ontario during 1984. At that time he indicated the possibility of joint financing. What is the Government presently doing to encourage United Empire Loyalists' bicentennial activities in the Province of Ontario during 1984?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased to announce to the House that I have already written to the Intergovernmental Affairs Minister of Ontario to announce that the Canadian Government would participate in the celebration of the centennial of the major early settlements of Ontario. There is no doubt but that in forthcoming days a detailed statement will come from us explaining how the plans will be implemented.


William John Vankoughnet: Madam Speaker, this event marks a very significant and important aspect of the heritage of Canada, and I certainly hope the Minister will take it under consideration very soon.


FUNDING OF CELEBRATIONS
William John Vankoughnet: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister what plans are under way to make funds available. Does the Minister have anything concrete to tell us? Many municipalities, organizations and individuals are making plans, but they do not know how far to go. Does the Minister have anything to tell them now-not weeks or months from now, but today?


Serge Joyal: Yes, Madam Speaker. Our plans are twofold. Money will be made available for the enrichment of already existing programs such as that of the Canada War Museums which has put together an exhibition on the Loyalist history of the country, that will tour Ontario; the enrichment of the Fort William activities; the
COMMONS DEBATES_________________ October 11, 1983
Oral Questions
exchange of youth programs during the summer period, and an additional tour of the National Arts Centre. Moreover, funds will be made available to all citizens, groups, municipalities and localities in Ontario interested in applying for grants in the same format as that in which we implement the Canada Day celebration programs. Next week the details will be made public so that everyone who wants to participate in the celebrations will have an opportunity to file a request.


PROPOSAL TO SHIP PRUDHOE BAY GAS VIA COOK INLET
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if he could put his coffee down and come into the House.
Is the Minister aware of a serious proposal being made by an American company, the Yukon Pacific Corporation, on the board of directors of which sit two former Governors of Alaska, to pipe Prudhoe Bay gas to Cook Inlet where it would be liquefied for shipment to Asian markets? If so, does the Minister share my view that were the United States administration to approve such an undertaking it would constitute a breach of the spirit of the 1977 treaty between Canada and the United States which contemplates shipping Prudhoe Bay gas to the lower 48 States through a pipeline via Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, of course I had to take a coffee because the Opposition is so dull that I wanted to remain awake.


Erik Nielsen: When are you going to start?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, we made a deal with the American administration many years ago, and I think it will want to keep its word. If the administration in Washington decides to take gas from Alaska to its markets it will use the Canadian route.


CANADIAN POSITION
Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Since this proposal has been advanced, can the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, or perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs, tell us what formal communication has taken place between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States to reiterate our position, that it was in keeping with the original treaty that the gas not go to Cook Inlet and be exported that way but, rather through a pipeline built on Canadian soil?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not think that I need to reaffirm our position to the American administration. It is well
aware of it. The proposition is not one advanced by the public sector in the United States; it is a project of private entrepreneurs. Personally, I do not think that it seriously threatens the building of the pipeline. That is not being built at this time because there is no need for the gas in the American market.


EMPLOYMENT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On numerous occasions he has indicated that one of the stumbling blocks to creating employment is a shortage of working capital to fulfil the Government's needs. Last year the Government handed out SI billion in PIP grants to the oil industry. The industry has indicated that this encourages the drilling of dry wells rather than encouraging self-sufficiency in energy. Will the Minister meet with his colleagues, the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Finance, and redirect that $1 billion into youth employment in order that we might have sufficient money to begin to meet some of their needs?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, my recollection is that those grants were brought in to replace the change in various tax provisions which had been designed to encourage that kind of activity. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate to refocus them in the way in which the Hon. Member has suggested. However, since he has asked me to discuss this with my colleagues,
I will follow his advice and do so.


USE OF PIP GRANTS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister is well aware, from his previous involvement, of the actual use to which the PIP grants are now being put. He surely must recognize that the PIP grants are not creating energy self-sufficiency but are in fact simply government money being handed over to oil companies without any tangible return. Does the Minister of Finance not agree that this billion dollars could be better spent in creating employment for the half million young people who, up to this point in time, have not been able to find any employment, rather than simply handing it over to the oil companies without any return?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is showing incredible ignorance of the situation in the energy field and how the tax system operates in Canada. As my hon. colleague said earlier, the grant system was introduced to replace a measure that provided for deductions on the basis of depreciation, which tended to be particularly profitable for foreign companies. We introduced a new
October 1!, 1983

system that encourages the expansion of Canadian companies in the gas and oil industry. Companies that are in the oil and gas discovery and exploration business contribute to Canada s self-sufficiency in oil products and also spend money in Canada that is used to employ Canadians. This money does not disappear into thin air. It is used in prospecting for the resources Canada needs today and will need in the years to come. Meanwhile, I repeat that this money is being spent inside the country to employ Canadians.


CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. As a result of last week's Florida court decision Mr. Sidney Jaffe may now return to Canada, thereby addressing the larger question of our sovereignty rights. My question concerns Mr. Jaffe's citizenship status. Is the Minister and is the Government now satisfied that Mr. Jaffe's application for Canadian citizenship contained no false representations, or concealment of any circumstances material to his application?
[ Translation]


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, according to the information provided by Mr. Jaffe, a citizenship judge has already determined that he has fulfilled his citizenship requirements. No evidence has been provided to date establishing that at the time the information was given by Mr. Jaffe, it was false or erroneous, in which case I could exercise the authority I have under the Citizenship Act to review a decision made previously by a citizenship judge.


RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Mr. Jaffe claimed three years of residence at 1000 Green Street in San Francisco, California, on a bail bond application dated August 7, 1980, and that, according to the Secretary of State, he was granted citizenship under Section 5(1) of the Act, Mr. Jaffe may not have fulfilled the sesidence requirements under Section 5(1 )(b) of the Citizenship Act. Will the Minister now meet his commitment to provide the information requested to the House, or in writing, particularly the date of application and the date on which Mr. Jaffe received his citizenship?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, the question which the Hon. Member has asked me in the House before is an important one, because it raises the possibility of a conflict between the Citizenship Act and the Privacy Act. On the Basis of Section 3 of the Privacy Act, unless the person
Oral Questions
concerned gives his consent, I am not prepared to disclose the date on which a person was granted citizenship.
 * *


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Marketing boards which come under the National Farm Products Marketing Act, specifically CEMA, have a built in formula whereby prices paid to farmers for products sold are based on costs of production formulae. Is that cost of production formula subject to the six and five program of the Government?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I know full well what the Hon. Member is talking about. It is a dispute which CEMA has with the Government of Canada on the six and five formula. CEMA had agreed to that. We are asking it to stay within the six and five formula as best it can.


EGG PRICING FORMULA
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, along with the problems Canadian farmers are facing with cash flow, the cost-price squeeze, the withholding of money in the western grain stabilization program, we have a situation where farmers, under formulae agreed to by the Government and the farming community that they would be entitled to a 4 cents per dozen Grade A large egg increase, have now been told by Cabinet, through CEMA, that they would be restricted to two cents of the price increase in order to stay within the six and five program. Could the Minister of Agriculture explain how he is protecting Canadian farm interests? How can Canadian farmers, facing increased costs-for instance, feed has gone up tremendously in the last few weeks-survive under broken agreements which they entered into with the Government in good faith?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member knows that the formula which farmers abide by has been a good formula. It is working well. Of all the farmers who, it has been reported to me, have gone bankrupt, not one egg producer has gone broke. They are under a marketing board. It runs supply management. The efficient operators are still making a dollar. We are reviewing the problem with which they are confronted at the present time because of the extra increase costs of protein and grain, due mainly to the dry weather, and also because of the payment in kind program in the United States of America.

October 11, 1983
Oral Questions INCOME TAX


DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF ARTISTS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns the current tax treatment of artists in Canada. A moment ago the Minister of Communications indicated in answer to a question that he had intervened with the Minister of National Revenue on a number of occasions with respect to artists. As the Minister knows, we have a current problem which needs a quick solution. Would the Minister not now commit himself and his Government to imposing a moratorium on the tax situation for artists until he can carry out a review of the interpretations mentioned by the Minister of Communications?
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised at the question and especially at the member's request. I may remind him that the general provisions of the Income Tax Act that apply to individuals who deduct expenses from their income should also apply to artists. I realize there may be special circumstances a person may encounter in the exercise of his profession and that this may be the case for a great many artists. I would therefore like to point out to the Hon. Member that when applying the general rules of the Income Tax Act, departmental officers responsible for assessing the situation allow for any special circumstances mentioned by the taxpayer, so that when artists submit their expenses with their income, they are given special treatment because of the particular circumstances in which they exercise their professional activities.


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, surely the Minister understands that his own Department is treating the artists of this country as manufacturers for the purpose of tax. That is the issue. Surely the Minister can understand that if we are to have creative arts in this country, artists must be treated as creative human beings and not as manufacturers of plastic hose. The reality is, Madam Speaker, that unless the Minister acts now, we will have a demonstration in Vancouver and in other parts of the country, with artists trying to speak out in order to get a tax situation which is only fair and congenial to them. Why will the Minister not at least place a moratorium on those interpretations so that artists can have a chance, as the Minister of Communications, as well as we and the artists, would like him to do?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised at the Hon. Member's question and at his interpretation of the facts. If the Hon. Member knew what he was talking about, that is, how the Department of National Revenue treats artists-like other
taxpayers-he would not ask such questions. We do allow for special circumstances as I indicated in the first part of my answer. I also wish to remind the Hon. Member that an artist's inventory is not taxable. They can deduct expenses on each piece they sell, and income is not taxed until it is actually received by the artist. There is a set of special conditions that applies to artists and does not apply to manufacturers, and we treat them as individuals, which is the same way we treat other taxpayers in our society.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on Friday, October 7, 1983, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition on behalf of more than 3,000 citizens of Sault Ste. Marie and the District of Algoma, petitioning the federal Government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet), in light of the present economic situation where jobs are not in plentiful supply, to present to the House for approval a Bill to extend UIC benefits beyond their expiry limits.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,639, 4,809, and 4,816.
[ Text]


Mr. Kilgour: Is it government policy to try to convert foreign spies to work for Canada rather than prosecuting them and, if so, has there been any change in this policy?
October 11, 1983

Order Paper Questions


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: On detecting foreign intelligence activity in Canada, it is the policy of the Government to consider how best to protect Canada's over-all interests given the particular circumstances of each case. Seeking the co-operation of individuals suspected of involvement in such activities is one action that may be considered in the execution of this policy. In the event that the most appropriate action is judged to include the institution of a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, it is a requirement of that Act that in each case the consent of the Attorney General of Canada must be obtained in order for such a prosecution to proceed. Such a decision is made in relation to the particular facts of each case. This approach cannot be considered to be a change of policy.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1 Are audit proceedings made by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in managing the CHIP program to make sure that materials allegedly supplied on insulation contracts are in fact supplied and are in fact a fair valuation for the materials intended to be supplied and, if so, what are such proceedings?
2. Did the Department investigate Imperial Ener-Sav Inc. of 3710 Chesswood Drive Downsview, Ontario, with respect to a contract made between it and Mr. George Gow of Cedar Grove Park at 1749 Dundas Street East in Mississauga, Ontario, concerning the charge of $282 for two tubes of silicone construction
Incoming grant applications are screened for the prices charged for caulking and weatherstripping. Price guidelines for determining CHIP contributions for these products were implemented in November, 1982.
2.	Prices charged by Imperial Enersave Inc. and other companies were considered for instances of inflated materials costs. These considerations resulted in the introduction of price guidelines for determining CHIP contributions. The account of Mr. George Gow has been looked into by departmental officers and legal counsel.
3.	The Department agrees that the amount Mr. Gow charged was substantially above the going rate. The regulatory mechanism required to enable the Department to refuse payment in cases such as this was put in place as of May 12, 1983, but was not in place at the time of the incident referred to by the Hon. Member. In formulating the policy which led to a change in the Regulations, various factors were taken into consideration, including the desire not to interfere more than necessary in the normal workings of the marketplace and the degree of success of the less formal pricing guidelines instituted by CHIP in November, 1982.
4.	Mr. Gow's case was referred to EM&R's Legal Services Branch for legal advice and recommendations. The Department does not expect to instigate a prosecution against Imperial Enersave Inc. in connection with the contract in question.
sealant?
3.	Did the Department price the cost of the tubes and the sealant and did the Department determine that the price of $141 per tube was at least six times higher than fair market value for the sealant?
4.	Does the Department intend to prosecute Imperial Ener-Sav Inc. for attempting to defraud the government with respect to a contract dated


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1. Approximately 8 per cent of all homes insulated under the Canadian Home Insulation Program are inspected to ensure that the materials specified on the CHIP grant application have been installed.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1	Is there a Canadian Livestock Feed Board Advisory Committee and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and. for the length of each appointment to date, what amount has each member received (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes. Pursuant to Section 15 of the Livestock Feed Assistance Act, the members are:
(a)
Members Peter Hannam
Hollis W. Duffett
Charles Munro
Arthur Porter
John F. (Jack) Reams
Expertise & Organization Affiliation	Appointed	ExpiresPedigreed seed specialist Past President of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and current President of CANFARM Co-operative Services in Guelph	1980	1984Livestock producer Past President of Newfoundland Federation of Agriculture and current President of Newfoundland Swine Producers Association	1981	1985Dairy farmer . Past President Canadian Federation of Agriculture and Ontario Federation of Agriculture	1979	1983Dairy farmer . Past President Nova Scotia Holstein Friesian Association and President ot Nova Scotia Animal Breeding Cooperative	1982	1986Swine producer . President of British Columbia Pork Producers Association and member ot the Executive Committee of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture	1980	1983
October 11, 1983
Leopold Harvey
Laurent Merrier
Order Paper Questions
Dairy farmer
Past and founding President of Federation of Industrial Milk Producers of Quebec (1966 to 70), President of La Chaine Cooperative du Saguenay
Poultry and grain producer
President of Federation of Chicken Producers of Quebec
1980
1984
(c) Remuneration and expenses are fixed by the Governor in Council pursuant to Subsection 15(2) of the Livestock Feed Assistance Act:
Members
Peter Hannam	S4.000.00
Hollis W. Duffett	1,875 00
Charles Munro	2 787 50
Arthur Porter	1625 00
*John F. (Jack) Reams	1,875.00
Leopold Harvey	I 250 00
Laurent Mercier	1,625.00
The members all receive the same per diem of $125 per day for attendance at meetings of the Committee, plus travel and accommodation expenses.
*As Secretary to the Advisory Committee, Mr. Reams receives an additional $100 for the preparation of the minutes of the Board and Advisory Committee meetings.
(d) No other direct funding is provided. Elowever, certain secretariat costs, such as office supplies, stationery, etc., are covered by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board budget.
2. (a) The Advisory Committee advises the Livestock Feed Board of Canada with respect to matters arising under the Act and as are referred to it by the Minister or the Board.
(b)	The Committee reviewed: (i) grain and livestock market conditions across the country; (ii) the domestic feed grain policy; (iii) the Gilson report; (iv) Feed Freight Assistance.
(c)	It met twice in fiscal year 1982-83, once in Ottawa and once in Montreal. It is required to meet at least once a year at Board Fleadquarters.
(d)	No reports or recommendations of the Advisory Committee were published in 1982-83.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western
grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 34 (Mr. Benjamin).
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, prior to the luncheon recess I was addressing myself to Motion No. 34 and asking in a rhetorical way what the NDP hoped to accomplish with it. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the fact that they had a number of people stand up and speak to this issue, the answer is still unclear to me. I was making the point that on occasion there are times of legitimate concern with respect to the provision of trucking services to communities in western Canada. I gave the example of the Asquith subdivision in my constituency where communities are now simply folding up. The village of Arelect had handed in its charter as a village because people and businesses are moving out. Now these communities are simply shrivelling up, an unfortunate happening we have experienced in western Canada because of the transportation policies generally of the Liberal Government over the years.
Another area which has been affected in my province is that of the Carleton subdivision. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, considering the rail line abandonment question, indicated that the Carleton subdivision would not be part of the permanent network but suggested that the elevators remain in towns like Waldheim, Saskatchewan, a thriving and progressive place, and Hepburn, Saskatchewan. These towns are very vital parts of Sasktachewan and of Canada. The suggestion was that the elevators remain and provision be made to truck out the grain from these elevators.
I am glad to say that due to the intervention of people in the area, together with representations made by Members of Parliament such as the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), who was there and spoke up on behalf of his constituents as I attempted to do, the western branch of the CTC has now recommended that a good portion of the Carleton subdivision be included in the permanent network. We are awaiting the final decision in that regard.
No matter what we think of the pre-eminence of the railway system in western Canada-and I stand second to no person in supporting proposals and policies which will give us a viable rail network in western Canada and stop this disintegration of branch lines-we have to look to efficient alternatives. I hope the NDP can clarify this for me because all I see this motion as being is a blind, cleaver-like approach to this legislation. It goes against the interests of the communities I have referred to in my constituency. I have had representations from the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association with respect to the increased cost to the western producer.

October 11, 1983

We should be looking at ways to increase efficiency. From 1977 to 1980 St. Lawrence Seaway tolls have increased by 100 per cent, 28 per cent in the last two years, the six and five guidelines notwithstanding. These are direct costs to the producer. Even though this affects grain shipped through the Lakehead, the fact is that because of the pooling system it diminishes the price received by the producer. We can bring forward, and I suggest we tried, constructive suggestions to this unfortunate Bill to try and demonstrate that we at least are trying to improve as much as possible this very badly thought out and unfortunate legislation.
I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to make a strong representation on behalf of the people in my area concerning some of the realities in western Canada today.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on Motion No. 34 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Transport critic for the NDP, I would comment first of all in response to the question raised by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who has just concluded his remarks. He said he was unclear as to the purpose of the amendment now before us, although he says he listened with care. The reason is very obvious. The NDP wants the best service possible for the least possible money, and rail, not roads, is the way to get it.
That is the object of our amendment and I would have thought that, if the Hon. Member was listening with anything like the degree of care he suggested, this should have been obvious even to a Conservative. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West had some good facts but, as usual, he, as a Conservative, drew the wrong conclusions from them. Judging by the substance, as opposed to the form, of his comments, at least those made before lunch, with regard to the situation facing the community of Arelee, Saskatchewan, it appears that he drew his base information from a recent fourpart series in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix by a Mr. John Gallagher. I would say that the Hon. Member is to be congratulated for his source. Mr. Gallagher is, after all, a research assistant to the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), the Transport critic for our Party and our key spokesman on all of the matters relating to the Crow rate. Mr. Gallagher is also the author of "To Kill the Crow", one of the best, definitive studies of that entire issue currently available to the people of Canada. However, we in the New Democratic Party do wish that if the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West wants to use our material, although he is very welcome, he would read and use it all rather than just selected parts of it.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, in reference to the Arelee line, suggested that trucking would save money as compared to using the railway. For his edification, 1 should like, in correcting his error, to quote the segment of the Star-Phoenix series that he either failed to read in full or failed to understand. I quote from the third article in the
Western Grain Transportation Act four-part series entitled "Few Savings in Abandonment". This article of very recent vintage states:
We have seen how, abandoning the CPR line through Arelee, Struan and Sonningdale will about double the cost of shipping grain to area farmers and how highway costs will increase because of greater truck traffic. It remains to be seen whether or not abandonment will increase total transportation costs, but it is a distinct possibility.
The 1981 hearings that confirmed the abandonment of the line concluded the CPR had expenses in 1979 of $447,219 on the 29.2 miles of line while grain shipped from it generated $137,181 in revenues to the company for an "actual loss" of $310,038. This does not take into account the branch line subsidy paid to the company by the federal government.
According to the Canadian Wheat Board, 236 farmers designated the three stations on the line as their primary delivery point in 1981. Assuming they ship the provincial average of 7,254.3 bushels of wheat the average extra distance of 20 miles, according to the University of Regina study, then the increased cost to them will be $213,816.
In other words the CPR, by abandoning that line, has transferred $213,816 of the ost of transporting that grain from itself to the farmers. The net gain to the railroad, however, is the full $447,219,since it will still receive the same payment to move the grain to export position from the alternate delivery points.
The CPR grains; the farmer loses.
And the public loses too.
Working from the same averages, it would require 1,863 semi-trailers loaded to a gross weight of 72,000 pounds to move the grain from this line 20 miles for delivery.
As noted previously, construction and maintenance costs for a road surface vary directly with the number and weight of axle loadings.
Every semi-trailer that moves over asphalt concrete highway would cost the taxpayer between 52 cents and $1.11 per mile in construction and maintenance costs according to the Iowa Department of Transportation formula.
Each mile over gravel roads would cost the taxpayers about 84 cents in maintenance costs according to a formula published by the Transportation Agency of Saskatchewan.
On intermediate paved highways, the first four semi-trailer loads per day each way would add about $1,250 per mile to the annual maintenance costs, or $1.25 per truck mile. And these figures presume there is no other truck traffic contributing to traffic volumes greater than the structural capacity of the highways.
Maintenance figures like that make continued repair of intermediate pavement uneconomic and it is necessary to rebuild and upgrade. That means costs between $100,000 and $200,000 per mile in 1980 dollars, according to the TAS, depending upon what standard the highway has to be built to.
The CPR estimated it would cost $4,078,203 to bring this line up to standard, but it did not include the revenues the company would receive from salvage during upgrading.
But highway 376, which runs alongside the railroad from Sonningdale to Asquith, is topped with intermediate pavement. To bring it up to the structural capacity needed to move the grain produced in the area would cost $8,470,000 in 1982 dollars, more than double the cost of upgrading the rail line.
Again, I wish that the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West and other speakers for the Conservative Party, who say they cannot understand, would read a little more fully the documents from which they derive their information and opinions and would listen a little more carefully when we submit and clearly state, time and time again, that our objective, both in this amendment and others that we are placing before the House of Commons on this whole issue, is to get the best results for the people of Canada for the least possible dollars. That makes sense to us. It may not make sense to a Conservative, and judging by all of their past performance it certainly does not make sense to Liberals. However, to us, ordinary people who represent ordinary people, it just happens to make

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
a lot of common sense. I would think that if they would look, listen and read a little more carefuly, a little more completely, then maybe, just maybe, it would make sense to them as well.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to defer to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), if I could, or the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), for that matter.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Or any one of us.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: "Either" one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Either one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Either one. Watch your grammar.
1 think Motion No. 34 is fairly important. It is a motion placed on the Order Paper by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and would amend Clause 17 of the Act. The clause, Mr. Speaker, just to refresh your memory, gives the Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, the power to "enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producer".
I have a couple of concerns about this as a Member who comes from a very rural riding with many branch lines and small towns. I have concern about the small towns themselves and their future. My second concern, and it is the reason I think the Conservatives should be supporting the motion, is that I hesitated once again to give one person so much power. Why centralize so much power in the hands of one person, in the hands of the Administrator? That is a very valid criticism of our bureaucracy today, that too few people have too much power here in Ottawa. That works against the wishes and the best intent of what we want this country to be all about.
I know my friend, the Hon. Member for Provencher, who sat for many long hours on our Constitution committee a couple of years ago, certainly agrees with that as a principle. We should certainly work toward a more centralized Canada, more local control, local people having more say over their lives and more input over the direction of their communities. Therefore, I believe the Hon. Member for Regina West is going in the right direction here by ensuring that the Administrator, acting in concert with the Minister, would not have the power arbitrarily to abandon, in effect, certain rail lines. That is the power we are asked to give this individual if Motion No. 34 does not pass. In fact, it is a Conservative motion, and I am sure that Members of that Party are not very proud of that fact, I just ask Hon. Members to consider it very closely because it does give the Administrator tremendous discretionary power.
I am very leery of giving a public servant or any one person, be it a public servant or a private bureaucrat in a private company, that much power. I believe we should decentralize powers as much as possible for the benefit of the ordinary people of Canada, because they know best what decisions to make affecting their own community, whether it be Lethbridge, Yorkton, Trois-Rivieres or anywhere else in Canada. I
just do not like this trend of centralization that I hear being discussed by so many Members of the Liberals and Conservative Parties. I know my friend, the Hon. Member for Provencher, would certainly not agree with that trend and that is why he will be rising in a few minutes to agree with the Hon. Member for Regina West, because he, too, does not want to centralize more and more power in the hands of one bureaucrat. He also wants to have a more democratic society and a more decentralized society where ordinary citizens have more power.


An Hon. Member:: A community of communities.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sure he is very interested in a community of communities. That cannot occur when we centralize power in the hands of the Administrator to make arbitrary decisions over rail lines.
Under a democratic socialist government, I am sure there would be a very decentralized economy. Let me cite some history for the Member from New Brunswick. Saskatchewan has the most decentralized economy in the country. We have the country elevator systems which are very decentralized. The Wheat Pool ships over half of our grain that is owned by the farmers themselves, with one farmer, one vote. There are co-op stores found in every community as well as co-op pharmacies, co-op cafeterias, co-op garages and so on. It is very decentralized.


An Hon. Member:: Co-ops are not socialist. That is capitalism.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In all of these places we have co-op committees, Wheat Pool committees and UGG committees. In this democratic socialist society, or economic model, they make the decisions that control those economic enterprises. I would like to see a greater economic democratic system in our country.


Mr. Thacker:: People had to leave for generations to get a job.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: People had to leave for generations because we had Jimmy Gardiner, Patterson, that famous Conservative, R. B. Bennett, and Ross Thatcher, another famous Conservative who called himself a Liberal. Of course, when Allan Blakeney was elected, the population of the Province went up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I call to the attention of the Hon. Member that debate at report stage should be strictly relevant to the amendments before the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He was reasonably provoked.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I guess I am no more unreasonable than the hecklers, Mr. Speaker. I should refrain from replying. I just wanted to say that unemployment has almost doubled in our Province in the last 18 months and I think that answers the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Manitoba's went up too.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The reason I support Motion No. 34 is that 1 come from a very rural riding. There are many rail lines in that community and the farmers in my constituency overwhelmingly support the idea of maintaining their rail lines and not trucking their grain to market. They support that contention for a number of reasons. First, it is more convenient lor them from a cost point of view that the rail lines remain and be there as a service to the farmer for shipping grain to market. It is a system that works well. It can even be more efficient with rehabilitation of the rail lines.
As well this not only affects the farmer but small-business people in all the towns and villages through which those rail lines pass. If a rail line is abandoned, many of the farmers will shop elsewhere and many businesses will be forced to close down It even affects the people who live in the community, including many senior citizens. There are many people in communities such as Kelvington and Lintlaw and many other communities in my riding who have told me that even their senior citizens are concerned about rail line abandonment. It the rail line goes, fewer people will shop in town and fewer businesses will be in town. Therefore the services will be that much poorer and senior citizens will not be able to get the medical and dental facilities they want in their senior years. For those reasons they believe the rail lines should stay. I think those are important points.
In my riding during the last few years there have been a number of fights with the CTC, the CNR, the CPR, Otto Lang and others over maintaining the rail lines. For example, I can think of the tremendous fight we had to maintain a rail line that went into Preeceville, which is a very large community in my constituency. In that instance many people got together to form a "save our rail line committee . They wanted to make sure that the rail line to the community of Preeceville was preserved. After going to the CTC, lobbying and fighting for a number of months, they were able to maintain and preserve the rail line.
Another success story in my riding concerned the rail line that goes to Rosthern Calder and MacNutt. Once again, the people of those communities banded together. They are from small communities: Rosthern has perhaps 100 people, Calder has approximately 300 and MacNutt is somewhat smaller. They did their research and lobbying and put up a fight. They persuaded the CTC and the powers that be that those rail lines should stay and be upgraded. Their present concern oyer upgrading those rail lines is that the money in the rail line rehabilitation fund actually goes into upgrading rail lines and will not be spent in trucking grain to market.
I am very concerned about this because the smaller a community and the smaller the group of people affected, the more difficult it is to persuade the CTC or the Minister that they are important. It is more difficult for smaller groups to present their arguments. It is more difficult for a smaller community to get a share of the money which is in the rail line rehabilitation fund. If some of that money is diverted to trucking, the likelihood of remaining funds being used in smaller communities will diminish. For those reasons I cannot
Western Grain Transportation Act
sit idly by and allow that to happen without speaking out. It is important to the Rostherns, Calders and MacNutts of the country that the money be used to upgrade their rail lines and ensure their efficiency.
There are other rail lines that are being seriously considered in my riding and which may be affected by Bills such as this. I am holding a copy of the Western Producer dated September 29, which carries an article entitled "Rail Lines Under Study .
It has a list compiled by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool of rail lines that are under study by Transport Canada. It lists approximately 35 different rail lines of which two happen to be in my constituency. One subdivision which is under review is Rhein, a town of about 500 people. According to the Wheat Pool, Transport Canada is studying 25 miles of that rail line. There are 475 producers who deliver their grain to points along that rail line.
The second review taking place in my riding is on a subdivision point called Tonkin. That community is much smaller, with a line of only approximately 17 miles. However, there are 197 people who deliver their grain to points along that line. The line is very important to them and they are very concerned that the rail line rehabilitation funds are used to upgrade the lines and preserve them and not be drained for trucking. If that happens, the rail lines and elevators disappear and we see more centralizing with huge inland terminals. Where does it stop?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to speak on Motion No. 34 which was moved by my colleague the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). The effect of this motion is to strike out Clause 17(4) which gives the Administrator power to enter into agreements which would basically provide funds for those who want to move grain through the trucking mode.
In rising to support this motion, I would like to use my constituency of Dauphin-Swan River as an illustration since the situation there is not unlike that outlined by my hon. friend for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) with respect to some of the problems and issues we face in our rural ridings. I want to underline some of the concerns that we have and perhaps give some concrete illustrations. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words, and if we can give a concrete illustration of our situation perhaps it would help Hon. Members opposite and some of my friends to my right understand the situation better. Hopefully it will enlighten them. Their situations and problems are somewhat different as they are south of the Trans-Canada Highway and have easy access to large highways, big trucks and all the other benefits of living in that particular part of Manitoba. They do not really appreciate some of the difficulties in areas further north.

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
In striking out lines 20 to 25 of the trucking subsidy, we are trying to stand up for the small towns of our areas. If a trucking subsidy is provided by way of inducement or encouragement for the movement of grain by trucking companies, we can rest assured that there will be a greater degree of branch line abandonment. It would then become somewhat more economic for trucks to compete with the shipment of grain on branch lines. When the western division of the Canadian Transport Commission looks at branch line abandonment, it does not look at branch line abandonment, it does not look at the viability of small towns. In fact, I have never found any economic impact assessment in any of the CTC hearings. I have always been concerned that in any branch line abandonment induced by trucking subsidies there has never been any mention of the community-wide impact.
Small towns such as Fork River and others in my constituency at this stage have perhaps only one general store. The people of the area should not have to travel 30 miles or 40 miles to shop. The viability of many of these small towns is maintained when they have elevators in their communities. With branch line abandonment there is also the abandonment of elevators. As the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) mentioned earlier, many pools have established elevators and, if there were a continuation of branch line abandonment, the pool elevators would be disproportionately affected. It would also affect farmers because they are the people who co-operate and work together to build and maintain these elevators. It, as a result of branch line abandonment and trucking subsidies, many more inland terminals were to be developed, the pools would have to invest inordinate amount of moneys to build new elevators when they already have existing ones which they could maintain if the branch lines were kept. In addition, there is a disproportionate impact in terms of highway costs. The Government is not prepared to pick up the cost of maintaining highways in these areas. In many areas where there is branch line abandonment, the highways are of poor quality and do not have the necessary strength to accommodate heavy trucks such as the highways in the ridings of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) or the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta).
I would like to give an indication of why people in constituencies such as mine are concerned. For example, I received a letter from the former Minister of Transport after I wrote to him concerning highway costs. He wrote:
Dear Mr. Lewycky:
Thank you for your letter of June I, 1981, concerning financial assistance for road upgrading which might be necessary as a consequence of rail line abandonment.
As former Minister of Transport surely he knew that it would be necessary, not might be necessary. He went on to indicate:
At the present time I am not contemplating the provision of such assistance.
His letter was dated July 22, 1981. He continued:
As you know the federal Government-is faced with very limited resources for the purpose of initiating new assistance programs. In the case of road and
highway construction, this is principally a provincial and municipal responsibility ... I would find it very difficult at the present time to consider initiating new programs of the type you have suggested.
Yours sincerely,
Jean-Luc Pepin.
I have it in black and white. The Government clearly indicated that it would be unable and unwilling to look after the added road costs. He should travel to constituencies such as mine and ask the municipalities, some of which are poor, whether they can afford additional road costs that would result if elevators were not functioning in their areas. If we take a look at the 1981 census results, we find constituencies such as Dauphin-Swan River have average incomes that are almost two-thirds the national average. How can we ask these farmers to face the added burden of higher costs for transporting grain? They cannot afford to purchase new trucks. They cannot afford to do what would be necessary to haul grain to a larger area. Their land values have dropped in light of possible rail line abandonment. These farmers are in dire straits and would be seriously jeopardized if there were further rail line abandonments. Some of these areas are not even full-fledged municipalities. They are local government districts. They do not even have the base to support or sustain a municipal structure.
It is on behalf of such areas that we plead when we fight this piece of legislation or certain clauses in Bill C-155. I know it might be difficult for Members with different situations. I empathize somewhat with them and understand why they cannot experientially feel for these smaller areas because in their situation it might be beneficial to take the angle they are taking. When pools such as these are disproportionately affected, when there is a potential for elevators to close down and for communities to die, I think the House will understand why I support the motion of my colleague the Hon. Member for Regina West. I thank the House for the opportunity to share our concerns on behalf of constituents-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon Member, but his allotted time has expired.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to take part in the debate. The amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party is typical of what it has been trying to do in this Bill. Whenever anything is put forward, regardless of what we in the Conservative Party see as being wrong with it-and they are too numerous to go into in ten minutes-our job is to try as hard as possible to amend a bad Bill. It is to this that we have devoted the last three months, to trying to point out what is wrong with the Bill. There are still many glaring errors in the draftsmanship in the way it affects producers in western Canada. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone on this side of the House to support this Bill.
In coming to that conclusion, we started from a different place than the NDP. The Bill was put forward. We in the
October 11, 1983

Opposition have a responsibility to our constituents to try as best we can to change the mind of the Government on this Bill, what it thinks is good in the Bill and what we think is good. At times we can come to mutual agreement, even with the NDP. There were times in committee when amendments were passed unanimously. In fact, the first amendment accepted was put forward by the NDP which was going to kill the Bill.
With this amendment, the NDP is attempting to remove an amendment which states "if the Administrator enters into an agreement by motor vehicle to move grain, he does so in the best interests of the producers". It is in the best interest of the producers, not in the best interests about which we hear from the NDP railroad flakes and not in the best interest of the railroads, but of the producers, the grain farmers, the men and women who grow and sell the grain. It is not in the best interest of the railroads, the elevator companies or the provincial Governments, but in the best interests of the producers.
We hear a lot of crying from the Members on our left about saving branch lines. I hear one of those Members crowing now. Let us go back in history. In 1979 when the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was Minister of Transport, he appointed the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) to make a report on branch lines in western Canada, including the region I represent as well as those represented by some NDP Members.
The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw made a decision and made recommendations to the Hon. Member for Vegreville as Minister. He recommended that 490 miles of branch lines in western Canada be maintained in the permanent network until the year 2000. He made another recommendation, that is, that 236 miles-there are three of those branch lines in my riding-be frozen for five years so that we can review the proposal put forward by former Justice Emmett Hall as to the effectiveness of off-line elevators. He wanted to try them at Fisher Branch. He felt the producers in that area could benefit from an experiment. The Members for Moose Jaw and Vegreville wanted to freeze those lines, not abandon them, not to tear up the steel as they did in Arelee and Summingdale and the riding of the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). They wanted to freeze them until they had time to assess the benefits of off-line elevators.
What happened in the meantime? The NDP Members voted that Government out of office. They, along with the Liberals, said that the Member for Vegreville and the Member for Moose Jaw, who tried to save branch lines, are not serving the best interests of the producers of western Canada. They voted that Government out of office. They let the Liberals come in.
Do you know what the present Government did as soon as it was elected? It rescinded the Order in Council which would have saved 236 miles of branch lines. That is the way the NDP Members protected the branch lines in Saskatchewan. That is how they did it. They brought those people in to take away that freeze. The Minister who did that is in the Chamber at this time. I am sure we will hear from him. Brass-Kelfield is a line that runs from Brass to Kelfield in my riding. We went through the process of a CTC hearing. We did not have to go
Western Grain Transportation Act
through that process so long as the Hon. Member for Vegreville was Minister of Transport, but the NDP Members did not like that. They said he was not serving the best interest, they would have the Liberals in. What did the Liberals do? They abandoned 236 miles. This is the way they serve their constituents.
Now what did the people in Kelfield, Handel and Leipzig have to do? They no longer have a rail line. CTC said, "No, dont blame the trucker". The people responsible for that, along with the former Minister of Transport, are the NDP. They helped the Liberals come in. That is what they have done for branch lines. If I sat down now, would the former Minister of Transport like to speak?


Mr. Pepin:: I would not dare intervene in a personal quarrel with the NDP.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The people on the Kelfield branch will now have to haul their grain an additional 23 miles, on average. They have one hope with this amendment. Their line has been abandoned effective October 31. With this amendment and with the Bill, when it is put through, if ever, or even without it, with the good graces of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), he could establish a trial off-line elevator service. The people in Leipzig, Kelfield and Handel will say that it will be harder on the roads. It will be. However, it won't be harder on the roads than hauling gravel or moving an oil rig or construction machinery. If its hard to haul grain, it will be no harder on the highways and grid roads of Saskatchewan than if the farmers hauled it themselves. Somebody will have to pay.
These people want to save their branch line. That is their first choice. Their second choice would be to have a form of transportation so that they do not have to haul it. The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) knows the cost of a tandem straight rig or a tractor to haul grain, or even the price of an ordinary three-to single-axle truck. Farmers do not have the ability to adjust that readily to those changes. However, the Administrator, working only in the best interests of the producers, has the ability to enter into agreements with trucking companies to move grain from a country elevator to another point. The cost of that would not be borne by the producer but by the Administrator out of the general revenues of this country.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and other Members talk about the vibrancy of the rural towns. I recognize that. The community I come from has a population of about 25. We have a post office and a couple of elevators. We want to keep our elevators and our branch lines.
Do not be fooled by thinking it is only the elevators and railroad companies which make the small towns in Saskatchewan vibrant. It is the people. In their belief, it has nothing whatsoever to do with elevators and railroads. It is a benefit, but it has nothing to do with the strength and fabric of those communities.

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act In conclusion I want to say that that is not only my idea. Former Chief Justice Emmett Hall at pages 79 and 80 of the Hall Report said: "It is the people and the spirit of the people which gives a community viability, not the railroads, not the elevators". If we had our druthers, we would have the elevator served by trucks rather than elevators served by nothing.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I would like to tell the House just exactly how wrong Members of the NDP are in trying to debate the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). If NDP Members could remember as far back as the time the Hall Report was tabled in the House of Commons, they would remember that certain rail lines were taken out and at that time there was supposed to be a trucking program put in place for those farmers who were going to be affected by the abandonment of that rail line and money would be paid to a central agency. In this case, the line from Cremona to Crossfield, which is in my constituency, was affected. Farmers in Cremona now have to haul their grain over a distance of approximately 30 miles. However, it is interesting to note that those farmers are not necessarily hauling that grain to Crossfield where it must be put through an elevator system and would further clog up the grain handling industry. Instead, the farmers went to British Columbia to find a market for their grain and are shipping it in that direction, thereby relieving the rail system of the overload. That makes sense to me.
If farmers were to have the freedom of choice to receive a portion of the funding, then the system would be relieved of the overload and trucks would be allowed to roll. I find it incomprehensible that if this amendment is deleted, farmers in that area will have to accept the extra cost of moving grain on their own when their tax dollars go right to the railway.
The railway is to receive $650 million, but there is no money for the truckers or the farmers. The money is going straight to the railways. Not only do the farmers have to pay for transporting their grain into central British Columbia, they must also pay for the other farmers who are moving grain on the rails.
That notion is grossly unfair, and I hope that Hon. Members of the Party to my left who claim to have a conscience-and I sometimes wonder if they have one at all-will give consideration to this motion. After all, it hits the people very, very hard.	'
There is a great deal of grain, primarily barley and feed grain, moving out of central Alberta into the central British Columbia market as well as the southern Alberta market. Some of these hauls are anywhere from 2 to 500 miles in distance. It would seem to me that it is only honest, straightforward and reasonable that consideration be given not only to the producers but to the truckers as well. The truckers are taxpayers as well. They are also competitive. Hon. Members opposite do not really care whether or not taxpayers have to subsidize Crown corporations that operate in competition with
those taxpayers. My hon. friend over there is smiling. He recognizes what the Government is doing. Government Members should change their minds about this and allow for friendly competition.
There has been a great deal of talk about the effect the implementation of this motion would have on the highways It is true enough that it will have a certain effect on the highways. However, every time a trainload of grain goes over a track, it too has an effect on that track and that track must be upgraded. Besides, many of these truckers travel at night when the traffic is not very heavy and they do not interfere with the automobile traffic to any great extent.
These are matters to which Hon. Members of the NDP should give consideration if they are going to keep on proposing that this amendment be deleted. The amendment is of fundamental and basic importance to the people who live in our constituencies. Perhaps Hon. Members of the NDP do not realize that in southern Alberta, large numbers of cattle are fed. A large amount of barley is produced in my constituency. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), recognizes this fact. His constituency relies on my constituency for moving that barley to Medicine Hat and southern Alberta where the cattle are fed. It only makes sense that if there are producers who want to move their grain in that direction and if there are feeders there who require that grain, the truckers who have to move that grain should have compensation for doing so.
Members of the NDP are isolated and narrow-minded in their thinking. They have tunnel vision, if you will. It is totally incomprehensible to me that they should want to delete this amendment. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that that spells out exactly why there are no NDP Members from the Province of Alberta. We in Alberta are far beyond that type of thinking. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Members to my left would reconsider their amendment to delete the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, you are quick on the draw today. I am happy to participate in this debate on what I consider to be a very important question and one that is fundamental to many, many areas of western Canada. It is generally felt in most areas of the Prairies that in order to maintain the small communities, there may be from time to time some supplementary form of transportation needed. That supplementary form of tranportation, of course, must in many cases be the trucking industry. That is why the amendment which proposes to delete an entire transportation industry is one that I believe is ill-advised, ill-considered and has been put forward by a group of people who keep trying to harken back to a time in the 1940s and 1950s when everything on the Prairies occurred in a way which they would like to see now. In other words, they are harkening back to a time that is not applicable to the present time.
The amendment that has been proposed, Mr. Speaker, would delete the following from the Bill:
October 11, 1983

The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
Hon. Members of the NDP want to delete that portion from the Bill and lock the farmer into hauling grain by rail and by rail alone.
If we could ultimately design a system in the country that was ideal, I believe that most farmers from the Prairies, and probably from any country of the world that sells grain, would ideally like to move grain by rail. Of course, the ideal situation does not and cannot occur.
Literally millions of bushels of grain have been moved from Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan by truck over the last number of years. That grain has been transported by truck primarily because farmers have felt that in many cases the railways have not done a good enough job. Farmers have to keep money for their own needs and to use for cash flow within their own farms. If the railways were not going to move their grain, then some other method had to be found. Of course, that method was trucking.
Many farmers began to haul grain by truck because they had no other choice, and if you look at those farmers now, Mr. Speaker, you will see that almost without exception they are in a better financial position than the farmers who sat back and, as many of the Members of the NDP would like us to believe, did nothing but cry, complain and scream. The farmers who were aggressive and found a way to move their grain by truck are now in a better cashflow position and a better financial position than are the farmers who were not aggressive.
The history of the whole question of trucking goes back some years to the Hall Commission Report which has been mentioned by other Hon. Members in the House today. Members of the NDP have described this as the Magna Carta of western Canada. The Hall Commission Report contains Mr. Justice Hall's recommendations for the establishment of a grain handling system on the Prairies.
In those recommendations, Mr. Justice Hall very wisely recognized that in a perfect world, we would all like to move our grain by rail. However, the situation is not perfect and never has been. The report dealt with the many small communities on the Prairies that, because of isolation, topography and a number of other factors, could not support a rail service but were perhaps able to support another method by which grain would be delivered to the local elevator thereby keeping that particular community viable. From that point, grain would be trucked to an elevator on a main line with a higher throughput which could move greater volumes of grain than by other methods.
This idea of hydbridization between truck and rail would make sense. Judge Hall came out clearly in favour of it. At that time it was called the off-line elevator concept, and the Conservative Party was giving consideration to establishing it in the very area recommended by Judge Hall, Fisher Branch, in the central part of the Province. Because of the location and
Adjournment Motion
the facilities and the grain production in the area, however, it was judged that a rail link with that particular community would no longer be viable. Judge Hall said that there should be an off-line elevator-trucking experiment. Grain within 40 or 50 miles of the elevator could be brought in more cheaply and efficiently by truck than by running half empty rail cars over a line that would cost millions and millions of dollars to upgrade.
It would also keep Fisher Branch as a viable marketing community. If this motion were accepted, we would not be able to have trucking supplement movement by rail.
I come from a part of Manitoba that has a long history of trucking. In southern Manitoba all kinds of grain has been trucked fairly long distances for a number of years. Most of the trucking was done by very small firms. If this motion were passed, again the NDP would lock out the very people they claim to support in the House of Commons, the small businessman and the small firms. Most of the trucking in southern Manitoba is done by the small trucking companies, using semi-trailers.
There has been very little damage to the road system in southern Manitoba because the people who operate the trucks, the small independents, operate according to the weight and other regulations set down by the Government of Manitoba. The local area benefits because the truckers buy their fuel, oil, meals and have repairs done, in the local communities. We all know that this is not the case with the railways. A trucking program brings many benefits. I do not speak of a trucking program that would do away with the railways, because that is impossible and impractical, nor a trucking program that would establish five or eight or ten large inland terminals on the Prairies, because we all know that will not happen either. Anyone who raises that spectre is being dishonest with the producers of western Canada. I speak of a trucking program that would supplement, where needed, the movement of grain to the main lines and allow the railways to move fully loaded hopper cars in unitrains, perhaps, or certainly in large numbers to Vancouver or Thunder Bay.
This amendment should be defeated, Mr. Speaker. It is a foolish amendment, ill-thought out, proposed by a Party that is trying desperately to cling to the past.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain)-Employment-Request that Government disclose plans, (b) Need for long-term jobs; The Hon. Member for Surrey-white Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-The Adminis-

Western Grain Transportation Act tration-Personal correspondence of Ministers, (b) Interdepartmental correspondence; The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Labour Conditions-Unemployment in Saskatchewan.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport; and Motion No. 34 (Mr. Benjamin).
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to put some comments on record regarding the motion proposed by the NDP to amend Bill C-155. It would allow the Administrator to make arrangements with the trucking companies for one purpose and one purpose only. Clause 17(4) of the Bill, referring to the Administrator, states as follows:
-in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
I can only surmise that the NDP wants to delete this section because it is not interested in what is in the best interests of the grain producers, and I want to show why I think so.
My good friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), said that if we do not accept this amendment then we are interested in the centralizing of powers. If he looked at the effect of the amendment he would see that it would centralize all grain movement in the hands of the boardrooms of the CPR and the CNR. That is what Members of the NDP want, apparently. When they talk about centaliza-tion they should look very carefully at the effect of the amendment.
It is beyond question that if trucking of grain were allowed, we would get a competitive system which is sorely needed in' the transportation of grain in western Canada.
I should like to give an example not related to the grain industry to make a point. At one time almost all new cars manufactured in Ontario were moved to western Canada by truck. Previously they had been moved by rail, but for two reasons the change to truck was made. The first reason the switch was made to trucking was that delivery dates could be more closely met, and the second reason was that damage to the vehicles was less than when they were delivered by rail. At that time most cars were put on boxcars at an angle and damage resulted. Today cars from Ontario and Quebec are moved to western Canada almost totally by rail. The reason for this is that the trucking industry was competitive and forced the railways to give better service and bring in new
modes of handling the cars. That would be the effect of this amendment.
At the present time grain on the Prairies is moved by truck. I do not want to refer to my home community but I know that when people say communities cannot survive because they do not have a railway, it simply is not true. My home community never had a railroad. For certain historical reasons, when the railroad was to go to that community, the people asked that it not come through. Perhaps it was the only exception on the Prairies; I do not know that. The fact remains that it never had a railroad, but two excellent highways go into the community and serve the area. This means there is competition within the trucking industry.
When the NDP says time after time, that trucking communities will suffer in that way, they are expressing a valid fear, but I do not think history backs that up.
I can give another example of what trucking will do for competition. In Manitoba there was a virtual monopoly on cement. What the producers discovered was that they could buy cement in Ontario, in Central Canada, put it on an empty grain lake carrier and drop it into Duluth, Minnesota. From there a fleet of trucks would haul that cement from Duluth, Minnesota, right through Manitoba. There is no duty on it because it is a Canadian product in transit. They are delivering cement, Mr. Speaker, by truck and boat into Manitoba from Ontario cheaper than they could buy it in Manitoba. That is what monopolies do, Mr. Speaker. The only reason I point this out is that the more modes of transportation there are, the more competitive will be the market, the better will be the price for the movement of grain and the better will be the service to the producers. That is why this clause appeals to me, because it can be put into effect in the best interests of the producer. I cannot understand why the Hon. Members in the New Democratic Party-and I am not trying to belittle their arguments and the regions they represent-if their argument is as valid as they honestly and sincerely put to the House, would not allow another mode of transport that might be valid in terms of that competitive edge in another part of the Prairies. It is one way or the other. They do not want to see it any other way, Mr. Speaker.
What is also of importance is the brief the Manitoba trucking industry presented before the committee. We find out, for example, that in Manitoba alone, a Province of one million people, 10,000 people are employed in the trucking industry, with an annual payroll of $140 million. Hon. Members from the NDP are saying, "We want to give it all to the railroads. We want the railroads to have the monopoly. We want to give all the money to the railroads and we do not want these Manitobans to have a share of the market." That is what these Hon. Members say in the House. What do they say out in the country when they are confronted by the trucking industry? We should listen to no better an authority than the transport critic, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who, before the Manitoba Trucking Commission in
October 11, 1983

Winnipeg, said this-his words, I believe, should be immortalized in Hansard-and I quote:
__I have a large amount of sympathy for the small, independent truckers
because in my years in the railroad I watched a lot of good, independent little truckers with one, two, three or four trucks get run right off the road by the railroads when they went into the trucking business.
The NDP motion would do just that, Mr. Speaker. Not only would it run the truckers off the road, it would not even allow them on the road. Are we really to believe that Members of the NDP are saying one thing in the Elouse against trucking, against 10,000 employees in Manitoba, against companies which are just asking to be competitive, but when faced by these people in Manitoba it is a different story? They say there, "Look, fellows, we have a lot of sympathy. We understand. We like you". When they come in here, however, they move motions against the very people they are trying to say they understand.
Yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with a trucker and a farmer. The trucker is independent. He has one truck. The farmer is very progressive. We talked about this very subject, and in the five minute conversation we had, those two fellows were ready to make a deal if the Crow rate would allow it. It was the marketplace in action, Mr. Speaker. The trucker was willing to move the grain. The farmer wanted the grain moved. What these two people were asking for was a fair deal under the Crow Act. The New Democratic Party would say, "No, you cannot make those deals. But if you make those deals, the railroads will still get the money, and the trucker will not and the farmer will not". When the New Democratic Party Members rise in their seats time after time and say they are for the little guy, it is time their motions showed it rather than again and again defeating the competitive edge which so many ordinary Canadians want.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, this is really a notable day. I never thought I would see the day in the House of Commons when the Hon. Member for Provench-er (Mr. Epp) would defend in such glowing terms a Liberal piece of legislation. I never thought I would see the day when the Hon. Member for Provencher would be favouring programs which would inevitably lead to the death of many prairie towns. I found it surprising when he said there was no historical evidence of that ever happening. All the Hon. Member has to do is to look around the Prairies. Indeed, he should turn to his right and talk to the gentleman beside him, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who spoke of a community by the name of Arelee which had that very thing happen to it. I never thought I would see the day when the Hon. Member for Provencher, who I would have thought was an otherwise intelligent person, would so completely misconstrue the sense of the amendment which we have put before the House.
This Party has proposed a number of amendments to this piece of legislation. Indeed, I believe it is over 100. If Hon. Members in the Party to my right will take a look at these amendments as a whole they will realize that these amendments have to be accepted as a whole. If they are viewed, in
Western Grain Transportation Act
this way, it will be seen that, what we will be doing is saving the Crowsnest Pass rates as they now exist. We are not prepared merely to modify the Bill to make it slightly less harmful to western farmers, as Hon. Members in the Conservative Party seem inclined to do. I am really quite disappointed, Mr. Speaker, in some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon from the Conservative Party. However, that is not entirely surprising. That Party has been all over the map on the Crowsnest Pass legislation for some time now. I am sure that before this piece of legislation finally gets through the House of Commons, it will be further all over the map.
I would like to speak a little more specifically to Motion No. 34. It is an amendment which is particularly important to people trying to farm in relatively remote grain growing regions of the Prairies. I am thinking particularly of farmers in areas such as Fisher Branch, which has been mentioned once or twice this afternoon, and other communities in my constituency such as Riverton and Arborg which sit at the end of rail lines. Defending branch lines against railway plans to abandon them has become a life and death struggle for many of these prairie communities. That may sound like a bit of an overstatement. However, when one sees elevator after elevator closed because the branch line has been abandoned, and when one sees countless prairie towns and villages, which are dependent on those elevators for their survival, die and all but blow away, it becomes very clear that what we are talking about is indeed a life and death struggle. For communities like Riverton and Fisher Branch, saving branch line abandonment is doubly critical. Not only are these towns, like many prairie towns, dependent on the branch line and the country elevator for their wellbeing, but because of the greater distance to major grain delivery points, the farmers in those regions depend to a greater extent on the maintenance of branch line service in order to keep their costs of production somewhat manageable.
Motion No. 34, which was put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), would strike from Bill C-155 Clause 17(4). By doing that this motion would strike from the Bill a clause which would only encourage branch line abandonment. Most Hon. Members will know, I am sure, that with abandonment go the elevators. In their place we would get large inland grain terminals serviced by truck rather than rail.
I am not supporting this motion because I want to make it tough for small trucking firms on the Prairies, but rather because I think it is in their interest, just as it is in the interest of prairie communities and farmers, to preserve our system of branch lines and country elevators. W hat benefit can there be to these small trucking companies in the slow demise of prairie communities? Without this amendment it will be wide open for the Administrator of the Grain Transportation Agency to give subsidies to truck grain or ship it by rail. By doing that, the Bill will open the door for trucks to compete with the shipment of grain by rail on branch lines. That will lower the traffic and revenue on those branch lines and contribute to the

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
statistical justification that the railways are always looking for excuses to seek abandonment of their branch lines.
Who loses in that kind of situation, Mr. Speaker? The community itself loses. Most of our prairie communities are dependent for their very survival on these branch lines, but when it comes to a situation where the railways are able to argue that the line is no longer economical, then it is only a matter of time before the CTC gives its okay to abandon it. Once that happens there is no reason for the country elevator to continue operation, so it goes and takes a handful of jobs with it. After that there is no grain traffi to the elevators. Then the implement dealer, the grocery store and cafes see their business dry up. Once the decline starts there is not much to stop it. But that is not where it ends. It is common sense that if you increase the heavy truck traffic on a road, you are going to increase the maintenance costs of that road as well. Who is going to pay for that road maintenance? Not the railways, not the federal Government. It is the rural municipalities and the provinces that end up paying for it.
Mr. Speaker, I have been working for the people in the Fisher Branch, Broad Valley area of my constituency to save the CN branch line from Grosse Isle to Fisher Branch. The hearings were held last October. Then on March 17 of this year, the Canadian Transport Commission ruled in favour of CN s bid to abandon the line. We appealed that decision to the review committee of the CTC, but on August 22 of this year, we learned that the review committee too had decided in favour of CN. We are now at the last stage open to us to stop this abandonment; we have appealed the decision to the Privy Council.
One of the important points we raised with the CTC, Mr. Speaker, was the highway construction and maintenance costs that would have to be picked up by the Province and the rural municipalities. The Province of Manitoba estimated that if that branch line were abandoned, an additional $8 million in costs would accrue to the Province alone as a result of the increased traffic on the highway system. Eight million dollars, Mr. Speaker, and that is only one branch line.
In the State of Iowa, grain used to be shipped primarily by rail, as it is shipped in our own prairie Provinces. But then the railways started to abandon the branch lines in Iowa, and grain transportation moved from rail to road. The result of that, Mr. Speaker, was that the State of Iowa found its roads and highways deteriorating under the traffic of heavy trucks at a rate two to three times faster than the State could afford to repair them. What did they do? Did they encourage more branch line abandonment? No, they did not. They decided to introduce a program to subsidize existing railway branch lines in order to keep as much of the grain as possible moving by rail. And you know, Mr. Speaker, they found that to be less expensive than paying for the extra highway maintenance and road repair. Iowa State learned its lesson, Mr. Speaker. It is now warning other jurisdictions not to permit branch lines to be abandoned and grain traffic transferred from rail to road.
The other big loser in this kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, is the prairie Wheat Pools. The pools, owned by farmers themselves, now own most of the existing country elevator system. When branch lines are abandoned and grain delivery is consolidated into large inland grain terminals, the pools will lose the capital they have invested in the country elevators. They do not stand to gain very much at all from selling the elevators or from scrapping them. At the same time, they will have to invest incredible amounts to construct inland grain terminals themselves if they hope to be able to carry on competing with the prairie grain companies.
Let me wrap up, Mr. Speaker, by saying that without this amendment, the Bill we are debating will do much to encourage branch line abandonment and, as a result, the deterioration of our grain delivery system. Railways are the most efficient way to move heavy loading bulk goods like grain. Without this amendment, this Bill will undoubtedly lead to more branch line abandonment and elevator consolidation. Rather than saving money or providing for a more efficient delivery system, it could very well increase the total cost of getting grain from the field to port. The losers there would be the producers, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this trucking amendment, and I do so with considerable pleasure in that I follow the last three speakers from the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). Those three Members are very knowledgeable about the importance of the trucking of grain throughout the western Prairies. As far as I am concerned, they are exceedingly knowledgeable about its special importance to the livestock sector and that of feed grains for cattle and hogs. That is an enormously important industry in western Canada. That has been overlooked to a great extent in this legislation.
I am speaking in total opposition to Motion No. 34 in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). While I have great respect for his tenacity and the service he has given to the committee, especially when we were travelling, on this particular amendment he is way out to lunch. He is talking nonsense. I have to say it as bluntly as that. It is regrettable that this amendment would negate our, and I emphasize "our", Conservative committee stage amendment, already agreed to, which would allow the Administrator to enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where in his opinion such agreements would be in the best interests of grain producers. That is nothing but plain common sense. It will certainly improve the Bill, in fact it already has in that it is now part of the Bill. We should never, never take it out.
The thrust of Bill C-155 is to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. That is the purpose, and surely our amendment goes right to the heart of fulfilling that purpose. Our amendment simply says that, where appropriate, trucks be used in the best interests of grain producers.
It allows the natural and most efficient use of a grain transportation system which is most efficient, especially for the short haul. Surely that is where trucking comes into its own. I would

say very bluntly that the use of truckers is an invitation for private enterprise to function properly.
I want to digress a moment and talk about an interesting part of the committee stage when we were travelling. On one occasion when we were spending a weekend in Regina, various people arranged, for the benefit of some of the members of the committee and some of the staff people, to visit the Weyburn terminal grain elevator, which is a marvellous piece of construction that is a great credit and tribute to the number of farmers who were behind it and built it a number of years ago. When we had some time off, we were taken on a tour. It was a beautiful day, a Sunday afternoon. We stopped in at one of the grain farmer's on the southwest corner of the city of Regina. He was just getting ready for harvest and told us about trucking his own grain well over 100 miles to the Weyburn terminal elevator, which he decided entirely on his own. He had no trouble making the decision because he felt it was worthwhile for him to hire commercial truckers to haul that grain well over 100 miles from his farm, just on the outskirts of Regina, to the Weyburn terminal.
When we arrived down at the terminal, we found 50 loaded hoppers cars on a track ready to be hauled away, and another 50 that had been spotted on the very day we were there. So here was a total of 100 grain hopper cars ready to be moved. However, the grain was coming in, of course, by truck. The think that made the system work in this case, according to the farmer we saw from over 100 miles away, was that he was able to pay the trucking, hauling it those 100 miles, then receiving cash for his dockage and screenings, enough to pay the costs of the trucking. Surely that was a lesson to us all on that occasion. I see the Chairman of the committee nodding his head. I think it is regrettable that the whole committee did not have the opportunity to see that special demonstration, if you like, of what a combination of a good, modern, efficient trucking system and railway system can do for our grain handling and transportation system.
I want to say very briefly that I cannot agree with some of the arguments that have been advanced by the New Democratic Party on this particular amendment, when it was in committee stage, suggesting that by encouraging, shall we say, a modern network of market roads and an efficient trucking system, we will damage those roads. This is nonsense, of course. There was a time when we were travelling with perhaps fairly heavily loaded grain grucks on dirt roads that were not properly built, but no longer. Surely, this is the situation, that no longer is it a viable argument at all to say that just be trucking grain we will wear out our roads, they are well constructed now, and it is nothing but nonsense to advance that argument.
I want to describe another situation where the trucking industry, closer to my own home on the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, is of special significance. I cite the branch line to a branch line that ends up at the towns of Schuler and Hilda, very close to the Saskatchewan-Alberta border. From those
Western Grain Transportation Act
points, there is no connecting railway direct to the main line into Medicine Hat or, for that matter, directly into Swift Current. There is a very roundabout way. One must travel a long way north to reach the subdivision that runs between Swift Current-Empress and ends up on the CPR main line again at Bassano. One must travel well over 100 miles to haul grain from Schuler and Hilda by rail into Medicine Hat, a distance of only about 40 miles. Here is a situation where grain trucking by the private sector, by the farmer himself, by the flour mills in Medicine Hat, is just nothing but good common sense in moving grain.
1 would like to describe one other situation for the House. Throughout southern Alberta and a good bit of southwestern Saskatchewan, we have only one railway system. That is the CPR. There have never been branch lines of the CNR in southern Alberta or southwestern Saskatchewan. It is true that in the very early days there were reported to have been branch lines surveyed and the possibility of building them into both Medicine Hat and Swift Current was discussed, but they were never built. Today we have what I would describe as an adequate system of branch lines and the main line, of course, all CPR, supplemented by a very good, efficient, market road system in both our Provinces and a good commercial trucking system whereby the farmers themselves are willing and able to truck their own grain.
I see that Your Honour is becoming anxious. I would just like to end by saying that to deny in any way or even to discourage grain trucking when appropriate would be a seriously retrograde step.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to join in the debate on Motion No. 34 that would strike out the section in the Bill that would allow the Administrator to enter into agreements to move grain by motor vehicle. This is one of the most mischievous aspects of the Bill in front of us, one of the most mischievous clauses. We have heard today, mainly from Members of the Conservative Party, all sorts of reasons for which trucking should be encouraged and that trucking can indeed help grain producers. Some sexy arguments have been advanced in favour of trucking. Of course, the long-term effects, the over-all effects, the more global effects that trucking would have on the grain transportation system in western Canada have not been discussed or mentioned by Members of the Official Opposition.
There might be cases in which it can be argued that trucking is to the immediate advantage of certain individuals at a particular time. However, what the amendment allows is trucking on a much larger scale. It opens the door to trucking as a major competitor against the rail system of moving grain. Some Members of the Conservative Party would object to this; but surely, going through the speeches we have heard this afternoon, we find it is admitted by most of the Conservatives speakers that they want to see a competitive system where trucking competes against the railroad. I do not understand that argument. One does not have two different highways running beside each other, competing with each other. One does not have two different power lines and power companies

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act running side by side, competing with each other, nor does one have two different sewage lines or telephone lines, because it does not make economic sense.
To advance the argument that we need competition between trucking and railroads is to say that we need competition between the power lines and that we need competition between telephone companies. The capital cost of having two viable systems of transporting and shipping grain would be so prohibitive that, in the end, it would be the taxpayers of Canada and the farmers, the producers, who would end up having to pay for the maintenance of those two systems. Personally, I suspect that in the end we will have only one major system, and that will be roads, if the Bill, plus its amendment, is passed.
This clause, proposed by the Conservatives and voted for by the Conservatives and Liberals in the committee and which the present amendment by the Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is seeking to delete, will allow the gradual introduction of trucking of grain on a piecemeal basis. It will allow certain lines to become abandoned.
When we talk about trucking, we are really talking about CP and CN. They are the major truckers, and this measure would allow them to move shipments of grain from their railway lines to their trucks. Why should they not be in favour of that? The roads are maintained through municipal and provincial taxes. That is one less responsibility for the railroads, so they would obviously like to see many lines abandoned and grain shipments revert to being trucked. It is in their interest to have this particular amendment introduced and passed. Therefore, when we hear Members of the Conservative Party talk about the interest of the producers, it is really the talk of George Orwell in "1984" where words are one thing but their real meaning and intent is something else.
Why is it so important for us in the NDP to support this amendment and fight against opening the door to trucking? First, we feel that the branch lines must be protected. We must establish the principle once and for all that the major vehicle for moving grain in western Canada is our railroad system. We should not allow little tricks like this piece of legislation begin to whittle away at our rail line system.
Our second concern is that by allowing trucking we are only encouraging more inland terminals. The Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), who just spoke, essentially proved that point when he gave his impression of how great the Weyburn inland terminal is and how it is able to exist because of trucking. A few inland terminals in Saskatchewan would undoubtedly destroy the social fabric of our Province. Trucking would lay town after town in ruin.
We will fight this because we believe that people should be able to control their own destiny rather than that the railroads and a few large grain companies should control the health and well being of rural Saskatchewan. It should be in the hands of the people and not just in a few corporate boardrooms.
The other big loser as a result of this legislation will be the whole pool system. The Wheat Pools are based upon the notion of a decentralized grain collecting and handling system. They are based on a notion which keeps many small towns and rural communities viable. There is a tremendous capital investment in that system. If trucking is allowed to take place, many of those rural elevators and towns will become obsolete and a major capital investment by the pools will be wiped out. The Cargills and major private grain companies will be encouraged to move in.
I predict that if this piece of legislation passes and our amendment today is defeated, the pools will see a steady erosion of their market position over the next decade. Instead of being the major handler of grain in western Canada, their importance will decline steadily. The private grain handlers such as Cargill will have achieved their victory and we will see the destruction of the pools.
The other major loser from this will be the local municipalities. We have heard arguments suggesting that our roads are of such good quality today that grain trucks could travel on municipal roads without doing any damage to them or necessitating an increase in municipal and provincial taxes for their upkeep. I wish that were true, but surely the facts speak against that. We have heard Members of my Party use the State of Iowa as an example. It has been found that large scale trucking of grain in that State was so expensive that it decided to supply subsidies to the railroads and use them as the major source of grain transportation. That was my experience as well when I visited the States of North Dakota and Montana in the spring of 1982. At that time I talked to elevator operators, producers and to the Commissioner of Agriculture in the State of North Dakota. Without exception, they told me time and again that trucking of grain was detrimental to the small elevator points and that it meant tremendous increases in the cost of road maintenance. I believe that to suggest otherwise is very foolish indeed.
In closing I wish to talk briefly about the role of the small trucker. Small truckers to whom 1 have talked have said that the majors are not allowing them to exist. In Sasktachewan, for example, as recently as September 22 of this year, CP trucking bought four of our larger trucking firms in Saskatchewan. This deal with the four firms, which had revenues of over $10 million last year, is another illustration of the concentration of powers by the railroads in the trucking business.
I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent of the House to close my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few comments this afternoon concerning Motion No. 34 to Bill C-155 which has
October 11, 1983

become better known in the area that I represent as the Crow Bill. The motion itself, which was presented by our Party, seeks to delete Clause 17(4) of the Bill which states:
(4) The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
While this may sound acceptable, when one analyses this clause further it causes some concern. First, the best interests of the grain producers are to be judged by some Administrator whom the Liberals want to be responsible to the Cabinet. I could perhaps agree with this provision if the best interests of the grain producers had been protected up to this point, but I do not think this Liberal bag Government has protected the interests of the producers. In fact, their interest have been eroded. Otherwise, why would we be even debating this Bill in terms of the content that specifically refers to the statutory rate or the removal of the Crow rate on which western Canada has come to rely for so many years to keep farming viable and which we really felt is part of our Confederation bargain?
1 really question whether the Government ever had the best interests of the grain producers at heart. If it did and had demonstrated so in the past, perhaps I could agree with leaving this clause within Bill C-155. We have heard some talk this afternoon that it would be the large trucking companies which would benefit from this. That may be so. There should be some subsidy given to people who have to truck grain through no fault of their own. By moving to delete this part of the Bill, I am not against grain producers or small independent truckers. There are areas within my constituency where there is a need for more fair and equitable treatment of farmers who have to get their grain to market through the existing elevator system.
I could think of places like Goodsoil in my constituency where producers and farmers have to truck grain in some cases 45 miles to the nearest elevators. Why do they do that? They do it because there is no rail line in the area which could be used to get the grain out.
As I mentioned in earlier speeches on Bill C-155, there are other areas in my constituency where elevators are plugged for a good part of the year. The rail transportation system is so bad that the elevators are plugged because the grain is not moved out when it is supposed to be. Farmers who want to haul grain to the elevators find they cannot do so because the elevators are plugged. The rail into the Meadow Lake delivery point, the steel and track, is in such a state of bad repair that they cannot take in hopper cars, load them fully and haul them back out.
If this clause contained conditions that were in the best interests of grain producers, I would not support the amendment, but I feel I have to support it because such conditions are not outlined in the Bill. We are being asked to rely on the Government to protect the best interests of grain producers. I would never do that on behalf of grain producers in my constituency because the Government has not demonstrated in its past performance, that it has protected the interests of producers. It has not demonstrated it through the Farm Credit
Western Grain Transportation Act
Corporation, rail transportation or preservation of the statutory rate. Why should we suddenly trust the Administration responsible to Cabinet for transportation to enter into agreements in the best interests of producers? I just do not think it will happen.
If conditions were included in the Bill in the best interests of individual farmers, such as my cousin in Meadow Lake who has a semi-trailer and sometimes hauls grain great distances because he cannot sell it in The Meadow Lake with its poor transportation system, then 1 would agree with them. If small local contractors, who are farmers by definition, have semitrailers and haul grain for their neighbours and friends, they should be able to obtain the benefit of subsidization for helping their neighbours and for displaying business incentive to subsidize their farming incomes, because most farms in western Canada are in a shambles right now. In the case of small independent truckers, I could see it happening where it was absolutely necessary because of the terrible condition of the grain transportation system in western Canada, particularly in the constituency I represent. Grain companies through the co-ordination system cannot get the cars in there to move the grain. When they do, the rails are not in a good enough state of repair to get the fully loaded cars out.
All Hon. Members should realize that with a good and efficient rail transportation system there would be no need to truck grain any farther than the closest delivery point, which should be only a few miles away. Farmers should be able to haul their product to elevators when they need money and have the time to do so. This does not happen right now. Has it been in the best interest of producers for the rail transportation system to have deteriorated to its present condition, as we have seen over the years? I do not think we can buy the argument saying that it is in the best interests of producers.
If those conditions are not included in the Bill, what will happen to the grain Administrator who will be answerable to Cabinet and to the federal Liberal Government opposite? It will not be the people in Goodsoil who will benefit, those people who have to truck their grain right now. It will not be to the benefit of little independent truckers, whether they be full-time in the trucking business or part-time farmers/truck-ers. I maintain that it will benefit the larger trucking companies. Maybe Maislin will be out in Saskatchewan trucking grain pretty soon.


Thomas Gordon Towers: No thanks.


Douglas Keith Anguish: It seems to have ripped off enough from the federal Government. I hear a Member to my right saying, "No thanks". I agree with him. Maislin can stay the heck out of our Territory, tearing up our roads, ripping off and leeching off Canadian taxpayers. We do not want them leeching off prairie farmers as well.
There is a fairly large trucking company in The Meadow Lake which just sold out to Canadian Pacific Transport. The deal will become effective within the next month or so. It is good that that local businessman was able to develop his company and finally sell it when it was in his best interests to

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
do so. I admire his enterprising spirit, but I do not like to see Canadian Pacific Transport coming in to truck our grain. That is what it plans on doing. It knows this Bill will erode our transportation system. It knows that it will be on the milk line. The next thing we know Canadian Pacific Transport will be trucking grain from Saskatchewan to the ports.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting for one who understands what is going on in rural areas to note the contradiction in the New Democratic Party camp on this motion. Obviously the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) did not understand what was happening. It is important to look at the flexibility in trucking and the reality of what is happening in rural areas. There are areas where the lines have alreay been taken out and where there are major problems for farmers who find themselves several miles from elevators. It would be in the best interests of producers to have something in the Bill to give them an equal opportunity to get their grain to market as persons who happen to have their farms situated alongside a main line or large elevator.
There are two important matters to mention when we talk about this problem. First, we have the value of land and second, the impact of what will happen to land costs on someone who does not have an elevator within a few miles of his farm. We are living in a day when advancement is taking place. It would be ludicrous not to recognize that or the fact that there are some problems for producers out there. While no one wants to see rail lines taken out, farmers are faced with other problems at the present time. This is why the NDP motion is not in the best interests of producers. Returning to the subject of the price of land, I say that it is a very important aspect. If there is unequal opportunity to deliver grain and get it into the system, and if the cost is 30 cents or 40 cents higher for some farmers who happen to be miles away from the main line, major problems result. Anyone familiar with the Prairies knows that in Saskatchewan, an elevator was put in every nine miles on the line. That may be the case in Alberta and Manitoba as well.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Six miles.


Leonard J. Gustafson: One Member says that in some places it is every six miles. At many of those points the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the elevator companies have removed the elevators.
A problem exists on the basis of the system we now have where, without any further deterioration, trucks could become of very vital interest to the primary producer. For any prairie Member to speak against truckers having the right to operate in a way that is in the best interest of the primary producer is unthinkable. I support the amendment as it now stands. Subclause 17(4) now reads:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreements to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
It is clear that it is to protect the producer.
There are several examples in my riding of producers who are many miles from an elevator. If the Administrator brought forward a program to enhance the position of producers, I would support it. That is what the Bill does in Clause 17. The amendment would disregard subclause 17(4), taking that advantage away from the producer.
With regard to the cost of land, there is a vast difference between parcels of land which are close to the main lines and those more removed. The trucking industry would strengthen the position of those farmers, reinforcing their investment as opposed to depleting their assets.
It is certainly more fair to have subclause 17(4). If the clause were removed, there would be no way of dealing with the problem. While none of us like to see the abandonment of rail lines, there is no way that it is practical to run a line for 20 or 30 miles. Obviously the best approach is trucking.
The NDP says this will wreck the roads. We live in an advanced age. There are 18-wheel trucks, and these should be used in the best interests of the grain producers and other industries. To say that we cannot build roads to handle these trucks is not correct. There are trucks that are not hard on these roads. That argument has never sat right with me. The truck that is hardest on a rural road is a one-tone truck with a 750 tire carrying 100 bushels of grain. It plunges right into the pavement. A tandem truck with four 1,000 by 20 inch tires rolls over the road. It is not hard on the road. That is just an argument that the NDP use-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not your small farmer.


Leonard J. Gustafson: The small farmer can hire a large truck if necessary. It would be cheaper. In addition, it would allow the Government to pay for bringing in the grain. It restricts the small producer, in fact the whole agriculture industry, to have this kind of amendment which stifles growth and stands in the way of progress.
I want to make it abundantly clear that we do not stand for, nor do we like to see, the removal of any rail line, but there are areas now where the farmers are in a serious situation beause of distance. This type of clause will enhance and strengthen their position.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the debate on the amendments to Bill C-155 has been a series of wonderful opportunities to point out the difference between the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party when it comes to things western Canadian. If we are honest in our beliefs about the way the western economy, and in this case the western transportation system, ought to be organized, we should be glad for this opportunity to make clear the differences which exist between us on these issues. This amendment, like the one I had the opportunity to speak to having to do with the role of the Canadian Wheat Board, is another example of how far apart we are from our Progressive Conservative colleagues, who in this case have joined with the Liberals to have a clause in the Bill which we are attempting to remove through our amendment.
October 11, 1983	_______________ COMMONS DEBATES
What are the differences? The differences have to do with our differing views of the marketplace and the way in which the marketplace can be expected to discipline the railways. If I understand the arguments of my Conservative colleagues correctly, they want greater flexibility and opportunity for trucking in the system and for more producer choices. They believe it is only in that way that the railways may be made to provide the services that they otherwise might not provide. We are saying we should not do it through the market but, rather, through a Government which is willing to stand up to the railways and make them do what they are chartered to do, that is to provide service, in this case to grain producers, in other cases to passengers or whatever it may be. Here we have two very different views. We should not use this opportunity to confuse or provoke each other, but to make clear what the differences are between us. The Progressive Conservative position is that the railways cannot be disciplined by Government. They believe that the railways cannot be made to do what they are chartered to do by the Government and that only an increased use of the marketplace as a disciplining force will make the railways provide that service. There exists on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party what 1 would call the politics of despair or the politics of capitulation. Conservative Members are saying that they have given up on the idea of ever having a Government that could bring the railways into line and make the railways do what they are chartered to do and what they are subsidized to do and ought to be required to do. Members of the Progressive Conservative Party have basically said that that will never happen.
I can understand this attitude, having watched the Liberal Government do nothing for so many years to make the railways do what they should do. I can understand that kind of despair but I cannot understand why, in the final analysis, anyone would give in to that despair. Surely we ought to be able to imagine a situation in which the Government would stand up to the railways and make them do what they are supposed to do. That is the hope that we in this Party are not willing to give up. We are not willing to give up on the idea of a transportation system, in this case the railways, that could actually fulfil its obligations to the Canadian people.
Second, we are very cynical indeed about whether or not the marketplace will actually do what our friends on the right claim it will do. Will giving producers more choices about whether or not they transport grain by truck or rail in fact bring the railways into line or will the railways, because they have so much power in any case, simply adapt themselves to that reality and go into the trucking business so that they can pass on even more of the costs to the people through the municipal Governments and provincial Governments?
The marketplace does not work in the naive, simplistic and innocent way that my friends on the right would have us believe when they speak about how wonderful it would be if we increased producer choices and if we allowed a greater role for trucking. It simply does not work that way, but they believe that it does. They believe that it does and we believe that it
Western Grain Transportation Act does not. There is a very clear distinction between the position taken by the two Parties on this particular issue.
I shall now address myself to an irony which has been pointed out on a number of occasions. I do admit that an irony exists in that we appear to be defending the role of the railways. We appear to be defending the monopoly that the railways have over the transportation of grain. However, I point out now, as I did just a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, that we are not so much defending the railways as they exist now and as they have performed up to date; rather, we are defending the hope that some day we will have an integrated rail transportation system in the country that will provide the services that the railways were chartered to provide and that will act in the best interests of the Canadian people and economy. I admit that that is not the kind of railway system that we have always had, and indeed that we have at the present time. However, we do not want to give up on the idea of one day having that kind of transportation system.
Liberal Government Members and Progressive Conservative Opposition Members have together given up on ever having that kind of railway system in the country. Together, they have surrendered the fate of western Canada and the economic institutions, which have been built up over the years in that part of the country, to the marketplace through these kinds of amendments. That will be the long-term consequence of the Bill that we have before us. We cannot prove that; we can only make good arguments which thinking people will take seriously. They are quite right, Mr. Speaker, in saying that we cannot prove it. However, we do make such predictions. We ask that all people who may be listening to this debate or who until now have not paid much attention to the debate on changes to the Crow rate take the arguments that we are making seriously and see what is going on between the Liberals and the Conservatives. We ask them to write the Government and let the Government know that they do not like what is going on and that they think that Members of the NDP are doing the country a favour by trying to point out at every opportunity the cosy deals that are being made between the Liberals and the Conservatives, amendment by amendment.
We hope that the Government will yet see the wisdom of the criticisms we are making and change the Bill. Indeed, we hope that the Government would withdraw it altogether and split it up so that we can go ahead with railway upgrading and the coal question but leave the question of changes to the Crow rate to a much later date; perhaps about 100 years from now.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a Member of the Manitoba Legislature for four years. I remember that at that time, as is still the case, one of the very largest items of expenditure for any provincial Government was the building and maintenance of highways. It was a large expenditure when I was a Member of the Legislature some 25 years ago and it is still a big item today. In fact, road maintenance uses a bigger percentage of a provincial budget now than it ever did before, Mr. Speaker.

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
Every Province in the country is now operating with a deficit. Yet we have here a proposal to increase-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Saskatchewan wasn't until the Tories got in.


David Orlikow: My colleague says that Saskatchewan did not have a deficit until the Tories got in. Well, that is a fact but perhaps this is not the time to discuss that.
We have here a proposal made by the Government which inevitably will mean that more and more grain will be shipped by truck rather than by rail. It seems pretty obvious to me that that means that the farmers may have a short-term gain but they will have long-term pain.
The occupation of a farmer, Mr. Speaker, is to produce grain. They are also citizens of the Provinces in which they live and, as citizens, they have to help meet the cost of operating the Province. One of the biggest items in the cost of operating a Province is the construction and maintenance of highways.
We heard the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) a few moments ago tell us that the new 18-wheel trucks do not affect the highways. I am not an expert on highways but I will put on the record some of the views that are held on that question by people who are experts. I believe that the Hon. Member for Assiniboia is wrong, but let us assume for a moment that the larger trucks that are carrying heavier and heavier loads of grain will not have an adverse effect on the main highways such as the Trans-Canada Highway and others.
I am not now speaking about the Province of Saskatchewan which has more roads than any other Province in the country.
1 am speaking about my own Province of Manitoba. Half of the geographic area of my constituency is farm country. This area is served by provincial trunk highways and local roads. Those roads are not covered in concrete or asphalt and if they are, it is a very thin coating at most. Many of those roads are still covered with gravel or oil. I would ask Hon. Members to give some thought to-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Maybe you didn't do such a good job.


David Orlikow: I did not hear the Hon. Member's interjection but I do not suppose it is of very much consequence.
I would ask Hon. Members to give some thought to what will happen in two, three, four or five years if heavy trucks carrying tonnes of grain travel on those roads. Those roads will disappear. They will need major repairs if not complete rebuilding. Who will pay for that, Mr. Speaker? It will be the city worker and the farmer who saved a little money at the beginning because he could truck his grain. He will now have to pay for the major reconstruction of those roads which he has used. Again I say, Mr. Speaker, that what we are looking at is possible short-term gain and certain long-term gain.
Let me deal with the argument presented by the Hon. Member for Assiniboia to the effect that trucks do not harm the highways. I should like to quote a couple of paragraphs
from a paper delivered to a Minneapolis conference on agricultural transportation in November, 1981, by Jerry E. Fruin, an associate professor of agricultural and applied economics, at the University of Minnesota. In its physical characteristics, Minnesota is very much like my part of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. There are lots of people spread out thinly and lots of access roads to main highways. In that paper Prof. Fruin said:
The stress exerted on highway pavement increases as the fourth power of the axle load. When axle weight increases from 18,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds, stress from that axle increases by roughly 50 percent. An 80,000-pound truck weighs 20 times as much as an automobile, but its combined axles cause 9,600 times as much stress on the payment and roadbed.
A U.S. Department of Transportation study concluded that a 10 percent increase in maximum truck weight would decrease fuel consumption by 0.37 percent, but this might be offset by accelerated highway deterioration. If pavement deterioration continues to exceed repavement efforts at current rates, vehicle fuel efficiency in 1985 could decrease by 2.4 per cent. Fuel consumption at 40 miles per hour over badly patched asphalt increases 34 percent over fuel consumption on high quality pavement. Poor road surface increases energy consumption for all vehicles, not just trucks.
There is no question but that the roads will deteriorate. It will cost money to rebuild those roads and, as the professor indicates, eventually it will mean increased fuel consumption.
Who will benefit by encouraging the transportation of grain by truck? Oddly enough, the beneficiaries will be the railways. Both CN and CP are actively involved in the trucking business. CN recently consolidated the 3,000 pieces of highway equipment from its 13 trucking companies into a single entity to form its nation-wide Route Canada Trucking Service, now the largest trucking company in the country.
Canadian Pacific Express and Transport Limited is stationed in 194 locations across Canada and the eastern United States. These subsidiaries operate about 1,000 trucks, 3,000 highway trailers, 400 city trailers, 500 city tractors and 500 highway tractors. It is not difficult to imagine that both companies will be actively engaged in trucking grain from branch lines to centralized delivery points on their own rail lines.
This circumstance casts an interesting sidelight on the total concept of competition as between the CP and CN vertically integrated ownership trucking companies and independent truckers who have been gearing up to get part of the action. The problem is that in this country we have never really thought of integrating all modes of transportation. A few years ago I was in Germany and met with the equivalent of the Deputy Minister of Transport. He told our Party that the bus companies had requested permission to operate at a higher speed limit on the autobahn, which is the equivalent of our throughways. He said that it would not be permitted because it would mean that the buses could compete with the railways for passenger service and the Government wanted to keep the railways operating and cost efficient, moving as many passengers as possible. On the morning that we left Bonn we saw the Minister and the Deputy Minister on the platform, waiting for a train. I wonder when was the last time that a minister or deputy minister of the Canadian Government travelled by train.
October 11, 1983

We have done everything possible to persuade people to travel by air. We have not thought of transportation as an integrated service where the railways, buses, airlines or the private car could be used in the most efficient and economical way. We have looked at each mode separately, and that is why they are all in trouble.
This amendment would keep as many farmers as possible moving their grain by rail, and that is why I support it.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that an Hon. Member to my left from an Ontario riding might have stood up so that I could attack him on a few of the points that Party has brought out today. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) talks continually about small business, but collectively the NDP is abusing small businessmen through this amendment.
What we are talking about is the use of trucks as opposed to the railroad-that involves the independent, small businessman. Why is the Hon. Member from British Columbia not here saying the things that other Members of his Party have been saying today so that we can attack him?
Some Members of the NDP talk of the jobs created in Ontario by the production of trucks. The automobile industry is in critical shape, Mr. Speaker, but the truck industry is surviving. It seems that the NDP is determined to get rid of those jobs.
There is room for everyone to benefit in this large segment of the export economy in Canada. Over $7 billion worth of goods will be shipped out of this country next year; 50 per cent of the tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway come from grain transportation, and I understand that 50 per cent of the revenue of the Port of Vancouver comes from grain transportation. It is therefore important to the entire country. This clause would be a deterrent to the truck industry in Ontario, and 1 am sure that the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) would endorse what I am saying. He has not spoken on the motion, however, because he knows he would have to speak against it.
This Party believes in free enterprise, Mr. Speaker, and the trucker is an entrepreneur. He is the person we are trying to protect. We are also trying to protect the producer so that he can get his product to market most efficiently.
The railroads are being doubly subsidized through this Bill, in my opinion. They are another bureaucracy. The NDP agrees with the railroads because the Canadian National is a Crown corporation. They would love the CPR to become a Crown corporation-indeed, they want everything to become a Crown corporation. They are trying to nationalize everything, they do not want entrepreneurs or independent businessmen to succeed. That means they have an axe to grind. They believe in national ownership and we do not, because we have seen it fail. Canadair is a prime example of that. We want the entrepreneur to succeed. The NDP talks about the roads. I agree with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), that these new tractor trailers with their large tires can go over any roads, even in Ontario when the
Western Grain Transportation Act
half-load limit is on, and particularly around Oshawa where the automobile industry is important. They do not damage the roads the way the small trucks do, the half-ton, the one-ton, the three-ton and the five-ton. The single axles are the ones which cause the damage, and they do not cause the damage because they are that size but because the independent owner overloads them. Therefore, the argument that it is going to destroy the roads is not valid.
What the NDP wants us to do is to build hopper cars. How long does a hopper car last in comparison with a truck? We all know the answer because the Government never replaces hopper cars until they fall apart. So there is very little employment created by the replacement of hopper cars.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are talking about boxcars.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Boxcars then. I do not care what they are, boxcars or hopper cars. They are railroad cars. Trailers do wear out. They do not last as long. They have to be built with lighter material such as aluminum. Their replacement creates jobs, and that is what we are lacking in this country. The NDP is trying to remove the potential for more employment in its own Provinces. This is shocking to me. It is literally trying to get rid of employment in its own Provinces. One railroad engineer can drive the equivalent of 20 trucks. That is 20 times the number of direct jobs. Then there is the number of indirect jobs created in the production of the trucks.
I do not know how many Hon. Members have spoken on this Bill, but the one thing on which the Province of Ontario has been solidly behind our Party is that there must be equal sharing between the farmer and the railways. That has not been acknowledged by the Government. It wants it all to go to the railroads. It wants to protect its own bureaucracy and its own friends, such as Ian Sinclair. It will not allow a fair share to the producer. If the Government did that, the potential for the trucking industry would probably be even greater. The potential of secondary manufacturing of those products would be even greater. The livestock industry would also probably benefit from it. I cannot see one bit of benefit to this Bill by the amendment which is presented by the New Democratic Party. The Bill needs many changes, but this is one which is not required.
The NDP keeps saying we are in bed with the Liberals. It is the NDP which threw us out of power in 1979. It is the NDP which has endorsed the National Energy Program. So when we are told that we are in bed with the Liberals, I would say that things have been switched around and that that Party is trying to protect itself for the next election.
I thank the House for bearing with me in my few remarks on this motion. I hope I have a further chance to speak on other portions of this Bill.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 34,

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
wherein this Party is asking for the removal of Clause 17(4) which states:
The Administrator, on behalf of the Minister, may enter into agreement to provide for the movement of grain by motor vehicle transport where, in his opinion, such agreements would be in the best interests of the grain producers.
F believe it is only common sense that our request should be agreed to. We have seen a spectacle today which is hard to believe. On the opposite side of the House we saw the former Minister of Transport sitting there while the Conservatives stood up to support this legislation. Is that not something! To suggest that we should be looking to the trucking industry as an alternative way of transporting our grains is unbelievable. In April, the Government came forward with legislation requesting that moneys be made available for the transfer to other forms of energy, when one of the most efficient forms of energy is the rail transportation system. Transportation of our grain by rail is the ultimate method and we should not be looking at giving subsidies to trucking firms.
I can remember back in the 1950s when I was working for CP Rail in Revelstoke. One day all the officials came to town. They were worried about the trucks taking over. They had a theme at that time, "Ship by Rail". They were telling us all about how it would be. A list compiled by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool of rail lines under study by Transport Canada was printed in the Western Producer. This list was under study in order to do away with these branch lines. There are 20 of them under the CNR which are under study. There are another 19 under CP Rail. According to this article there are 817 miles of CN Rail which presently serves 8,001 producers which is being looked at. If this kind of legislation is allowed, these producers will be forced to look at alternative means, such as trucking. The Canadian Pacific has 19 rail lines which serve 1,145 miles which are being considered at this time. We know what takes place at these hearings. We know the railway jobs which are lost. We know the maintenance jobs which are lost.
There are 1733 producers who will be affected if trucking is considered. To put that amount of traffic on the highways is absolutely ludricrous. I have been to these hearings and heard discussions on rail line abandonments before. The argument which is put forward is that transportation is available now. The trucks can do it. CPR has so many trucks. CNR has so many. There is Smith Transport. They will name all their subsidiary groups. If it were the individual farmer who would get the benefits from this perhaps we could see some rationale. But for the Conservatives to stand up in this House and support that kind of legislation is exactly what it is doing in British Columbia. Conservatives and Liberals are joining together, forming what they call the Social Credit Party of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sidney James Parker: Sure they are. We know it. Everyone else knows it. And the Conservatives talk about us in the New Democratic Party. We heard the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) talk about how the NDP defeated this Government in 1979, all 32 Members. It was the people of Canada.
When are the Conservatives ever going to recognize the fact that the people of Canada would not accept the kind of legislation they would bring forward?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I would invite the Hon. Member to return to the amendment now before the House.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, it appears that some Hon. Members in the House can refer to what takes place, but others cannot.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I am sure the Hon. Member is not imputing discrimination on the part of the Chair. I must admit that it is sometimes difficult for the Chair to follow the logic of the arguments of Hon. Members. However, in this case I must say that there was a clear-cut departure from the amendment now before the House. I invite the Hon. Member to address his remarks to that amendment.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, what I said was not with reference to the Chair, it was with regard to prior speakers.
I say it is imperative that we take a serious look at what is happening. If we are indeed looking at abandonment of some lines, then the railways should be told, "You will pay the producer's cost to carry his grain to the main line". Then we would be doing something constructive instead of using taxpayers' money to pay the railways which are not living up to their obligations. I urge the Conservatives to look at that theory rather than get in bed with the Liberal Government and its theory of subsidizing the trucking companies, which in fact will be the railways companies, whether it be CN, what they call a Crown corporation although certainly not what I call a Crown corporation, or CP rail.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Nationalize them.


Sidney James Parker: There are other ways of doing this without paying subsidies for trucking. To look at the idea of trucks hauling grain is like trying to fill a wheelbarrow with a spoon.
It is only common sense to have a transportation system which collects the grain, brings it to the main line, and helps the communities to survive through the use of country elevators and so on. If we allow this amendment, then we are opening the door for the railways to abandon more branch lines. We cannot allow that to happen. We in this Party recognize the ramifications of this legislation and we want to ensure that this does not happen.
I want to get back to the subject of energy costs, Mr. Speaker. Surely to goodness if we are in the midst of conserving our energy, we would not be looking at this kind of system of gathering grain and shipping it to the railhead or ports. It does not make sense. On one hand you give grants to conserve energy, on the other hand you give grants to the trucking industry which will use more energy. Every railroader knows the significance of branch lines and the importance of jobs in those communities on the rail system. For us to even consider
October 11, 1983

using the trucking system to carry grain to the railhead or port is ridiculous. I am very pleased to say that our Party is opposed to that and I am in full agreement with it.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Motion No. 34, which attempts to negate a Conservative and Liberal amendment concerning the use of trucking to haul grain, we think this should be done because the amendment does not specify that such trucking arrangements should take place only where the CTC has approved an abandonment. It would allow trucking to be used by the railway or elevator companies to drain off business from existing branch lines in an effort to set up a line for abandonment. It would drain away business from the line to the point where they could then apply to have the whole thing abandoned.
We are opposed not because we are opposed to the use of trucks. They are vital to every bushel of grain moved off the Prairies. It is an integrated system where trucks take grain from the combines and the farms to the elevator for loading on to rail cars. That is not at issue, although I will go into it a little later in my remarks. What is at issue is the economic fact that once you allow trucking from existing branch lines on an ad hoc basis at the initiative of a trucking or elevator company, you are setting yourself up for complete domination by both railway companies. They do not involve themselves in trucking except in areas where they get a firm high volume business. That is what we are doing with this kind of amendment. Previous speakers from my Party have pointed out that CPR has already taken over some of the largest private trucking firms in Saskatchewan in anticipation of this kind of amendment being part of the Bill. It does not give us a competitive situation; it leaves us more in the hands of the railway corporate decision-making than is the case now with a proliferation of small trucking firms.
1 cannot let go unchallenged some of the remarks made in the House today, Mr. Speaker, particularly by some Conservative Members who indicated they thought the NDP was not supportive of the trucking industry or small business. I think the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) pointed out the basic problem. He said they had started from a different space than the NDP. Indeed they have. He went on to say they find some good in this Bill. We find very little good in this Bill. He says their job is to amend it, to make it an even better Bill. We say the Bill is so bad there is not much we can do except stop the Bill. We will use whatever legitimate legislative means we have to slow the process and give the public an opportunity to put pressure on the Conservative and Liberal Parties to see the error of their ways.
I think the fact that the main points of the argument for having these proposed changes, which were put forward by the Government in the form of major amendments to the Bill, were all ruled out of order indicates we should be going back to square one and starting with a new Bill based on some of the information we heard from farmers and businessmen, the residents of rural areas on the Prairies where the committee
Western Grain Transportation Act
travelled in order to find out what they thought of this Bill. We had a very good back-to-back presentation given on the effects of railways and trucks on these communities presented to us by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) and the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). If I may paraphrase Peter Ustinov, they found themselves of two minds on the issue, one more or less in disagreement with the other.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West cited a town in his riding which had its rail line abandoned. He made it very clear that a grain town like that almost does not exist without a rail line. He pointed out that the village had now applied to be disbanded because there are no railway tracks and no more function for the village. The Hon. Member for Provencher pointed out, perhaps rightly, that you do not need a railway to have a town. He cited the fact that the town where he was born never had a railway and still exists. I think he went on to reach some conclusions based on that, and he went beyond that to reach the point where I was almost convinced by the argument of the Hon. Member for Provencher that if people wanted to fish hard enough, they could set up a fishing village on top of a mountain and somehow it would succeed. That kind of faith, I think, is the other side of the argument that we have been hearing from Hon. Members beside us.
With regard to trucks as an alternative to rail service, I do not think anyone, even my hon. friends to my right, seriously feels that it would be a true alternative to rail service. Although they did not make it very clear, I am sure they are not foolish enough to think that trucks could transport our export grain. Anyone who thinks that this is possible should just stop for a moment to think of the massive movement that would be required. It takes three or four large trucking rigs to fill one hopper car. There are 110 hopper cars per trainload, which means that it would be necessary to have 350 to 450 trucks moving from somewhere on the Prairies out to port in British Columbia or Thunder Bay just to move the equivalent of one trainload. I do not think anyone should really be arguing that trucks will provide serious competition for the railways, but I heard Hon. Members attempting to make that argument.
The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), who just spoke, pointed out the great benefits of using trucks to move grain over rail. He said it had so many advantages and created so many more jobs as, indeed, it probably would. He said that the equipment wears out far faster so that one is always employing people, rebuilding the trucks and the trailers they are using, and is that not fine? Perhaps it is, except that we must be able to move the grain at a price that will put it in competition in world markets. Spending that kind of money will not do it. The Hon. Member for Ontario probably could have gone even further with his argument, if he was only going to take an employment argument, and pointed out all the advantages that could be gained by packsacking it to the coast. It would have produced far more jobs making shoes and
27926

October 11, 1983
Western Grain Transportation Act
packsacks than is even the case with trucks. However, he did not go that far.
I think that the trucking argument has been carried to this ultimate, ridiculous point, and we should not be fooled into thinking that trucks have any place in forming real competition for rails in the transportation system. As I pointed out earlier, trucks do have a place in the movement from farm to rail and should continue to be used that way.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That's the point.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: "That is the point", the Hon. Member says. However, it has nothing to do with the amendment that we have before us.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Sure it has.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It has none, because there is nothing in the Act or any of the testimony we have heard from the witnesses concerning the provision of any funds for those kinds of trucking operations. The only kind of trucking operation that is being discussed here under the Administrator is the kind that would move grain from one elevator to another. It would be transshipping, an unecessary kind of trucking, because the grain must be trucked, initially, from the farm to the elevator in any case. Why not send it to the elevator where it will end up being transshipped on to an elevator instead of having a second unnecessary stop in the interval? Motion No. 35 which we have proposed will deal with this, and we will get to that next.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I could not let the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) continue with his misleading statements, trying to alarm people out on the western Prairies unduly by saying that the rail will be stripped up between Calgary and Vancouver, because that is what he was saying.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Who said that?


Blaine Allen Thacker: He was saying-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I did not. I pointed out that it did not have place in competition.


Blaine Allen Thacker: -that for a 120-car or 120-car trip to Vancouver, there would have to be over 300 trucks, implying that that is what the motion means. It is sheer nonsense.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: We are just extending Tory logic. It is sheer nonsense.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The Hon. Member has now admitted that his speech was sheer nonsense and that he was trying to waste time.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Your argument was.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That is the only thing he has said in the last six months with which I agree, that he speaks nonsense most of the time.
On the one hand the Hon. Member was saying that we were going to use trucks but, on the other hand, that we need to have trains. He wants to protect the monopoly of the CPR to haul grain to the West Coat. Clearly, from those central collection points, that is exactly what will happen because one cannot beat steel on those long hauls. However, what we are discussing, and what Clause 17(3) and the amendment that was accepted deal with, is the branch line collection system. Even under the Crow rate, half of those villages mentioned by the Hon. Member were disappearing in any event. My own home village was going, under the Crow, because things have happened which the New Democratic Party just does not appreciate. Trucks have come on the scene. We have better tractors and other machinery. We have good highways now. People like to go to larger centres. We are now becoming an urban society rather than a rural society. The dinosaurs in the NDP are trying to maintain a system that was designed for the horse and buggy, where there was an elevator every nine miles. Now the efficient collection points should be every 30 or 40 miles.
The one thing the Hon. Member did mention that was correct concerned the international marketplace. If we maintain railways on these branch collection systems, we will not be able to put a bushel of grain at tidewater to compete with the Americans, the Australians or the Argentinians, because they are going to these collection centres. The idea is to get one's grain to a centre like that in the most efficient way possible. Sometimes it will be by railways, if one happens to be in a part of a country that can justify the cost of a railway. In other places, it will be by trucks to haul into a central location. We could then have 110-car spots or 52-car spots that could be loaded, the grain could be cleaned there, it could go to the West Coast and be dumped strictly on to a ship, and those cars could be back in seven days. That is what is being done in the United States. There one can put a bushel of grain at tidewater far cheaper than we can. Interestingly enough, the railway can give the farmer a saving, a rate that is 14 cents cheaper per bushel, of which the farmer can keep 8 cents, because it only costs him 6 cents to send it with his truck. What an amazing thing is that, 8 cents in the farmer's pocket! He could go out and buy cars and trucks that are produced by our fellow Canadians. However, the NDP wants it to go to the railway because, for some reason, it wants the shareholders of the CPR to get richer. We know what it really wants with regard to its long-term strategy. It ultimately wants to have the railways so powerful that they can be nationalized. Members of the NDP think that they will be in Cabinet and make decisions to force the railway to do this and do that. Of course, as the Liberals have found out when they tried to do that to the energy industry, $14 billion left the country. Half of the unemployed people could be working today if it were not for the National Energy Program and the concentration of power. So, Members of the NDP can ruin the country. They will keep the Liberals
October 11, 1983

in. They will keep concentrating power. Money will keep flowing out of the country. Here, even though we are only 24 million people sitting on the resources of a whole half a continent, we will all be on the dole. We will be lining up in food stores, because they are destroying agriculture, too. Just like in Poland, which once exported food, we will be standing in line. Just like in Russia, which once exported grain, we will be standing in line to get our food. That is the combination of the NDP keeping the Liberals in power.
May I call it six o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House one day after taking my seat and questioned the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) on the serious unemployment crises in Canada today. I asked the Minister what plans the Government has to bring about a long term solution to the unemployment problem. The Minister could not answer the question. All he could do was rattle off all of the meaningless programs the Liberal Government has devised as short term relief. The Government opposite does not have any long term solutions and the Canadian people know that.
The unemployment issue was a priority issue during the byelection when I was recently elected to represent the people of Mission-Port Moody. At every meeting I attended during the campaign the plight of the jobless was the primary topic of discussion. Almost every voter I met wanted to know what hope there was for the hundreds of thousands of unemployed in our country.
Unemployment touches nearly every voter in my riding and in this country. Canadians are truly suffering. There are more than 14,000 people registered to receive unemployment insurance in my riding alone. That number does not include the hundreds of people in the Mission-Port Moody area who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits or those who have just given up looking for jobs.
We in this House cannot just sit back and receive our regular paycheques without doing something significant to help those thousands of Canadians who are really struggling to feed their families. I was not elected to the House to just sit here and listen to Members opposite blame everyone except themselves for the serious economic problems we have in this
Adjournment Debate
country. The people in my riding and, indeed, people right across Canada want to see positive change and positive results.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration can stand up a thousand times in the House and recite the same old lines about the programs the Liberal regime has instituted to redistribute our tax dollars. He can talk about the Canada Community Development Program, the Canada Works Program or the Special Response Program. He can talk about NEED, LEAD and all those other so-called job creation schemes the Government has devised to mask the real severity of unemployment in Canada. These, however, are all band-aid programs. They are nothing more than patchwork spending schemes to cover up the Government's mismanagement. They are all short-term programs riddled with bureaucracy and red tape. They are not long-term solutions to the serious structural problems plaguing our economy.
Workers in Mission-Port Moody do not want short-term jobs just so that they can requalify for unemployment insurance benefits. Men and women in my riding, as in all of Canada, want real jobs. They want long-term employment and career opportunities. They want to use their talents to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities that the climate and natural resources of this country and our Province have to offer.
The people of Canada have had enough of this tired, arrogant regime seated opposite. They have had enough of the smoke and mirrors of the Liberal game playing. Canadians have seen the Liberal wrecking crew at work, destroying our economy. They have seen the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) turn his back on ordinary Canadians and have witnessed rude gestures in western Canada.
The byelections in Mission-Port Moody and Central Nova have demonstrated what Canadians want to see. They want to see this incompetent Government out. The voters demonstrated their feelings in Mission-Port Moody on August 29 when the Liberal candidate received less than 5 per cent of the vote. That was a message. Feelings of Canadians right across the country were reflected in the results of that byelection. Canadians are awaiting the chance to throw these wreckers out of office and elect a government that will restore confidence in our country and put Canadians back to work. The Government opposite does not have the answers.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) to reply to the question put by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) concerning the measures taken by the federal Government, and more specifically by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, regarding the creation of long-term jobs for Canadians. The Member for Mission-Port Moody will be glad to know that for a number of years, the Commission has

October 11, 1983
Adjournment Debate
been providing Canadians with various long-term job creation programs. The Local Employment Assistance Program, for instance, has helped many jobless Canadians set up businesses that, after termination of Government financial assistance, continued to be so successful that they are still employing thousands of Canadians today. As the Minister said before in the House, the Government has redoubled its efforts this year to substantially increase funding for job creation, with special emphasis on long-term job creation projects. One of the strategies that will help us achieve this objective consists in increased involvement of the private sector in joint job creation efforts. When businesses realized that the NEED program could help them prepare for economic recovery through activities involving expansion, modernization and pre-production, they supported this program wholeheartedly, and participation in the program has increased. The success of NEED has been such that in many cases, when projects were terminated, short-term jobs were converted into permanent additional jobs.
The consolidation of direct job creation programs undertaken by the Department and effective as of September 12, 1983, places even greater emphasis on the private sector involvement already begun under the NEED program. The information kit on Canada Works, distributed to all Members by the Minister, makes it quite clear that private sector projects will be encouraged this coming winter. The Local Employment Assistance and Development Program (LEAD) provides fund for creating LEAD corporations, whose purpose is to promote the creation of new businesses or expand existing ones. The businesses and jobs created in this manner are set up in such a way that they can continue to operate after the Government financing period expires. The Job Corps program will be used to finance businesses, organizations, communities and individuals for periods of up to three years in order to create full-time jobs for individuals experiencing serious problems in finding a job. The Career-Access Program, through wage subsidies, enables employers to provide employment opportunities for those who have trouble finding employment. Here again, it is felt that many jobs may be continued after the initial financing period. As the Hon. Member can see, the Government has launched a number of projects and is redoubling its efforts to increase the number of long-term jobs. As the Minister himself has indicated, nearly $1.5 billion will be spent this year and next year on creating jobs for over 300,000 unemployed Canadians.


THE ADMINISTRATION-PERSONAL CORRESPONDENCE OF MINISTERS. (B) INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, all of us in the House are familiar with the phenomenon of the Government changing the order of the Treasury benches. We witnessed it particularly last summer when the former Minister of Transport became the new Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), when the Minister of the Environment became the Minister of Employment and
Immigration (Mr. Roberts) and when the Minister of Employment and Immigration became the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). We had a shuffling of chairs like that on the deck of The Titanic which has not made much of a difference, in terms of the policy of the Government. That particular practice raises a very important point regarding the security of information which ought to be at the disposal of Canadian citizens.
We in the House understand the practice that when a Minister is transferred from one portfolio to another we are not allowed to ask him questions about his previous responsibilities. We understand that, but 1 do not know if the Canadian public understands that very well. The corollary to it relates to the information he has built up over the years of his responsibility in the previous portfolio. For example, the former Minister of Transport built up a considerable dossier of file of information with people across Canada relative to his responsibilities in that portfolio. We understand that when he left that porfolio to go to his new one he was entitled to take all his personal correspondence with him, that which is labelled "personal".
That is why I very specifically asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last Friday the definition of "personal correspondence", because that becomes a very operative and critical definition if the rights of citizens are to be protected in relation to the retrieval of information about themselves. The freedom of access to information measure really becomes useless if we cannot retrieve information which that particular Act says we can have access to, because it was non-existent. Is it possible for a Minister of the Crown when leaving a particular responsibility to go to a new Department to take his so-called personal correspondence with him and shred it? Can he shred information that might relate to the rights and privileges of private citizens all across Canada? My question to the Prime Minister very simply dealt with that.
I would like to add corollaries to that. Hopefully one of the two Parliamentary Secretaries here can answer the particular question. What are the guidelines, if any, that have been established by the Prime Minister for his Cabinet Ministers defining personal correspondence? Correspondence between a Minister and private citizens on issues relating to his portfolio, is that considered personal correspondence? Can he take it with him when he leaves that responsibility making it unavailable to anyone else? Correspondence between a Minister and departmental officials regarding a submission by a private citizen, is that considered personal correspondence? Can you imagine the awesome nightmare of trying to help our constituents regarding their dealings with a Minister in his previous responsibility if all that information has been taken away and shredded? There is no such thing as retrieval of that information. Freedom of access to information really becomes a bizarre term if that access is no longer there because the information no longer exists.
October 11, 1983

I am not going to take my full seven minutes. I simply ask whether the Parliament Secretary is empowered to tell us now what the definition of personal correspondence is so that private citizens across Canada, or we on their behalf, can retrieve information that relates to their rights and privileges as citizens of Canada, rather than having that destroyed because of a very loose and broad definition of what really is, in the Minister's terms, "personal correspondence".


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the status of personal and interdepartmental correspondence of Ministers under the Access to Information Act has been queried. In response, I would like to make four points.
First, where the correspondence constitutes a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada, the Act does not apply to it. These confidences are described in Section 69 of the Act. The essence of the provisions in this section is that confidences in general are not subject to the legislation for 20 years. After that time, the legislation applies.
Second, where the correspondence reflects political and constituency issues, as opposed to departmental business, it is not subject to the Act. This is because such correspondence is not deemed to be under the control of a Government institution. Rather, this correspondence is considered to be part of the Minister's personal records and to be under the Minister's control.
Third, where the correspondence pertains to the operations or administration of a Government institution, it is considered to be under the control of the Government institution concerned and therefore subject to the legislation. As such, it is accessible under the Act unless it is a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada less than 20 years old, or it is protected from disclosure by an exemption provision in the Act?
Four, Section 19 of the Access to Information Act requires that personal information not be released under this Act. Personal information includes, among other information, the personal opinions or views of an individual and correspondence sent to a Government institution by an individual that is implicitly of a private or confidential nature and replies to such correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence.
In summary, correspondence which does not constitute a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada and which is not in the nature of a Minister's personal records is subject to the Access to Information Act. Correspondence subject to the Act is accessible unless it qualifies for an exemption.
Finally, Departments and agencies have received instructions on the status of ministerial records in relation to the Access to Information Act. The circular that was sent out by the Secretary to the Treasury Board to all Department heads is available and I have a copy for the Hon. Member if he would like to take a look at it.
Adjournment Debate


LABOUR CONDITIONS-UNEMPLOYMENT IN SASKATCHEWAN
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, I asked a question of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) in relation to the high unemployment rate in Saskatchewan. My question dealt with the fact that in the last year the number of people looking for work has gone up by 82 per cent, and also that the number of people on welfare has gone up by 46 per cent in the last two years. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that all of this has occurred since the election of the Conservative Government under the Premiership of Grant Devine in April, 1982.
1 think it is important that I put on the record some of these very important facts. As I said first, this is information I have received from the 11 Canada Manpower Centres in Saskatchewan and it shows that in the last year the number of people seeking work has gone up by 82 per cent. I will deal with the figures one by one, Mr. Speaker.
In Estevan, there has been a drop from 827 people looking for work to 584 people looking for work between August, 1982 and August, 1983. In La Ronge, there was an increase from 1,545 to 1,905. In Melfort, there was an increase from 1,061 to 1,221. In Moose Jaw, there was increase from 1,794 to 2,153. In North Battleford, there was an increase from 2,849 to 3,090. In Prince Albert, there was an increase from 2,465 to 4,148. That is an increase, by the way, of 68 per cent in one year in the number of people who are seeking work in Prince Albert. In Regina, there was an increase from 4,998 to 10,550 people looking for work, an increase in one year of 111 per cent. In Saskatoon, the figures went from 10,348 to 13,592, an increase of 31 per cent. In Swift Current, there was an increase from 726 to 847 people looking for work, an increase of 17 per cent. In Weyburn, 449 people were looking for work a year ago and now there are 358 people looking for work, a decrease of 20 per cent. In my hometown of Yorkton, a year ago there were 3,407 people looking for work. In August of this year, there were 5,878 people looking for work, an increase of 78 per cent, Mr. Speaker.
In the Province as a whole, there were 30,469 people registered as seeking employment as of August, 1982. In August, 1983, there were 55,316 people registered as seeking employment, an increase of 82 per cent across the Province of Saskatchewan. This has occurred in one year of Conservative Government in the Province of Saskatchewan. This shows, Mr. Speaker, that Tory times are indeed tough times for the Province of Saskatchewan.
There is an increase of 82 per cent in the number of people who are looking for work in Saskatchewan. 1 remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in eight out of ten Provinces in the last year, the unemployment rate has gone down. In Saskatchewan and Alberta, both Provinces with Conservative Governments, unemployment rates have gone up.
I would also draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the welfare situation. I have statistics here from the Department of Social Services' statistical bulletin for Saskatchewan and we find that the total beneficiaries of welfare in Saskatchewan in

October 11, 1983
Adjournment Debate
July, 1982 were 49,299. In July, 1983, there were 57,504 beneficiaries, an increase of 17 per cent.
Let us look at the Yorkton region, Mr. Speaker. A year ago the figure was 1,495 and this year it is 2,017, an increase of 35 per cent. Tory times are tough times for poor people.
Across the Province as a whole there has been an increase of 17 per cent. The Tories have been in power for a year and a half. If we go back to July 1981 we see that 39,494 people were on welfare, and now there are 57,504, an increase of 46 per cent. Since the Conservative Government took office in May, 1982 there has been an increase of 18 per cent in welfare, 19 per cent in the total case load and 51 per cent in the unemployed employable cases in Saskatchewan.
Tory times are tough times indeed. There have been 207 business bankruptcies in Saskatchewan thus far in 1983, compared to 184 in the same period in 1982. Since the Conservatives took office in May, 1982, there have been 388 business bankruptcies in Saskatchewan. Thus far in 1983 there have been 29 farm bankruptcies in the Province compared to 24 for all of 1982.
Although there were only 19,000 more employed people in Saskatchewan in August, 1983, than in August, 1982, there was no increase in employment of young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Statistics Canada reports that there were
33.000	more persons unemployed in August than in July, and
4.000	more than in August, 1982. Statistics Canada also reports that the unemployment rate for Saskatoon in August was 10 per cent.
I see that my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. Despite the insensitivity and the total betrayal of the Premier of Saskatchewan of the people of the Province, I have asked the federal Government to come up with special projects for the Province. The Minister or someone should meet with the Premier and try to hammer some sense into his head. We need special projects so the Province can be part of any recovery there might be in the country as a whole.
There is a lot of wealth and resources in Saskatchewan. It strikes me as ironic that Saskatchewan and Alberta are the only two Provinces where unemployment has increased in the last year. It has gone down in the rest of the country. It is a disgrace that unemployment has increased by 82 per cent in one year of Tory rule. I expect some action from the federal Government. I hope it does not hide behind the skirts of Grant Devine.


Jean-Guy Dubois: I am quite sure that the Hon. Member will send that speech out in the next Householder to his riding, and perhaps even to other ridings to show what is going on in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister, I am pleased to advise the member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and his fellow Members from Saskatchewan of the measures introduced by the federal Government to create jobs in that province. As the Minister stated previously in the House on October 7 of this year, there has been a considerable improvement in the employment picture across the country. The Government realizes that as a result of regional factors, some areas in Canada will not be able to benefit immediately from this fact, and that is why the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has recently consolidated its various job creation programs into four major programs. One of these, Canada Works, is primarily aimed at quickly creating temporary jobs at times when the economy is slack or the labour market is temporarily disturbed. It applies, for instance, to temporary or permanent shutdowns of plants or industries. Over $5.8 million was earmarked for Saskatchewan under this program to create new jobs during the current and coming financial year. If we add the programs now included under Canada Works, job creation projects will receive a total of $20.8 million during the current and coming financial year in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned previously in the House the need for further involvement of the private sector in our job creation projects. This strategy will help us meet our regional priorities. The Local Employment Assistance and Development program (LEAD) provides funding to create LEAD corporations, whose purpose is to promote the creation of new businesses or expansion of existing ones. This year and next year, $5.3 million will be spent in Saskatchewan under this program. The recent recession, coupled with rapidly changing technologies, has shown that many Canadians lack the experience, skills and training they need to meet the requirements of industry. The Career Access and Job Corps programs will assist them in this respect. Career Access will help employers provide employment opportunities by subsidizing wages for individuals who experience great difficulty in finding employment. The Job Corps will be used to finance businesses, organizations, communities and individuals who create full-time jobs for those experiencing serious problems in finding employment.
These programs are therefore aimed at developing basic skills that will help integrate these people in the labour market. Funding for Career Access has been set at $8.2 million, while $2.6 million has been earmarked for the Job Corps in Saskatchewan for 1983-84 and 1985-86.
Mr. Speaker, a total of $36.8 million will be spent on job creation in Saskatchewan during the current and coming year.
I am sure the Hon. Member will agree that by creating
October 11, 1983

thousands of jobs in Saskatchewan, these programs will help economic recovery in this area.	Adjournment Debate Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.	At 6.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, October 12, 1983