1974-04-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table three copies, in English and French, of the Economic Review dated April, 1974.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to request consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the continued use of government-owned aircraft by the Prime Minister for personal and political purposes at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. I ask leave of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the House requests the Prime Minister to discontinue immediately making any use whatsoever of government-owned aircraft for personal or political purposes, and further that the House requests the government to bill the Liberal Party of Canada for the political portion of transportation costs arising in the past few days from the Prime Minister's use of government-owned aircraft for a trip that included certain Liberal Party gatherings, including the annual meeting of the Ontario Liberal Party in Sudbury.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds will note that there is not unanimity; the motion cannot therefore be put.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent issue.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House hold a special debate to consider closely the ever increasing difficulties experienced by individuals aged 60 to 65 who would like to earn their living and that as a solution, this House suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare the immediate introduction of legislation to establish an annual minimum guaranteed income for persons from 60 to 65 years of age.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


GREY CUP TRUST AND AMATEUR SPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
April 25, 1974-Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond)-Bill intituled: "An Act to maintain the Grey Cup Trust and further to promote fitness and amateur sport in Canada".
Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated to the hon. member the other day, the Chair has some procedural reservations in relation to this bill. In the days ahead I should like the opportunity to have a closer look at the bill, perhaps have a conversation with the hon. member, and certainly give the hon. member eventually an opportunity to advise the Chair.
I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond will appreciate the difficulty with which I am confronted. The hon. member's bill is on the subject of a government bill which was presented to the House and has already received second reading. In a way, the hon. member is attempting to amend a bill to which second reading has already been given. Normally, an amendment to a bill which is before the House would be proposed by way of an amendment in committee or perhaps at the report stage or even on third reading, if that were possible. These are the difficulties with which the Chair is confronted. But I do not think the matter should be treated too lightly and I thought I should make these comments so
1820

April 29, 1974
Canadian Wheat Board Act
that the hon. member would realize the area of the procedural difficulties and be able to give the matter consideration in the days ahead so that eventually we might hear argument and then reach a decision on whether the bill should be proceeded with. For the time being the notice will stand.


TRUST COMPANIES AND LOAN COMPANIES ACTS
John Napier Turner: for leave to introduce Bill C-28, to authorize federal trust companies and loan companies to increase the monetary limit of their borrowing power and to issue subordinated notes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-29, to amend the Combines Investigation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was an address made by the Minister ol Agriculture to a public meeting in Abbotsford, British Columbia on Monday, November 26, 1973 reprinted at public expense and, if so, how many copies were printed and distributed?
2.	Where was this public meeting held and what organization or individuals sponsored this meeting?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes, an address was made by the Minister of Agriculture, at a public meeting in Abbotsford, British Columbia, on Monday, 26 November, 1973. There were 1,845 copies printed and distributed at public expense.
2.	The meeting was held at the Rancho Convention Hall, Abbotsford. It was advertised as a public meeting by the Agriculture Committee of Fraser Valley East Liberal Association. The public undeclared as to party was in attendance.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Agriculture on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Eugene Whelan: 1. (a)
1972-73, $1,736,200; (b) 1973-74 (as of February 28, 1974) $1,362,900.
2.	1972-73: (a) Tandy Advertising Limited, Toronto, Ontario; (b) $34,796.10; (c) To continue a national advertising program to encourage the safe and effective use of pesticides by the urban and farm publics, (a) Agravoice Productions Limited, Edmonton, Alberta; (b) $51,000; (c) To provide a communication extension service in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, to increase over-all public awareness of departmental policies and programs in the said provinces, (a) Mr. R. F. Gadsby, Victoria, B.C.; (b) $2,500; (c) Continuation of contract to provide additional information and public relations services to the department in British Columbia. 1973-74 (as of October 31, 1973); (a) Goodis, Goldberg, Soren Ltd., Don Mills, Ontario; (b) $4,890.96; (c) To conduct a test advertising program designed to indicate the need and effectiveness of a full-scale program to promote the proper use of pesticides. Remainder represents non-contractual expenditures.
3.	Nil.
April 29, 1974


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Agriculture since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Agriculture during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies has not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Goodis, Goldberg, Soren Limited, Don Mills, Ontario
2(a) This firm was selected because several of its principals had carried out the Department's Proper Use of Pesticides advertising program in the previous three years and had the expertise to conduct the evaluation required. The contract was awarded under departmental authority on May 25, 1973, and the total payment was $4,890.91 on completion of the project, (b) To conduct a test advertising program designed to indicate the need and effectiveness of a full-scale program to promote the proper use of pesticides.
3.	Tandy Advertising Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, and J. M. Eastman and Associates Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, carried out specific advertising programs which have been completed.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): On January 31, 1974, what was the price paid per bushel by consumers of feed grain for the following cereals (a) oats (b) barley (c) wheat in (i) Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba (ii) Ontario (iii) Quebec (iv) the Maritime provinces?


Eugene Whelan: The
Canadian Livestock Feed Board do not maintain records on the cost of feed grain to the consumer. The following information consists of the most meaningful prices available for the date requested which are the weighted average monitored prices at the feed mill level for a period which includes the date of January 31, 1974.
(i) Two week period ending February 1, 1974
(a)	(b)	(c)Oats	Barley	Wheat(dollars per bushel)	Alberta	1.44	2.41	3.56Saskatchewan	1.42	2.28	3.28Manitoba	1.38	2.30	3.83
Order Paper Questions
Two-week period ending February 8, 1974	(a)	(b)	(c)Oats	Barley	Wheat(dollars per bushel)	(ii)	Ontario	1-921	2.86	4.07)(iii)	Quebec	1.85J	2.87J	4.14(iv)	Maritim3s	1.93	2.87)	4.451
Notes
1.	The weighted average prices for Eastern Canada include transportation to the feed mill but do not take into consideration freight equalization payments.
2.	The average freight assistance payment per bushel in Eastern Canada for the crop year 1972-73 were:
(a)	(b)	(c)Oats	Barley	Wheat(cents per bushel)	Newfoundland	29	42	52Prince Edward Island	22	32	40Nova Scotia	16	33	29New Brunswick	21	30	38Quebec	12	16	20Ontario	7	10	13


Mr. Howie: What, if any, regulation prevents wholesale pharmaceutical houses from preparing and distributing a list or catalogue of drugs and drug products showing the price of each item for sale to drug stores and pharmacies?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There is no regulation established under the Food and Drug Act, preventing wholesale pharmaceutical houses from preparing price lists on drugs and distributing them to pharmacies.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	In the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74, how much money was contracted to each of the five regions of Canada by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What was this in per capita terms for each region?


Eugene Whelan: 1972-1973 (to Febuary 28, 1974)
1. Region	(in thousands of dollars)	
Atlantic	15,930	17,639Quebec	80,122	98,027Ontario	102,531	127,540Prairies	78,811	91,605British Columbia	13,360	16,303
April 29, 1974
Order Paper Questions
	1972-1973	1973-74 (to Febuary 28,
Region		(in dollars)
Atlantic	7.66	8.35Quebec	13.24	16.11Ontario	13.11	16.06Prairies	22.12	25.52British Columbia	5.95	7.05


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive application No. 3H 2351 entitled Service d'aide aux gens defavorises through LIP?
2.	On what date was the application rejected?
3.	For what reason was it rejected?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. October 12, 1973.
2.	December 31, 1973.
3.	The response to the program generated many worthwhile applications from which a difficult selection had to be made. After serious consideration, it was decided that other projects met more closely the needs of the community.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive application No. 3H 4354 entitled Bibliotheque de ce temps through LIP?
2.	On what date was the application rejected?
3.	For what reason was it rejected?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. October 17, 1973.
2.	January 21, 1974.
3.	The response to the program generated many worthwhile applications from which a difficult selection had to be made. After serious consideration, it was decided that other projects met more closely the needs of the community.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On what date did the government receive application No. 3H 2535 entitled Centre de vulgarisation ecologique through LIP?
2.	On what date was the application rejected?
3.	For what reason was it rejected?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. October 12, 1973.
2.	January 24, 1974.
3.	The response to the program generated many worthwhile applications from which a difficult selection had to be made. After serious consideration, it was decided that other projects met more closely the needs of the community.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 48 (a) at what exact address or location and on what specific dates did Mr. M. Dubuc of the Department of Public Works meet with, or talk with in any way to Mrs. Deborah Lawlor in connection with the negotiating of a lease on the Post Office at Lyndhurst, Ontario (b) what are the names and addresses of any and all other persons present on such occasions?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: (a)	Our files indicate that Mr. Dubuc first met Mrs. Lawlor on November 14, 1972, in the Lyndhurst premises. Mr. Dubuc recalls meeting her again on another date. He also communicated with her by letter and by telephone.
(b)	Present at the first meeting held on November 14, 1972, were Messrs. J. J. Scott and J. S. Hackett of the Post Office Department, Mrs. Deborah Lawlor, and Mr. M. Dubuc of the Department of Public Works.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	To which farm products will the $31,050,000 indicated at page 8 of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for 1973-74 be allocated?
2.	As of March 31, 1974, what will be the total amount spent by the Agricultural Stabilization Board?
3.	What was the amount allotted for each product?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Dairy Products.
2.	$143,497,247.90.
3.	Hogs, $34,057.25; Potatoes, $35,927.10; Egg Producer Aid Program, $24,193.50; Flowers, $70.05; Dairy Products, $143,400,000.00.


Mr. Nowlan: What are the details of the lease covering the Cambridge Post Office in Kings County, Nova Scotia (a) the names of the parties to the lease
(b)	the time period covered by the lease (c) the amount of remuneration paid (d) the date when the lease will be up for renewal?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: (a) The lessors are Kenneth C. Roscoe and Vere Brydon. The Nova Scotia Trust Company also signed the lease as mortgagee, (b) The term of the lease is five years commencing on June 1, 1972 and terminating on May 31, 1977.
(c)	The annual rental is $4,398.25 with monthly payments of $366.52. All services are supplied by the lessors who also carried out all fitting up at no additional cost to the Crown, (d) The department has the option to renew the lease for an additional five-year period on the same terms and conditions by giving written notice to the lessors three months prior to May 31, 1977, the date of expiry.


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1. Has the government received any representations from the public or postal employees regarding the condition of the land, particularly the parking lot, surrounding the post office at Binbrook, Ontario?
April 29, 1974

2. Are there any plans to up-grade the Binbrook Post Office and the lands surrounding it, in particular the parking lot and, if so, what are said plans?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: 1.
The Department has received one complaint, from a private citizen, about the parking lot of the Binbrook, Ontario, post office.
2. The post office, occupied the new building, Binbrook, Ontario, in March 1973, and no upgrading of the building is considered necessary. The parking lot was gravelled and graded in March 1974, bringing it up to satisfactory standards. The grounds are to be landscaped this year.


Mr. Orlikow: What was the number of public servants working in the National Capital Region in each year since 1970?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: the following table provides the number of employees of ministries of state, departments and departmental corporations reported as being employed in the Ottawa/Hull area as of September 30, in each of the noted years:
Year	Number of Employees
1970	57,591
1971	65,928
1972	70,293
1973	77,089


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many persons since September 1, 1973 to date, who allegedly illegally entered Canada, have applied to have their entry regularized?
2.	What is the estimated number of individuals in that category who have not applied for regularization?
3.	What was the total cost of press, radio and television advertising in connection therewith?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. During the status adjustment program which ran from August 15 to October 15, 1973, no distinction was made between illegal and legal entrants to Canada. In that period applications on behalf of 49,922 persons were registered for landed immigrant status.
2.	Since persons in the country illegally would not normally make their presence known to government sources, there is no way to estimate the number still in Canada who did not take advantage of the status adjustment program.
3.	$1,206,501.16.
Order Paper Questions



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



SHIP CONSTRUCTION SUPPLY PROGRAM AND SHIPBUILDING TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. Broadbent: 1.	What were the names of the corporations which received cash grants under the Ship Construction Subsidy Program (SCSP) in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date and what were the amounts of each grant?
2.	What were the names of the owners of ships and other vessels built under the program in each of these fiscal years?
3.	What were the names of foreign-based ship-owners who commissioned construction of ships and other vessels under SCSP or Shipbuilding Temporary Assistance Program, who benefitted from a federal export subsidy and what were the amounts of the export subsidy in each case in each of these fiscal years?
4.	What are the objectives of the Shipbuilding Temporary Assistance Program?
5.	What was the date of the latest evaluative study of the SCSP and STAP conducted by the Department?
Return tabled.



IMPORT PERMITS

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What was the name of each individual or company granted an import permit for the importation of livestock from Continental Europe between the introduction of import permits and September 1, 1969?
Return tabled.



OVERTIME PAID TO MINISTERIAL STAFF

Mr. Knight: 1.	What were the names of employees on the ministerial staff (including the Office of the Prime Minister) who in the fiscal year 1972-73, received overtime pay in excess of $1,000?
2.	What were the amounts of overtime paid each month in each case and what were the salary ranges of each of these employees?
Return tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer to question No. 626 which today has been on the order paper for one month.
1. What is the total amount expended to date or contracted for on the program entitled "Multi-Culturalism is sharing your heritage with other Canadians" ...

April 29, 1974
Oral Questions
2. What amount has been expended in the ethnic press to date?
It should not be difficult to answer those questions unless the department is either dormant or endeavouring to cover up.


Mr. Haidasz:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the department is not dormant; we are very active. Replies have been prepared and will be tabled on Wednesday next.


John George Diefenbaker: Why another week's delay?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order referring to unanswered order paper question No. 50 which dates back far into the last session of the House. The question asks for details of trips made at public expense by the Prime Minister since October 30, 1972, including the means of transportation, the amounts paid from public funds for expenditures involved and also on what occasions the itinerary included addressing or appearing at functions of the Liberal Party. Surely there can be no valid reason why the government has not answered this legitimate question up until this date. I ask the parliamentary secretary if he is now in a position to tell the House when this question will be answered and when the Canadian people will thus be made aware of the amount of public funds being used for these trips in a way which resembles a form of embezzlement of public funds for political purposes.


Mr. Reilly:: Mr. Speaker, I have on the order paper a couple of questions. One of them, No. 552, has been on the order paper for five weeks. It is not of your one and a half million dollar questions. It is in monosyllabic terms which even the parliamentary secretary ought to be able to comprehend and asks very simple questions that could be answered by picking up a device known as a telephone and communicating with me. Many of my constituents are affected by the answer which may or may not be forthcoming to this question. I am continuing to receive correspondence from these people who are concerned about the so-called personal history security form and the implications it may have for their futures in the Public Service. I suggest that the government does not need to clam up about this. It could have given the answer a long time ago.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Finance and bring home to him once again the deplorable situation of the average Canadian wage earner in that, although the average wage has increased by 8 per cent or $12.53 from February, 1973, to February, 1974, the consumer price index has risen by 9.6 per cent or $15.02, or a difference of $3.51. What is the minister's response to these recent indices indicating that average weekly wages con-

tinue to lag behind the rising cost of living? What response does the government have to deal with this situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my continuing concern about the situation the hon. gentleman has described in terms of the real income of Canadian workers. The response I might make might be more fully digested within the budget speech a week from today. I want to bring to the hon. member's attention that many of the yardsticks used in the statistical form purportedly showing a decrease in labour income do, in a sense, distort the situation in that they do not allow for the changed mix in the labour force, for the increase in hourly as against weekly wages, and for the decline in the average work week. This is a statistical matter which I should like to deal with in more general terms on another occasion.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the minister's concern will not help those who have been adversely affected by the failure of the government's anti-inflation policy. In view of the minister's repeated claim that Canadians are some
6.8	per cent better off now than they were a year ago, has he asked companies such as the Steel Company of Canada, Westinghouse and Dofasco, which have advanced cost of living adjustments in their labour contracts, why they have taken this action if everything is as fine as the minister continually states? Has he asked those companies why they have taken that action?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will the minister now acknowledge that during the period of time since his last budget the percentage increase in average weekly wages has in fact been less than the percentage increase in the consumer price index, or does the government not acknowledge truth based on its own published statistics?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the latest figures representing real disposable income of Canadians, that is to say, the income the average man or woman has to spend or to save or has in his or her pocket to dispose of by way of discretionary income. That shows that in real terms Canadian's incomes have increased by one-fifth over the past three years.


CRUDE OIL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE EXPORTS WILL NOT BE INCREASED AND WILL BE REDUCED IF REQUIRED TO MEET CANADIAN DEMAND
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of representations by the Independent Petroleum Producers Association to the National Energy Board urging that there be no further reductions in exports of crude oil and, in fact, that they should be increased. In view of the fact the final determination of
April 29, 1974

exports of crude oil lies with the federal government on the recommendation of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, can the Prime Minister assure the House this recommendation will not be accepted, that there will be no increase in exports of oil and that we will continue to reduce exports of oil where Canadian requirements make that desirable?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to look fully at the representations and discuss them with the minister before answering that question in the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the government has committed itself to meeting the petroleum requirements of eastern Canada from western crude and that we may be in a deficit position by 1980, will the Prime Minister inform the House whether the government is planning a phaseout of exports of oil and, if so, over what period of time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have been looking at such projections. When a policy has to be announced in that regard we will do so, probably in the House of Commons.


OIL-USE OF SURPLUS FUNDS FROM EXPORT TAX TO DEVELOP FUTURE SUPPLIES
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the known financial commitments for compensation on imports are now known to be in the neighbourhood of $925 million, assuming there are no participation costs, which could leave a surplus of some $500 million, can the Prime Minister assure the House that these additional funds will be used in the oil producing provinces to develop future oil supplies, particularly in the oil sands and heavy oil areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this subject was, of course, very much discussed at the meeting of the premiers and myself in March. We have in mind the earlier projections that the hon. member himself mentioned in his previous question. For that reason and for many others, including uncertainty as to the figures he has just quoted, we have reached an agreement with all ten provinces which has been made public, the effect of which is that the federal government keeps for itself the export tax to be used largely, perhaps even totally this year-we do not know-for the attainment of one price for oil for all Canada. If there is any surplus, we will make sure it is used in the best interest of all Canadians. It is certain some of that will be used in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.


SALE OF MONTREAL ALOUETTES FOOTBALL CLUB-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Oral Questions
In view of the fact that the sale of the Montreal Alouettes football team has just been announced and that its disappearance would destroy, in part, the principle of the bill studied last week, can the minister tell us whether he had been advised by the authorities of that member of the NFL of their intentions, and tell us what his attitude is towards this incident?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the part first of the question is no; as for the second part, transactions of that type are constantly occurring in the world of sport as well as in that of business, and I fail to see how this incident will change anything.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the minister has not understood my question's second preamble. The withdrawal of that football team would suppress one of the bill's fundamental principles, which is to promote Canadian unity. If we were to do as he says, there would not be any team further east than Toronto.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the hon. member's two questions. If I were to answer his preambles too, all I could say about them is that his preamble in this case does not make any sense.


POSSIBLE EXPORT OF OIL BY PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA-SUGGESTED AGREEMENT TO HELP CHINA PAY FOR CANADIAN WHEAT
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the People's Republic of China is now considering exporting oil, has the government considered arranging a long-term agreement with China to help the Chinese pay for Canadian wheat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did discuss this matter personally with Mao Tse-tung in Peking. They are not at this time anxious to talk about such an agreement. They hope they have a great potential but their actual production is substantially below even Canadian production. They already have some agreements with the Japanese government regarding exports to that country. The suggestion of the hon. member is one, I repeat, that we talked about, but I am afraid it would not have any immediate application. It is something we shall have to keep in mind if, as and when additional petroleum is discovered in the People's Republic of China. Of course, I did not fail to point out to them the excellence of our engineering capacity in looking for offshore oil-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I should wait for the supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In view of the fact the Chinese have just announced an agreement to purchase from the Americans highly technical equip-

April 29, 1974
Oral Questions
ment for offshore drilling and for deeper drilling in their present fields on the mainland, will the government not give priority to this matter, consider re-establishing contact with the People's Republic and see whether we can gain access to some of their oil and thus make their purchases of Canadian wheat a bit easier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is difficult to see how it would make the purchase of wheat easier if we were to sell them other things apart from wheat. If the hon. member is concerned about the long-term implications of the question, may I say I made it clear to the Chinese leaders that we are prepared to co-operate with them. May I remind the House that there is no need for us to re-establish contact with the Peking government. We have a good contact with it, much better than the Americans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF RESTRICTION OR PROHIBITION OF TELEVISING IN CANADA OF WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE AND NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE GAMES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister related to the question put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the government's interest in the Canadian Football League, is it the intention to restrict or prohibit the televising of World Football League games in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would have to refer this matter to the minister responsible for either the CBC or communications.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Passing the ball.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, if I can throw it forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, if the quarterback could get together with some of his boys in the scrum and decide just who is carrying the ball over there, perhaps he could direct this question to the appropriate minister who is looking after this matter. In order to be consistent with Bill C-22, is the government also contemplating any legislation to restrict or prohibit the televising of National Football League games in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter having been sent to the committee, I hope this type of amendment will be proposed by the hon. member and that he will be able to stand up for his views at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert and then the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time I have directed a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I should like to ask him to begin with whether he personally saw the publication put out by his department entitled "Canada's New Capital"? After he answers that, I will have some supplementary questions.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I answered that the other day and the answer was no.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this document put out by his department is one that contains a mass of incomprehensible falsehoods and constitutional evasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the minister, since when did Ottawa-Hull become the capital of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that question was asked on a number of occasions last week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are many more questions arising out of this that must be answered for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no objection, of course, to the right hon. gentleman asking a supplementary question, but the particular question just asked by the right hon. gentleman was asked in those very terms at least once last week. Perhaps the right hon. gentleman has a supplementary question to which the minister might want to reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I could not believe that the minister understood what he was talking about when he made the answers he did and that is the reason for the further questions. Does he accept the views contained therein, which are as follows:
Ottawa is the Capital of Canada. Right? Wrong
A little farther on it states:
To begin with, it's not just Ottawa any more. It's the National Capital Region. Think of Ottawa and neighboring Hull as a central core and seat of government-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has one supporter.

April 29, 1974

I ask the minister this question. Since when did this government assume the right to depart from the constitution? The British North America Act, section 16, deals with this.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I know that hon. gentlemen opposite are used to citing the Canada Year Book as a constitutional authority, but this is the first time the right hon. gentleman has referred to a 50-cent brochure as a legal or constitutional document.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The seat of government is set out in a section of the British North America Act.


John George Diefenbaker: To be sure.


Stanley Ronald Basford: However, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the premiers of this country unanimously agreed at a federal-provincial meeting relating to reform of institutions linked with federalism that the cities of Ottawa and Hull and their surrounding areas shall be the Canada capital area.


John George Diefenbaker: The Canada capital area, yes.


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is no conflict between the British North America Act and the resolution by the 11 heads of government of this country or the National Capital Commission.


Mr. Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: There is in that brochure.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Nowhere have I seen a 50-cent brochure referred to as a constitutional document. However, this document, written in a light and lively style-


An hon. Member:: And loose.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -does serve to show the immense amount of effort and work which have gone into making the cities of Ottawa and Hull and all the surrounding area a national capital area, a section of this country that I think all members of the House should be able to take pride in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to it as a constitutional document, I referred to it as an unconstitutional one. I would ask the minister this question. Does he accept the views contained therein, which are the antithesis of those he is trying to put over at the moment, of Ottawa-Hull being the central core and seat of government? Does he accept that? When was the amendment to the British North America Act brought in?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: They have never even heard of the constitution.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the minister to reply, but we should try to move on to the next question. The minister may reply.
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, normally I accept answers from ministers, but when they are false, such as the one that has just been given, I do not accept them.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the right hon. gentleman rising on a point of order?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Over and over again hon. members opposite howl down members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Or try to.


Mr. Muir:: Same old bunch.


Mr. Sharp:: Same old Dief.


John George Diefenbaker: The people of Canada have the right to have the constitution maintained despite the fact we have a government that has done everything to destroy the great principles of that constitution and to evade it. In view of the fallacy of this monstrosity, will the minister have it withdrawn and, indeed, have the individuals responsible for publishing it pay the actual publication account?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might want to speak to the question of privilege and also answer the supplementary question, after which I will try again to move on to the next question if we are going to have more than two or three questions during the question period.


John George Diefenbaker: You are doing everything to destroy the whole constitution.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the point of privilege is, and I am not sure whether you are having the same difficulty, but I have referred to the fact that this document, of course, is not a constitutional document.


John George Diefenbaker: No, it is a falsehood.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It does not change anything relating to the constitution of this country or the institutions of federalism. I have said that the wording was unfortunate, and I meant that-


John George Diefenbaker: The wording is unfortunate; then withdraw it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -only in the sense that it was wording that would have the effect we have just seen on the right hon. gentleman and a few of his colleagues.


An hon. Member:: And the people of Canada, too.

April 29, 1974
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we cannot resolve the matter at this time. I refer hon. members to the exchanges that took place last week when similar questions were asked and similar answers were given. At this point the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have what I think is my fiftieth question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Following the revelation that the cost of an average home in the Toronto area went up by another $3,000 last month, is the minister going to introduce a measure in the House soon that will have the effect of modifying the assisted home ownership program or providing an entirely new program in order that average and low income people in urban areas in Canada will once again be in a position to buy a house they can afford?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the hon. member that for 1974 we have doubled the budget of the assisted home ownership program to $300 million, and I would anticipate that this expenditure will allow us to respond more effectively to the concerns the hon. member has expressed.


John Edward Broadbent: As the minister's answer in no way affects the possibility of average or low income people using the program to which he referred in urban areas, I would like to ask the minister more specifically whether he plans to copy the Americans who have an interest rate program which begins at one per cent with a ceiling of eight per cent for average and low income people who want to buy a house? They have mandatory regulations to ensure that financial institutions put up money at this interest rate. Would the minister consider consulting his American colleagues to see what might be done?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am always happy to consult them but I hope the hon. member is not urging that we import the American housing situation into Canada because it is far inferior to that in this country.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the recent wage negotiations that have been going on in the Public Service and in the private sector, is it the view of the government that wage earners are taking too great a share of the national income? Would the Prime Minister clarify the position of his government in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I stated exactly the contrary in my speech in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Perhaps I could send the hon. member a copy of that speech.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether it is his view that, having regard to the present conditions of rampant inflation, the average wage earner in Canada is in a position to protect himself adequately in this environment which the government has created?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He can adequately protect himself with the measures of various kinds which we have brought in. The answer is, of course, that inflation is still a problem for many people in Canada and that is why we intend to keep the House around for many months yet in order to pass legislation which will alleviate the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSSIBILITY OF DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY UNDER PROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION BECAUSE OF COMMODITY PRICES
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In light of what the Prime Minister has just said, has the government in contemplation the declaration of an emergency when this legislation is passed regarding any commodities to be made the subject of immediate action because of the very high prices they have reached? Has the government any such commodities in contemplation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am glad that my hon. friend has confirmed the necessity and utility of this parliament continuing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Has the minister any idea if there are commodities to which this bill should apply upon declaration of an emergency and, if so, would he please indicate to the House if it is the intention to so declare?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It would be hypothetical for me to talk about these things in the way my hon. friend has invited me to until the bill receives the approval of parliament.
April 29, 1974


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of recent statements made by the minister that grain farmers are receiving a little too much for their product, and noting that on April 25 the minister stated, "I believe that no one would be getting an unwarranted mark-up on the grain", can the minister tell us which statement is government policy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member to get a replay of the program if he did not see it because in the press there is a slight misinterpretation of what I said. It is not reported word for word. I said that for what the grain farmers in Canada have contributed to this nation and the world they were not getting too much.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Inasmuch as farmers' input costs have risen by 19.5 per cent in the first quarter of this year, according to Statistics Canada, and some other input costs have risen by over 200 per cent in the last nine months, will grain producers be asked to subsidize the two-price system for feed grain to which the minister has referred?


Eugene Whelan: Again the hon. member is reading from the report in the Globe and Mail. He would have to see the complete text of the tape so as to be accurate. There are costs to which farmers have been subjected that have risen by 200 per cent in some instances, and more. The Globe and Mail report does an injustice; it is inflammatory and it is wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Red Deer for a third question, but I think we have reached the point where I have to seek the co-operation of hon. members to limit the number of supplementaries.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am just wondering if the Minister of Agriculture is suggesting it is a fact that the Globe and Mail does not print the truth.


An hon. Member:: Right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Norval Alic Horner: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can he explain his complete reversal of his position from last week with
Oral Questions
regard to the pamphlet, "Canada's New Capital"? He said then that the wording in it was unfortunate and not representative of the policy of the government. Today, however, he seems to have changed his view. Perhaps the cabinet has met in the meantime and a lot of ambitious backbenchers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SCIENCE
Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, this question should really be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence I will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the telescope at what used to be called the Dominion Observatory at the experimental farm, and for all I know may now be called Stars Canada. Why has the government decided to deny further access to this telescope by the general public, including as many as 10,000 students each year, by packing it up and getting rid of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, calling it Stars Canada shows the little regard that the hon. member has for bilingualism in this country. As to the rest of the question, I am afraid I must refer it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who is addressing the Canadian Manufacturers Association in Montreal today, but his parliamentary secretary will be glad to refer this interesting question to him.


Peter Reilly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be very happy to refer to the aforementioned installation as Etoiles Canada if it will please the right hon. gentleman.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact the minister first assured the House that there would be no increase in the price of fertilizer and later modified this by saying that there might be a modest increase in the price because of increases in the cost of labour and materials, can the minister now say whether or not the tremendous increase that has been experienced by farmers will be allowed by the government, or will the government subsidize the producers or take some action to modify the prices that producers are being asked to pay?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the record speaks for itself with regard to what I said about the price of fertilizer. I am sure the hon. member would not want to give that impression to the

April 29, 1974
Oral Questions
House no matter what the fertilizer companies have told me before the energy crisis took place when they estimated what their costs would be, before rock phosphate went up four times and before shipping charges were more than doubled in many instances for the products they import. All these factors have been taken into consideration and we are studying the costs, but I can say that the manufacturers are not very far from what they had told us, so far as I know. At present the cost of fertilizer in Canada in some instances is only about 50 per cent of what it is across the border to United States farmers with whom we compete at all times.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a supplementary on behalf of the producers. Does the government condone the present prices that are being asked of the producers by the fertilizer companies? If it does not, is it going to take any action to subsidize the producers, or has it any other policy to alleviate these tremendous increases in costs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the proposed new legislation to be presented to the House would give us power if we find undue and unwarranted profiteering in the fertilizer industry. So far we have not had that evidence presented to us, and if the hon. member has such evidence I wish he would send it to us.


INCIDENCE OF SILICOSIS AMONG URANIUM WORKERS- CONSULTATION WITH ONTARIO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ON WORKING CONDITIONS AND SAFETY STANDARDS
Mr. Paddy Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. While I understand there is some hope that the strike at Denison Mines may be ending, for which I am happy, the health question still remains. In view of the federal government's responsibility regarding uranium production and sales and in light of recent reports in the press concerning the high incidence of disability awards to miners suffering from silicosis at the Denison Mines operations at Elliott Lake, can the minister inform the House whether consultations have taken place with authorities of the Ontario government regarding working conditions and enforcement of safety standards in the Denison Mines operations?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have had very useful meetings with representatives of the workers in the mines. As the hon. member knows, inspection is the responsibility of the provincial government at the present time, but subsequent to these meetings we have reviewed the situation and we are in touch with the provincial authorities to make sure that these workers get full protection.


Charles Patrick (Paddy) Neale: I thank the minister for his answer, but in view of the fact there is a tremendous conflict between the opinions of the provincial government and those of the miners and their union, can he tell

the House whether or not his department has conducted any investigation of its own to determine whether the allegations of the workers at Denison Mines that they are working under hazardous conditions, with higher than normal pollution, are factual or not?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the information I have is that experts from my department stand ready to conduct inspections upon request of the provincial government. There has been no direct survey or examination done by the experts in my department independently of those already undertaken, but this matter is being re-examined at the present time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact Ontario hog producers find themselves at a definite economic disadvantage compared with producers in other provinces which have instituted stabilization programs, can the minister tell us now where are the improved national stabilization program amendments which were promised to the provinces several months ago?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can assist the Minister of Agriculture, they will probably be passed in a few weeks time by the House of Commons. I hope they will be introduced later this week. I can also say that there is nothing to stop the province of Ontario from initiating a plan if it wants to like Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have.


William Charles Frank: I think the minister knows what is stopping Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Charles Frank: You will find out. In what light should Canadian hog producers consider the fact that as early as last fall the Prime Minister summoned to Ottawa provincial ministers of agriculture in regard to a national hog stabilization program, that there have been two subsequent meetings of top level government agricultural officials on the same subject, and still no program has been announced? What are they to think about that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will agree that a question asked in such terms is argument. He asks what people are going to think about certain things. A question asked in those terms is hardly in order. The hon. member for Bellechasse.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is so important to the livelihood of so many farmers who are producing food that we want not only for ourselves but for the world that the impression should not be gotten across that I promised stabilization immediately to these people. The provinces knew they had to put in temporary programs.
April 29, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Bellechasse.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
As it seems that the House wants Canadians to have a system of guaranteed annual income and that this is also the desire of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, can he tell the House if he will table, during this session, a bill intended to guarantee a minimum income to persons aged 60 to 65?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times and I repeat again that the government has undertaken the establishment of a system of guaranteed annual income for all persons unable to work, or judged as such, at any age, and this still remains a firm and established policy of this government. As to when such a bill will be introduced, this remains a matter for the government House leader and will be decided in due time by the government after consultation with the provinces.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Considering the seriousness of the situation where people are unable to find work, especially people aged 60 to 65, does the minister think that a bill should be tabled, as soon as possible, to help alleviate the problem of these people?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, any legislation aimed at reducing poverty in this country has high priority with this government.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he prepared to table the budget of the Cape Breton Development Corporation for the year 1974?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I arrived in the House just a few minutes ago and the question which was directed to the House leader during my absence was brought to my attention. I am not sure what he discovered over that period. As far as I know there is no impediment, but I will be glad to find out.
Oral Questions


INCREASED ASSISTANCE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH TO END BRAIN DRAIN
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In order to end the brain drain among Canadian medical scientists and ensure that important medical research projects in Canada are not brought to a halt, does the minister intend to increase subsidies to Canadian medical research by tabling as soon as possible supplementary estimates in this House?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, witnesses appeared before the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Committee of this House, and I see nothing that warrants the argument on which the hon. member's question is based. We have evidence to the contrary. As regards moneys for medical research in Canada, I have already indicated that inasmuch as funds can be made available, we will allocate them to research. As I indicated to the committee, this is something that cannot be done instantly.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It concerns the brief submitted to the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board by the Canadian Food Processors Association last Tuesday which indicates that unless the processors put their prices up some 24 per cent they cannot expect any profit in the current year. Has the minister discussed this brief with the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, and is he prepared to announce any action on the part of the government?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the brief has not yet been brought to my attention. I will certainly take a quick look at it.



PENSIONS


Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Those on fixed private pensions are afflicted by inflation as well as those who are able to increase their incomes or those dependent completely upon various social schemes. Would the Prime Minister indicate what specific measures have been undertaken or are anticipated that will assist this

April 29, 1974
Oral Questions
particular segment of our population who spent many working years building up their standard of living only to find it now being eroded by continuing inflation?
S00)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question would require a statement which normally ought to be made on motions. Unless the Prime Minister can reply briefly, I would be inclined to go to the next question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to accommodate you but it would be a very long statement if I were to set out the various things the government has done.



REPORTED CUTBACK BY VENEZUELA IN OIL EXPORTS TO CANADA

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in regard to the cutback in oil from Venezuela. Has he any information on whether Venezuela has cut back its oil deliveries and whether Canada is being affected by those cutbacks?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the same question was asked of me at the last meeting of the House. I have not had any confirmation yet, but I understand that such cutback would not be directed against Canada. It would be a cutback applying to production.


Max Saltsman: Has there been any discussion between Canada and the government of Venezuela to the effect that they would prefer to deal directly with our government through an energy corporation rather than through the multinational corporations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any discussion. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, was in Venezuela some months ago and I believe that there is a general trend in the world toward operations in the oil industry by government rather than by private enterprise. We are even seeing some evidence of it here.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and arises out of the question put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Since the pamphlet referred to the Ottawa-Carleton and Hull-Ottawa area as the new capital of Canada and the government has been doing some decentralizing by putting new buildings in Hull, which is not the constitutional capital of Canada, can the

minister advise when he will be moving some buildings of the federal government out into Carleton county and the west Carleton area?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the hon. member agrees with the intent and purpose of government policy relative to the national capital region. I will take that matter under consideration and discuss it with the National Capital Commission and its chairman to see what accommodation can be made.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the fact the Sydney steel plant is urgently in need of expansion at the moment, and in view of the fact the government of Nova Scotia some time ago announced a multimillion dollar expansion program, can the minister explain to the House why a study has been commissioned to investigate the possibility of alternate sites for a new steel complex in eastern Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can give a brief answer. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; they may very well be complementary. But the one to which the hon. member refers is designed primarily for a different type of steel production for which an offshore market appears to have been identified at least in the preliminary stages. It will not have any effect in a negative way on the plans of the government of Nova Scotia for the Sydney Steel Corporation and its negotiations with us in Ottawa.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, then see the hon. member for Victoria and then call orders of the day.


Robert Muir: In view of the minister's comments, would he indicate to the House whether, if a site is recommended other than Sydney, he will agree with the findings of the study and propose that the government act upon these findings?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, I think this is hypothetical. So far no place has been decided upon. I can assure the hon. member that, in so far as the viability of the existing operation in Sydney is concerned, this is very much on the government's mind, and we will be prepared to continue co-operation with the provincial government and with Sydco to that end.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I appreciate the minister's comments and the information he has provided so far but he has hardly gone far enough. My point of privilege is that we already have a steel plant in Sydney and we already know that this plant requires modernization and expansion. We also know that the government has commissioned a study to investigate the feas-
April 29, 1974

ibility of establishing an expensive major steel complex on the east coast. What we would like to know is what effect this second steel complex, apparently envisioned by the government, would have on the present 4,000 employees and their families and all those who depend on the Sydney steel plant should this come into being? If there is to be any expansion it certainly should be in the city of Sydney where we already have steelmaking at the moment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is hardly a question of privilege. It is a representation and perhaps a supplementary question to which the minister might like to reply, after which the Chair will have to call orders of the day.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had already. The hon. member has made a fine representation on behalf of Sydney but as I have said already, first, any such study is very much in the preliminary stage and, second, no such project would go ahead if it were to the detriment of existing operations on Cape Breton Island.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would allow the Minister of Agriculture to clarify a point on an issue he raised and I did not. Could he have an opportunity to tell the House whether or not the Globe and Mail did or did not p'rint the truth with regard to his statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order; it is a supplementary question. There will be another day, I hope, and an opportunity for the hon. member to ask his question. I apologize to the hon. member for Victoria; I shall certainly give him priority tomorrow. I had recognized him a moment ago. A number of his colleagues did not have the opportunity to ask questions today either and I hope they will be given that chance tomorrow.


Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the length of time that was taken up today in the question period inquiring about some two-bit document that has been elevated by inflation to 50 cents and the consequences of that. The length of time taken on that matter resulted in some members being unable to raise questions on matters of extreme importance transcending that of the document referred to, particularly fisheries on the west coast which is germane today more than any other day. I should like to ask whether, in order to provide an opportunity for the House to deal with the question of fisheries tomorrow, the Secretary of State for External Affairs would make a statement on motions with particular reference to some of the recommendations of the International Pacific Halibut Commission and thus take up the time of the House that way instead of during questions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a representation or suggestion which I assume the minister will take into account for further consideration before motions are called tomorrow afternoon. Orders of the day.
Relocation of Railway Lines



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, April 25, consideration in committee of Bill C-27, to facilitate the relocation of railway lines or rerouting of railway traffic in urban areas and to provide financial assistance for work done for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at railway crossings-Mr. Basford-Mr. Boulanger in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Mr. Harney:: Mr. Chairman, we have had some general discussion of the bill on clause 2 but I rise on a very small but nevertheless significant matter concerning one of the definitions on page 2 of the bill. The definition of "urban area" reads:
"urban area" means an area and areas adjacent thereto that are classified by Statistics Canada in its most recent census of Canada as urban;
The minister may suspect he is not writing on tablets of stone which will last forever. I know he also hopes that the law he is presenting to the House will last for some time. In the future, the most recent census may not be the one of 1971, but the one of 1981, of 1991, and so on. Does the minister really mean to fix the definition of "urban" as in the document relating to the census of 1971? Or, is he willing that the act shall say that we shall abide by the definition which might be put out by Statistics Canada after the census of 1981, of 1991, and so on? Could the minister respond to my question so that we may understand more clearly what is meant?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member's question really relates to the most recent census. The definition would relate to the most recent census. As time goes on and as the bill endures, the definition would be the definition prescribed by Statistics Canada from time to time. The hon. member looks puzzled, as if I have not understood the question properly.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, the minister understood the question properly, but what puzzles me is this. I wonder if he really wants this definition. That definition has now been referred to several times and read into the record, and I will not take the time of the committee by reading it again. It is possible that as the country grows, the definition of urban area, which is to include so many people and so on, could also change. Does the minister intend the definition in the act to be changed from time to time, or does he want to tie the definition down to its present form, which will stand forever-imagine that! The minister should get the full flavour of "forever". In short, is the definition always to relate to the 1971 census?


Mr.   Buford@: Mr. Chairman, it is the definition used by Statistics Canada from time to time, and it is therefore subject to change. It seems to me that would be desirable, and that is what the legislation provides.

Relocation of Railway Lines


Mr. Schellenberger:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make some comments about some matters which have not been raised in questions to the minister. There are a number of small municipalities which may have railways running through their boundaries but which may not be able to raise enough capital to cover their share of railway line relocation. My first comment is that the bill does not go far enough in providing assistance for those smaller communities. To illustrate my concern, I might use Wetaski-win as an example. Wetaskiwin, a community of approximately 6,500 people, is not unlike other cities of the same size in Canada. Over the years the people of Wetaskiwin have become increasingly concerned because the two CPR main lines, and especially the yard in the middle of the city, have created a hazard and inconvenience for pedestrians, vehicular traffic and vehicles performing a public service which need to cross the tracks.
The lines were built about 75 years ago to provide a rail link between Calgary and Edmonton. Over the years, because the city has grown and society has become more automated, the residents of Wetaskiwin have been forced to attempt to correct the increasingly undesirable railway crossing situation.
In 1969 the city of Wetaskiwin carried out a study concerning the main problems created by the CPR lines. The study concluded, first, that slow moving potash trains disrupt movement of traffic from either side of the railway tracks for periods between 20 and 32 minutes at a time. Second, that serious inconvenience is caused to pedestrian traffic, and extreme discomfort, during the inclement weather of the winter months. Pedestrians have even been observed climbing between the railways cars. A high degree of danger has existed at all crossings in the morning, at noon and in the afternoon owing to the student population of three schools using the crossings. Third, when an alarm was given, the effectiveness of fire hall equipment located on the west side of the Canadian Pacific tracks, and fire protection to the east side of the city where the major industrial development is, was reduced to nil. Officials of Canadian Pacific advised that it was impossible to break up or separate a slow-moving train in case of an emergency. They said that separating it would take approximately as long as allowing the train to clear the crossing.
The fourth finding of the study was that the effectiveness of police protection, emergency medical and ambulance service was also reduced to nil during the passage over the crossings of the aforementioned trains.
That, basically, is the problem facing the good people of Wetaskiwin as well as the people of many other small communities.
Wetaskiwin has taken a serious approach to solving its rail relocation problems, despite obvious financial restraints placed on it because of its size. I have a copy of a detailed engineering study of the rail relocation situation which was undertaken by the city of Wetaskiwin. If Bill C-27 as drafted is passed, Wetaskiwin's concern about this problem probably has all been for naught, as it is not financially able to pay for 50 per cent of the cost of relocation.
The estimated cost of the Wetaskiwin rail relocation project is $2.5 million. The city, perhaps, can spend $400,-

000 or approximately 25 per cent of its annual budget on this project, but that is a far cry from the $1.25 million it would be required to pay if the legislation as drafted is passed.
The government might reconsider the financial aspects of the proposed legislation, for the sake of Wetaskiwin and for the sake of all small and medium sized communities across Canada which desperately need rail lines to be relocated but cannot afford to do so. Does the minister consider that Bill C-27 provides for sufficient capitalization for small communities, so that they will not be financially burdened? They are not asking for $35 million or $50 million. However, it is necessary for them to come up with some money to carry out such projects as I have suggested.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised several proposals regarding Wetaskiwin. I do not think he would expect me to reply in detail to those, as there are about 64 applications of various sorts before the CTC, including that of Wetaskiwin. That city has outlined to the CTC the railroad relocation project it wishes to see undertaken.
May I say two things to the hon. member. First, Wetaskiwin obviously will fall under the purview of this act. Clearly, it is an urban area as defined in this legislation. The hon. member referred to the difficulty of school children crossing the track in order to go to school. May I refer him to the provisions on page 20 of the bill which cover pedestrian crossings. It will be possible to build pedestrian crossings, to correct the situation the hon. member mentioned.
I may be mistaken, but I thought the hon. member mentioned that the cost of the project in his city would be $250 million.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: No. $2.5 million.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is more appropriate, as a $250 million project would be more expensive than any proposed rail relocation project in Canada, including that of Winnipeg which, depending on the options decided on, may cost about $75 million.
With regard to whether under the legislation we would cover half the cost of the relocation, I caution the hon. member that the figure $2.5 million may well be simply the cost of removing the railway facilities without taking into account the net benefit to the railways provided by the relocation, which would be subtracted from that cost for purposes of the legislation.
Under this legislation, when we have a railroad relocation proposal and railroads are moved from one area to the other, this is done without cost or benefit. There would be real benefit in many railroad relocations which are put on to the ledger. Therefore, I caution the hon. member about using the gross figure, which is simply the cost of moving the railroad without taking into account the net benefits provided for in the legislation.
In answer to the hon. member's larger question about whether there is sufficient capital, obviously any government or any minister would like to say we have more money and we could spend more money. It is easy to spend
April 29, 1974

more money. We have a formula here which provides 50 per cent of the cost of railroad relocation, and obviously people can argue it should be more.
I would hope to see the provinces and municipalities assist in relocation schemes. They should assist. In Saskatchewan, for example, it seems appropriate that the Saskatchewan government make a contribution toward the relocation. Fifty per cent is spelled out in the legislation as the federal contribution. The other parties, be they the province, city or the railroads themselves, can make up the balance of 50 per cent. Obviously my answer to the hon. member is yes, we could use more money, but within any government we have to exercise priorities as to the amount of money available or as to the formula set out to pay for the undertaking.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his extensive answer. I hope we do not scare the Wetaskiwin residents out of their wits with a figure of $250 million. Am I correct in assuming that under the terms of the bill, after the rail tracks are relocated the land becomes the property of the federal Department of Public Works?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, in 99 per cent of the cases that will not happen. However, to give this bill any teeth, you have to put into it the power of the CTC to have the final say that something should happen. It is given the power to order that a relocation be conducted. It is given additional power to order, if it is necessary to carry out the plan, that the federal Minister of Public Works expropriate the railroad land. However, he would do so purely as a trustee for the end result or benefit of the plan. He would expropriate solely for the purpose of being a conduit. He would acquire the land from the railroad, being the only person in Canada authorized to expropriate railroad property, as a trustee in accordance with the plan and pass it on to the province, municipality or private interests that are designed within the plan to acquire and use this railroad land. He acquires it solely as a trustee.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Is it correct to say the city could then become owner of part of this land to offset the cost of its 50 per cent of the relocation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Chairman, it would not, because the net costs of relocation would be worked out. We would pay 50 per cent of those net costs. It would then be determined where the balance of the 50 per cent comes from. The municipality could, of course, acquire part of the railway land, and in some cases they will, but that would be put into the equation of the cost of the scheme. It is not a way by which they could acquire the land for nothing.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The small communities will have a hard time finding half the capital that is required. However, if they could have assurance that part of the land the railway is vacating in the middle of the city could become city property, it could then recover some of the original capital it had to come up with for its 50 per cent. It would make it much easier for cities to relocate their rail lines if they could be assured that at least some of the land would revert to the city, for sale to private interests as well as for
Relocation of Railway Lines
parks, future rapid transit or whatever happens to come forward.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that under the plan the city involved could acquire all or any part of the railroad land if that was part of the urban development plan. I thought the hon. member was referring to that as a method of acquiring the land for nothing. That they could not do. However, they could acquire the land as part of the urban development plan for disposal or use for some other purpose. There is no question about that.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Will the hon. member for Wetaskiwin permit me to enter into discussion at this point?


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I am very intrigued by the minister's answers to the questions raised by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. Has the minister a legal opinion from the Department of Justice as to the ownership of the land underneath the rails? I put my question another way by saying that under the charter of the CPR and under the charter of the various railways that make up the CNR, this land belonged to the Crown and was granted to these railways for the sole purpose of transportation. When any railway gives up land and no longer uses it for the purpose for which the charter was granted, all that land beneath the rails reverts to the Crown, which was the grantee. Has he a legal opinion on that?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, ministers are not supposed to give legal opinions. I will make some inquiries about the point. In any event, I do not think it affects the operation or wording of this particular legislation because the expropriation section provides that the Minister of Public Works is authorized to acquire by way of expropriation land that is or was occupied as part of the railway undertaking by the company. The legal consequences of that expropriation, I suggest, would flow from that statement.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, that was not my question. I did not ask the minister for a legal opinion. I asked whether he had had one given to him by the officials of the Department of Justice. If he would ask for that legal opinion and read those charters again, the Justice officials would probably rule that the land underneath the rails, once it is no longer used for railroad purposes, reverts to the Crown. Therefore, it is impossible to expropriate something you already own. This is the reason I asked the question. The minister said that approximately 99 per cent of the land comes back to the Crown and the other 1 per cent does not.
This brings me to my second question. In the case of the railways taking the railway lines out of the cities of Calgary and Saskatoon, did the railways not assume that the land they had vacated in those cities belonged to them and through real estate development made a large sum of money in compensation for that sale? In the case of Calgary, I think it was over $100 million. What has been the past experience of the railways and those dealing with them concerning claims to the land beneath the right of

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
way-the rail lines abandoned in Saskatoon, Calgary and elsewhere?


Stanley Ronald Basford: On a point of information, I wish to correct one thing. It is my impression the hon. member said we would be using this power of expropriation in 99 per cent of these cases. In fact, we envisage expropriation as a means of implementing relocation being used in only a minority of cases. In the vast majority of cases the process will be handled by agreement and negotiation. While we trust the process can be implemented without expropriations, we do, obviously, feel it is essential that such power should be conferred under the act. The CTC has power to order the relocation of rail lines in certain areas. Under the formula to determine the net cost of relocation, the railroads are, among other things, credited with the value of the land that is vacated as part of the net cost of the scheme. Whether they end up by owning it or not will depend on a particular scheme, but obviously it will be shown as an asset of the companies.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I did not
misunderstand the minister; the figure of 99 per cent came from him, and I am in agreement. I should like to complete my questioning by asking the minister whether he would refer the question of the ownership of these rights of way to the legal officers of the Department of Justice. To whom does the right of way belong once the railway has abandoned the track? The answer may well be that the land reverts to the Crown. If this is the case, I should like an opinion from these legal officers as to who owns land in country areas, in similar circumstances when a line has been abandoned. There are miles of abandoned line along rights of way in areas which are not covered by the present bill. Do the railways claim ownership of this land or not? Or does it revert to the Crown? I believe the legal position will be that the land does revert to the Crown, in which case why should we credit the railways with the value of land in this limited area involving cities? The land belongs to the people.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the proposal here is to expropriate not only the right of way but the land which physically affords the right of way. The hon. member began his question by talking about mineral rights. That is an altogether different thing. What is involved here is the right of way, a right to put tracks down and surface rights. This is the subject of the claim to ownership. It is certainly the view of the railway companies that they own not only the tracks on the right of way but the land the right of way covers.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is the point at issue. It is clear the minister considers they own the surface rights and the land along these tracks. I never mentioned mineral rights. I am dealing only with surface rights. I wish the minister would go to the legal advisers and ask them for an opinion, for an interpretation of the original charters concerning land granted to the railways, and whether this land along the rights of way belongs to the Crown when the railways, of their own volition, or on the direction of the Commission, abandon those lines. Do the surface rights revert to the Crown? I

know the minister cannot answer that question until he has referred it to the legal advisers of the Crown.
Will the minister also tell us what he can about the disposition of the land in Saskatoon, Calgary, and in other cities from which the railways voluntarily removed the tracks? It is possible there is a debt still owing to the Crown. To whom was the value of the land credited?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We shall apply the legislation and expropriate only where we need to do so and in connection with land which the railways own. If it is held legally that the railways do not own the surface rights once the tracks are abandoned, then obviously this would be a matter for settlement by litigation. We certainly do not intend to expropriate rights which do not exist.
I must say, with regard to voluntarily relocation schemes, that I am not familiar with the two schemes to which the hon. member referred. In the case of the scheme which was put into effect in the national capital area the railway companies undoubtedly took the position that they owned the right of way and the surface rights. These were acquired by the National Capital Commission after payment of very substantial amounts to the railway companies as part of the cost of the relocation scheme.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is the point I am making, Mr. Chairman. There is evidence that the railways have taken the position that they own the surface rights in respect of the land beneath the rails. I accept the minister's assurance that he will ask for a legal opinion as to who owns the surface rights in the circumstances I have mentioned, those rights having been given to the railways by charter for a specific purpose.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Chairman, the question which has just been raised by my hon. friend is a very important one from the point of view of the smaller communities. It would be much easier for them to bear the 50 per cent of the cost if they could get back an interest in at least part of these lands and, possibly, dispose of them commercially.
The point I wish to raise has to do with the amount of funds designated under this program. If Winnipeg takes $50 million and other major cities have budgets of a similar size-I do not know how many millions Toronto will need-there will only be a limited opportunity for the smaller cities to participate. Can the minister assure us that at least part of this money will be set aside to meet the needs of the smaller communities?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that schemes such as the Winnipeg scheme which carry a high price tag do not exhaust the budget. It would be wrong to take $75 million for Winnipeg and assume, on that basis, that most of the money in the fund has been expended. Such schemes will take many years to complete, perhaps as long as ten years, and the budget would be spread over that period.
I might also say that the CTC is authorized to make rules and set priorities in connection with relocation plans. I can only express my hope that the CTC, having been given a certain degree of independence by the government, will deal not only with major centres when setting priorities but will also set some in respect of

smaller parts of the country. In terms of ministerial assurance, I can say to the hon. member that I think the allocation of government of Canada funds should be made on a somewhat fair and equitable basis.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, like many who have participated in this debate on this measure I should like to add my words of congratulation to the minister and indicate that we certainly welcome this measure presently before us.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: I appreciate that applause. I was beginning to despair that we would never see this legislation brought before parliament; when I have raised questions on a number of occasions in the past the reply was always that this legislation would be brought in a very short time, or in several weeks, or that we could expect to have it before the House very soon. Now, a year and a half after it was predicted that this measure would be before us, we are looking forward to finding out some of the details relating to its operation.
A number of questions have been raised since the bill was introduced, and, while the minister has replied to some of them, there are still some that require clarification.
In reply to a question I raised about the Chilliwack situation some time ago the minister indicated he was aware of the particular problem and had discussed it. I have already expressed through the news media in my area my appreciation for the commitment the minister has made, but I very much regret that this was done on a basis that gave rise to some serious questions of a political nature. That was very unfortunate and I do not think the minister really intended that it should come out in that fashion. In any event that is the way it happened. However, that does not detract from my appreciation for the announcement of this measure.
Having regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, who spoke about the measure as it relates to smaller communities in his area, there are two small areas in my riding that are vitally concerned with this bill. One is Chilliwack, to which I have referred, and the other is Abbotsford, both major points of population in my section of the country.
This bill proposes the expenditure of $250 million over a period of five years for track relocation. I should like to raise the same question raised by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin as to what assurance the minister can give that the smaller communities in Canada, such as those to which I have referred, along with many others, will receive the benefit of this measure. There are a number of cities which I understand have major projects on the drawing board. As has been pointed out, these will involve a considerable outlay of capital. My concern is that the major part, if not all, of these funds will be taken up by the major population areas and the smaller areas will not be able to qualify. It almost seems that many of the areas will be classed as rural and, therefore, will not have the opportunity to participate at all.
Relocation of Railway Lines
Let me point out first that not only in the majoi areas but also in the smaller urban centres there are major problems in respect to trackage. One to which 1 wish to refer is in the city of Chilliwack, which is divided by the CNR main line. Their major services such as police, ambulance and transportation to the airport are seriously hampered by railway traffic. I believe Chilliwack has outlined a very sound proposal which involves moving the tracks. I should like to ask whether this measure applies strictly to urban areas. In this particular case part of the relocation suggested would be in the urban area, but part would also involve tracks in the rural area adjacent to the city. If this bill applies strictly to urban areas, I think there will be serious difficulty in working out this program.
This program should not be retained for the benefit only of urban areas. A great deal of discussion has taken place in the last while about the quality of rural life, about making it more attractive to many people who have an appreciation for that kind of life by providing them with a certain quality of amenities, and so on. If we are going to help the rural areas we must look at this program as it applies to them. In order to make rural life even more attractive perhaps some of these rail tracks should be moved to other sections.
When speaking to one of the mayors in my community just over the week end he voiced the suggestion and belief that the time had come when there must be transportation corridors instead of chopping up the country according to sections. He suggested there should be corridors in which all communications facilities could be located. This is one of the things that should be considered in light of the measure currently before the committee.
Let me refer to another matter which might go beyond the reference of this bill. I have received a number of communications regarding a coal dust situation adjacent to our rail lines. This subject perhaps comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment, but since we are discussing rail transportation and the responsibility of rail companies to communities and community living, I think this matter should be considered now.
In spite of the fact there have been a number of studies, a great many communications and an extensive lapse of time, these companies do not seem to have come up with any solution to this coal dust problem. I suppose this problem affects major areas as well where rail lines pass through areas of concentrated population. These people are subject to a great deal of pollution which the railways should have some responsibility to correct.
This minister as well as the Minister of the Environment and others engaged in or having some influence in this particular area should lend their weight and prestige to the finding of a solution to this coal dust problem. This may involve relocating the tracks in some areas, and this certainly should be considered within the terms of reference of this bill.
There is one other point I should like to raise, and this relates to the principle of a 50-50 division of cost. It does not seem that the railways are to assume any responsibility for this particular project, that this is all going to be done by the government. In view of the fact that the railway companies have gained considerably as a result of government co-operation in the past, possibly they should
April 29, 1974

Relocation of Railway Lines
be called upon to bear some of the cost of relocating these tracks, particularly if this is to be for the benefit of the communities, their further development and their general standard of living.
Perhaps these companies should be called upon to pay 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent of the relocation costs, as this would make them a little bit more responsible in respect of some of these areas of concern.
Those are just a few of the thoughts I would raise. There is this matter of allocation of funds and recognizing the legitimate claims of smaller communities, even some that are classified rural. This is one of the major concerns of a great many people in this country, and certainly of a great many people in my particular area.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, may I just respond very briefly to the hon. member by assuring him that while we may like to think of urban areas as referring to Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, the definition of "urban" within this act is a very wide one. In fact, it covers all of the populated areas in Canada. Without question it would cover the cities of Chilliwack and Abbotsford to which the hon. member referred in that, for one purpose of the definition, it is any municipality with a population of 1,000 or more people having the legal status of a city, town or village. So there is no question that the centres within the hon. member's riding would be covered by the Statistics Canada definition. However, the point he makes is a good one and we have put forward a definition which will cover all the populated areas in Canada.
Second, I refer the hon. member to the fact that what many of the smaller towns and villages of this country need is not a railway relocation proposal but an underpass or an overpass on the railroad's track itself. That is covered by Parts II and III of the bill which make no distinction between urban and rural. So the cities he refers to could take advantage of Part I in the railroad relocation proposals and, without question, take advantage of Parts II and III for the construction of grade crossings, underpasses and that type of work.
I appreciate the hon. member raising those concerns and I think that we have tried to respond to them in this legislation.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on this bill for a few moments. First, I should like to join my colleagues who have already congratulated the government, particularly the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, for finally bringing forward Bill C-27. It is difficult not to agree with the bill whose stated purpose is to facilitate the relocation of railway lines, particularly at a time when the redesigning and reconstruction of our major cities is so much a matter of concern to those of us who have the honour of representing large urban centres.
However, I must express a concern which I feel rather personally. It stems from the fact that, while we welcome this legislation, we cannot help but be concerned about ensuring that the government does carry forward its promises with some degree of efficiency and speed. Having regard to the responsibilities that are incumbent

upon a government introducing such major legislation, speed is, of course, a matter of concern.
I think that a measure of any department's efficiency and concern for people's problems is shown to a member of parliament when he deals with a particular department on behalf of a constituent. Because here you have a small matter affecting an individual person whose member of parliament has decided to contact a minister responsible for a department to see what can be done on behalf of that individual citizen.
With regard to the Department of State for Urban Affairs, I must say to the minister that I cannot be overly confident about the manner in which his department will proceed with the implementation of this bill on the basis of my personal experience in making representations on behalf of a particular constituent. I wrote to the minister on behalf of a Mr. Dean Knowles on February 19 of this year, and have yet to receive an acknowledgement or a substantive reply in any form. On March 26, over a month having passed, I sent the minister a copy of a letter I had sent to my constituent indicating that no reply as yet had been received. Still no acknowledgement or response was received by me. Last Thursday, in fairness to the department and to the minister, I decided to call his office to see if the correspondence had been mislaid. I was told by a secretary there that they prided themselves on the efficiency and speed with which they dealt with correspondence. She said that the correspondence would be checked and that an assistant to the minister would telephone me back. That call never came.
So, having listened to the congratulations of other hon. members, I join with them with regard to the specific legislation, but I have to express concern that my own personal experience in making representations on behalf of constituents does not give me much confidence with regard to the efficiency with which this minister will implement this piece of legislation.
This legislation interests me in particular, coming as I do from the great city of Hamilton, because, as do other urban centres, we welcome it. The city of Hamilton is served by the CNR, the CPR and another railway called the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway. So we have more than our share of railway lines. Both because we are serviced by them and because we are an industrial city, this type of relocation will be something we welcome and can certainly use.
I think it is important to note that what we are talking about is not the removal of railway lines, but their relocation because they are still needed. In addition to the cost factor involved in such a move, we should be taking a very close look at what the environmental and social effects of relocating these railway lines will be. You cannot simply solve a problem by relocating the particular cause of it to another area, not expecting some other type of problem to be caused in the area where those lines are relocated. In a city that is industrial, that accepts some of the disadvantages along with many of the advantages of being an industrial city, we have a right to expect of this ministry a full study into the environmental and social impact of any move before such move takes place.
I also hope that the ultimate decision will be made at the local level. Because in looking at this piece of legislation
April 29, 1974

we see that at least three ministries, the Department of State for Urban Affairs, the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Public Works, will be involved in its implementation. If there is one thing we do not need any more in this country it is a continuation of or an addition to the process of decision making by bureaucrats in Ottawa which affects people in Wetaskiwin, Hamilton, Vancouver, Montreal, and in many other places. We have much too much of that already, we do not need any more of it. If this legislation is to be effective, then the ultimate decisions will have to be made at the local level.
I noted with interest that some city mayors, including His Worship the Mayor of Hamilton, were in Ottawa not so long ago to request funds of the federal government. This legislation, which does assist cities, is a step in the right direction. We must be moving in these times toward giving more financial assistance to the cities. I recognize that under our system of government the federal government has a perfect, tailor-made excuse when it says: "We cannot give money directly to municipalities; we must deal through the provinces". If that is the case, so be it. But let it deal with them through the provinces. Our municipalities are so large, they have to carry so many services, and their base for revenue is so small in comparison with that of the federal and provincial governments, that it is incumbent upon all these levels of government to join together in programs for better revenue sharing such as the one in Bill C-27 and the one that was brought in in the United States not so long ago, whereby the federal government can assist to a much greater extent the large urban centres.
I am also concerned about the substantial power which has been given to the Canadian Transport Commission. Again based on my personal experience and knowledge of this branch of the government I cannot have great confidence in the CTC. They are simply too powerful and their jurisdiction too centralized.
If we are going to have any degree of success with this legislation, then in addition to consultation we must have co-ordination. This is something the CTC does not seem to know exists or, if it does know, it shies away from it. That is a concern I wish to register with the minister.
About nine months ago the Minister of Transport claimed that Canada's total transportation system "represents perhaps one of the best, if not the best, in the world." But earlier this year he changed his mind and described Canada's transportation system as being in a mess. What he clearly admitted is that Canada does not have a real transportation policy. Such a policy was promised, but it does not exist.
If the government goes ahead with its grandiose plans and schemes, however well intentioned, they cannot succeed unless we have a co-ordinated and unified transportation system. The best intentions of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will fall by the wayside because of the lack of a transportation policy and because of the mess that exists in the Department of Transport.
Every day in the House of Commons the Minister of Transport is questioned about what the government's plans will be for such things as the future of the railroads,
Relocation of Railway Lines
particularly in the west, and about the government's decisions in regard to airports. We simply do not know, Mr. Chairman, and the people affected do not know. I believe we should be taking a definite look now at the whole future of railroads in Canada because, as my colleague from Central Nova pointed out in the latter part of last week, a survey has been conducted which is not very encouraging to those of us who wish to place reliability in our railroad transportation system.
The "Modernization of Railways in Canada", a survey completed by the engineering faculty of Carleton University, reveals that utilization of railways in Canada and levels of investment are similar to those of other industrialized nations, but that passenger rail service performance in Canada is far below that of other countries.
It also reveals that although technologies superior to those in Canada have been developed for traction, suspension, track construction and traffic control, the manning of Canadian railways is still based on the steam tradition and does not allow efficient operation of modern equipment. In effect, it says that Canada's railways compared with those of other countries are slow, are usually not on time, and are unsafe particularly when the weather is bad. It also refers to statistics which show that our railway lines, compared with those of other countries, are not as sage, and in fact are becoming more dangerous.
A special inquiry into railway safety, commissioned by the Canadian Transport Commission, reported last December that the number of derailments caused by poor track conditions on both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways in 1972 was three times that of 1959, and nearly double that of 1969, despite the fact that improved technology with respect to mechanical means of transportation is at our disposal.
Obviously, if anything is to be done about this matter the leadership must come from the federal government. And leadership must come in a co-ordinated fashion, not just from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs but from the Minister of Transport, co-ordinating all the different ministries and programs that are concerned with these matters.
I have already mentioned concern for safety on our railways. My concern also extends to pedestrians and travellers in cars. One of the reasons for the relocation of tracks from major urban centres is to provide a greater measure of safety, particularly in a city like Hamilton where the tracks cross main thoroughfares, endangering the lives of pedestrians and car travellers.
In a particular instance in the city of Hamilton, a railway crossing located in a high density population area has been a hazard for some time, and in fact has already claimed one life. At the urging of the aldermen for the area we arranged a meeting with CTC representatives from Ottawa to show them how this railway line was endangering the lives of the young school children and apartment dwellers in that area of east Hamilton. We urged that if they could not relocate the line immediately-something which may be possible following passage of this bill-in the meantime they should provide the maximum amount of protection possible for pedestrians and people riding in cars.

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
But the CTC hid behind its big rule book and pointed out that since there was only one railway track involved, not two, there was no requirement that safety guards be placed there. Mr. Chairman, many urban areas simply cannot afford to provide the full protection that is necessary at crossing levels, and the CTC should assist them so that they may buy the necessary equipment. Such equipment could then be removed and used elsewhere once a particular rail line had been relocated in a safer place.
I hope the minister will comment on the possibility of taking such a suggestion into consideration, and will also let us know what he has in mind under Bill C-27 for the city of Hamilton. As I have already mentioned to him, those of us who have the pleasure of living in Hamilton have a particular concern about railway lines. Indeed, we may have more than our share of them. We would like to know what information he can provide us with with respect to the benefit that the city of Hamilton can expect from implementation of this legislation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised several matters. I find his reference to correspondence with my office shocking and disturbing, because I have a rule that correspondence must be answered within ten days. I have already sent off an inquiry to find out what is involved in the situation to which he refers.
The hon. member also said that in any relocation scheme environmental and ecological considerations must be taken into account. I agree with him. As the legislation provides, before the CTC can act an urban development plan must be laid before it, and I find it inconceivable that any such plan would be drawn up without taking into account the ecological and environmental aspects of the proposed relocation scheme.
The hon. member was also concerned about the application process and the cost sharing formula. He will note from Part I of the bill that any relocation or rerouting proposal will require the closest degree of intergovernmental consultation and co-operation. As we see it, the urban development plan and the transportation plan will be drawn up at the initiation of the municipality or province involved. It will be referred to the CTC with comments on any federal programs that my ministry is involved in to ensure co-ordination, and the Department of Transport will concern itself with the transportation aspects of any relocation. I think in this legislation we have tried to provide for good interdepartmental and intergovernmental consultation and co-ordination.
The hon. member referred to the Canadian Transport Commission. Their role is provided for in the legislation for obvious reasons: they are the regulatory agency at the federal level with jurisdiction over railroads, railroad rights of way and railroad activities. I think the hon. member will agree that it would have been wrong to set up another federal regulatory body to deal solely with railroad relocation.
I agree with the hon. member on the point he and a number of other members raised, namely that the municipalities, the provinces, members of parliament and the government are entitled to expect the CTC to operate

efficiently and effectively and with speed when dealing with applications. Several hon. members have said that the CTC needs a good shaking up. I believe we are entitled to expect it to deal with applications made under Part I in an effective and an efficient manner, and I think the Minister of Transport can be relied upon to ensure that this will be done.
With regard to questions of safety, I would refer hon. members to Part II and III of the bill. Part II provides for special expenses for grade crossings and grade separation schemes, and Part III provides for amendments to the grade crossing fund, doubling-and I am speaking loosely-the federal contributions to grade crossings and grade separations.
The removal of grade crossings has made an important contribution to safety. Statistics show that while automobile accidents have increased over the last few years, the percentage of automobile accidents at grade crossings has decreased. This is largely the result of safety work at level crossings and also the large numbers of grade separations that have been constructed.
The amendments to Parts II and III, which allow the CTC and the grade crossing fund to work on a great many more safety features at level crossings by way of safety devices, also allow for the building of more grade separations, and thus make an important contribution to safety.
I am not familiar with the case referred to by the hon. member as I am not responsible for the grade crossing fund, but I will give instructions that this be looked into. I do not understand why action was not taken because there was only one track and not two.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I cannot say what the particular plans are for Hamilton under this legislation, but knowing the leadership of that city and the representation it has in this House I am sure the case will be put very effectively and vigorously before the CTC. Indeed, if we are not very careful Hamilton will manage to get the bulk of any moneys provided under this legislation.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I can advise the hon. member that with regard to the first point that he raised about the mortgage dispute of a Mr. Knowles, this does require extensive research by CMHC but the hon. member will be getting a letter from me tonight.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Chairman, I want to participate in this debate at committee stage because I could not participate during second reading. I had to attend a most successful and encouraging convention of the Liberal Party in Ontario. I bring that to the attention of the committee because during that convention the bill was discussed quite extensively and I received a number of comments from interested participants. The bill was also discussed at a convention of northern Ontario municipalities and there was the unanimous feeling that this is a very strong piece of Liberal legislation.
I should also like to participate at this time because I feel this is a non-partisan bill and one that should be passed with all speed.
The city of North Bay is interested in this bill, Mr. Chairman. I know that the hon. member for Hamilton and the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth love the city of
April 29, 1974

North Bay, and when they come there I should like to show them tourist facilities that are unequalled. We would like to have the rails in North Bay relocated in order to free about three miles of sandy beach on Lake Nipissing for tourists and residents.
One thing that gives me some concern about the bill, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that there is no requirement for the railway companies to become involved at the outset in the negotiations with the CTC. In North Bay we have the ONR, the CPR and the CNR and I feel it is essential that they get involved in the initial planification, that they get involved in the financing and that they provide information. The information they have could be of considerable assistance in the preparation of the plans, and the plans may have ramifications with respect to the economic life of the community. It is essential that the railways disclose their ideas with reference to relocation and its effect upon their own operations.
The city of Sudbury, only 80 miles from North Bay, is also interested in this bill. It would be interesting to know the attitude of the railways toward relocation in that city and how it may affect operations in North Bay. I would hope that, in view of the beneficent influence of the CTC in the determination of the acceptability of the plan, it would persuade the railways to become involved at the initial stage of planification. I know it would be difficult to pass legislation which would force the railways to be involved. I am sure the railways recognize that such ventures, especially in communities like mine, are community efforts. We need community involvement, but the three companies ought to be community participants too and be involved initially.
I hope the bill will be passed quickly at this stage and at third reading. The constituency of Nipissing looks forward to receiving favourable consideration with regard to any application which may be submitted.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize for not being quite as well prepared as I might be. I was forced to be away from the House last week and, unfortunately, have not had a chance to study this legislation.
Belleville, the major city in my riding, has for many years considered that the CPR tracks running through it should be removed. It is fair to say that, even if the majority of the residents favour the removal of the track, the official town plan and the revision do not speak at length of removing these tracks, because for many years this course has been thought of as being too expensive. Seven or eight years ago when I was mayor of Belleville I discussed with senior officials of the CPR the possibility of moving these tracks. They felt this would be possible, although the cost was prohibitive. The railway would not undertake the removal, and the city could not afford to do it as the cost of removing the track was equal to the entire city budget for one year.
The tracks traverse the entire south boundary of the city, right along the shore of the beautiful Bay of Quinte. History says that the CPR forced that particular track location on the city. I would not say the city was blackmailed, but the city fathers were told that if they wanted
Relocation of Railway Lines
to be served by the railway the rail lines would need to run along the waterfront. We can understand the reasoning behind that. As the railway was necessary for the development of the community and industry, which in those days tended to locate along the waterfront for reasons of easy access, it did not seem unreasonable to build the tracks on that valuable property.
As the years went by the city grew to the north. The Montreal-Toronto CNR railings bisect the city. Citizens accepted that development as reasonable. There are, across the CP tracks at the south end of the city, seven or eight level crossings. Despite many of these being equipped with signals-some are just now being so equipped-there was this past winter an unfortunate death at one of these crossings. So the removal of these tracks or their relocation would make life safer for the people in the city. It would protect them and would be a convenience. Once the tracks are gone, property values in the area would increase, and that would help the city coffers. If it were not for the tracks, some of that land would be the most valuable in the city. Its value will be greatly enhanced by the removal of the tracks.
I should point out that the tracks run north of the city on the west and on the east, and only dip down to the south as they go through the city. So the physical relocation would not be unreasonable. Some provision would need to be made for those industries which would remain in the south end of the city until they wished to move. In the interim those industries would need to be protected.
I wish to ask the minister some questions. As I say, I have not digested the legislation thoroughly; I only looked at it briefly this afternoon, after returning to Ottawa, I am somewhat concerned about the cost of the preparation of an urban development plan. Clause 3(1) and 3(5) provide for such plans to be presented. There is provision for their enactment, after proper study. That is, the plans can be carried out. The bill provides for cost sharing and goes into detail as to how such plan is to be implemented. However, I do not see any provision allowing for the application for such study.
I note the words in the recommendation of His Excellency calling for not more than 50 per cent of the cost of urban development plans and transportation studies to be paid. I would be most surprised if the city of Belleville does not almost immediately ask for assistance to study this subject in detail. Of course, whether it could afford to carry out the proposed relocation would depend on the result of the study. This question has been in the minds of the mayor, members of council and many citizens for a long time, and they would be most interested in knowing how the city could apply for assistance for undertaking a study.
I will ask the minister some questions, wait for him to reply, then perhaps think of some more questions which may clarify this matter in my mind.
Having been mayor of Belleville and having had to deal with both CN and CP, I have learned several things about the railways. The CNR is a major employer in Belleville; at one time it was the major employer. Its importance as an employer has lessened somewhat, but it still is a major employer.
1842

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
The CPR lines run through the city but the company is not as physical visible as the CNR is. Having dealt with the railways from time to time, I have found that CN and CP argue quite a bit and that the spirit of co-operation between them does not exist in the way we think it should. May I ask the minister if, in his opinion, the railways will be invited to participate in the planning of any relocation?
When I was mayor of Belleville we removed an anachronism of Southern Ontario, that portion of railway line which had run down the second main street of Belleville for many years. We finally got rid of it. Frankly, co-operation between the two railways was not evident and it took an awful lot of pushing on our part to get that line out of there.
Travelling back and forth from Ottawa to Belleville on the CN, I find that where the CN passenger train travels over the CP track, it is held up by a slow CP freight. I would not say that is done purposely, but it is done frequently. It seems for the sake of three or four minutes that the passenger train could be allowed through rather than made to wait for 30 minutes, as is frequently the case. The co-operation I expect between these two companies, both of which receive support from the federal government, although one to a much greater degree, is much better. Sometimes I am very disappointed.
I want to know whether the railroads will be involved in the planning and whether the CPR, if a plan were developed and approved, would under its legislation be voluntarily asked to co-operate in the disposal of its property. Or would there be legislation forcing the disposal and relocation? If we get that far, how would the lands be disposed of? Would they be left in the hands of the railway to dispose of as they see fit, or be sold or in some way deeded to the municipality to be disposed of as they see fit? Or would there be some different means of disposal? Some of the lands on the shores of the Bay of Quinte are extremely valuable. Others will obviously revert to road allowance and other natural uses.
Perhaps I might have answers to at least some of these questions. I am sure that many of my constituents in the city of Belleville will be most anxious to hear more of this legislation. I share the concern of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. The millions of dollars necessary for such relocation to take place in Belleville would be minuscule in comparison with the cost in the major centres across Canada. None the less, the matter is very important. I want the assurance of the minister that some funds will be made available to us should a decision be made.


Mr, Basford:: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the four questions raised by the hon. member, payment for transportation plans and urban development plans is provided for in clause 3(3) on page 3 of the bill. Upon application, the Minister of Transport may pay 50 per cent of the cost of preparing the transportation study or plan and 50 per cent of the preparation of the urban development study or plan. That is the answer to the first question.
With regard to the second question concerning the participation of the railroads, that question was raised by the

previous speaker. There is no way of forcing them to participate, but I certainly think they would. In fact, as one member interjected, the problem would probably be that they would want to take over the whole process.
I would certainly hope that in any relocation planning process the railways would participate. That has certainly been the experience with some smaller relocation schemes. In the studies in Winnipeg-and up until now they have only been studies-the railroads have been extremely active participants in the study and planning process. On the other hand, if people endeavour to exclude them from the planning process, they would have their full rights in front of the CTC to be heard and to put their point of view.
With regard to the third matter of how the land that is freed by relocation is disposed of, this will probably vary from plan to plan. Each city is different and the railway situation in each city is different. It is clearly spelled out in the bill that the plans put before the CTC must spell out specifically how the land is to be disposed of and by whom. It could well be that as part of the plan it is disposed of through the municipality on the private market, or by the railroad. Various combinations and permutations could be developed in any given urban development plan. The plan is subject to hearings and approval by the CTC as well as challenge by those who disagree with the disposal process. It will really depend on each plan.
I make the point, however, that if there is an unwillingness to carry out the disposal plan, the bill provides that the federal Minister of Public Works is given the authority to expropriate the land in order to carry out the urban development plan, which includes the disposal plan. I think in most cases there will be a voluntary arrangement worked out as to what is going to happen. If that is possible, there is power in the legislation to provide for expropriation and disposal.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I have one further supplementary question for the minister. In the request to the Minister of Transport for payments to prepare a plan, would the municipality be expected to submit the name of a planner, and would they be allowed the choice of a planner to prepare such a document?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the legislation does not specify that and I think it would be unwise to do so. The initiation of a process will require a very high degree of consultation between the municipality involved and the province. There will undoubtedly be consultation as to who will do this. Before a grant is made toward some study, it will be necessary to have assurance that it is being done by competent people. This is really a matter for close consultation and agreement, I think it would be wrong to spell it out.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly on Bill C-27, a bill to facilitate the relocation of railway lines, in order to bring two very precise points to the minister's attention.
First of all, I wish to say that I gladly support this bill, because I feel it is necessary and must be urgently enforced. It is clear, as indicated by the minister and a
April 29, 1974

number of other hon. members, that the railways have contributed to the development of Canadian towns.
In many communities, however, railway lines have become either a source of danger or an impediment to urban development and renewal, especially where railway lines run through center town districts and are a source of a great many problems.
Contrary to what one of my colleages in the Progressive Conservative Party did, I contacted personally the hon. minister some time ago about a legitimate application made by the municipality of Victoriaville which wants to avail itself of the benefits of this bill.
The minister replied quickly and promised to follow up this matter. I want to congratulate him and tell him that I am eager to see the result of the attention he will give to this very important request from the Victoriaville municipality whose development and planning are slowed down by this railway in the centre of town.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the minister's attention on two matters related to the bill under consideration. If we refer to clause 4 we may read and I quote:
(a) how the costs and benefits of the transportation plan included in the accepted plan are to be shared by the province, the municipalities concerned ...
-and the federal government. So, in paragraph (a) of clause 4, a function is assigned to the province. In clause 8, page 8, a function is assigned to the province as follows:
An order under clause 6 shall be issued only after the Commission is satisfied that the government of the province and each municipality that has agreed to the accepted plan have caused such laws to be passed or such orders to be made as are necessary ...
Therefore there is reference to the necessity to pass that legislation in agreement with the province.
I would like also to quote from the speech of the minister of the House of Commons on April 25, 1974, as recorded on page 1757 of Hansard:
A railway relocation and rerouting project is to begin with provincial and municipal initiatives and calls for participation by all three levels of government.
I want to compliment the minister for acting in co-operation with the three levels of government, but I would express my misgivings concerning the implementation of this legislation. And I wish to remind him of a rather distressing experience that the province of Quebec is undergoing now.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) is aware of what I am talking about, that is famous Bill C-133 that was passed on the National Housing Act. The province of Quebec is one of the provinces that has not benefited as yet from this legislation. Negotiations are still going on. It is not known whether the federal or provincial government is responsible for impeding the implementation of the act, ensuring urban renewal and assisting low income housing construction. Moreover, we all recognize the importance of this legislation in Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to obtain from the minister specific assurances with regards to the method of implementation of the act so that municipalities, big or small, can benefit from it in spite of the little support that could be
Relocation of Railway Lines
given by one province in particular. That application may seem strange to people in other provinces but we in the province of Quebec are faced with this problem, and if the province does not agree or drags a leg the other provinces will benefit from it while we in the province of Quebec wait.
Mr. Chairman, I would find it unfortunate if a province should have a right to veto and refuse it. The minister stated in his speech, and I quote:
... When a province and involved municipalities wish to redevelop a specified urban area,...
-they send an application to Ottawa. Let us suppose a municipality applies to the federal government. What would happen? Is provincial agreement absolutely mandatory? What means do we have available to us to speed up bargaining between the province and the federal government so Quebec municipalities will not be penalized? I do not want to raise a political issue, but strictly an administrative one.
We spend a lot of time in this House passing legislation which I think is good. The one now before us is excellent. But that requires over a year of bargaining between the federal government and the provincial government, and once the bargaining is over municipalities cry for help and the provincial government drags a leg for so-called reasons of autonomy, on the pretext of autonomy.
Mr. Chairman, if I knew that under this act the government of the province of Quebec would have any direct or indirect power of veto I would vote against it because it would be another source of frustration for Quebec municipalities.
I would like to get positive assurance from the minister that he has the true initiative to ensure that municipalities can benefit from that act the implementation of which is absolutely necessary and urgent.
Knowing the interest the minister takes in urban development, urbanization in general and related problems, I am convinced that he understands the kind of question I am now putting to him and that he will provide an adequate answer.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate him again and draw his attention to the important application from the municipality of Victoriaville, and I would like him to know that I appreciated his expediency of answering previously and I would appreciate it even more when the time comes to finalize that application.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member's comments but I think it would be quite wrong to attempt in this bill, or in the planning which it involves, or in inter-governmental relationships, to try to bypass the provinces. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that the provinces have clear jurisdiction over many of the ingredients of a railway relocation plan. The CTC and federal government have authority over the railroads themselves, but it is the provinces, through provincial jurisdiction and regulation, which have control over many of the other aspects of land use planning, zoning, and so on. So it would be a mistake to try to exclude them.
27451-53i

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
I am as concerned as is the hon. member about possible delay, and my department will do everything possible to make sure that red tape is cut to a minimum. There is one provision here which may help speed up the process. Take the hypothetical case which the hon. member raised of a province which is unwilling to participate in a scheme. Under clause 3, the municipalities themselves are entitled to place applications before the CTC and the provinces concerned indicating their approval or disapproval at that stage. Thus, the municipality would be able to make its application directly, bypassing a three-tiered approach. However, as I say, I think it would be quite wrong to try to exclude the provinces.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I do not intend to hold up this legislation, Mr. Chairman, because a great many Canadians have been waiting for it for a long time. On the other hand, I think we would be remiss as members of parliament if we failed to call the minister's attention to one very evident failing, as I see it.
The hon. member for Nipissing, I believe it was, suggested this was a strong piece of Liberal legislation. Well, if this is a strong piece of Liberal legislation I should certainly hate to see a weak piece. I suggest the minister has turned over too much authority and control to the CTC. He would do well to remember that one of his colleagues, the Minister of Transport, said the transportation system was in a mess, and it is in a mess because of the CTC. Yet here we find the Minister of State for Urban Affairs turning over the administration of yet another program to this same body.
I believe the minister would do well to retain a measure of control over this legislation with respect to its administration. It is simply not good enough for him to say he hopes the CTC will administer the program in a capable manner. This is the type of program which should be well conducted in the interest of the people of Canada. What assurance will we have as members of parliament that it will indeed be administered in accordance with the minister's hopes?
The minister has suggested that perhaps one or two areas might assume a major role in respect of this program, leaving the smaller centres across the country to suffer as they do at the present time. I feel the minister should have brought in along with this bill a program of priorities and a set of guidelines for the CTC in its administration of this measure. I also feel the minister should have retained certain control in order that the people of this country might have access to a medium which would allow them a say in how this program should be administered and how the people should benefit.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say a few words on Bill C-27. Many members have said, as I am sure the minister is well aware, that there has been a patient and pregnant pause between the conception of this measure and its finally reaching the House. We are now considering it in the Committee of the Whole and I realize that there is some disposition to moving it forward. But in my particular area of the country the relocation aspect is not as important as safety features at crossings. This particu-

lar aspect is of very great concern and interest to the people of eastern Canada, and specifically to the people of Nova Scotia and the Annapolis Valley.
On this occasion I should have liked to refer to this matter of priority, as did the hon. member for Red Deer, but perhaps I would be precluded from doing so by the rules. I had in mind a particular reference to an Atlantic transportation policy.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who is piloting this bill, made an interesting contribution when the bill first came up for consideration. Representatives from the Atlantic provinces have not been as vocal as we might have been in past years when transportation matters were before the House for consideration, and this is perhaps true particularly in respect of this part of this session and our consideration of certain transportation matters.
The discussion of certain aspects of transportation can be likened almost to the waving of a red flag in front of the proverbial bull. No matter how meritorious and justifiable is this matter of railway relocation and safety at crossings, we from eastern Canada see this as a piecemeal operation in spite of the fact there has been a lot of groundwork. Many of us on this side of the House from eastern Canada recall the great concern about Atlantic transportation expressed during the time when the former minister of transport, the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, brought forward a bill dealing specifically with land transportation and an amendment to the maritime freight rate structure.
We have waited for too long and too patiently for the development and announcement of further policy planks to build that platform which could properly be called an Atlantic transportation policy. While I cannot make a speech about Atlantic transportation policy today under the auspices of this bill, although I would dearly like to, I should like to know what the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs have to say about this subject.
While a program to re-route some of our railway lines in cities in Canada may be esthetically desirable, we in the east are more concerned with safety at unmarked crossings, or at crossings that are marked but inadequately so. I have not been able to find any reference to a schedule of costs applicable to the railway companies in respect of relocation. I have not found any specific reference to the proposed disposition of what might be called special purpose buildings located on railway property in various areas across Canada.
In this regard I have particular reference to water towers, water tanks or even old roundhouses which were constructed to serve specific purposes. Ordinarily under our laws of expropriation the railways are justified in requesting a replacement value for those special purpose buildings, even though the railway companies as well as municipal and provincial authorities know that these buildings are redundant and that the railways should not be allowed to follow the normal expropriation proceedings in asking for full replacement value. As a result of technological advances these buildings and facilities have become redundant.
April 29, 1974

Without getting into the whole question of whether the CTC chairman should allow relocation, or perhaps should relocate himself off on a spur line, throwing the switch so that he never comes back, I might say that this gentleman has been a very controversial figure, although he was a charming gentleman when he was here in the House. I do not want to get into all that at this stage, but I should like to know whether the minister contemplates some rationale in respect of the special purpose buildings which are in fact eyesores in some of our cities and towns.
Under our present expropriation laws the railway companies can say to the municipalities, the provinces or the CTC that it cost X number of dollars to construct these water tanks or roundhouses and, in spite of the fact that they are redundant today, they should be allowed to recover that same amount.
I am not sure at this stage whether I should continue on this line, or should now call it five o'clock, continuing again at eight.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, as a result of discussions through the usual channels I think there is a disposition to give clause 2 passage at this point. In answer to the hon. member's question, I can assure him that the schedules are designed to reflect current conditions in the determination of net costs. My short answer would, therefore, be yes; and I would be happy to answer at greater length and in greater detail when we come to that particular clause.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank the minister for that explanation. I was at another place earlier this afternoon so I am not aware of the disposition to give passage to clause 2. That being the case, I will defer my remarks until a later time. Perhaps I should call it five o'clock.


The Chairman:: Does clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is it my understanding that clause 2 is carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: It being five o'clock, I do now leave the cnair in order that the House might proceed to the consideration of private members' business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Air
Road Safety
Transport-Status of proposed passenger head tax; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) - Pensions-Possibility of legislation to provide greater protection and escalation for persons in private plans; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-the Canadian Economy-increase in corporate profits and decrease in labour's share of national income-government action.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion. Is there an agreement as to the item to be dealt with?


Mr. Lefebvre:: Number 7.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that item No. 7 is the item to be pursued during private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr.   Sean@: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately initiate, in co-operation with provincial governments and appropriate organizations, a national campaign to promote driving safety throughout Canada in the interests of preservation of human life and courtesy among the driving public.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to propose this motion, I wish first to deal with a fundamental question that will trouble at least some hon. members. At the outset I wish to state that this motion is presented with deep seriousness and strong conviction. In this milieu we are often tempted to approach the actions of other members with scepticism bordering on cynicism. Perhaps this is an unavoidable aspect of partisan policies, but it is unfortunate and I hope will not taint consideration of a motion that I can solemnly assure hon. members is not presented as a so-called "motherhood" issue.
Along these lines perhaps I might be permitted to give the background to this resolution. It is customary, Mr. Speaker, for a private member to use his one motion per session to advance a personally felt cause, often based on a particular need of his constituency. Last session, in keeping with that practice, I used my motion to call upon the government to conduct a full inquiry into its plans for an expanded Hamilton civic airport. Although the motion, again in keeping with custom, did not come to a vote, I was indeed pleased when the government finally acted and implemented that suggestion.
Accordingly, it might have well been anticipated that my motion for this session would deal with an issue of special concern to Hamilton-Wentworth, such as the failure of this government to deal adequately with the high water levels on the Great Lakes. Instead, I have chosen to

April 29, 1974
Road Safety
deal with a most grievous situation which affects my constituency as it does all others, and one which should be of special interest to none less than every member of this House.
Last August, The Spectator, the daily newspaper of the Hamilton area, contacted local politicians, including myself, to obtain their reaction to the appalling increase in traffic fatalities and to ask what these elected officials could or would do about the situation. The report on this survey reads as follows:
Local politicians expressed shock and horror over the people killed on area roads so far this year. And a number pledged action on the ever-mounting massacre.
I was quoted later in that same report as saying:
One can't be oblivious or complacent about these statistics-
-referring to the traffic death totals, and I went on to say:
The fact that there needs to be many things done is a demand upon every member of parliament.
My feelings about our common responsibility have only grown in their intensity as I have examined this issue further, and that is why I have chosen this opportunity to fulfil, in some measure, the commitment made those many months ago. That is why I am inviting this House to join me in urging the federal government to initiate a coordinated program with the provinces to promote highway safety and driving courtesy throughout Canada.
This, in turn, raises the question as to the efficacy of such programs. These have recently been brought into question as the result of a recent story in an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on April 19 of this year. But just this morning, in that same newspaper, Dr. G. J. S. Wilde, a professor of psychology at Queen's University at Kingston, dealt with the question of the efficiency and efficacy of safety minded programs. He said:
A road safety campaign is not necessarily a waste of money if one considers the benefits during the time before the effects wear off. Several examples of cost-effective campaigns are known to professionals who work in the field of road accident prevention. The savings in medical expenses alone outweigh the publicity costs of campaigns such as The Green Cross Code and the Newcastle seat belt campaign in the United Kingdom. In addition, major reductions in human suffering were achieved.
Closer to home, the campaign directed against drinking and driving in Edmonton in 1972 significantly reduced blood alcohol levels in drivers. Sweden saved 20 per cent of its road deaths immediately following the changeover from left-hand to right-hand traffic, and road fatalities in Britain were reduced by more than 1,000 after their law of .08 blood alcohol came into effect.
Thus, short-term effects may be "onsiderable even if they do not last.
More important to bear in mind is that at stake are the lives of Canadians, both those foolhardy enough to endanger their own lives and the lives of their all-too-frequent innocent victims. The Canada Safety Council, in a report giving the latest available figures, which covers the year 1972 and which was sent to every hon. member, provides us with disturbing data that indicate the gravity of the situation.
Of the 12,825 total accidental fatalities, the leading cause, by far, was motor vehicle accidents, which accounted for 48.6 per cent of the total. The motor vehicle fatality rate increased from 26 per cent per 100,000 population in the previous year to 28.6 per cent.

In less statistical and perhaps more real terms, 6,237 men, women and children died in 1972 from motor vehicle accidents. And while the data is not yet fully compiled, the numbers, the deaths, keep rising.
Most distressing of all is the grim picture of 771 young Canadians under age 15, looking forward to a full life in a nation that could offer them so much, a nation desirous and deserving of their unique contributions, dying, together with their dreams and their promise, in that same year. Of all accidental deaths involving young people in 1972, 43 per cent were attributable to traffic tragedies, thus reflecting a continuing trend.
We cannot bring back those victims, but neither can we justify those murders. We who remain can do a service to those victims by recalling their passing with a horror that compels each of us to do everything within our personal and collective power to avoid the future loss of lives in such an inglorious and unnecessary cause as the automobile.
My resolution does not pretend to be an ultimate solution. Nor does it attempt to suggest that the federal government has been derelict in its responsibility. I have no doubt that spokesmen for the government will rise in this debate to proclaim the efforts of the federal government to promote traffic safety. In anticipation of those comments I do acknowledge and commend those responsible for safety minded programs such as the promotion of child safety week during the first week of May.
If this chamber had representatives of our provincial governments and the various safety agencies, we could also expect them to rise and rhyme off their individual contributions to driving safety. Again these activities are worthy of commendation.
But my point is that all these governments, agencies and their respective programs would have greater effect and greater chances of success if their efforts were better co-ordinated. A national conference to share the experiences of their individual programs could benefit all participants in their common goal of traffic safety and driving courtesy. I mention driving courtesy in my motion because I believe it to be the very basis of safe driving. The machines and roads we use are meant for living, not for dying, when used properly and in accordance with the laws experience has helped to develop. It is concern for others that prompts driving courtesy and which in turn makes the roads safe.
It is my fervent hope and belief that a great common effort would be more effective and would be justified if its outcome were the saving of even one innocent life from yet another traffic calamity. And so, Mr. Speaker, I present a motion that is non-partisan and constructive the federal government. It might truly be said that this motion is deadly serious in its intent. I hope that the House will consider and endorse this motion in the same spirit with which it is presented.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member no doubt proposed this motion in the express hope that a nationwide effort to combat the road safety problem
April 29, 1974

would lead to a lessening in the number of casualties suffered on our roads each year. I wholeheartedly support this basic intent, as I am sure do all Canadians, particularly in face of the mounting toll of road casualties now exceeding 6,000 persons killed and 200,000 persons injured each year.
The motion as proposed recommends "a national campaign to promote driving safety." There is a certain ambiguity in the use of the term "campaign". It may, for example, simply imply a propaganda or public education campaign. Or the term may be used in its broader sense implying an integrated program.
If we are to interpret "campaign" in the narrow sense of a propaganda campaign, then I submit that this in itself is not the best approach to take in combatting the road safety problem. Road safety campaigns can be very expensive to develop and run. And they can, with distressing frequency, be totally ineffective in meeting their objective of reducing road casualties, as witness an American campaign sponsored by the National Safety Council to increase seat belt usage levels. This campaign cost over $50 million, and had no measurable effect on the proportion of vehicle occupants wearing seat belts.
An international group of experts in public education reported in 1971 that "many safety campaigns of the last decade or so simply could not have the desired effect because they were not planned in accordance with what is presently known about behavior modification through mass communication." The group, which met under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, reviewed the effectiveness of many public education campaigns and concluded that such campaigns are more likely to be effective when co-ordinated with other road safety programs, such as legislation and enforcement.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, despite the best of motivations on the part of the developers of public education campaigns, and in spite of the most lavish of expenditures, we cannot expect that public education will be effective just as a matter of course. We must not panic and, like the proverbial headless chicken, scurry around demanding that somebody do something, regardless of its ultimate worth, just so that we get some action.
On the other hand, if the hon. member's intention was to recommend an attack on road accidents on all fronts, then he is on the right track and I would agree with him. I can assure the hon. member that the government is greatly concerned over the road safety problem and considers the development and implementation of proven counter measures to be a top priority.
In February of this year federal and provincial cabinet ministers responsible for road safety and motor vehicle administration announced their intention to increase cooperation in the form of a co-ordinated five year program to improve highway safety in Canada. In a press release on February 22 it was stated that the goal of this program is to reduce the nation's road traffic fatality rate by 15 per cent over the next five years.
Senior officials from the 11 governments met in Ottawa in March to discuss Canada's road safety programs in the light of this goal. As expressed in a joint statement on
Road Safety
March 29 at the conclusion of their discussions, agreement was reached that the greatest potential for reduction in the fatality rate lies in:
1.	Increasing the use of seat belts.
2.	Reducing the extent of driving while impaired by alcohol through changes in the Criminal Code and increased public education.
3.	Identification and correction of hazardous road locations.
4.	Emphasis on improving the safety of trucks, buses and school buses through the motor vehicle safety standards program.
5.	Improved vehicle maintenance particularly for commercial vehicles through public information and improved service of vehicle inspection.
6.	Extension and improvement of driver education programs.
7.	Increased police presence.
It was the opinion of these officials that progress must be made in these areas if we are to meet the road safety goal of a 15 per cent reduction in Canada's road traffic fatality rate over the next five years. Despite major efforts to date in safety regulations, road improvement and vehicle design, further action by all levels of government, safety organizations and individual drivers is necessary if the annual escalation of road casualties is to be reversed.
The House will note that public education was mentioned in a number of contexts in the program areas recommended at the federal-provincial meeting. There is no doubt that public education will play a very significant role in the co-operative road safety program that will be implemented over the next five years.
Allow me to elaborate further on those road safety counter measures which offer the greatest likelihood of improvement in our road fatality rate. First of all, there is the question of seat belt usage. There is no doubt in my mind that increasing seat belt usage would be the single and most effective advance that could be made at this time. Seat belts have been required to be installed in all seating positions of new motor vehicles since 1971 in Canada. In practice most automotive vehicles have been equipped with belts since 1966 or even earlier. However, belt usage rates are disappointingly low.
The problem of increasing usage rates has most frequently been tackled by mass media campaigns exhorting people to "buckle up," or asking "Are you putting me on?" This type of public education campaign has been largely ineffective. Public education is more likely to change the public's awareness of the value of seat belts and to make them more receptive to other counter measures that may be introduced, such as ignition interlock systems or possibly seat belt use legislation.
The second area recommended for high priority attention by the federal and provincial road safety officials is the alcohol impaired driving problem. The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1969 made it an offence for a driver of a motor vehicle to have a blood alcohol content in excess of .08 per cent. The same amendment made it compulsory for a driver to submit to a breath test, when the request to do so is made by a police officer on reasonable grounds.

April 29, 1974
Road Safety
The federal Department of Transport conducted an expensive public education campaign at that time to inform the public of the amendment and its provisions. Before and after telephone surveys evaluated the effectiveness of this campaign. The results were impressive. The public's knowledge of all the amendment's provisions increased substantially. For example, whereas in the before study only 12 per cent of persons responding were aware that the legal limit was .08 per cent, in the after group 72 per cent of the people could quote this figure.
As effective as this campaign was in informing the public, it should not be assumed that a change in knowledge on the part of the driving public will necessarily result in a change in behavior. A recent study released by the Department of Transport indicates that the so-called breathalizer legislation was largely ineffective in reducing the involvement of alcohol in serious accidents. So while the campaign succeeded in imparting knowledge, it did not succeed, in conjunction with changes in legislation and enforcement methods, in producing the desired behavioral change, namely a reduction in the amount of alcohol-impaired driving in Canada.
The impaired driving problem will not be easily resolved. However, it will retain its position as a priority research and program area because of the seriousness of the problem. It has been demonstrated in numerous excellent studies that alcohol is a factor in fully 50 per cent of all fatal road accidents on this continent.
The road safety officials also recognized the role played by the road network itself in contributing to the occurrence and severity of road accidents. Most highway departments have ongoing programs to identify and treat hazardous road locations. Whether the hazard be a roadside obstacle, a geometric design feature of the roadway-I mean the dangerous curve or hill-or a maintenance hazard dealing with ice or snow, of prime importance to the highway department is the accurate identification of the location and its hazardous features. Once the problem has been identified, the most appropriate remedial action can then be taken to alleviate the hazard.
Of major importance is the effect of hazards on the roadside on the severity of accidents. Eighteen per cent of all road accidents in Canada during 1972 involved single vehicles which ran off the road and rolled or struck an obstacle. However, 27 per cent of all fatal accidents were of this type.
Specifically, a list of counter measures proven effective includes the removal of unnecessary roadside fixed objects, the protection of necessary fixed objects with energy attenuation devices such as collapsible barriers at gore areas, improved guardrail design, and the replacement of structures with solid bases by those with breakaway or frangible bases.
Of course, these are expensive solutions, so it will be necessary to establish priorities and to correct those hazardous road locations that will return the most benefit per dollar expended. The Department of Transport is presently engaged in a research project specifically designed to establish procedures for developing these priorities. A

number of provinces have already committed major sums of money for the removal of road hazards.
I am told that consideration was also given at the meeting to priority areas involving the vehicles that use the road system. A specific concern was expressed for the safety of commercial vehicles, including trucks, buses and school buses. More rigid safety standards can be expected for these vehicles through the motor vehicle safety standards program. The safety standards deal with motor vehicles at the time of their manufacture. The extent to which these vehicles retain their safety characteristics depends to a great degree on how they are maintained. The provincial officials reported their considerable interest in improving the level of vehicle maintenance-particularly for commercial vehicles-through augmented public information and vehicle inspection programs.
It should be noted that the federal government has responsibility for but a portion of these priority road safety program areas. The provinces and municipalities have major areas of responsibility in road safety, such as driver licensing, training and police enforcement, as well as those mentioned previously. Therefore it is heartening to see the importance placed at all levels of government on co-ordination of effort in areas of both safety research, program development and program implementation. The provincial and federal governments are committed to documenting their existing road programs with an eye to improving the exchange of program information between government levels and among many countries on an international basis. More attention will be put on program evaluation in the future, with the intention of continually refining and developing those program areas that show themselves most effective.
I think we must face the fact that the road safety problem is not an easy one to solve. There are no simplistic solutions; there are no royal roads to safe driving. Through the "fifties and" sixties progress has been made in improving the road and the vehicle. The continually increasing demand for vehicular transportation in this country, as in all the world, will continue to make it exceedingly difficult to make absolute reductions in the number of road casualties. However, the government believes that it will only be through an integrated and well-developed road safety program, with major effort from government, industry and the general populace, that possible improvements can be realized.
I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that it is precisely this approach that the government is taking.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address a few remarks to the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan), I do so with a deep appreciation for the importance of driver safety counter measures. I share the concern of all members of the House, I am sure, when it comes to the problem of traffic safety. I rise to speak today with the confident knowledge that Canada, and the government in particular, has not been remiss in its duty to deal positively with the problem of traffic deaths and injuries.
As my hon. colleague has just mentioned, the representatives participating in the recent federal-provincial
April 29, 1974

meeting on road safety identified a number of areas for concentration. One of the areas singled out for special attention was the need for reducing the extent of driving while impaired by alcohol. I wish to discuss this problem today in light of the hon. member's motion for a national road safety campaign.
The effects of alcohol in traffic accidents have been well documented and there can be no doubt left in anyone's mind as to the seriousness of this problem. It is estimated that in Canada 50 per cent of all driver fatalities can be linked to the effects of alcohol. Of these, roughly 80 per cent have a blood alcohol content of .10 per cent or greater, even though the law in Canada states that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle if the blood alcohol content is .08 per cent or more.
Before I describe a few of the steps that have been taken to find solutions to the drinking and driving problem, I would first like to ask, "Who is the drinking driver"? As a recent Department of Transport report on alcohol and highway safety points out,
There is strong evidence from existing studies, that whiie the problem drinkers and alcoholics make up a small proportion of the total population, they account for a very considerable part of the over-all problem of traffic fatalities.
The results of past studies on criminological, sociological and psychological factors relating to drinking drivers have revealed a character analysis of the drinking driver as predominantly male, and if I may quote further:
The highest levels of blood alcohol are frequently found, not in the very young, nor in the older drivers, but in persons between the mid-twenties to the mid-fifties. Those drivers who are divorced, separated, or have relatively low levels of education, are also more likely to drive after drinking. Personality studies of individuals apprehended for driving after heavy drinking have pointed at the high incidence of paranoid ideation, self-destructiveness, suicidal tendencies, hostility, obsessional rumination, manual occupation, criminal records, neuroti-cism, extraversion, social immaturity and willingness to accept risks.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to reach these individuals by mass publicity or any other device presently available for use.
The government is continuing research into the study of types of drinking drivers and it is hoped that the results will enable more effective programs to be designed. The drinking and driving problem has been approached in two ways. The first is in the legal area of strict laws and enforcement. The second is an extensive national and international research program.
The .08 per cent or breathalyzer section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act became law in December, 1969. The effects of this counter measure have been monitored to determine the results. It was anticipated that we would find a reduction in fatal accidents. A recent Department of Transport survey indicates that a small reduction in fatalities was realized the first year, 1970, but unfortunately the law is no longer effecting a decrease. In the light of the situation it is clear that we must continue to search for more effective methods. The representatives at the federal-provincial meeting agreed that changes in the legislation, together with a major education campaign to gain support from the public, might be an effective means of overcoming this problem.
In saying this, I do not wish to imply that the law enforcement officials have been lax in their duty, for we
Road Safety
all know the tremendous and difficult task they face in identifying the drunk drivers. Because a person is charged with a criminal offence when his blood alcohol content is over .08, per cent law enforcement officials have to be extremely cautious before they submit someone to a breath test. Consequently, the average readings across Canada for those persons being charged is .16 per cent, double the legal level of impairment.
What I would like to suggest is that the police need help in more accurately identifying the offenders. To this end research on roadside screening methods is continuing, and hopefully it will have two worthwhile outcomes. The first is to assure that a suspected drinking driver is not unnecessarily inconvenienced and, secondly, to assure that those at the lower levels of impairment are not escaping detection.
Canada had responsibility for the alcohol and highway safety sub-project of the NATO Pilot Study in Road Safety and has completed a report which reviews the alcohol/driving countermeasures that have been tried in many countries and suggests which ones warrant further examination. It is clear that there is no one solution to this problem and that much more information is needed about the extent of drinking/driving before valid comparisons of countermeasure effectiveness can be made. The study therefore recommends that roadside surveys, designed to obtain a measure of blood alcohol in drivers, be conducted in all member countries. A protocol for conducting these roadside surveys was developed and is included as a part of the final report.
Roadside surveys have been used in Canada to evaluate the effectiveness of drinking and driving campaigns as well as to gather information of the blood alcohol content of drivers on the roads during the day and evening hours.
In 1971, for example, a roadside survey in Alberta was conducted in conjunction with a public education campaign to discourage drinking and driving over the Christmas season. This was a joint effort between the federal Ministry of Transport and the Canada Safety Council. The measure of success obtained indicates that this method of public education campaign may be a potentially effective means of lowering the incidence of drunk-driving over the critical Christmas season.
So far I have confined my remarks to the Canadian government's national and international activities, but let us not forget the dedicated involvement of each of the provincial governments in designing provincial programs, or the Canada Safety Council, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation or the various other safety-minded groups too numerous to mention who have worked dedicatedly across Canada to increase Canada's awareness of the problem and to encourage us all to make a concentrated effort to lower traffic accident statistics.
Although, Mr. Speaker, I have restricted my comments to the problem of drinking and driving I am well aware that this is but one element of the federal-provincial co-operative program already referred to by my hon. colleagues.
1850

April 29, 1974
Road Safety


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, although I shall speak for only a moment or two, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) on using his one and only private member's motion during this session to raise the important subject of driving safety. I commend him for the forceful speech he made and hope that by the time he has been here for as long as some of the rest of us, the picture regarding deaths on our highways will have altered greatly.
I suppose one could predict, as the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth did, that spokesmen on the government side would give us a list of all the things the government has done in trying to cope with motor vehicle carnage; yet I enjoin my good friend from Hamilton-Wentworth not to be cynical about it. I say that because the list of things mentioned by spokesmen on the other side underlines that there are many factors which contribute to automobile accidents and to the loss of life. It is good to know that there is concern about all these important causes and problems.
Both of the members on the government side who have spoken thus far said a good deal about the part alcohol plays in automobile accidents. Certainly, the statistics tell a gruesome story in that respect. There was reference to the efforts to lay down standards for the manufacture of cars, so that they will be built with safety features. There was reference to making more universal the use of seat belts, to extensive driver training and driver licensing programs, and there have also been comments on the need for intelligent and effective engineering of our highways. A great deal has been done in this area in recent decades in terms of making highways more safe, getting rid of obstacles to vision and getting rid of those things which increase the number of accidents.
I hope mv friend from Hamilton-Wentworth joins me in welcoming the list of things to which attention has been paid. We also make the point that the incidence of deaths which take place because of automobile accidents is so high, so serious, that we need to double and redouble our efforts to prevent accidents. The extent of loss of life because of motor vehicle accidents is one of the most gruesome scandals of the twentieth century. When one considers the number of human beings who have lost their lives in motor vehicle accidents since 1900, one wonders whether the human race is as sensible as it claims to be.
Regardless of what happens to the present motion raised in today's private members' hour, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth has done a service by raising the issue. I join with him in calling for doubled and redoubled effort in all ways that can cut down the loss of life on our highways. I say to the hon. member that he has done well to raise this issue. I call on him to stick with it.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak about the bill before us as I consider it is a matter of general interest. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that it is our duty, not only as members of Parliament but also as Canadian citizens, to strive harder than ever to reduce the mortality rate on Canadian highways. I wish to commend the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) who in

his bill, gives hon. members an opportunity to discuss during this hour the problem facing us.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, even if I entirely agree with the motion, I have some reservations because I do not think that the general education programs and the publicity made through television, radio and so on will change the attitude of Canadian citizens about highways and the way they are used.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think it is essential that we teach the youth at the primary or secondary education level and pursuade them to take the necessary precautions for using the transportation system at our disposal.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that it is at this level that preventive action is most efficient. In fact, it is at the age when children are rather impressionable that we must direct our efforts. I entirely agree that it might be profitable for publicity agencies to receive contracts from provincial and federal governments to communicate information concerning road safety but nevertheless it is in the present educational system and within the existing framework that we should concentrate more and more our efforts.
There is another problem with regard to the instruments we have for transportation purposes. We have our roads and our automobiles. I come from an area that is discriminated against in so far as road safety is concerned. Indeed, in my area of northern Ontario, the roads are horrible. Most accidents are not caused by driver neglect, but the condition of the roads.
Highway 64 which runs from the southern to the northern portion of the province connects with highways 17 and 11.1 am sure I am accurate when I state that road has been responsible for more deaths in the past generation than any other stretch of road in Canada. The portion between Sturgeon Falls and Field is one of the worst pieces of pavement ever constructed and maintained by man. I admit that road comes within provincial jurisdiction, but in his motion the hon. member recognizes that the provincial government has to be involved in this particular program. Numerous representations have been made to the Ontario government, but they have refused so far to improve that road. They have refused to consider the essential nature of transportation in northern Ontario and the necessity of maintaining highways in good condition.
Although this did not relate to road safety, I might indicate that during the months of March and April the only industry in the town of Field, Field Lumber, was closed because of the half-load limit imposed by the Ontario government on that road. They will impose a half-load limit, but refuse to improve the condition of that road to make it useable by industry and private citizens.
There is also considerable difficulty as a result of automobile design. This, too, results in discrimination with regard to road safety in Canada. Indeed, the fact that automobiles used in Canada are designed in the United States is detrimental to road safety. There is no doubt that American cars, which are used predominantly in Canada, are great for the toll roads and main highways in the
April 29, 1974

United States, but they do not do the job when transplanted to northern Ontario.
I have a Pontiac Ventura. I find it necessary to carry about 250 pounds of bricks and concrete blocks in the trunk in order to maintain the stability of that car on icy roads in northern Ontario. I might also point out that when driving in the snow in northern Ontario, the ventilation system sucks the snow that is flying around into the cab, completely fogging the inside of the windshield. If these are not errors in design of major proportions, I do not know what to call them. Accepting American design without question contributes more to danger than any other factor. Because of unsafe roads such as highway 64, and the design and engineering of automobiles, residents of northern Ontario are further discriminated against.
I am sure that the automobile insurance rates are higher in my area of northern Ontario than anywhere else in the province. I do not relate that to the quality of driving. Surely, drivers in northern Ontario are as qualified as those in southern Ontario. I relate this directly to the unsatisfactory conditions of the roads in northern Ontario and the unsatisfactory design of the automobiles that ply them. I suggest that greater attention be given to those two faults.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we would all like to live in a country where going from one place to another poses no problems. I know that courtesy on the road leaves much to be desired. It is imperative that Canadian drivers acquire better habits. We must also consider as essential the implementation of an information program to better educate the public and instil in it a greater respect for our driving laws and human life.
Mr. Speaker, in our area, few families have been spared the tragedy of a fatal accident on the road. Those tragedies must of all necessity be avoided. At one time, we thought that by imposing limits to the level of inebriation tolerated on the road we would reduce somewhat the number of fatal accidents. There was considerable publicity about the measures the police would take to prevent people from using the road and their car when intoxicated or almost. Unfortunately, in spite of the relevant publicity, we notice that proceedings, because of the breathalizer test, did not have the expected effect. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that this is so, but I am coming back to my first remarks saying that it would not be through legal sanctions that you will stop people from abusing the transportation system. Neither will it be through a system of general education applied through a means of information that the situation will be changed. You must first return to the young and educate them within the prevalent educational system. We should ask the governments of Ontario and of the other provinces, and the federal government, to save some funds for this purpose.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in a nationalist context such as ours, we must also prepare cars for our Canadian climate to carry us from point A to point B in total security. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth to encourage his fellow members of the provincial party to take measures to improve roads, the pavement so that we in northern Ontario could enjoy road safety. All citizens of Ontario
Road Safety
should benefit from cars equipped for winter, cars which can stand two winters and, furthermore, should have insurance rates comparable to southern Ontario. This comes under provincial jurisdiction; however, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth for giving me the chance to show the provincial governments that it is necessary to improve road conditions. It is also a provincial responsibility to see that cars come under road security standards.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan). Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I wish to congratulate him for giving us this opportunity to discuss a serious matter, one which affects the safety of so many of our citizens. Members in all quarters of the House are much concerned about the numbers of people who are killed or injured every year on our highways and we are all in accord, I think, in our views on this important issue.
We have at hand the single, most effective weapon for combatting the tragic loss of life on our nation's highways. I am referring, of course, to seat belts. The evidence is unanimous that seat belts work, that they are effective in reducing deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Recent Canadian research on seat belts gave rise to the following conclusion:
The studies which were reviewed generally agree that with total usage of lap and shoulder belts, fatalities could be reduced by half. This means that in Canada, in 1972, more than 1,700 vehicle occupant fatalities would have been saved if everyone had been wearing the seat belts available.
No similar claim can be made with regard to any other immediately available counter measure. There is no other readily available measure to reduce the toll of death and injury from traffic accidents which could approach the potential to be realized by the universal use of seat belts.
In fact, the Canadian government, through the Motor Vehicles Safety Act and regulations, has recognized the importance of seat belts by requiring their fitment in all new automobiles sold in Canada after January 1, 1971. These regulations are continually being up-dated to take account of new technology. The latest change, effective January 1, 1974, required fitment of the best currently available seat belt design, the three-point lap and shoulder combination with inertia-reel, a truly comfortable and easy-to-use system.
Current seat belt research is aimed toward developing "passive" seat belts. Such a belt deploys automatically about the occupant as he seats himself in his vehicle and stows itself automatically as he leaves the vehicle. In its other aspects it is similar to the belts currently being installed in new vehicles. Prototype models indicate that these belts retain all the advantages of the conventional belt yet dispense with the requirement for any action on the part of the driver or passenger, at a relatively low cost. This system holds great potential and it is my view that its
27451-54i

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
development should be hastened, perhaps by government action.
Even though it is indisputable that the wearing of seat belts reduces the risk of death and injury, and even though seat belts are available today in the vast majority of cars, the percentage who actually wear these devices is still very low-probably no more than 10 per cent or 15 per cent of vehicle occupants. Fully aware of this, the government has sought to influence usage by direct, legislative means. Since July 1, 1972, legislation has required that automobiles be equipped with a buzzer-light warning system which activates if seat belts are not fastened while the car is operating. However, due to the relative ease with which these devices can be by-passed, they have not proved particularly successful in promoting usage.
Public education campaigns have long been regarded by governments as a method by which the wearing of seat belts is encouraged. Unfortunately, most of them have been based on an incomplete understanding of the processes at work, and, hence, have failed. In the words of the review of seat belt usage habits in 16 European countries:
The information and education campaigns so far conducted have been largely successful in convincing drivers and passengers of the usefulness of seat belts, but have had limited effect in inducing vehicle occupants to actually wear them, doubtless because insufficiently strong motivation exists.
Governments have available to them a method for providing this motivation. Laws prescribing that seat belts shall be worn have proven effective in several countries, notably in Australia. The director of the New South Wales traffic accident research unit said in July, 1972:
Surveys of seat belt wearing ... showed that the percentage of those wearing seat belts in front seat positions rose from around 25 per cent before legislation to around 75 per cent very soon afterward.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hour provided for private members' business has now expired. Perhaps the House would agree to go back into committee before I call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill C-27, to facilitate the relocation of railway lines or rerouting of railway traffic in urban areas and to provide financial assistance for work done for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at railway crossings-Mr. Basford-Mr. Boulanger in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: When the committee was interrupted at five o'clock this afternoon clause 2 of the bill had been carried. Shall clause 3 carry.
On Clause 3-Application to commission.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I know there are other members who want to speak on this as well as other clauses of this bill, so at this stage I will keep my remarks short. Clause 3 under Part I, respecting joint urban development and transportation plans, begins to outline a litte more fully the objectives of this bill in respect of relocation of rails in certain urban areas of the country, along with the development of more safety features at railways crossings. I understand that this plan also applies in respect of rural areas.
Before we recessed for dinner, I had referred to transportation in this country as being somewhat symptomatic of the lack of transportation policy in this country. I appreciate that this is perhaps not the time to make a comprehensive speech on transportation matters throughout the country, and specifically in Atlantic Canada, but I should point out in passing that the Minister of Transport confessed not long ago that transportation was in a mess.
After 11 years under this present government, perhaps the Minister of Transport is to be complimented for his frankness as exemplified by his confession that transportation generally, and specifically in respect of policy, was in an absolute mess in this country. I do not think he used the word, "absolute", but he certainly said it was in a mess. As we sit on this side of the House considering different piecemeal approaches under different ministers of transport to this whole matter of transportation, we can only echo that transportation is in a bad way across the country. Whether this particular bill should be supported by all members of this House because it will help unify safety features in respect of railway crossings in various cities is a matter for debate, nevertheless this bill does not offer any solutions for the fundamental problems of transportation.
This country was born, grew and developed on the basis of its transportation, and whether we are free enterprise socialists, liberal socialists, as we call them today, or Conservatives we must all agree that it was the CPR, the link between the east and the west, that finally drew this country together. Ironically, in this day of communications and increased technology, it is perhaps the problems of transportation or the lack of a transportation policy in the national sense that is really causing some of the divisiveness and disunity in this country. But here we have Bill C-27 which will make more beautiful some of our urban areas in Canada, which will perhaps take down some water tanks, shift some roundhouses and engage in other like ventures as well as perhaps help to improve safety on the road and relocate railway crossings across the country.
The Minister of Transport who is not in the House right now, confessed that Canada has no transportation policy. I
April 29, 1974

wonder what was the reason for this confession. I was a member of this House, as were other members on this side and some on the opposite side, when that great bill on the national transportation policy was brought to the House. It was supposed to revolutionize the concept of transportation in this country. All modes of transport were supposed to charge what the traffic would bear. As a result of that bill the Canadian Transport Commission was established headed by the former minister of transport, Mr. Pickers-gill, at a very interesting and rewarding salary. Then, we went from the Pickersgillian pork barrel to the late minister of finance-I say "late" although he is still very much with us but is no longer minister of finance here-who became the next chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission.
I wonder if perhaps one of the problems of transportation-be it railway crossings or relocation of railway crossings in the centre of the city-is that politics, political appointments and political necessities have been the dominant considerations governing many of the decisions of this government. Regardless of the personalities of the chairmen of the CTC, whether it was Mr. Pickersgill, Mr. Benson or whoever else may become the next chairman, this is not the way to decide the transportation policy and the future of our railways.
Speaking of railways, there is something that has not received much attention since the recent appointments. We have two national railroads, the CPR and the CNR, and here again one wonders if perhaps politics are not influencing the decisions that are being made in the running of these two corporations. We have a brand new president and a brand new chairman of the CNR. The former president, Mr. MacMillan, was evidently doing a good job so that he has had to be replaced by two individuals. One would have thought that this government might have learned from the experience of Air Canada that when you diminish the responsibility of a chief executive, and this is especially true in transportation-on when you start to divide that responsibility, you find that the organization does not have the drive that it would have had under one chief executive officer. Personally, I do not know the two new gentlemen who are running the CNR, but judging from the experience of Air Canada and the fact that two individuals were appointed by this government to run that corporation, this mistake should not have been made again because Air Canada has run into a lot of problems.
If we really wanted to look into the problems of Air Canada tonight, I would have to go into greater detail to outline them than I am permitted under this bill. But here we are doing the same thing with the CNR. I do not know the background of these two gentlemen who are now replacing the president of the CNR and I do not know whether they were formerly CNR vice-presidents, but I do know that one of them has not been very long with the railway. However, I wonder whether that is the way to solve some of the problems of the CNR. So, here we have the Canadian Transport Commission, which is one of the main bodies responsible for implementing the policy under this bill, and the CNR, which is one of the two main railways affected by this bill. We will put a postage stamp here, do a patchwork job there, but in terms of a fundamental transportation policy we are not facing the reali-
Relocation of Railway Lines
ties and putting forward solutions that some of these pressing problems deserve.
I am sorry to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare leave the House, but may I suggest that with his great experience in piloting the football legislation through the House, and having been the grey eminence behind the throne before he was elected, he might have been useful in curing some of the sicknesses in the transportation system of this country. Perhaps instead of concentrating on football and worrying about health and welfare, if we are really going to carry this dual concept to an extreme-the Russians wanted a troika at the head of the United Nations so that no one could do anything but we prefer dual authority in the CNR and Air Canada- perhaps we could have the minister move out of his legislative role and help Mr. Benson. Perhaps, we should have him move into the CTC to help balance the Benson rudder with a Lalonde rudder.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Perhaps we could do the same with the Minister of Supply and Services.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, I would not want him to go anywhere.
I know that there are other hon. members who want to speak on this bill. I do not have anything critical to say of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is piloting this bill. This is basically a transport bill, a transport problem. Although it affects cities it also affects many rural parts of Canada. I know that the Minister of Transport, who has a lot of intestinal fortitude, is not hiding behind the skirts or the suit of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, but when you have the Minister of Transport in a government that has been in power in this country for 11 years con-fesssing that our transportation policy is a mess and that the only thing we can do is to adopt a bandaid approach to certain localized problems, then I say it is time something was done. The eastern part of Canada is dependent on a viable transportation policy, something we were promised in 1969 by the then minister of transport.
Our problem is centred around the maritime freight rates policy. I say that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will have real problems on his hands with regard to that. I am glad to see him come into the House- there must be some telepathy between us. If the maritime freight rates subsidy, which is as basic to Eastern transportation as are the Crowsnest pass rates to the west, is affected then the shipment of goods from one part of the country to another will also be affected so that viable industry will be hard pressed to continue, let alone to expand, on the basis of this type of policy. I say that this government has grave problems, and yet here we are talking about railway relocation and the safety of railway crossings.
I know that there are other hon. members who want to say a few more words on this bill. All I have to say about railway safety and railway relocation is that the sooner we come to grips with the fundamental problems in the country, the better off we will be. The most fundamental problem right now is to find out where the government of this country is and who is running this country so that we can have a government making decisions on basic questions in all areas, not just on transportation policy. Canadians will really only have real safety when they

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
relocate this government on the opposition side and have this party go to the government side. Then a policy will be adopted affecting railway crossings, affecting urban beauty and improvement, but fundamentally creating a viable transportation system and making this a better country for all Canadians.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me. I would like to speak about clause 3 of Bill C-27.
Before the dinner hour, I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) to give me a guarantee or a concrete assurance about the bill we are studying and I hope we will pass it so that it will apply from one ocean to the other, and make all Canadians equal under the law, in spite of often hardly inexplicable wills in certain provinces.
The minister did not well understand what I said, i.e. what would happen if a municipality located in another province wanted to benefit from the bill under study. Could it do it? The minister answered that this was against the principle of consultation with or intervention by the provinces.
But this was not the question. I was only repeating what Hansard said he said on page 1757.
The House is now studying clause 3. I would like to be very exact about this. It is said and I quote:
3. (1) Where, in respect of an area in a province that includes or comprises an urban area ... the government of the province and all the municipalities within that area have agreed upon an urban development plan and transportation plan (hereinafter in this Part called an "accepted plan") ...
-up to then, all goes well, there are no problems. I continue quoting clause 3:
... for that transportation study area, the province or a municipality...
-this is what the minister told me before lunch. In answer to my question, he referred to clause 3 where it is stipulated that "the province or a municipality-"
But the minister did not then continue the quotation. But, if you continue, you can see on line 10-
... the province or a municipality acting on behalf of the province .. .
Which means, Mr. Chairman, that a province, no matter what its needs, its situation or the common interests of the people living in this urban area, will not be able to avail itself of the benefits of this bill which, I hope, will be endorsed by the greater majority of hon. members. Therefore, the people living in this municipality will not be treated on an equal footing with the rest of the Canadian people.
In my opinion, once it has been passed by Parliament, an act should apply to the whole of Canada, without consideration of language, race, creed, or province of residence. Because Parliament is the supreme body, such an act should be recognized and adhered to by the whole of Canada. When Bill C-133 was adopted by this House, granting the provinces $250 million with which to improve abandoned or outdated neighbourhoods and develop low

cost housing, we sincerely believed that this legislation would apply universally to the whole of Canada.
This legislation was adopted in June 1973 and it has not yet been implemented in Quebec, while in Ontario, over $36 million have been spent up to now. Mr. Chairman, I think this is not acceptable.
I do not cast any blame on the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) for this, because I know very well who is bluffing in the implementation of this law. The point I want to get across to him is that we, in Quebec, wish to be considered Canadians and respected as all other Canadians; we do not want to be set aside because some government puts peanut politics and autonomy ahead of its citizens way of life.
Mr. Chairman, Bill C-27 comes as the normal and logical sequence of Bill C-133. And because the latter supplements the former, to promote urbanization, mainly in the core of cities such as Winnipeg, Toronto and in small municipalities, this means that if tonight, as member for Lotbiniere, I vote in good faith for the bill, I have to bear in mind that one or two years hence neither Bill C-133 nor Bill C-27 will be implemented in Quebec, and this I cannot accept.
I would like the minister to give me some guarantee tonight that Bill C-133 will bring some advantage to the people of Quebec as much as to those of British Columbia. And I would like him to say what mechanism he provided for in the implementation of Bill C-127 so relocations of railway lines could take place in Quebec, Ontario or Manitoba.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a separatist, I am a Canadian, and proud to be one, but I am sick and tired of voting legislation in this Parliament which has no effect in my own province. I would like the provinces to be consulted before a bill is brought in before Parliament so that when it is passed the bill previously agreed to by all provinces can apply from one coast to the other without distinction.
When under clause 3 the right of a municipality is limited to "acting on behalf of the province", that means- and I draw the minister's attention to that-that the province has a right of veto on the application of this act.
Mr. Chairman, that is not true federalism since any province could decide as it pleased under the opting out rule to withdraw from the legislation voted by the supreme institution that is Parliament. The time that the minister and his officials will have spent implementing or see this legislation through will be time lost.
Mr. Chairman, I would have several questions to put to the minister. What progress has been made in the discussions on Bill C-133 with the province of Quebec? Who is blocking the decisions? The provincial government or the federal government? What relationship is there between Bill C-27 and Bill C-133 and is there any relationship in the setting up of urban planning areas, such as the minister wants, and I congratulate him for that, what guarantee can he give me that Bill C-27 will be more respected in the province of Quebec than Bill C-133? Have there been up to now any discussions or negotiations with any or all of the provinces before this bill was tabled for first reading on April 22 last? Were there discussions with the provinces? If so, what was the provincial response? Did they give
April 29, 1974

their sine qua non agreement? Did they object or did they tell the minister he had their support? What was Quebec's answer on this bill? I would like the minister to put that down in black and white, tonight or tomorrow, to protect me against the Quebec government, who in six months time, for petty reasons of partisan policies, will object to this bill on the grounds of autonomy and small politics.
Mr. Chairman, this is my position. I strongly support this bill since it meets a real need and places at the disposal of our municipalities the money that they need to promote urban development zones. However, because of certain foolish members of our provincial gouvernements, including the Minister responsible for Urban Affairs in Quebec, Quebec will not benefit from this bill and this money. This, Mr. Chairman, is no longer profitable federalism. For my part, I do not believe in politicians, but in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I am counting on the good will of the minister to reassure me and my colleagues on this point. And because I am not confident that the Quebec government will respect the laws of Canada, because I accuse the Bourassa government of being more separatist than the Parti quebecois of Rene Levesque, I say that Premier Bourassa is even more separatist than the separatist party, this is why he does not have my confidence. This is why I would like removed from clause 3 the phrase which says that a municipality will be able to benefit from this biil provided it acts on behalf of the province.
For my part, I say that a municipality that needs federal assistance for the common good should be able to act as far as possible with the agreement of its provincial government. Otherwise, a financial mechanism should be provided to ensure that the municipality will benefit from the assistance, not in a tripartite way, but bilaterally, that is, by the action of the municipal government in association with the federal government.
There is no reason why Victoriaville, Warwick, Prince-ville or my whole riding should be deprived of those amounts of money, when cities like St. Boniface, Sudbury and Hamilton benefit from them. We would be lucky if we had a provincial government that truly believes in Canada, but we do not have that in Quebec, and we too would like to benefit from those advantages. That is why I move the following amendment to clause 3:
That clause 3 of Bill C-27 be amended by deleting the words "on behalf of the province" in line 11 and substituting therefore the words "on its own behalf".
That means, Mr. Chairman, that from now on we are going to build a strong Canada, and make participants of Canadians, municipalities and governments. We are going to make responsible governments of our municipalities and no longer have governments that suffer the unfortunate decisions of some provincial governments. That means, Mr. Chairman, that those of our provincial governments that are not Canadian will have to choose between separatism or reintegrating the ranks of Canadians. Mr. Chairman, the Quebec government which gargles with great literary quotations and autonomy, will have to take advantage of federalism, will have to decide where it belongs in Canada, or else separate. I therefore ask my
Relocation of Railway Lines
colleagues of other provinces to support me in this, in order that all Canadians, from sea to sea, be placed on an equal footing.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate for a brief moment, a number of questions have been forming in my mind as I have listened to it and read those parts which I did not hear. The bill suggests to me that a lot more power will be given to the Canadian Transport Commission. I always thought the Minister of Transport felt that the Commission had much power already and he had none at all. If I am correct in my interpretation of his remarks with regard to transportation in Canada, it is no wonder he is neither taking part in this debate nor in the House listening to it. He probably detests every word of it, seeing more power being given to the CTC and less possibility of a modern transportation system in Canada. Perhaps even a little bit more power is going to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, although I do not see how he enters into the picture other than that he might be the kind of person who can pilot the bill through the House without too much difficulty. The other minister who appears to have some power under the bill is the Minister of Public Works.
As I interpret the amendment put forward by the previous speaker, the onus is upon the municipality to apply for restitution for some kind of improved transportation system. I do not know how many municipalities there are in Canada, but if each one puts forward suggested improvements in the transportation system, we may find ourselves in greater trouble than we are in now, so perhaps we should take a little bit more care to analyse this bill.
Clause 3 (1), of Part I specifically provides "hereinafter in this part called an 'accepted plan'. I looked through the bill to find out what would constitute an "accepted plan", in the eyes of the commission, for an urban transportation development system. I find that the clause goes on to say:
... for that transportation study area, the province or a municipality acting on behalf of the province may, subject to subsection (5) ...
So a municipality may submit what it considers to be an "accepted plan" for a rail grade improvement, a rerouting of present highways to have an overpass on a given railroad or, even, to develop what might be considered as urban transportation within that urban community.
First of all, one should assess what is meant by urban area. In his speech the minister gave the Statistics Canada definition of any area of 30,000 or any community of 1,000 square miles. But that is not the problem facing the major cities across Canada today, Mr. Chairman. They want some kind of study which will determine whether it is feasible for them to develop an urban transportation system within cities with a population of 250,000, 500,000, three-quarters of a million, one million or better. The question is, for which size of city would it be economically feasible to develop an urban transportation system? The bill does not answer that question at all, and I wonder if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs who is piloting this bill through, has an answer. When discussing that part of the bill between clauses 3 and 9, or even 7 and 9, the minister should tell the committee how large those urban areas will be which may qualify for assistance with urban

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
transit systems. I ask the minister to spell out clearly whether he considers an urban transport system economically feasible for cities of one million, 750,000, 500,000, or even 250,000. How big must a place be before it can qualify for aid. So far in this debate he has not told us.
Clause 3 deals with the transportation study area. Is the federal government leaving it to the municipalities to say they need urban transit and is it saying, "We will give you X dollars if you think you can build an urban transit system?" Or, does the federal government intend to establish the same kind of urban transport system for all urban centres of Canada? If so, the government ought to lay down guidelines with regard to criteria and size. I do not want to see happening what I have seen in the United States. In some cities there are, on the same street, streetcars, a trolley bus system, a diesel bus system and, in some cases, a subway system underground. There might even be a monorail system above ground. Under this legislation as drafted, municipalities could set up whatever systems they please. If the system is accepted, they would get a contribution from the government. Which system does the government favour? Is it monorail, the subway, the diesel bus, the trolley bus, or the streetcar which is still plying some streets in Canada.
The government will pay 50 per cent of the cost of a relocation study. How will that affect the CNR? That company, according to the former president, owns 190 choice acres in downtown Toronto. The president could not give the transport committee the value of the land; I suggest that its value is astronomically high.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It could be as much as $2 billion.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My hon. friend from Hamilton West suggests it could be worth $2 billion. Perhaps he is right. The government should spell out in the bill the conditions under which it will pay 50 per cent of the cost of the relocation study. I am not overly favourable towards the idea of giving the CNR 190 choice acres in downtown Toronto, which is some of the most valuable real estate in Canada. I am not in favour of my constituents' money being spent to provide the CNR with millions and millions of dollars from the sale or use of land in downtown Toronto.
The bill should be more specific as to what plans will be permitted. Under the bill a certain percentage of the cost of relocation programs will be borne by the government. It is designed to pour oil on troubled waters, in this case the railways, in the hope of placating them. This is a motherhood bill. It even makes provision for railway crossings in small municipalities. If I were not so certain there is not going to be an election I would be inclined to think that this bill has been introduced to foster the hopes and aspirations of many municipal councils, but not to satisfy them.
The bill does not spell out which plans will be accepted. If we are to overhaul the Canadian transport system, we should not overhaul it municipality by municipality or city by city; we should overhaul it from coast to coast. We must overhaul it with a view to improving transportation, not with a view to creating a hodge-podge system, under

which different transport systems will be accepted by different municipalities. That is why I suggest that there should be across Canada one universally accepted mode of urban transit. We do not want to see a monorail system in Toronto, a subway in Montreal, and some other surface system in Edmonton, be that diesel bus, trolley car or streetcar. We want to see the same kind of system serving the entire country, which will make for ease of maintenance and economy of repair.
I suggest the federal government should say, "The same kind of system will operate across the country", instead of saying, "We accept the Toronto plan and system but we do not accept the Edmonton system, and therefore will not help Edmonton." The federal government should lay down criteria for acceptable plans and systems. It should award money according to a points system. If a city meets certain of the requirements, it should score so many points and qualify for a certain level of aid. I think that there should be a limit to the percentage of aid for which one can qualify. I readily concede that it would cost more to build a transit system in a larger centre than in a smaller, that it may cost more to relocate railway lines and build grade crossings in large centres than in small.
I am not enthusiastic about paying the railways 80 per cent of the cost of marking railway cars and locomotives. I think the railways should devise a system for marking their cars clearly so that they are visible by day and by night, but do this without asking the CTC to pay 80 per cent of the cost. In my opinion that would not be proper.
Before we build major urban transit systems, we should study the likely effect of these systems. According to the Financial Post of November 3, about 1.4 billion people in the early 1950's were using some kind of urban transit facility. By 1974 the figure had dropped considerably. In the same period the number of people travelling by car on urban roads had doubled. So, we must assess the effects of any urban transit plan and ask, will the population of a given area support such a plan, and how large must a community be if a plan is to be successful.
I may refer to some of the programs which have already been carried out, within the city of Vancouver the CPR has evacuated a large amount of right of way in that city. A rapid transit system could be developed to bring people from near airport to the centre of Vancouver along that CPR right of way. This minister comes from Vancouver. That is why I draw this to his attention. As of this time, the government has failed to made a proposal, to the province concerning the amount it is prepared to contribute to the cost of an urbanized transit system within that city. Is it 50 per cent or 30 per cent? The government has failed to state what percentage it is prepared to pay.
It is interesting to note that under this bill the government will pay 50 per cent of the cost of a study. As members of parliament, we know how long studies can take. They take as long as politicians and the government wish them to take. If the governments reach a decision, somehow or other the study comes to a close. By the time these studies are completed, the minister may or may not be re-elected. If I were a Vancouver voter, I would want more information before the election. I would want to
April 29, 1974

know what portion of this cost the federal government is prepared to offer the British Columbia government. What portion will the city of Vancouver have to pay?
I have specifically referred to Vancouver. I can also mention Calgary and Edmonton. Both of those cities are attempting to devise an acceptable plan in their eyes for some kind of modernized urban transit system. This bill does not spell out what is, in fact, acceptable. It merely suggests that something acceptable to the province or the municipality on behalf of the province may be accepted. It does not even say will be accepted.
Clause 6 does not set out in detail what is meant by a rapid transit system. It only suggests that it must be rapid. Clause 7 does not say what the government or the railways intend to do with the acquisition of land. I was interested in hearing the minister say this afternoon that the government does not have a ruling on that. I suppose that will also involve some great study.
Clause 9 states that the Minister of Public Works will have the power to dispose of this land in any way he sees fit. I suppose it depends on whether the Department of Public Works goes into the business of providing some kind of rapid transit system.
As far as I am concerned, I do not think the bill is absolutely wrong. However, I suggest the minister must answer a number of very pertinent questions if he wants speedy passage of the bill this evening. No municipality should hold its breath until it gets some funds under this bill because the main purport of the bill is studies first. Mayors and councillors of municipalities will grow gray and long in the tooth before some of the studies this bill purports to involve them in have finally reached a conclusion. I believe the major intent of this bill is to hold out a carrot to those municipalities in dire financial straits in the hope they may think kindly of the present minister. The minister is not taking the city of Vancouver for granted. He is holding out a carrot to them as well as the other cities across Canada.
I wish the minister would set my fears at rest, if not those of others, before we move on to any other clause.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Before I recognize the hon. member for Timiskaming, perhaps the Chair might be permitted to present the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Lotbiniere as translated by the Chair's adviser. The English version of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere reads:
That clause 3 of Bill C-27, to facilitate the relocation of railway lines or rerouting of railway traffic in urban areas and to provide financial assistance for work done for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at railway crossings, be amended by deleting the words "on behalf of the province" in line 11 at page 3 and substituting therefor the words "on its own behalf."


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I realize there are difficulties with this amendment. I have the honour of representing part of the city of Timmins. For a considerable period of time, that city has been concerned with the matter of relocation. Timmins is faced with a problem that is somewhat similar to a problem being faced in Quebec where, if there is going to be anything done, it does not matter if the federal government wants to put up the money. The province wants all the kudos for the money it has expended.
Relocation of Railway Lines
With regard to the relocation of the yards in Timmins, the province is involved in two ways. Because of the British North America Act, the municipality is a creature of the province. Secondly, it is a provincially owned railway. Because of that, the provincial government would be involved in any case.
If this amendment were to pass, it would have the effect of saying that once the federal government agreed to the criteria, they would make the decision as to the advantages of relocation in a particular area. If the provinces and the municipalities agreed with the criteria set by the federal government, that would result in a study. Once those conditions are met, the province would no longer be able to say "no, we will not." The municipality, not in the name of the province but in its own name, would be able to take advantage of the program and the agreement resulting from the criteria set by both the federal and provincial authorities. The municipality would have the final say as to whether the study and relocation would take place.
We have often been plagued, not only in Quebec but also in Ontario, by the fact that the federal government has time and again proven to be totally ineffective and inefficient in providing any type of assistance which would help a large part of the province because the province itself has a designation which strengthens the priority of the province. In my experience, this does not apply to northern Ontario and it has not applied in DREE, ARDA or any of the other federal programs designed to assist the people in norhern Ontario because that has not been the wish of Queens Park.
In the area adjacent to mine in northern Quebec, the problems are very similar. There is a great objection by the province to allowing a municipality or area to take advantage of programs unless the provincial government is given full authority to undertake them. The people mainly affected are those in the municipalities, that is the people directly involved in whatever redevelopment takes place in transportation. After the federal government and the province have made the overall agreement, it is my opinion these people should have a say as to what the criteria will be. The provinces still demand control over programs made available through federal assistance. For example, under the DREE program agreements are made, not with the people who need assistance, but between interested parties in the provinces and their counterparts in the federal government. This system means that very few of the things people in northern Ontario wish to get done are, in fact, accomplished. For many years the people of Timmins have wished to get rid of railroad hazards in their city, to reroute spur lines and, in particular, reconstruct an overpass which creates a dangerous situation since several times a year, when flooding occurs, three or four feet of water covers the road, washing out vehicle transport.
As the hon. member for Crowfoot has pointed out, though, there are certain advantages. Some of us who have been here a long time remember the machinations which took place in Ottawa when it was decided to relocate the rail system of this city. The changes eventually made affected not only Ottawa, but the City of Hull, as well.

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
They meant that a large part of the Province of Quebec could not be served as it had been served by the railway in the past. The National Capital Commission traded off land to the railway, and received land in exchange. The province, it seemed, was in no way concerned with this relocation project.
I do not deny that when new arrangements of this kind are made the consequences of changes brought about by developing an alternative system of transportation must be taken into consideration. But should we not, in keeping with the terms of the British North America Act, reach agreement with the provinces as to the type of program they can implement, or agree to on behalf of their municipalities, and then allow the municipalities to take advantage of the program in their own right without the provinces being called upon to agree to each specific project? It is true that large sums would be required to carry out relocation schemes and rapid transit schemes but on the other hand many of these projects will affect only those who live in the municipality concerned-there will be only a limited effect on the transportation system of the province, and no effect at all on the national transportation picture.
Reading the bill over, I came to the conclusion that the government has been very careful to avoid dealing with the municipalities as powers in their own right. Last week I had the opportunity of attending the annual meeting of the Reeves and Mayors Association attended by representatives of all the municipalities in northeastern Ontario. A general complaint I heard there was to the effect that the municipalities had no say in the implementation of schemes agreed upon between the federal government and the province. Decisions whether or not developments would be carried out in any particular area were made by the province and in any case very little money was usually available for the smaller communities. I suspect this will be true of the relocation proposals. It is all very well for the minister and his officials to word things in such a way that there can be no appeal to the Supreme Court under the British North America Act. This has the effect of making the provinces more powerful and renders less effective efforts by the federal administration to equalize conditions in all parts of Canada in the interest of good order. In the United States laws have been passed by the federal authority in many fields, and such legislation has often been challenged by the state authorities. Very often, the states have lost ground and the federal authority has been able to exercise a much greater influence than it has been possible for the federal government to exercise here.
Like the hon. member who moved this amendment, I come from a part of Ontario which is distressed, which more closely resembles the maritimes than the Golden Horseshoe which controls most of the wealth of Ontario. If we are to have a relocation study and project in the town of Timmins under this legislation we must provide the municipality with the wherewithall to conduct its end of the study because the people with whom they co-operate, and who are at the same time the antagonists, are the agencies of the provincial government. Their aims are not necessarily the same.

You have allowed this amendment, so I presume you agree it is in order. I would strongly urge that we proceed on some other basis than on an archaic interpretation of the British North America Act, because in the past the people in various parts of Canada have not been getting a fair shake from the provincial government. They are only able to take advantage of this kind of legislation to improve their lot if they receive assistance and leadership from the federal government.
I hope the minister will give consideration to this amendment, which in my opinion carries with it the right of the province to set the criteria under which it will participate, as well as giving the federal government the right to set the criteria under which it will participate. Now, in addition, the municipalities will have a say as to whether they will participate in what is to take place. That being so, I hope the minister will see fit to agree that once these criteria are set in accordance with the wishes and desires of the municipalities, this will be sufficient to motivate the passage of this clause which allows these municipalities to participate under federal legislation without the provincial government having a veto.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might just say a word or two about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I realize that in the impassioned speech he made there was the suggestion that this legislation be in effect for all provinces, all parts of Canada and all Canadians, and that certainly would be my wish. He asked some specific questions, particularly what was the link between Bill C-133, covering amendments made last fall to the National Housing Act, and this legislation. There is no legislative link as the bills are somewhat different and the procedures are considerably different.
That hon. member in this House and privately expressed his disappointment, which I share, that certain programs under the National Housing Act are not operative in the province of Quebec because the law requires that there be a federal-provincial agreement in order that the programs apply, particularly the neighbourhood improvement program. The housing act says that the program will not apply unless there is federal-provincial agreement, and up until the present time we have been unable to negotiate or finalize an agreement on that matter with the province of Quebec, hence it does not apply there at the present time. This legislation does not make that requirement. It does not say that before this program applies there must be a general federal-provincial agreement. It applies when royal assent is given and the measure is proclaimed.
Part III of the bill, which includes amendments to the grade crossing fund, makes no reference to provinces or provincial approval. The province which the hon. member represents so ably in this House has taken full advantage of the grade crossing fund and the program envisaged in this legislation. For the current year 1974, in the first quarter the province of Quebec has had a commitment from the grade crossing fund in respect of projects within that province amounting to $2.2 million as compared to $1.3 million for the same period in the province of Ontario. So the municipalities in Quebec are now taking very
April 29, 1974

active advantage of the provision relating to grade crossing and grade separation under this legislation.
The hon. member is correct in respect of proposals relative to railroad relocations. Under Section 3 of the act the province, on behalf of a municipality, may apply to the Canadian Transport Commission, submit an urban development or transportation plan and obtain a relocation order from that commission. Regardless of what the constitution may say, it is our obligation as a government to propose legislation which is constitutional, and I think we have endeavoured to observe that obligation.
There are a number of practical reasons that the provinces must be involved in the preparation of urban development plans for presentation to the Canadian Transport Commission. Some of the elements of an urban development plan that would be put before the Canadian Transport Commission will undoubtedly involve such items as municipal goals and objectives, growth forecasts and regional or urban area land uses, and in addition, as one hon. member mentioned this afternoon, questions of environmental and ecological protection. Many of these things are joint responsibilities. Environmental and ecological protection are clearly under provincial responsibility.
Questions of growth and growth strategy are intimately involved with provincial jurisdiction, policies and programs. Unless regional development plans are worked out in close co-operation with the provinces they are not worth anything. They would be prepared in a vacuum if prepared without reference to one of the parties which has most of the power and most of the instruments with which to implement regional development plans.
The Canadian Transport Commission has a clear authority over railways, and clear authority under this legislation to order their relocation, expropriation, and other matters clearly falling within federal jurisdiction. If we are to have regional development plans it is essential that we involve the government which has most of the power and jurisdiction relative to that development, and that is why the section is worded as it is.
I would emphasize that this legislation is not similar to the National Housing Act which in respect of some of its provisions says that before a program can apply there must be an over-all federal-provincial agreement relative to rehabilitation, neighbourhood improvement or land assembly. That is not the case here. In this case we deal on a project by project and proposal by proposal basis. The province of Quebec, in which the hon. member is most interested, although I recognize he was speaking on behalf of municipalities in all provinces, has taken full advantage of the grade crossing provision, and I expect it will take full advantage of the railway relocation proposals. I suggest this is demonstrable by the fact that the city of Quebec has one of the most imaginative ana thoughtful railroad relocation proposals to be presented. It has been worked out and studied in co-operation with my seat mate, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
One of the more interesting proposals is the one in respect of Petite Bourgogne in the city of Montreal. The province of Quebec has agreed to that proposal, as have the residents of that neighbourhood and the federal government. But to relocate and reorganize the railroads in
Relocation of Railway Lines
that area of Montreal would seem to me to be a very silly thing to do unless the provinces, which has much of the jurisdiction in terms of the urban policy, were intimately involved in the preparation of the urban study and urban development plan. Therefore, I think it is essential that the wording of this legislation as proposed be carried.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Before the Chair recognizes the next participant in the debate on this particular matter may I point out that I have had some reservations concerning the acceptability of the amendment of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. However, a point of order has not been raised in connection with it. I utter these words because I-as might be the case with another Chairman,-may not wish to be bound in the future by the nature of what has passed so far without challenge.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, the logic of the minister's last remarks would fall with thunderous weight on the committee if the minister were addressing himself specifically to the words of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. We all realize that there is a first part to subclause (1) of clause 3, to which apparently the minister is not paying any attention at the moment. Let us look specifically at what the hon. member for Lotbiniere is proposing in his amendment. He is not saying that the province should not be involved in the application of the provisions of this bill; he is not saying that there should be no urban development approved by the municipalities and the provinces jointly; he is not trying to cut out the provinces. All he is trying to do is to allow a little initiative to the municipalities.
Let us look very carefully at the fine, chiselled language of subclause (1) of clause 3, particularly the first part which the minister ignored in his remarks, which reads:
Where, in respect of an area in a province that includes or comprises an urban area (hereinafter in this Part called a "transportation study area"), the government of the province or the municipalities within that area have agreed upon an urban development plan-
Where this is the case, where the government of the province and all municipalities have agreed upon an urban development plan, it goes on to say;
-and transportation plan (hereinafter in this Part called an "accepted plan") for that transportation study area, the province or a municipality acting on behalf of the province may,-
Here is where the hon. member for Lotbiniere suggest that either the province or the municipality may instigate an application. He does not suggest that they carry out a plan which they cooked up by themselves separately, but that they instigate an application for a plan which both entities, the province and the municipalities involved, have worked out together and agreed upon. I say "instigate an application", not carry out a plan because they are still going cap in hand to the Canadian Transport Commission; they do not utter the fiat.
It seems to me that the idea and spirit behind the amendment is a very good one, where two entities, such as the province and the municipality-and this according to the subclause-have agreed upon a plan. You know what that entails-months, probably years of study. When they have agreed upon a plan of development, either one of the entities may instigate an application. Surely, we are not

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
running afoul of the constitution because we are not allowing the municipality or the province to make the final decision; we are leaving it up to the commission which can only act if there has been an agreement between the two entities and a decision.
I like to read the constitution every once in awhile, and I say that this is indeed clearly within the provincial field. There is nothing unconstitutional about the amendment. Let us look at section 92 of the BNA Act, subsection 10 paragraph (a). I will read the whole thing so that we know what the words of section 92 say. It reads:
92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated ...
Then, you have a list. Under it we find subsection 10 which reads:
Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are the following Classes:-
(a) Lines of Steam of other Ships, Railways Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Province, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province;
I know that there are railways in Canada that do not extend from province to province; some operate totally within the province. But the railways with which the hon. member for Lotbiniere is concerned operate from province to province. Most of the railways with which I would be concerned operate from province to province, and certainly would be covered by subsection 10. So I do not think we are violating the constitution. I think that the amendment of the hon. member for Lotbiniere is so well contained and constrained by the extremely thoughtful language which the minister and his minions have put into the bill, it is such a tender little offering to the initiative of municipalities, that we should pass it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
['Translation1


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). I support that amendment for two quite specific reasons which greatly concern me as well as the Quebec municipalities which are willing to discharge their duties and their responsibilities towards their ratepayers.
The constitution of our country is a question often referred to, but less during the past few years. Nevertheless, the constitution remains and we must live under three different governments:	federal provincial and
municipal governments.
I would like to mention more particularly the responsibilities of municipal governments. We know that in each municipality, the authorities must do their utmost to assure to ratepayers essential public utilities such as aqueducts, sewers, streets, sidewalks and fire protection. We can even add recreation and other services which municipalities are compelled to provide to ratepayers.
Municipal authorities are complaining, rightly so, that they lack revenue to fulfill their responsibilities, their duties.

Recently, the Canadian Federation of Mayors submitted, in a brief to the cabinet and opposition parties, that the revenues of municipalities are not consistent with their obligations. The Quebec mayors are tired of making representations to the provincial government and always being refused, under the pretext that the province does not have enough money and is unable to bow to their requests.
They have decided to appeal to the federal government for a fair share of tax revenues. That is an indication that municipal administrations want to take their role seriously, to meet their responsibilities without violating the constitution.
On December 6, 1972, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) announced a very specific policy. Under this policy the federal government, in order to help solve the unemployment problem and create jobs, made funds available to the provinces and the municipalities enabling them to do public works likely to create jobs ana ensure services.
On page 2 of this statement, we can read the following: a provincial-municipal fund of $350 million for investment programs for the winter in order to provide provinces and municipalities ...
This is very precise.
... loans and grants for financing investment projects for the winter and the next two years.
And further, Mr. Chairman, the idea which inspired the publication of this statement is precise. On page 6, we can read this:
Each province will have full freedom to administer the amount allocated, including the distribution of funds between the province and its municipalities, and among the municipalities.
... if required.
Should a province prefer not to undertake the administration or distribution, the funds will be made available to the municipalities directly...
Therefore, the object of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is not to create a precedent.
Therefore, the cabinet then recognized the possibility of funds being made available directly to municipalities. And one can read further:
... subject to the approval of the provincial government.
I agree with that, but I do not agree whenever a government uses its authority to prevent municipalities from taking advantage of federal funds that could help them reach certain objectives while creating employment.
As for me, Mr. Chairman, I am a little fed up of hearing about provincial autonomy and the Constitution, while the development of municipalities and provinces is being crippled through the use of such terms. I would like us to be more up-to-date than that in 1974. There was a time when one could fight for principles. I agree, but since that has been recognized by the people as a whole and the authorities at all levels, I believe we should go ahead.
I keep on with the quotation:
Although the funds are made available to provinces and municipalities, considering the needs and relatively favourable financing condi-
April 29, 1974

tions, it is believed that most of the funds will be in fact assigned to municipalities by provincial governments.
Now, Mr. Chairman, on November 23, 1973, in the Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, as one can read in Issue No. 51, I asked the Minister of Finance if he could give us a report on the use of funds in the province of Quebec concerning this program. The minister graciously accepted to table the report on the funds used between December 6, 1972 and October 31, 1973. And in that report, which is public, one can see that out of 43 projects enumerated, the province of Quebec got the lion's share.
The province of Quebec appropriated 70 per cent of the funds for 27 projects, leaving only 30 per cent for all Quebec municipalities which at that date had been able to achieve only 16 projects. I very much regret such a situation, because after all this program was specially designed to help municipalities undertake works that would have created jobs in these centres.
In considering the development plans of the Quebec government, we find that bridges have been built as well as approach works to highways, viaducts, service roads and what not. Furthermore, I would be tempted to believe that these funds have been used for some political purposes on the eve of the provincial election that took place last fall and to fatten the political partisans and the party's servants. We have to call things by their name in such circumstances and be prudent concerning what we are to do in the future.
I would also like to bring another question to the attention of the hon. minister and of this House, that is Bill C-133. Although the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) has just stated that there is no relation between Bill C-27 and Bill C-133, C-27 will however be subordinated, in its application, to the provincial administrators' good will. And it is in the interest of those municipalities that will have set out plans and projects, that the amendment brought forward by the member for Lotbiniere must come into the picture, after the difficulties presently experienced by the federal government with the government of Quebec with regards to the signature of a standard agreement so that the population of Quebec can benefit from this legislation which I have supported because I consider it valuable and because I think it can help municipalities play their role and meet the objectives established by the taxpayers. But, almost a year after the adoption of that legislation, we are still at the negotiating stage and I think that the difficulties must be on the financial side. I suppose that the government of Quebec must ask the federal government: give us the millions, and we will distribute them. I suppose that is where the problem lies.
Mr. Chairman, I agree that the lines of hierarchy must be followed, that the Constitution must be followed, but not that a part of the population has to suffer even though it lives in the province of Quebec. We still want that within Canada, the total wealth of the country serves the whole population independently of where they live.
That is why I would like to ask the minister responsible for Bill C-27 whether he has consulted with the government of the province of Quebec before drafting this bill. If so, could he tell us whether the government of Quebec has given its approval for the adoption of the bill?
Relocation of Railway Lines
If not, does the minister anticipate meeting as humanly as possible the same difficulties he met with Bill C-133?
These are all questions that we can ask ourselves in an objective manner and, believe me, Mr. Chairman, I am asking them in all honesty because I am interested in the municipal field where I spent 30 years of my life. I am probably not as knowledgeabe as the experts, but a bit. This is why I have a right to know the feelings of the authorities of the various municipalities, in the province of Quebec and in the rest of Canada, which really want to go ahead.
We have advocated and we will continue to advocate a solution aimed at helping not only the municipalities, but also the provinces and the federal government, in order to find financing sources which would avoid difficulties. It is in fact a question of money, of income.
I was present at many conferences between the Quebec government and municipalities where they were asking the provincial government to grant them more revenues so that they could meet their responsibilities. The provincial government said: We cannot give you more, the federal government takes everything. It is still the same.
I also attended two federal-provincial conferences where the provincial premiers and ministers of finance told the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner): Give us a larger share of revenues so that we may meet our commitments. And the federal government answered: We do not have enough for ourselves, how can we give you anything?
Mr. Chairman, it is time we changed in depth our financing procedure in the public sector, and serious consideration should be given to our proposal urging a greater use of the bank which belongs to Canadians, the Bank of Canada. This is our institution, and if we must amend the act that governs it, let us start as soon as possible so that the federal government may have a source of financing at a lower cost than at present. This would give the provinces a larger share of revenues. If we could do this, we could eliminate several problems and accomplish many things.
In conclusion, I should like to commend the hon. member for Lotbiniere for moving this amendment designed to foresee, if possible, and prevent a problem like the one that arose with bill C-133. I would also like to ask the minister responsible for Urban Affairs to continue and speed up if possible the negotiations on the subject. If we could obtain a reasonable agreement, it would ensure justice for French Canadians.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, while it is not my intention to hold up a committee decision on an amendment moved by the Social Credit Party, if I understood the ruling of the Chair correctly, it appears there is some uncertainty as to whether the amendment is in order. I do not know therefore, whether I would be assisting the Chair by discussing clause 3 until ten o'clock, in which case the Chair would have until tomorrow to decide whether the amendment was in order. If I am wrong in my assumption, Mr. Chairman, please correct me.

April 29, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
Assuming that my interpretation is correct, I wonder if I could outline again some of my problems. I assume that the moneys set out in the recommendations are the total moneys allocated for a single project, not the total moneys allocated for all projects under the specific definition. If the minister believes I am wrong in this, I encourage him to correct me.
If I am correct in this, then there is no end to the amount of money available in a given situation, specifically in the studies proposed, specifically the relocation grants, specifically the painting of boxcars and engines- the whole list of possibilities where moneys may be allocated to municipalities or railroads. If this is the case, could the minister give the House an explanation as to why the government did not feel it necessary to specify the criteria so that we could be assured there was no partisanship on the part of the three ministers involved, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the Minister of Transport, or even the CTC?
This question is prompted by the example of the LIP program. The riding of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs received seven times more LIP money than a riding in Vancouver which is adjacent to his. What criteria were used? Under the LIP program a certain amount of money was allocated to Canada as a whole and lists of projects were compiled. Yet, in a city comprised of six or seven ridings, the minister's riding received seven times the amount allocated to the riding represented by one or other of the opposition parties.
If I am correct in my interpretation of the regulations for this bill, there is no limit on the amount of money but there is an "accepted plan". It is spelled out very clearly in line 11, page 3, in Part I, clause 3, and again in subclause (5) on page 4, line 8, which reads:
Where an application to the Commission under subsection (1) is made in respect of an accepted plan that contemplates the use of federal programs ...
In view of the partisanship shown by the minister and the cabinet, the committee should be told what constitutes an accepted plan. For instance, the CPR has removed certain tracks in the Vancouver area. Will the federal government give the city of Vancouver money with which to buy that right of way from the CPR? Or, will Saskatoon be reimbursed for its previous purchase of CNR right of way? Will retroactive actions be considered, or will the bill apply only to plans which will be carried out in future? The minister has remained silent on that aspect. The subclause provides that the urban development or transportation plans shall not be received by the commission unless it is shown to the commission that, as clause 3(5)(a) says:
(a) the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is satisfied that the federal programs contemplated for use in the urban development plan forming part of the accepted plan are available and would contribute significantly to the improvement of any urban area within the transportation study area in respect of which the application is made;...
According to the bill, the government will pay not more than 50 per cent of the amount of the cost of preparing urban development plans and transportation plans. Such plans, as I have mentioned just now, must contribute

significantly to the improvement of an urban area. What criteria will be used to determine if a plan contributes significantly? Will there be environmental considerations? For instance, carrying out a plan might mean that the CPR will not pollute the Fraser Valley with coal dust from coal cars. What will be a significant contribution? I can imagine many transportation studies, particularly in the Vancouver area, which would contribute significantly to improving the urban area in respect of which the application is made. I am not a lawyer, but I suggest that "significant" could mean more than 50 per cent in this case.
I remember in the debate on the farm marketing bill the minister of agriculture of that time said, "significant" means more than 10 per cent of a certain figure. I do not know what the words, "contributes significantly to the improvement of any urban area within the transportation study area" mean. The minister should explain the criteria which the government will apply. For instance, will the federal government accept transportation studies into which it has had no input but towards the cost of which it is expected to pay. Further, will the federal government in some cases pay 50 per cent of the cost of relocating tracks; will it, in other cases, contribute only, say, 37 per cent of the cost, or 25 per cent?
I know that both Edmonton and Calgary are studying urban transport. Once the bill is passed, can they apply to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and say, "Our transportation study was not comprehensive enough. As the government is paying 50 per cent of the cost, we want to do a new, more comprehensive study, which will cover our needs for the next 20 or 30 years; our current study covers a much shorter period." The minister should spell out clearly what is meant by transportation study. Will 50 per cent of the sort of study I have just mentioned be covered? Once a transportation study for a certain area is approved, will the federal government automatically pay a portion of the cost of such study?
The minister does not seem willing to rise in his place and answer. He seems reluctant to speak. I notice the Minister of the Environment moving over to converse with him. That minister was involved in a transportation study involving the Vancouver area which created all sorts of pollution, so to speak, in that area. The interests of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and The Minister of Transport conflicted. In the result, coal coming from the interior of British Columbia and Alberta could not be unloaded at Squamish even though the natural harbour was ideally suited for the handling of coal. Because of the conflicting interests of three ministers, and their embarrassment and indecision, the greater Vancouver area suffered a loss. May I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, is there any brave soul on the government side who can speculate on what the business of the House may be tomorrow?
April 29, 1974


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the House leader indicated earlier that we would be proceeding with the legislation introduced today. We had agreed last week that all parties would put up only two speakers on second reading of Bill C-27, which would then be referred to committee of the whole House. It was thought that in the committee of the whole we would make considerable progress with Bill C-27. So, subject to further communication in the morning from the President of the Privy Council, (Mr. MacEac-hen), I suggest that the business will be consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-27. I hope we can make considerable progress with the bill tomorrow in committee of the whole. After that the House leader would proceed with the anti-gouging bill. That is to be the business, subject, as I say, to further communication from the President of the Privy Council in the morning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) confers with the government House leader he will find that his bill will be followed by the Federal Business Development Bank bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is on the basis that we make substantial progress.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, like many other members of this House, I was rather curious as to what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the department were doing with the proposed airport head tax on passengers. Accordingly, I asked the minister what I thought were a couple of reasonable and sensible questions as to why there were delays, and what was now the status of the tax. I received a very unsatisfactory response, which is why I wanted to bring the matter forward for debate this evening. The Department of Transport has been so kicked around lately that one almost feels sorry for having to say anything more about it. I guess everything has been said that can be said. However, even with a situation like this, it has to be pointed out that if there ever was a do-nothing department, it has to be this one, at least at the present time.
How can the Minister of Transport and the department seriously purport to be working on a meaningful transport policy for this country when they cannot even bring forward an administrative measure that was proposed with great fanfare last December? How can the department under present conditions, do an efficient job of providing
Adjournment Debate
Canadians with efficient transport when a matter as routine as a proposed airport head tax cannot be resolved, explained or apparently dealt with in definitive fashion? As far as this tax is concerned, we on this side of the House are not convinced it should be implemented at all, but having brought the measure foward with such great fanfare, and having done so in a very tactless and bumbling manner, at least after this many months the situation should be clarified.
Just how bad the minister's timing and sense of propriety was is illustrated in the proceedings of the standing committee for last December 6. At that time I had occasion to question Mr. Pratte of Air Canada. After a bit of preamble, we discussed the imposition of the tax and the announcement, about which he knew nothing until he had it reported to him or read it in the paper. I said, and I quote:
Well, Mr. Pratte, I do not know how you feel about the situation, and I do not want to be unfair to you or express feelings that I have no business expressing, but I am indignant on your behalf, that you, as President of our national airline, had to learn from very indirect sources of this type of major decision that is going to affect you and so many of your employees.
Is this the type of thing that you are reported as expressing dissatisfaction about in the past? Are you satisfied that there is sufficient communication between yourself and the Ministry of Transport not only out of ordinary business courtesy but so your airline and your top management can prepare most efficiently and most directly for this sort of thing? Are you happy with this situation?
Mr. Pratte replied:
In that particular case I thought there should have been more consultation not only with Air Canada but with industry generally. You know, all carriers relatively speaking are going to be hit to the same extent as we are, except that in our case since we have a greater proportion of short-haul passengers than others this is probably going to hurt us more than it would a long-haul carrier due to the fact that the tax is on a per-passenger basis.
Mr. Pratte and Mr. Baldwin then went on to illustrate just how terrible communications were and how ill conceived, bumbling and lucicrous the minister's attempts to that point were to implement this administrative measure. I said to Mr. Baldwin:
So I suppose not only will you have the fare increase that you were proposing to have but the administrative details and complications involved in this will result in a larger fare increase than you otherwise had planned.
Mr. Baldwin replied:
Well, we will have to recover, if we move in this direction, not only the amount to be paid to the government but there will be added administrative costs within the airline in terms of procedures and staff work.
The dialogue goes on and on. I do not want to take the time of the House to illustrate how terrible and ridiculous this situation is at present. Now, after months and months of questions, we find that the minister is continuing to make a complete fiasco out of this affair as he has done with so much of his department's administration. He succeeded in alarming the Canadian public, the domestic air transport industry, in alienating the international aviation organizations to which Canada belongs, IATO and ICAO, and, most of all, in refusing to clarify what is going on. Now, he adds to the confusion by saying the matter is being discussed within the department. At least the department is finally being given a voice, but why was this not done last December?

April 29, 1974
Adjournment Debate
When the people of Canada and the industry continue to expect something which they should know better than to expect from this government and this minister, why does the government continue to indicate it is not prepared to give us any answers? I believe the minister said to me, when I asked him a question on April 22: "If we were in a position to give all those details the matter would not be under discussion in the department; it would have been discussed." I say to the government and to its spokesman tonight: Is it not high time that this matter was discussed and that this do-nothing department brought forward a definitive policy? It is perhaps too much to ask them to produce a general policy, but could they not give us some indication of the proposal which will be produced to implement this tax? Will they go ahead with it or will they withdraw in their usual confusion? Do they know? That is my question, tonight.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, it may be a
do-nothing policy, but it is the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) who wants to impose a tax on the people a lot earlier than it might otherwise be imposed, as a result of his insistence. He wants the people of Canada to be taxed, and the sooner the better. That is exactly what we get from members of the opposition: how soon can you impose a tax.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order! That is from the Official Opposition.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is correct.
A final decision has not yet been made by the government in respect of either the airport fee which was announced in December 1973 or any other of the various alternatives which could be implemented as a means of generating the same amount of additional revenues.
However, I can confirm that the Air Transportation Tax Act, which all hon. members will recall was passed by parliament in December, 1969, appears to be the preferred measure, at least as viewed by the Air Transportation Association of Canada, the Air Transport Association of the United States, the International Air Transport Association and the air carriers.
I wish to assure the House that very careful consideration is being given to all factors associated with additional cost recovery policies in the Ministry of Transport, not only to determine measures which are administratively feasible but, more important, measures which are economically and socially desirable. For example, special attention must be given to the circumstances of people living in the more remote areas of Canada in terms of providing transportation to them at a cost which will not result in discrimination simply on the ground that they live too far away from the major metropolitan areas of Canada which are serviced, for example, by big, international airports with their related sophisticated air services.
We must also pay particular attention to some of the harsh realities in respect to air transportation in Canada, and one of these is that air transportation cost per seat-mile is significantly higher in the northern parts of

Canada as compared with the more southerly parts. We are examining ways to make sure that any additional cost recovery measures will not impose undue hardship in the north while at the same time maintaining the principle of equity between all users of air transportation services and facilities in Canada.
As hon. members are aware, the Air Transportation Tax Act provides for a per cent ad valorem rate to be levied on the price of air tickets paid, or payable, in Canada. Anyone can appreciate that such a tax could result in additional costs of about $18 on a return air journey from St. John's to Vancouver. All members could easily work out further illustrations by applying a 5 per cent rate to the price of various air tickets. This unlimited application of a percentage rate has been causing some concern and we are seeking solutions to this problem.
I am grateful to members of this House for having made various suggestions to the minister over the last several months and these suggestions together with all other factors which have been brought to our attention, keeping in mind that our officials have been conducting extensive consultations with the air industry associations, the carriers and the public, will be evaluated in order to allow the government an opportunity to make a decision based on all relevant information.
Speaking personally again, I for one would not at the moment wish to impose that tax as I always feel these taxes come too soon.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Do you want to withdraw it?


PENSIONS-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE GREATER PROTECTION AND ESCALATION FOR PERSONS IN PRIVATE PLAN
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday March 21, as recorded in Hansard at page 727, I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the first part of which was in these words:
Is the government giving consideration to making amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act or to introducing any other legislation to provide greater protection for those who are enrolled in private pension plans?
That was the main thrust of my question put in general terms. The fact is that I am concerned about the many ways in which those who are in private pension plans need greater protection. Then I went on to put a specific question. I stated it twice, but perhaps I may quote it tonight in the words I used when I got to my feet the second time. I put it in this way: will the minister:
-take steps to provide in the legislation that all private pension plans must escalate their pensions, during the years of retirement, according to the rise in the cost of living?
As I have already indicated in raising this question, I am concerned in a general way about the protection needed by persons in private pensions plans. They need protection to make sure that the funds are there, that the pensions they are supposed to get will be payable to them when the time of retirement comes and so on. But the grievance which is being felt most strongly these days by recipients of pen-
April 29, 1974

sions from private plans has to do with the matter of escalation.
The government has done fairly well, with a little prodding from some of the rest of us in Parliament, in providing annual escalation on a cost of living basis for just about all pensions that come under federal government responsibility, but private plans are lagging very much in this respect, and it does seem to me that the time has come for the government to make it clear that private pension plans ought to follow suit.
Late in 1973 the income tax regulations were amended to permit private pension plans to escalate to the full extent of the cost of living, not just 2 per cent as had previously been the case, and still get income tax deductibility, but that is all the government has done thus far. It has just put this on a permissive basis. There is the Pension Benefits Standards Act which controls and regulates pensions that come under federal responsibility. I think the time has come for the Pension Benefits Standards Act to say that all pensions that come under federal jurisdiction or responsibility should be required to be escalated after retirement by the full amount of the cost of living.
Let me give an example, and I mention it not because I generally think that banks are bad boys but because they are an example that comes to mind. Let me give the example of chartered banks. Many of them have reached the point where they are providing some escalation of the pensions of their retired employees. In most cases it is a 2 per cent escalation or an ad hoc amount; in very few cases is it an escalation equal to the actual rise in the cost of living. But what really concerns and annoys some retired bank employees who have been in touch with me is that when a bank provides an escalation in the pension of a retired employee, it does so subject to that escalation being cut back when there is an escalation of old age security. So the whole idea of pensioners getting an escalation in their income so that they can keep up with the cost of living is nullified when a pensioner gets an escalation in one pension but has his other pension cut back by that same amount. He ends exactly where he started. I say to you, sir, that that is actually happening in the case of some chartered banks in this country with respect to their retired employees. Banks do come under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. They are under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal government.
I suppose I should simply say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that I hope he will have a talk with some of these banks and help them to see the light with respect to this matter. But so far as I can tell from other talks that he has had, not a great deal has resulted from them and I think the time has come for something more than talk. That is why I urge legislation to protect those in private pension plans and in particular to protect their right to escalation of pensions and their right not to have their escalation nullified in the way that it is now being done in so many cases.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in connection with the inquiry from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who wanted to know wheth-
Adjournment Debate
er the government would introduce a piece of legislation to force private pension plans to escalate their benefits during retirement years in line with the rise in the cost of living index. I should like to make a few remarks concerning the federal and provincial legislation in this area.
Let us not forget, when we receive inquiries such as this, that the federal government is empowered to act only in connection with pension plans in areas of employment under the jurisdiction of Parliament, as listed in the Schedule to the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
Most pension plans for workers in Canada come under the jurisdiction of the provinces, four of which have adopted provisions similar to those in the Pension Benefits Standards Act.
The only way whereby the federal government could try to obtain the escalation of pension benefits in all pension plans would be indirectly, through the Income Tax Act. Normal penalty for violations of this requirement could then be a withdrawal of registration in tne plan, which would prevent both employer and employee contributions from being deductible under income tax legislation. The end result for employees could be still lesser protection of their future than they now enjoy.
Any federal action in this direction would materially alter the agreed roles of the two levels of government under federal and provincial pension plans that have come into being during the last ten years, in order to improve on private employers' pension plan transferability and solvency.
None of these legislations force employers to offer pension plans, nor prevents them from ending plans, considering employers had enough difficulty in financing pension plans without benefit escalation, such a requirement could very well force employers into terminating existing plans. Hon. members will no doubt understand that such measures can only be envisaged with utmost caution.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-INCREASE IN CORPORATE PROFITS AND DECREASE IN LABOUR'S SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on April 15, as recorded at page 1415 of Hansard, I asked two questions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
The first dealt with the fact that the labour component of the national income in Canada had fallen to 70 per cent from 75 per cent, while the corporate share of our national income had risen in the same period by approximately the same number of points, that is, by 5.3 points to 12 per cent of our national income. Here I am referring to the corporate profit after tax.
Then, not being satisfied with my first answer I asked the minister a second question, as to whether or not he was aware of the fact that in Canada corporate profits were running at "12 per cent of total Canadian income compared to 6.6 per cent for corporations in the USA." I asked him:
-does the minister still believe it is necessary to continue his liberal tax concessions to Canadian corporations bearing in mind such

April 29, 1974
Adjournment Debate
Canadian corporations now earn more after tax than American companies earn before tax in relation to national incomes?
I raise this question because I feel that it is dramatically shown, in the figures now coming out of the various statistical agencies, that there has been a very deliberate shift on the part of the government with respect to the sharing of national income in Canada.
Since replying to those questions in the House the minister had an opportunity to speak in Winnipeg on April 19, to which speech I wish to make reference, and today we were furnished with the Economic Review dated April, 1974, from the minister's department. I find this review extremely interesting because at pages 52 and 53, in effect, the minister confirms the point that I had raised. Here I refer to the fact that he says, according to page 52, that the "before-tax profits accounted for a larger share of the nation's gross income in 1973 than the average since 1958." I am disappointed that in making that reference the minister was not more explicit and did not refer to the actual figures.
In his answer to me on April 15 he indicated that he could show that my figures were reversed in the previous decade. At that time I indicated that that was not so, and I reiterate it tonight.
At page 53 of the Economic Review which came out today, the minister says:
In 1973, wages, salaries and supplementary labour income was down to 70 per cent-
That is actually the figure I had used.
-of net national income-
He then says:
Thus in real terms, average increases in labour income per employee or in wages and salaries increased very little or actually fell in 1973.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that I believe the minister has been most unfair to the people of Canada and to this House in referring, from time to time, to real disposable income for the average Canadian going up 6.8 per cent in 1973. I say this because it was known privately, that the minister could only justify that figure by using a deflator which has rarely been used up until now by statisticians as opposed to using the customary consumer price index deflator. I hope that the minister will explain this to the House. I am pleased that in his review tabled today he at least shows the two deflators in action. They point out, Mr. Speaker, that if the Consumer Price Index deflator is used Canada's real growth was 4.8 per cent in 1973, not 6.8 per cent, which is the figure that the minister has bandied around for some time. If you use the CPI deflator, the effect is shown in the review at page 53 where it is pointed out that the average workman's wages have actually decreased by .9 per cent.
I mention this because I hope that the parliamentary secretary will explain to the House why they have chosen to evade my question when it was put in the House and subsequently to use a deflater, which I feel is not relative, when the minister spoke in Winnipeg.
There is a footnote on page 52 explaining the difference between the CPI deflator and what is generally known as the consumption inflator. I find the minister's suggestion truly remarkable. He states that he thinks it is preferable to use the consumer deflater in that it does not allow for shifts by consumers toward less expensive goods and services as price structures change.
In plain English the minister is saying that inflation in this country has become so devastating that people are having to give up good food and shift to less expensive food. Then, the government has the colossal gall to come to this House and indicate that it wants to use the deflator to show that the lower costs are in truth there because people are giving up the better quality foods in order to eat the less expensive. This is a very, very sad testimony of the mismanagement of this government in our economic affairs. In short, they are saying, "if you cannot eat beef, turn to spaghetti and macaroni or any other cheap food and we will use a deflator to make the over-all economic performance look better". I hope we have an explanation of this tonight, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Roland Comtois: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member states that in the past three years, profits after taxes have jumped over 5 points of national income while the labour share of the national income has declined 5 points.
The published data do not indicate such a substantial alteration as suggested by the hon. member. In 1973, the profits share was 3.8 points higher than in 1970 and the labour share was lower by 2.8 points.
In percentage of the net national income in relation to cost factors, I would like to quote a few figures for the average period extending from 1965 to 1973: profits after taxes, 9 per cent and labour income, 70.9 per cent. The average for 1970-73 is 8.8 per cent and 72 per cent. For 1969, it was 8.4 and 71.2 per cent; for 1970, 7.3 and 72.8; for 197l'
7.9	and 72.9; for 1972, 9 and 72.2; for 1973, 11.1 and 70 per cent. The difference between 1969 and 1973 is 2.7 for benefits after taxes and 1.2 per cent for labour income. From 1970 to 1973, there was a difference of 3.8 per cent and -2.8 per cent.
The years chosen by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) give a highly exaggerated idea of the evolution, 1970 having been characterized by an exceptionally low rate of profits, and unusually high income. In 1973, profits were 2.1 per cent lower than the average for the period 1965-73, while the percentage corresponding to salaries were 0.9 lower than the average. In fact, profits as a percentage of the GNP were lower in 1970, shares reaching their lowest level since 1949.

April 29, 1974

It is true that profits, before and after taxes, were higher than usual in 1973. Before tax deductions, they amounted to more than $14.5 billion, that is 12.5 per cent of the GNP. Profits after tax deductions were slightly more than $10 billion. Still, it must be noted that companies did not increase their dividends by much in 1973. The greater part of their additional profits were kept to finance investments, and retained earnings amounted to $7.8 billion that
Adjournment Debate
year. Those retained earnings, added to depreciation amounting to $6.5 billion, provided $14.3 billion in cash flow for investing. In 1974, businesses expect to invest $18.5 billion in Canada. As the minister said in reply to the hon. member, those investments will mean more production, employment and income for all Canadian workers.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.34 p.m.

Tuesday, April 30, 1974