1974-04-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent of the House to put a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Once again a strike in the postal service has disrupted mail delivery in Canada, causing great hardship and inconvenience to millions of people whose pension and other cheques are being delayed, and creating untold extra costs for all businesses in Canada which must ultimately be borne by consumers. Section 8 of the Post Office Act gives to the Postmaster General the sole and exclusive privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would put the motion to the House. I am not sure whether this is the motion or the explanatory part, but really a motion should be put without a long explanation or preface.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: That was merely the explanation, Mr. Speaker. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House give immediate consideration to taking whatever action is necessary to repeal the grant of monopoly to the Canada Post Office in order to allow private enterprisers to offer competitive service, thereby giving the people of Canada the opportunity, in a genuinely free and competitive market, to buy the postal services they need from the most efficient supplier thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


MOOSE JAW-IMMEDIATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact flood damage in Moose Jaw is estimated to total approximately $10 million, and in view of the fact many residents will not have money to repair and clean up their homes and replace their personal and household goods lost in the flood, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battleford-Kin-dersley (Mr. Horner):
That the government give consideration to making funds available immediately on an emergency basis to assist these people to become re-established.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


SASKATCHEWAN-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR PREVENTIVE WORKS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to request unanimous consent to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of great urgency that requires immediate clarification, namely, the conflicting answers and statements of the Prime Minister and two other cabinet ministers on whether or not the federal formula for sharing of costs resulting from flood damage in Saskatchewan also covers costs incurred for temporary works such as dykes and sandbagging. If I have the unanimous consent of the House, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight):
That this House is in agreement with the answer of the Minister of Environment (Mr. Davis) who said at page 1674 of Hansard for April 23: "In other words, temporary works such as the dykes now being built and sandbagging are subject to the formula for cost sharing''.
And further, that this House requests the government to ensure that such costs are in fact shared with the province and municipalities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

April 25, 1974
Discrimination in Government Programs [Translation]


HOUSING
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a matter whose urgency requires immediate attention. I refer to the excessive cost of houses which has again increased by 22 per cent in comparison with the same date last year. It is therefore urgent that steps be taken so that Canadians may purchase a house without running into debt for their lifetime. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Boisvert):
That this House consider the steps to be taken to reduce substantially the price of detached houses, more especially as a result of the removal of the sales tax on building materials, and enable all Canadians to become owners of detached houses.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity, therefore the motion cannot be put.


YOUNG VOYAGEURS PROGRAM
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. This motion is pursuant to the participation by students in the Young Voyageurs Program to which the Department of the Secretary of State contributes and also to the report that a white girl from Cardston, Alberta, apparently may have been advised or directed not to stay at the home of a black girl at New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, thus apparently contradicting the aims of programs such as these funded by all Canadians and designed to encourage personal interaction among Canadians from different regions of the country. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the Secretary of State take whatever action he considers appropriate to ensure that as an integral part of all programs to which his department contributes in any way there are guidelines or conditions that there be no discrimination involved, thus setting out the principles implicit in the Canadian Bill of Rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my motion under Standing Order 43 to the series of 43's today.
In view of the fact that exports by British Columbia paper mills threaten a sufficient supply of these products to meet local needs this summer, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
That this House urge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to consult with his provincial counterparts with a view to limiting paper exports to the extent that domestic demands can first be satisfied.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is also proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and 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.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that airliners over 200,000 pounds are now being permitted to land on a limited basis at airports at which they have not been able to land recently, I move under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche):
That the Minister of Transport be instructed by this House to make a statement on motions to explain this very exciting news and to explain how the airports involved have become reclassified from class D to class C airports.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, the motion proposed by the hon. member requires unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.
April 25, 1974

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43. According to figures released by Statistics Canada yesterday, Canada experienced a further major decline in automotive trade with the United States, particularly in automotive parts, which if continued could lead to the largest annual deficit in automotive trade with the United States in many years. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to make a statement on motions early next week offering an explanation for Canada's deteriorating position on automotive trade with the United States and outlining the course of action the government proposes to take to remedy this situation, with particular reference to changes in the Canada-United States automotive agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put under the terms of Standing Order 43.


TABLING OF AGREED MINUTE SIGNED BY MINISTER AND MINISTER OF ECONOMY OF IRAN FOLLOWING RECENT CANADIAN MISSION
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table of the House in both official languages an agreed minute signed jointly by His Excellency Hushang Ansary, Minister of Economy of Iran, and myself, reporting on the discussions which were held on the occasion of the recent Canadian trade mission to Iran.


HERITAGE DAY ACT
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-282, respecting Heritage Day.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a legal national holiday on the third Monday of February of each year in accordance with the terms unanimously endorsed by representatives of all parties in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in the last session. The motion is seconded by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.


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

Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and supplementaries for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact Canada's trade with the United States suffered a deficit in March of $89 million compared with a deficit in February of this year of $42 million, has the minister determined whether this trend is shortlived or, if it is a continuing one, can it be anticipated over what period of time it will continue and, if it is anticipated that it will continue, what does the government intend to do about it?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. gentleman were to look at the figures he would see that for the first quarter we had a surplus.


Mr. O'Connor:: Mr. Speaker, I am quoting Statistics Canada which is the government's own agency and certainly it indicates a deficit of $89 million and not a surplus. May I refer specifically to the auto pact between Canada and the United States. In view of reports yesterday that the United States has proposed an import levy on Canadian-made truck parts, an action clearly in violation of the auto pact and taken despite Canada's significant auto pact trade deficit last year of over $350 million, what is the government's response to the United States proposal?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, reverting to the first question, by way of clarification I should like to make it quite clear to the hon. member that there are fluctuations from month to month, and on an over-all basis Canada had a surplus on merchandise trade for the first quarter of this year. On the second point, with respect to the alleged duties that might be applied to truck parts, I believe that story is quite inaccurate.


ACTION TO ASSURE ADHERENCE TO AUTO PACT BY UNITED STATES
Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reports, which I believe are accurate in that I have checked them personally, that Ford of Canada intends to produce only large cars at Oakville starting with model year 1975 and now that General Motors similarly intends to phase out small car production at Ste. Therese, both of which moves will severely affect Canadian parts manufacturers, if not automobiles, when will the government make a determined effort to assure adherence to the Canada-U.S. auto pact by the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the question was a very general one. I think the hon. member inadvertently tried to create the impression that in some way Ste. Therese was not going to proceed with small car production. That,

April 25, 1974
Oral Questions
of course, is quite inaccurate as I have already told the House on a previous occasion. On the second question, with respect to living up to the agreement, I think both countries and the companies in both countries have, through their joint co-operative efforts, made the auto pact a very beneficial one from both points of view.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had emphasized that I was not referring to any problem that might arise with respect to the automotive manufacturers themselves but to the parts industry which supplies the manufacturers. If there is a change quickly from small car production to large car production, those automotive parts suppliers will suffer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is debate between the minister and the hon. member. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


DEFICIT IN AUTOMOTIVE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES- ACTION TO ENSURE CANADA GETS GREATER SHARE OF INDUSTRY INVESTMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the major explanation for the deficit Canada has experienced in the automotive trade in the first three months of this year and all last year is to be found in the investment patterns in this industry in the United States, where investment exceeds investment in Canada by a ratio of nine or ten to one, what is the government doing to ensure that we get in Canada our share of the investment in this industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I reject the basic premise of the question. The reason for the significant change in terms of the balance is that the Canadian market has been the strong one and the American market a very weak one.


USE OF DISC PROGRAM BY UNITED STATES AUTO INDUSTRY- CANADIAN PROTESTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, without accepting by way of premise the conclusion of the minister, may I ask him if the government has yet protested, either through some international body or directly to the United States, against the DISC program which is being used by the automotive industry in the United States in flat contradiction of the agreement signed between the two countries concerning automotive trade?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on other occasions it has been made very clear that the Canadian government does not favour the DISC program and the government has so made these views known.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the government has said it has made these protests, including the protest by the preceding minister, for the past 15 to 18 months without results, can the minister inform the House what the

government intends to do inasmuch as the United States is ignoring these protests?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that by now the hon. gentleman would have realized that one of the major reasons for the corporate tax cuts was to put the Canadian manufacturing industry on a competitive basis with the United States manufacturing industry.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since he announced yesterday that he would introduce next Monday a bill intended to bring to order some of the companies that make exorbitant profits, the radio and television have not ceased to clamour that the bill promised by the Prime Minister was prepared by the socialists in Parliament in order to avoid elections. Would the Prime Minister clarify the situation and say whether socialism is making some headway within the Liberal party, or whether the government will protect personal initiative and private enterprise?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the simplest way of answering the leader of the Social Crediters is to remind the House that probably the same journalists have been asking this in the last few months: When will the Prime Minister implement the promise made during the debate on the Speech from the Throne and take action against the companies whose benefits are excessive?- After asking the question for months they are flabbergasted that I should introduce the bill I promised.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Is the Prime Minister also alluding to the CBC in his reply?


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the Canadian dollar has now risen to $1.04 Vi U.S., making it increasingly difficult for the 25 per cent of our production sold in the export market to be sold competitively, as shown by the last two months of merchandise trade deficits, will the minister advise the House just how high the government is willing to let the Canadian dollar rise before it will step in to control this rise?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not speculate on interest rates or exchange
April 25, 1974

rates on the floor of the House of Commons, but I say to the hon. member that he should reconcile the policy he is advocating with his friend from Don Valley who has been recommending for some months that the Canadian dollar appreciate against the American dollar. The current reasons for this appear to be, first of all, the general weakness of the American dollar, reflecting a very weak first quarter in the American economy, compounded by the Canadian situation where we have a very strong economy and perhaps the best balance of payments situation of any industrial country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: As the minister made no attempt to answer my question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: -and obviously intends to take no action to stop the dollar from rising and endangering Canadian exports, may I ask the minister whether this is the kind of dynamic leadership we can expect him to give when he presents his budget on May 6?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether that supplementary is in order. The hon. member for Peace River.


ALLEGED PRIOR REVELATION OF BUDGET PROPOSALS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance who will be bringing down his budget on May 6. He is obviously aware of the strict requirements as to secrecy of presentation regarding the budget. Was the minister aware and did he approve of the striptease technique practised by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Prime Minister in response to a planted question, in disclosing matters and tax proposals which quite clearly are or ought to lie squarely within the realm of a budget presentation? Did he give his approval to what was done, or has he expressed his concern to the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like the hon. member to specify what particular divulgations I made which might be of a budgetary nature. Would he please do that? He has accused me of talking about budgetary matters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Peace River on a supplementary question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the Prime Minister outside later because I am unable to answer questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Members on this side will be answering questions in a few short weeks. I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister received representations today following the extremely chaotic conditions which prevailed on the stock
Oral Questions
exchanges, particularly in Toronto, with a monetary erosion of almost $2 billion in Toronto and a 50 per cent increase in the volume of sales as a result of these improper disclosures? Is the minister able to assure the House there will be no further disclosures, either in the form of public electronic trafficking for political advantage or at all, and can he assure the House that the residue of the budget will be brought in without any further disclosures?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, can I take it that the hon. member is withdrawing his allegation regarding me in his first question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Muir:: Who is the Minister of Finance and who is the leader?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Minister of Finance rising on a point of order?


John Napier Turner: No, to answer the question put to me by the hon. member for Peace River.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me there has been an exchange of questions and answers. If the hon. member for Peace River wishes to pursue the matter he will be recognized, but for the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Verdun.


YOUNG VOYAGEURS PROGRAM
Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State. In the light of what appears to be an act of discrimination in a program financed by the federal government, would the minister immediately investigate the matter to see whether such discriminatory directives arise from his own department and, if so, will he send the responsible person immediately to the U.I.C. offices?


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on behalf of my hon. friend from Central Nova to draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that this matter was put forward in a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 and the minister's supporters refused consent to deal with the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: The
former minister of labour should be calling on the minister to resign and on the hon. members who supported him in this discrimination to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

April 25, 1974
Oral Questions


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know who shouted no. I know how I felt about the proposed motion under Standing Order 43.1 supported the very logical proposal of the hon. member for Central Nova and I am showing my anger in the only way I can, as a member, by asking a question of the minister directly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rose on a point of order and the hon. member for Verdun has spoken to the point of order. The minister is prepared to reply, and I will certainly recognize the hon. member for Central Nova on a supplementary.


Donald MacInnis: On a further point of order, I apologize to the hon. member for Verdun since he stood behind the motion under Standing Order 43. But the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself put the motion a second time and the supporters of the Secretary of State on two occasions showed their discrimination.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could clarify the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: No way!


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: A double whamee!


James Hugh Faulkner: Hon. members do not seem to be treating this matter very seriously.


An hon. Member:: We do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Central Nova now rises on a question of privilege. I am not sure whether all this is very helpful, but I will recognize the hon. member.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is simply this. Unfortunately the minister was not in the House when the motion under Standing Order 43 was presented, and I do not think it is proper for him to suggest that we on this side do not take this matter seriously. We do. I put it to Your Honour that this is an improper allegation for the minister to make.


An hon. Member:: Silly!


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, the incident was brought to my attention this morning. I have dispatched one of my officials to look into the matter. I would point out to hon. members opposite, before they begin to make blanket accusations about the Young Voyageurs Program, that although it is financed federally it is administered provincially. I can assure the hon. member for Verdun and others who have raised this matter that as a matter of principle this government will not tolerate any form of discrimination under any of its programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take this opportunity to thank those hon. members on the other side who supported the motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 and ask the minister-I concede that this is a provincially administered program-to look into this matter diligently and consider, insofar as possible, implementing guidelines or conditions to govern funds contributed to programs such as this so as to prohibit strictly any such discrimination, as is done already in many other areas of government legislation.


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if it is necessary. But I would point out that the program has been operating for ten years and this is the first incident of this kind which has occurred. But if it should prove to be necessary to provide protection against this sort of thing, I would certainly be willing to look at the hon. member's suggestion about guidelines.


REQUEST THAT PROVISION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BE INCLUDED IN ALL GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROGRAMS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the seriousness of this matter I wonder whether the Prime Minister, in keeping with what I know his attitude to be, will cause an investigation of all government funded programs to be made to see to it that a clause prohibiting discrimination is included in each of them, thus indicating that this House and the government take a dim view of discrimination whether on the basis of race, creed, colour, sex or national origin? Would he assure the House that this will be done? I am very serious about the matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the
substance of the question I agree, of course, with the hon. member-and he was good enough to recognize this in his question. As to the way in which we might proceed, I do not think the solution is as easy as he suggests. This government has been concerned for some time now that federally-funded programs which are administered by the provinces do not always respond to the particular criteria or even to the intentions of the federal government. I am talking now about such programs in general. There is a constant effort-and there is one currently going on-to make sure that when the funds are derived from the federal taxpayers the federal government should get its share not only of the responsibility but also of the credit for programs which have worked well-for ten years, in this case-and for which the provinces very often get more credit than the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of
April 25, 1974

the fact that Cominco has reported a first quarter profit increase of 174 per cent and Sherritt Gordon 180 per cent and the fact that the president of Sherritt Gordon attributes this to unreasonably high prices on the world level for certain resources, does the right hon. gentleman now intend to extend the two-price system to resources affected by high prices at the international level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will stand by the position taken by the Minister of Finance in response to a question of this type a few days ago.


INCREASE IN DIVIDENDS, INTEREST AND BUSINESS SERVICE CHARGES-POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO END PROFITEERING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of reports this morning that in the first four months of this year dividends have increased by 35 per cent, and since the majority of these payments are going to nonresidents, as well as increased interest charges and business service charges, could the minister say whether or not he intends to introduce legislation to end this type of profiteering?


John Napier Turner: That four-month report is not completely conclusive as to the trend, but this will be one of the over-all subjects to which I shall wish to address myself when I am thinking of what I should say in the budget speech.


POST OFFICE
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Postmaster General.
Does he have a statement to make to the House about the postal strike?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the parties are pursuing their discussions this afternoon; a meeting was held this morning and there will be others this afternoon with Mr. Taylor.


ELECTRICITY-POSSIBILITY OF SUBMARINE POWER CABLE TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND TO REDUCE COST
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to a question I asked him about a month ago in respect of rapidly increasing electricity costs in Prince Edward Island, the recent energy agreement and in particular the
Oral Questions
proposed construction of a submarine power cable. He indicated at that time that he had instructed further discussions to take place on this matter. Is he now in a position to make an announcement in respect of a decision or does he expect a decision shortly in order that some hope might be given to Prince Edward Islanders regarding their high electricity costs and the likelihood of even more increases in the future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the more fundamental aspects of this question, we are awaiting the outcome of the election to pursue the discussion, hopefully with Premier Campbell.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But on a related matter, Mr. Speaker, I am informed that Premier Campbell will be making an announcement in the next couple of days relating to a subsidiary matter on which we have already agreed regarding the transportation of electricity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary. I believe the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo has a supplementary to a previous question and I will come to him immediately afterward.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in respect of the agreement to be announced shortly. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether any actual feasibility or engineering studies have been done with regard to a submarine power cable or whether such studies will be commissioned shortly, and when there might be some report from those studies in order that some final decision might be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this is the very matter which will be the subject of an announcement by Premier Campbell within a very few days.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have one further supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister give the House some idea as to when there might be, and there is no pun intended, a concrete decision in respect of the actual cable itself, because that is the operative question in this whole matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a repetition of the first question to which I answered that there would be an announcement relating to the second question, which is surely preliminary to the concrete action to which he has referred. There have to be research and feasibility studies, and because this is a joint agreement I would not want to be any more explicit today in the House but will wait until the time that both the province and the federal government agreed to.
1746

April 25, 1974
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


POSTAL WORKERS' STRIKE-DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY ALLOWANCE CHEQUES IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that of the Leader of the Opposition and it is for the Postmaster General. Yesterday he repeated that he had secret plans for getting family allowance cheques out of the regional post offices and into the hands of the people who are awaiting them. Without asking him to compromise the secrecy of his plans for getting them out of the regional post offices, can he inform the House where the people who are expecting family allowance cheques in southwestern Ontario will be able to pick them up and at what time? Can he indicate whether it will be in the first half of next week and where?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is referring to old age pension cheques or family allowance cheques.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Family allowance cheques.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, family allowance cheques are almost all distributed except a very few, and they are in the process of being delivered presently.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a further supplementary question of the minister for clarification. In the case of the hundreds of people who are expecting family allowance cheques which were stranded in regional post offices when the strike was called, has he been able to get them out of the post offices and distributed since then?


André Ouellet: Most of them, yes, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the publication La Terre de chez-nous reports that first quality wheat sells for $7.09 per hundredweight in eastern Canada and in Quebec in particular, and the Canadian Wheat Board informs us in its report that western farmers get only $2.65 a hundredweight for the same quality of wheat, does the minister intend to investigate and check this exploitation of eastern farmers, not profitable in any way to western farmers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, these prices are all monitored and all posted. It is very easy for them to check the actual cost of shipping and the actual commissions involved in respect of the people actually handling the sales. These figures when broken down show, I believe, that no one would be getting an

unwarranted mark-up on the grain. In addition, as I am sure the hon. member is aware, Ontario corn is much cheaper and many people are buying this.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Can the Minister of Agriculture assure the House that the bill to control profiteering which will be introduced shortly will deal with the exploitation of the western farmers who get only $2.65 a hundredweight of wheat, while eastern farmers must pay $7.05 for it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the only thing I can tell the hon. member is that he will have to be patient for a couple of more days to see the bill himself.


NORTHEASTERN ALBERTA-AID TO FARMERS WHOSE UNHARVESTED CROPS DESTROYED BY FLOODS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Inasmuch as flood conditions in northeastern Alberta have virtually destroyed a great portion of the unharvested crop remaining in that area, is he now reconsidering his earlier decision with regard to crop aid to the farmers who are affected there since, now that the floods have taken place, these people will not have a harvest to complete, and also bearing in mind that large advances have been taken out on those crops?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we have received an official request from the province of Alberta, but I do know from telephone conversations between our officials and officials of the Alberta Department of Agriculture that there have been some rough estimates of the loss. I understand that a formal request will be presented to the federal government, and we have responded generally to these requests in the past.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Generally or generously?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Some time ago the province of Alberta did make representations to the federal Department of Agriculture requesting that acreage payments be made. I am simply asking the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now reconsidering his earlier decision in regard to that proposal made by the Minister of Agriculture for the province of Alberta?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have done practically-I do not think I can say exactly-what was requested by the province of Alberta at the time I met with the minister for that province. Before the spring runoff, which is taking place at the present time as a result of the melting of snow, there had been very small requests by the farmers of Alberta amounting to a total of $80,000, according to the last records I saw, because they too were waiting to see how much of their crops they were going to harvest. I admit that things have certainly changed since then.
April 25, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a further supplementary, and then the hon. member for Labelle.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. I am indeed surprised and rather disappointed with the explanation of the Minister of Agriculture. Can he explain to the House why that area of Canada is being treated differently from areas such as the eastern part of Ontario and Quebec which faced similar situations a year ago in respect of which the federal government participated in crop aid?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I take strong exception to what the hon. member is trying to insinuate. We have treated them all the very same no matter what part of Canada they are in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: We recently agreed with the province of Saskatchewan to pay $1,200,000 because there was no insurance available in that area. The hon. member knows that insurance was available to those people for this type of crop loss in Alberta, as does the Minister of Agriculture for Alberta, and that is why the step was taken in Quebec and even in eastern Ontario where insurance was not available.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: All talk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Alberta gets it again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Liabelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Could he advise the House of the progress made in the bargaining between his department and the firemen on the Canadian airports?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: In my
opinion, Mr. Speaker, there is no bargaining involved, but rather the question of finding out whether the report concerning the bargaining between the Treasury Board and the Civil Service Alliance, acting on behalf of the firemen, has been approved or not. Some 20 minutes ago, I learned that the firemen had rejected the agreement reached by the Civil Service Alliance and the government, which means, as far as I could judge from the statements made by the firemen involved, that they will resume work immediately, the Alliance having accepted to submit the conflict to arbitration, and I am told that a request for
Oral Questions
arbitration has already been sent to the Canada Labour Relations Board as regards aspects related to the Public Service. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems that we may see the normal resuming of operations.


INQUIRY AS TO REACHING OF AGREEMENT WITH AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ON PAY INCREASE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister indicate whether an agreement has been reached between the government and the air traffic controllers who are seeking a new contract with his department?


Jean Marchand: No, they are not seeking a contract with my department. They are seeking a contract with Treasury Board.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I will redirect my question to the President of the Treasury Board. Would he indicate whether any agreement has been reached between the air traffic controllers and the Treasury Board with regard to their request for an increase in remuneration?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, not as yet, but we are working continuously to achieve this objective.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


RECLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN AIRPORTS FROM CLASS D TO CLASS C
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the minister has reclassified Vancouver international airport and other airports from class D airports to class C airports so that DC-8's are now landing on a limited basis, can he tell us why they were not reclassified at the start of the strike so we could have had better service?


Jean Marchand: For the
very good reason that the supervisors fulfilling these duties wanted to know how to operate very suitably and rapidly the equipment which they did not know before. It is a matter of security, and now they say they can handle the equipment to take care of the DC-8's and 707's.


Mr. Speaker:: I seek the co-operation of hon. members to attempt to limit the number of supplementaries between now and the end of the question period. I will see the hon. member for a supplementary.


John Douglas Reynolds: I have a short question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister telling us that those supervisors were not fully trained and that the security was not good at the start of the strike?


Jean Marchand: They were trained and they could handle the aircraft that were described in the communique issued to the press. Now that they are better trained they say, "well, we can take a little bit more".
27451-47)

April 25, 1974
Oral Questions FLOODS


PREVENTION MEASURES BY TOWN OF LUMSDEN, SASKATCHEWAN-POSSIBILITY OF FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister but he just got away on me. I will direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who just became Acting Prime Minister. In view of the response to a question of mine on Tuesday by the Minister of the Environment regarding compensation for temporary works such as dykes, sandbagging, bulldozing and so forth to the effect that they would be subject to the federal formula for cost-sharing, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government agrees with that answer and that in fact communities such as the town of Lumsden will be able to receive financial assistance under the federal formula?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to answer a question so precisely. Certainly the Minister of the Environment was speaking for the government and I support the statement he has made on behalf of the government. The particular question about Lumsden the hon. member has put to me now I shall have to take under consideration.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of the Environment if he has the support of his colleagues in the Cabinet and the government for his answer to my question of last Tuesday or whether the minister in charge of the Wheat Board when speaking in Regina yesterday was correct in saying as indicated in the following report?
Mr. Lang told a press conference the existing federal-provincial cost-sharing formula for disaster loss compensation does not extend to the cost of efforts to prevent the disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister rises on a question of privilege.


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the quotation which the hon. member puts forward. I think that in the various statements that have been made what must be appreciated is what the Acting Prime Minister just referred to, that it is difficult to make a complete statement on the situation because whatever is paid by the federal treasury under our formula depends upon the approval in the first instance of the province of payments in respect of those matters. There is a list of things which are eligible on our part, but it depends first on what the province does and at this stage there is no way of knowing precisely what the province will do. But we have a very important support formula-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain.


Mr. Lewis:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member. The hon. member for York South seeks the floor on a point of order.


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question was addressed to the Minister of the Environ-
(Mr. Marchand (Langelier).]
ment. The Minister of Justice rose to his feet to clarify a statement which he was reported to have made. He did nothing of the sort. He added to the confusion. I think he was arrogant in rising and confusing in his remarks and that the Minister of the Environment should be given a chance to answer the question so that the citizens of Lumsden will know whether or not there is a chance for them to get some assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has no objection, of course, to allowing the minister to reply to the hon. member's question, but we are running short of time and I am wondering whether this is what hon. members want the Chair to do.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that we are both right, the Minister of Justice and myself, in respect of my answer the other day. All works which have been put in place currently or as a result of the current flood threat, as well as damages incurred as a result of the flooding, are subject to the federal formula and compensation from Ottawa. It is a fact that the province makes out the cheques and the federal government then pays the province on a matching dollar basis, the formula for which includes a threshold above which the federal contribution rises in an ascending fashion. Dikes recently put in place to deal with the flood threat, sandbagging and so on are all subject to federal support.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. I will, of course, recognize the hon. member who is seeking the floor on a question of privilege and then the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain who has been trying to get the floor for three or four minutes. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre rises on a question of privilege.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is very brief. It can be simply handled by the Acting Prime Minister on behalf of all members of the House and the residents of Saskatchewan, particularly Lumsden, if he will have the Minister of Justice keep his nose out of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I suggest to hon. members that these alleged points of order and questions of privilege are not really what they are claimed to be. They are really debate between members and a minister. Perhaps we might try to go on to the next question. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


POSSIBLE DEFECTIVE PIPELINE AT AGASSIZ BRIDGE ON FRASER RIVER
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister been informed by the National Energy Board about a possible
April 25, 1974

defective pipeline at the Agassiz Bridge on the Fraser River?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that personally but I will make an immediate inquiry.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the minister, if he does find evidence of a report having been submitted, get the National Energy Board engineers to confirm or deny the truth of this allegation which has been dealt with in the British Columbia legislature and also in the newspapers there?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, sir.


MOOSE JAW-REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that flood damage in the city of Moose Jaw is estimated to be approximately $10 million, in view of the fact many of the residents suffered extensive damage both to their residences and to their businesses, and also in view of the fact that many of these people do not have the necessary funds to re-establish themselves, would the Acting Prime Minister take the necessary steps to make moneys available immediately to assist these people on the basis that any money paid out would be a charge against the moneys to be paid out later under the federal-provincial sharing agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the arrangements for federal participation in meeting the cost of disasters of this kind are of long standing. We stand by these undertakings. The procedures are well established; the province of Saskatchewan can proceed and it will be compensated.


STEPS TO HAVE CERTAIN UNIVERSITY GRADUATES RETURN TO THEIR HOMELANDS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of Canada's contributions in foreign aid to underdeveloped countries I should like to ask the minister what steps the federal government is taking specifically to meet the urgent demands and pleas of the underdeveloped countries to have their overseas graduates return to their homelands?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization has recently suggested an international study of the migration of health personnel. We have just received representations from the World Health Organization in this respect. We
Oral Questions
are considering this proposal for study and I would think this matter might well be raised at the next conference of WHO in Geneva during the month of May.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Last week, at the annual meeting of the Quebec Federation of Milk Producers, it was decided that if the federal government did not revise its recent dairy policy, the federation would set up a strategy to boycott milk products; can the minister tell the House whether he is prepared to revise this policy which fails to meet the minimum requested by the federation?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we met the Ministers of Agriculture from la belle province, Mr. Pepin, and from the next belle province, Ontario, yesterday afternoon.
While I am on my feet I should like to make a correction to the answer which I gave earlier to the hon. member regarding flood damage in Alberta. I erred when I said that we were sharing with Saskatchewan $1,200,000. It is possibly $2 million that we will be sharing with them. Also, the Alberta government has informed us that as soon as they make a complete survey of the damage they will send us a formal request.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I have a clear impression that I did not get the answer I wanted. I want to know precisely-and I am very happy for the people of Ontario, Mr. Speaker-whether the minister is prepared to revise or reconsider milk policies to give a positive answer to the requests of the Quebec Federation of Milk Producers.
[EnglishJ


Eugene Whelan: The Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec has asked if I will meet with these people together with him, and I have agreed to this. We have also agreed to look over the whole program. But, to be fair, let me point out that the whole program is not three weeks old yet, and I do not know how they can say just what it is going to be. However, we are willing to explain it in greater detail to show them what this program will do and what we hope to do with the new long-term dairy policy.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton and then we will have to call orders of the day.

April 25, 1974
Oral Questions NATIONAL CAPITAL


POLICY OF GOVERNMENT ON USE OF GREEN BELT- SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY CHAIRMEN TO COMMISSION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact there is a study under way by the National Capital Commission which may result in the reshaping of the green belt and its possible use for housing under certain circumstances, would the minister inform the House whether his statement on June 29, 1973, that the green belt would not be used for industrial purposes and his statement on July 9, 1973, that he would not recommend a transportation complex in the green belt still represent the policy of the government with respect to the use of the green belt?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Those statements stand. The commission is, however, as the chairman made clear, reviewing its policy on land holdings, which include many other things than the green belt, and they will be making recommendations to the government in due course which we will be considering. Their determination in preparing and reviewing their land holdings is, however, to protect the integrity of the green belt and to ensure that it is a valuable conservation and recreation asset.


Walter David Baker: In view of the critical planning stage we have reached in the national capital area, particularly in the relationships of the regional municipalities with the federal government which is the largest landholder, has the government taken a position with respect to the appointment of the chairman of both regional municipalities, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on the one hand and Outaouais regional municipality on the other, as members of the National Capital Commission so that there can be co-ordination on the policymaking level of the commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, but it may well be that Mr. Fullerton, the former chairman of NCC, who is preparing a report on the structure of the NCC, which report will be referred to a committee of the House in due course, may want to examine it. With regard to the substance of the question, I want to assure the hon. member that there is a very close collaboration between the two regional municipalities and the NCC in their planning processes which are very current at the present time, and I would anticipate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have gone beyond the question period. Perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain might be allowed a supplementary, and I believe the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster has a point of order.


INFORMATION CONTAINED IN BOOKLET &quot;CANADA'S NEW CAPITAL&quot;
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question was for the Prime Minister but I will direct it to the Minister of State for

Urban Affairs. In May, 1973, the Prime Minister commissioned a special task force to study the national capital area. To my knowledge, the study headed by Mr. Fullerton has yet to be tabled. Can the minister tell me if the booklet, "Canada's New Capital", which contains information that one would expect from Mr. Fullerton's study, is indeed a leak from that study and, second, does the minister agree that land bought from the E. B. Eddy Company in the province of Quebec is indeed in the heart of the capital of Canada, as stated in the booklet?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, there is no relationship between Mr. Fullerton's study, which I understand is on time, and this booklet. The study has not yet been submitted to the government but I understand that Mr. Fullerton's preparation work is on time for his study. With reference to the second part of the question, the E. B. Eddy property is partly located in the province of Ontario and partly in the province of Quebec. It is located in the centre of the national capital region as agreed to by the Prime Minister and ten provincial premiers some years ago.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bell:: May I ask the government House leader the business for next week and say to him that we are willing to show reasonable co-operation in moving forward these small bills before the finality of the budget makes itself known the following week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, we propose to continue until completion second reading of Bill C-3, environmental contaminants, to be followed by Bill C-27, the railway crossing bill, followed by the federal business development bank bill and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. I might mention to the House that I propose to give notice of the end of profiteering bill on Friday, and probably will be able to call it on Tuesday-


George Harris Hees: That is known as the NDP buy-off bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -if the House is ready to deal with such a comprehensive measure after only a day to study it.
With reference to the railway crossing bill, I understand it would be agreeable if the House ordered that debate on second reading be confined to two speakers for each of the parties in the House and that following that we would deal with the bill in Committee of the Whole with no limitation. I would say it would be my intention to continue with the railway crossing bill today. If it were completed, I would call the Federal Business Development Bank but if not, and in any event, I would call the Federal Business Development Bank as the first item of business tomorrow to give hon. members some certainty as to what will be before the House on Friday.


An hon. Member:: Is Stanley happy with all that?
April 25, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on the same point of order?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate our agreement with the House order which was proposed.


George Harris Hees: It is just the way you wrote it, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope I am just as successful when I ask when we will see the bill to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I must say I cannot thank the hon. member for giving me notice of that question! I cannot tell my hon. friend when he will see it but I can assure him that he will see it in the near future. We are working on it.


Thomas Miller Bell: How many shopping lists have you got?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will we get it before budget day?


George Harris Hees: Otherwise there will be trouble!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to do serious business with the distractions provided by the hon. gentlemen opposite. I cannot give that assurance, but my hon. friend will see it in a form that will make it irresistible to him.


An hon. Member:: Allan in wonderland!


Duncan M. Beattie: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege concerns the publication of this booklet "Canada's New Capital" by the National Capital Commission. I said earlier that I thought there was a leak from this bulletin. I see here that part of the address of this commission contains the proposed new name for the capital of Canada, namely 48 Rideau Street, Ottawa-Hull. Would the Minister of State or the Postmaster General wish to comment on that?



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Davis that Bill C-3, to protect human health and the environment from the release of substances that contaminate the environment, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the item before the House now is the item standing in the name of the hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis). The point of order which was raised by the hon. President of the Privy
Environmental Contamination Council (Mr. MacEachen) related to the next order of business. I wonder whether it is the wish of the House that that order be passed immediately in respect of the second item of business. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The understanding of the Chair was that there would be two speakers from each party in the House or a maximum of two speakers for each party and that the bill be referred to a committee of the whole. Is this agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were almost completed at six o'clock last night. I had pointed out to the minister some of the concerns that we on this side of the House have about the bill. I had pointed out to the minister, as had colleagues on this side of the House, that we welcome the measure but that we would want to subject the bill to much closer scrutiny when it gets to committee. I have pointed out that we would much rather have had some official guidelines which other levels of governments, departments of government and industry could follow. We would have liked to see some moneys in the bill. The minister went to great lengths to explain that the onus would be on industry, on the offenders, rather than on the government and the people to ensure that there is no environmental damage or damage to human life as a result of pollution and industrial discharge. He said that industries must pay. We all agree, Mr. Speaker. That is not a difficult idea to sell these days, if we look at the federal budget. The question is, for what does industry have to pay?
There is a certain amount of uncertainty about this bill because the minister introduces all kinds of new problems. We have gone a step further now. We used to say, "Don't do like we do, do like we say". Now, we have altered that to "Do as we might say". The bill introduces all kinds of new things that could happen.
The disclosure section of the bill refers to the minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare having reason to believe that a substance is being or will be released into the environment. This could be a strange substance, Mr. Speaker, something that we do not know about today, that could have been released into the environment or that might be released in the future. The clause provides that the minister may cause an order to be published in the Canada Gazette and that he may send written notice to those engaged in the activity. But, Mr. Speaker, how is the minister going to find out about the offence in order to have it published in the Canada Gazette or to send a letter? He would have to send out an army of witch hunters, such as we have in other departments of government. They would have to report to him that something is about to happen that might damage the environment or human health. There is a great feeling of uncertainty as a result of this bill. I am sure that my colleagues in the opposition and, I hope in the government, would like to rectify some of these matters when the bill is in committee.
I am not fishing in the dark, Mr. Speaker. I should like to recite a situation in which I was involved. In this case

April 25, 1974
Environmental Contamination the Department of Public Works, on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, contracted to carry out some work in the Northwest Territories. A private firm was engaged to move equipment to the site and commence the work. There was some delay because of floods and transportation problems, so by the time the contractor got to the site the Department of the Environment had decided not to issue an environmental permit. Subsequently, through the Department of Public Works and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the work was cancelled. Then, it was discovered that the contractor had to be compensated for the cost of bringing his equipment on site. However, due to the fact that there was a delay, not of a year or of six months or of three weeks, but of two days, by a technicality it was decided that he did not have to be compensated. Had he been on the site at the specified time, he would have had to be compensated but because he was two days late, there was this loophole.
I point this out, Mr. Speaker, three departments of government were involved and yet we put the onus on industry to protect itself. I ask, against what are we asking industry to protect us? Surely it is the responsibility of the federal government, in conjunction with provincial governments, to provide guidelines with respect to substances which are polluting our air, water and environment. Such guidelines are not now in existence. It is easy to provide for anti-pollution equipment when a plant is in the planning stage. If there are guidelines with respect to pollution levels, they can be applied at the stage where the feasibility of a new plant is being considered, and then they can budget for equipment. It becomes almost impossible to plan with respect to pollution control if you are not planning on the basis of known factors. I know the minister is concerned about this.
When the bill is in committee I hope members will work with diligence to work out some solution to this difficulty. I know it cannot be done overnight, as the problem is complex. We must arrive at some solution so that we can provide business and industry with guidelines in this area. When introducing the bill yesterday, the minister said several times that he strongly favours prevention as opposed to cure. To my mind strict guidelines are the first preventive measure which ought to be considered in dealing with this serious problem.
Having said this, I assure the minister that my colleagues on this side welcome the bill. We should have liked to see it long ago, but, nonetheless, we will co-operate in every way possible to pass the measure. Efforts will be made on our behalf to move amendments. The minister invited comments and amendments to this bill. I know he will co-operate when they are advanced.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I will not unduly delay the progress of this bill which is of sufficient importance to warrant broad discussion at this stage of our deliberations. The concept of controlling and managing the environment is of fairly recent origin. Members who have spoken in the debate so far have said how pleased they are to note the initiative taken by the govern-

ment in taking this further step in dealing with the problems connected with the environment.
In his statement yesterday the minister emphasized that the purpose of the bill is preventive, that it anticipates the possible contamination of man's environment. He said that it also deals with a broader concept, the protection of human health. The hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), who spoke on the bill yesterday, dealt in detail with the health aspects of the bill and about problems which flow from contamination. I do not need to report what he said.
As the minister has included in the bill a concept for protecting human health from contaminants, I hope he realizes how broad are the dimensions of what is implied. If such an idea is to be effective, we shall need legislation much more comprehensive than that represented by Bill C-3 which is now before us.
May I comment briefly on the object of prevention. Although it is desirable to make sure that man does not further unnecessarily contaminate his environment with man-made contaminants, particularly through the growth of the synthetic industry, I need hardly remind the minister that we cannot arrest the problem at this stage with legislation like this. This legislation, which it is hoped will prevent man from further contaminating his environment through his own pollutants, hardly deals with the broader aspects of the problem.
Yesterday the minister said, justifiably, that he will require lots of advice if he is to come to grips with this difficulty. He expressed the hope that advisory councils, both formal and ad hoc, will be sufficient to keep him, the department and the government fully posted on the broad implications of the question.
That brings me to the first point of my brief contribution today. There has been in existence since 1962 an advisory council which, I think, will be one of our most useful tools for dealing with environmental pollution in future, as anticipated in the bill, and for dealing with some of the broader aspects of the problem yesterday outlined by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. I am referring to the resource ministers council which has been in operation for the past 12 years. That council is a purely advisory body. It cannot be given executive responsibility because the area of resources, particularly renewable resources like air and water with which the present bill is designed to deal, is an area of joint jurisdiction. Responsibility lies somewhere between federal and provincial administrations.
All governments have failed to come to grips with pollution, partly because it has been difficult to know where specific areas of responsibility lie. That is one of the difficulties of life in a federal state. Here is a ready made advisory council which is based in one of our major cities, Montreal. It has been in existence for the past 12 or 13 years. Its purpose is to advise the federal government and provincial levels of government on the broad implications of pollution, particularly environmental pollution, and to recommend legislative solutions. The resource ministers council will make this broader examination possible, as it is involved with the private sector of the Canadian economy.
April 25, 1974

The minister went to some lengths to point out that the bill will be effective because the polluter will pay. The bill implies that the polluter in most instances in industry and, as a financial penalty is to be imposed on the polluter, industry will be more circumspect in its plans and programs for industrial growth and expansion. The difficulty from my reading of the bill is, how are we to bring about enforcement? The bill is pretty well permissive and voluntary in this aspect.
How are we going to get the cooperation of industry? The suggestion seems to be that the advisory committees will keep a watching brief on the whole problem. The advisory committees will report to the government and, having received the report, the government will move in to take the necessary corrective action.
It would be much more useful and effective if somewhere in the bill it could be stated that industry itself has some responsibility of giving notice of its intentions to move into an area where the synthetic products involved might be the source of contamination. This would anticipate the problem. It would lock the door before the horse is stolen in the figurative sense, and would have the desired effect of preventing the difficulty rather than trying to resolve it after it has developed.
If we are looking for a body that would look at the whole aspect of the problem, not only intergovernmental, but the continuing relationships between industry and governments, the resource ministers council with its qualified staff which has been carrying out studies in the area of pollution control for the past number of years would be most useful and effective in this regard.
The greatest difficulty in administering the bill will be the fact that there is an inherent conflict between industrial growth and the problem of pollution control. We had this brought forcibly to our attention in recent months when Canada and the world was faced with an energy crisis. Immediately there was a tendency to relax the emphasis of pollution control through the use of energy. We had a discussion in the House. Certain federal government departments were violating some of the standards laid down for the use of energy and domestic fuels that did not meet the restrictions on sulphur content laid down by government anti-pollution programs.
Here is where we will face the real difficulty of bringing the bill into effective implementation. We will not only need the voluntary control of industry, but there will have to be in the legislation some built-in safeguards to ensure that industrial polluters will not only be threatened with the necessity of paying for pollution, but will have some responsibility for reporting in anticipation of any particular industrial activity and growth that will constitute a threat.
I know the bill provides for the payment of any expenditures with regard to research in this area devolving upon the industrialists. This will make it all the more difficult to control these industrial polluters who because of the heavy financial penalty imposed by the terms of the legislation which makes them responsible for paying the cost of research, might be tempted to conceal the information
Environmental Contamination that their activities are going to constitute a threat to man's environment.
Not only is it going to be necessary to get the support of industry by voluntary and, to a certain extent, legislative action if there is to be any hope of successful enforcement of the legislation, but there must be an assurance of continuous public support. In most instances, where the legislation is going to apply, it will be as a result of information laid by the concerned public.
It seems that as the issue has developed over the years, the public are ahead of governments in this regard. There has been pressure from the Canadian public. Indeed, very concerned people around the world have forced governments, which in many instances have been reluctant, to come to grips by introducing legislation to deal with the problem. It is the public protest and the public voluntary action that has gradually forced governments to move into this area. The fact that the United Nations has seen fit to move into the area of environmental control by setting up a separate secretariat indicates that it is not only a problem peculiar to Canada and North America, but that it is a problem of growing concern around the world.
One of the most hopeful developments is the growing concern of young people. It is the young people of Canada and around the world who are most concerned about the control of pollution on the spaceship earth. They are, of course, most concerned about the future prospects for the quality of life on the earth in which we live, move and have our being.
When this bill goes to committee, I hope we will have the opportunity of hearing from some of the organized groups in this country which have from time to time sent excellent briefs expressing their concern and indicating a considerable knowledge of the problem as the result of intensive study. I trust that when the bill goes into committee we might be able to hear from some of these voices from the people.
One final point I wish to make before concluding my remarks concerns the international implications. In the first instance the problem of environmental contamination as it involves the renewable resources of air and water, is respecter of international boundaries. I hope that at the committee stage there will not only be discussion on how we get provincial cooperation and the cooperation of private industry, but that there will be some consideration of cooperation, particularly within North America, across the international boundary. There are many areas of Canada which are crossed by international boundary waters.
I wish to mention one particular problem that concerns the part of Canada I represent in the House of Commons, the Souris River and the potential threat that arises from a project south of the border in the state of North Dakota that has been underway for a number of years. The Garrison Dam represents a major multi-million dollar project to control the waters of that area of the United States. Eventually it will involve the Souris and the Red River which crosses the international boundary.
Obviously, if the project of the United States is to proceed as anticipated by the planners in the American
1754

April 25, 1974
Environmental Contamination
government, there should be some means by which Canadians can not only express their concern but can take effective action to prevent the pollution and contamination of boundary waters. I know there is already legislation in existence designed to deal with international boundary waters, and I know also that the government of Canada has expressed its opposition in official notes to Washington. But here we are debating and dealing with a piece of legislation which, as the minister outlined in his opening statement the other day, is bringing together important aspects of the issue which have been dealt with in isolation in the past. Here is a piece of legislation which is heralded as a major break-through in controlling environmental contamination, and I trust we shall not only consider the domestic aspects of the subject when we are deliberating in committee but also the fact that on the North American continent the prevention of the pollution of our environment, particularly of the air and water, will be dealt with effectively in this bill.
Several areas of concern have been brought to the minister's attention in the course of this debate. Members of the Official Opposition will be putting forward amendments in committee to improve the legislation. I trust that the minister, who in his presentation yesterday indicated he wanted this bill to represent a major break-through in pollution control, will take a positive and sympathetic attitude to these amendments when they come before the committee.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, while the bill now before us is not related to inflation, the cost of living, the price of groceries, the price of milk or the low purchasing power of those on fixed incomes, subjects which are of prime concern, I submit, to the Canadian people, the legislation in the name of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) nonetheless deals with another matter which is of great concern, if not of prime concern, to Canadians and to all who live on this planet, namely, environmental pollution and contamination.
To this extent, and because the bill will involve the imposition of more rigid controls, we on this side of the House wish to assure the minister of our general support for the measure, as long as due weight is given to all the implications and priorities which must inevitably enter into decisions on such questions. There are few provisions in the bill to suggest that the dividing line between pollution and the exploitation necessary for the development of our country has been sufficiently considered. The various reports which will be submitted to the minister under the provisions outlined here will do so, I trust.
My comments this afternoon will be to a large extent confined to an attempt to seek clarification-to remove some of the confusion, uncertainty and fuzziness which, I suggest, this legislation contains but which could be cleared up in committee. First of all, it is interesting to note that this is what might call a bi-ministerial bill. It is presented by the Minister of the Environment but it definitely and closely involves the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), for obvious reasons. The situation is one which requires close co-ordination between the two ministers. I hope this co-ordination will be forthcoming and that it will be effective. I hope that indeed it will

be more effective than the co-ordination which has prevailed in the past between the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand)-I refer to the recent hand over of responsibilities in connection with small harbours. I believe things are on the right road now, but during the process of the hand-over the co-ordination between the ministers concerned left a certain amount to be desired. In this case, the ministers do not sit as close to each other as the two ministers I have just mentioned. Nevertheless, I trust they will be able to co-ordinate their activities in this field.
There is one thing which mystifies me with regard to this bill and I hope the minister will have something to say about it when he closes the debate on second reading. It is the use of the word "contaminant". The word everyone has been using up to now is "pollution". Suddenly, we find the word "contamination" being used, apparently as something distinct from "pollutant". Are they the same thing? I have looked up both words in the dictionary, and I find they are very close to being the same in meaning. The Concise Oxford Dictionary says that to contaminate is to pollute. I looked up "pollute" but the definition did not mention "contaminate". It said: "destroy the purity and sanctity of". That is about the same thing. Nevertheless, I am not quite sure why the minister has shifted his ground. Does he, for example, intend to exclude those pollutants which have captured the frightened imagination of the world in these last days and months-oil pollution at sea, for example? Is it his intention that industrial effluents be covered, or excluded? We are concerned nowadays about the effect of industrial effluents in the air in the form of smoke.
I recall hearing in a committee meeting I attended about the rather frightening prospect of vapour trails and ice trails being created by_ high-flying aircraft as a pollutant or contaminant of the atmosphere capable, it is thought, of altering atmospheric conditions, or environmental conditions of the world-I cannot use the word meteorological anymore-by increasing cloud cover. Is this the sort of contaminant the minister has in mind in presenting the bill with this wording, and I ask him this in all seriousness? There is another question, of course, in respect of car emission standards. Is this envisaged as part of the area this bill is intended to cover?
I also notice this wording, which again I find a little confusing:
-that a substance is being or is likely to be released into the environment-
It is true that we have to deal with language when formulating these clauses, and I am not being hypercritical. I am asking these questions and making these enquiries so I will understand what this bill is intended to cover in the way of pollutants that are being or are likely to be released. I have already mentioned vapour trails from high-flying aircraft amongst those things that are being released. I am wondering if such a thing as the Irving Whale, for example, which is below the water off the Cavendish Beach, is one of the concerns to be dealt with in this bill. This pollution is not being released, but it is capable of being released. Is it intended under this bill to
April 25, 1974

require that this particular vessel be floated and that the energy it contains be put to some better use than is now
the case?
In looking at His Excellency's recommendation I notice that it is intended to provide for the appointment of an Environmental Contaminants Board of Review, for the appointment of advisory committees, and for the designation of any person as an inspector or analyst. As I understand recommendations, these must be there because of the financial implications involved in these particular actions.
One area I do not see covered in this recommendation, and one I suggest we should not overlook, is research into possible contaminants or pollutants to ensure that proper measures of control are taken. This satisfies me to a certain extent, but I would like to have further assurances from the minister.
I notice in Clause 3 on page 3 of the bill the minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) are to be empowered under this particular provision to make use of the services and the facilities of other departments of the government of Canada or of any agencies thereof, by which I understand, and I hope I am correct in my understanding, this would mean the Defence Research Board, the National Research Council and other research agencies. However, there is no provision made for assigning to these research bodies the areas of inquiry or research into matters covered by the bill, and I think some consideration ought to be given to this. I welcome that particular clause at page 3 because it does go that far anyway.
I welcome also the reference to provincial consultation, and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who spoke just before me did mention the existence of a federal-provincial consultative body, the ministers of resources, which I think is a body that must be used more and more to ensure that there is not any heavy-footed federal interference in provincial jurisdictions, but that the provisions of the law that are applied across Canada shall be implemented, where they have to be implemented, provincially and not by imposition from the outside.
I note on pages 7 and 8 of the bill some reference to the tabling of reports which are prepared by the board and a decision as to whether those reports might be made public or whether they might be retained in the hands of the government rather than made public. We have had experience with government's refusing to table reports which, from all outward appearances, ought to be public documents. I am wondering whether it would not be a worthwhile amendment to suggest, and perhaps this will come out but I put it forward for what it is worth at the moment, that the device of having so many members of the House requiring a debate on the decision regarding whether a report ought to be made public and possibly referred to the appropriate committee, be adopted. The matters covered in any of these reports are bound to affect Canadians from one side of the country to the other, and it is not right or proper for any government to allocate to itself the decision on the matter of whether the report should be made public. There should be provision here I feel for parliamentary consideration of that particular aspect of tabling reports.
Environmental Contamination
I mentioned a little earlier the matter of pollutants, and particularly oil, as there is a fear that this will become more and more a source of pollution in our waters. I take this opportunity to welcome the note which was presented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to the United States government not very many weeks ago, and which he tabled in the House. I am very glad that note was tabled as we now know some of the matters that were hinted at in that note. I am wondering whether this bill could be of assistance in that particular field.
What is needed in addition to these agreements is the ability to enforce the undertakings we make, or the things we insist on in any agreement we have with United States, be they navigational standards, construction standards or other standards. I have mentioned the Irving Whale and the possibility of oil pollution in that regard. I have good reason to believe from talking with technicians, people competent in the art, that this particular vessel could be floated, and I am wondering why it has not been. I have heard for example, that this might involve a legal matter because the insurance on the cargo has been paid and it should not be raised because there might have to be some compensation or reimbursement to the insurance company. I ask whether this is really a telling argument. Surely, a hulk lying on the floor of the sea must be a fair prize available to any organization, person or government agency which has the wit and whim and funds to raise it. I find the legal argument that has been put forward to me a rather specious one.
I feel reasonably certain that some of the other matters that this bill is intended to cover are such things as industrial effluents from pulpmills and iron and steel mills, again matters where provincial consultation will be most important. I think the provinces are doing all they can, and I hope they will welcome the added strength which this bill will give.
I have one further inquiry in respect of one degree of contaminant in the food we eat. I refer to fish and one particular species. I would refer to the research work in relation to mercury contamination, not only in respect of fresh water fish but also fish on the high seas. A swordfish industry did exist. It was brought to an untimely end because it was felt that the mercury content of the swordfish was too high for human consumption. My understanding is that, because of the nature of the beast and the way it feeds, the swordfish is a mercury carrier if you like. Swordfish is still eaten as a delicacy in many parts of the world. Anyone who visits Istanbul will know about the delicious swordfish dishes presented there. It is available in other parts of the world and yet our swordfish industry has been eliminated entirely. I ask the minister whether there is not room for further research in this area so that we will be absolutely certain concerning the levels of mercury in swordfish.
There may be other areas also in which we can clarify our thinking on this matter through good, solid, funded research. We want to be sure that this particular fish, as has been ruled, is a fish unfit for human Canadian consumption, let me put it that way, because the people of other nations do eat it. With these remarks and these
27451-48.'.

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
hopes for clarification I wish to thank members for listening so carefully to what I have had to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House is ready for the question I shall now proceed to put it. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-27, to facilitate the relocation of railways 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 read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps before the minister commences his remarks it should be recalled to the House that an order was made earlier concerning the number of speakers from each party.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to say how pleased I am to move, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), the second reading of Bill C-27 and to explain to the House his absence. He is appearing before the standing committee on his estimates relative to the Ministry of Transport. Either the minister or his parliamentary secretary will be closing the debate as the second speaker for the government. I am happy on behalf of the minister to begin the debate on this bill. I also want to thank most warmly the House leader of my party and the House leaders and members of the three opposition parties for the arrangement the House entered into earlier today that this bill would be dealt with in Committee of the Whole and that there would be two speakers from each party at the second reading stage.


Mr. Paproski:: You always get agreement from this party.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member gets that kind of agreement for his party because he is dealing with a minister who is very easy to get along with. In respect of the order of the House limiting the speeches to two from each party, I wish to say that many members of this House would have liked to have spoken on this bill during second reading. Certainly, judging from the correspondence I have had from mayors across Canada and from many other people in respect of this bill, I am sure many members of parliament who are involved in the affairs of their city would have liked to have spoken during this debate on behalf of their city councils.
The railway relocation and crossing bill is divided into four parts. The first part deals with joint urban develop-

ment and transportation plans for relocation schemes. Part II provides for special grants for separations. Part III provides for railway grade crossing assistance. Part IV is the general clause relating to the transitional provisions of the Railway Act under Bill C-27. As Minister of Urban Affairs, I have particular responsibilities assigned to me with regard to Part I. Parts II, III and IV are clearly the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Transport. Part I is very clearly urban legislation. It is directed to and at urban problems. By way of relocation schemes in respect of railway facilities, it holds the potential to improve the urban environment in many cities and towns across this country.
The railway relocation provisions of this act will be a major lever when this bill becomes effective and, through orders of the Canadian Transportation Commission, in reshaping the core areas of our cities and many of our communities. There are cogent and pressing reasons, which have obviously been recognized by all parties in the House, for the introduction of this bill and for its speedy passage.
As we all know, railways have been caught up in the rapid urbanization which is occurring in this country. They, as have other elements in our economy, have been caught up in the rapid development of our cities and in the problems of urbanization. In many instances, the railways bisect cities and towns, and create noise zones. They are traffic impediments and safety hazards. Their location determines in a social sense the right and wrong side of the tracks, to use an old expression. In many instances, railways and rail facilities occupy prime urban land that might be better developed in a number of ways to improve the quality of urban life. Their influence on the growth of many of our cities has obviously been pervasive. One only needs to visit cities from Halifax to Vancouver to see the part that railways have played in the development of all our cities. Often the city has developed because the railway was there, and then other cities and towns grew up around that railway junction.
One of the first priorities of this government was to examine how federal action could be brought to bear on the range of urban problems created over the years by the relationship between railways and cities, and the presence of tracks, yards and other rail facilities in urban centres. This review that we conducted made it clear very quickly that new legislation was needed to permit the federal government to help integrate railways and rail facilities with urban development, especially in inner city and core areas.
The legislation that has been introduced is a major federal initiative to help achieve a better balance between the need for efficient rail services and the adverse effects of railways on the quality of the urban environment and urban development in Canadian communities. It is designed to apply to cities where railway facilities- tracks, yards, terminals-are formidable obstacles to planned and orderly urban development; and to meet the demand for new or improved grade crossings and grade separations. The railway relocation and rerouting provisions will permit the federal government, for the first time in the history of this country, to fund and support in a
April 25, 1974

major way the planning for and implementation of railway relocation and rail traffic rerouting proposed by provinces and municipalities.
Where a rail line is relocated, the property thus vacated may be put to any number of uses, in accordance with the priorities established by such plans. These priorities can include, for example, the provision of improved and expanded rapid transit facilities, which I will mention in a moment, and land for housing. I can think of land that could be made available, for example, in Winnipeg by way of railroad relocation. It is good land that is already serviced. We have seen in the national capital area one successful relocation scheme which made land available by way of relocation for recreational purposes, for housing purposes, and for development purposes. The uses that the railroad could be put to are innumerable and of immense value.
Part I of the bill provides federal assistance for the planning and implementation of railway relocation and rerouting proposals put forward by the provinces and the municipalities. The federal government may also acquire railway property, if called for under the proposed act, which again is a new feature and may be one of the most important ones in the legislation. Historically, railways in this country have had the right to expropriate land for their purposes, but no one, including the government of Canada, has had the power until now to expropriate a railway facility. For the first time, parliament is being asked to reverse that historic situation and to establish a mechanism, if need be, for the expropriation of railway facilities.
A railway relocation and rerouting project is to begin with provincial and municipal initiatives and calls for participation by all three levels of government. When a province and involved municipalities wish to redevelop a specified urban area, including new transportation facilities and new uses for rail properties and lines, they inform the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs and the Ministry of Transport of their intent to submit an application to the CTC to seek orders to relocate railway facilities.
The applicants may ask for financial assistance from the federal government to prepare one or more alternative plans for submission to the CTC. Our budget for that purpose for these initial studies is $6 million. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs may contribute up to 50 per cent of the cost of preparing the urban development plans, and the Ministry of Transport may contribute up to 50 per cent of the cost of preparing transportation plans. The applicants are responsible for the remaining portion of the costs of preparing the plans. Where that comes from is unspecified in the legislation. It could be paid by municipalities, regional districts, provinces, or interested groups in any proportion or share that can be arranged.
Before the CTC can consider a railway relocation rerouting application that contemplates the use of federal programs in implementing the urban development or transportation plans, it must be informed by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs after his review, that these federal programs are available and will significantly contribute to the improvement of the urban area concerned.
The purpose of this review by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is designed to ensure two things: first, to
Relocation of Railway Lines
ascertain the availability of the various federal programs which would be required to implement urban development. Such programs, for example, might embrace infrastructure funding by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, housing programs of CMHC, acquisition of railway land for federal facilities by the Department of Public Works by, for example, using the construction and location of a major federal building as this part for the relocation projects.
Second, the review will ensure that proposed use of federal programs reflects over-all priorities established for the use of those programs in terms of costs and benefits. We want to ensure that the improvement to the urban environment is worth the federal money that is proposed to be spent on the relocation scheme. When the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has indicated to the CTC that the federal programs called for by the plan can be made available, and when the Governor in Council has notified the CTC that it is prepared to authorize a relocation grant voted by parliament, the province and municipality then submit a proposal to the CTC. A railway relocation and rerouting proposal presented to the CTC must be supported by an urban development plan-that is what we are going to do after we relocate railway facilities-and a transportation plan-that is to show if the transportation facilities are to be relocated and what is the plan to continue transportation facilities in an efficient and effective way-and a financial plan regarding how the whole relocation will be carried out.
The urban development plan is to show, among other things, why the rail facilities to be relocated constitute a significant impediment to urban development; how the situation is to be improved by rail relocation, and what is to be done with any railway land freed by relocation.
The transportation plan must show how transportation will be controlled within the study area, including rail traffic and location of streets, highways, bridges, railway lines, crossings and stations, bus routes and terminals, rapid transit lines and stations. It must show where new rail facilities will be located, where railway traffic will be rerouted-either over lines of other railways or over new lines to be built-and how the use of railway lines will be allocated.
The financial plan will show how the costs and benefits of the project are to be apportioned. It will also indicate the financial assistance to be made available by all of the parties involved, including federal assistance through the railway relocation grant and the railway grade crossing fund.
In studying the proposal put forward by a province or municipality, the CTC is to weigh carefully the advantages and disadvantages of the relocation and rerouting proposal and possible alternatives to it. The onus is on applicants to prove that the public interest will be served by the proposed plan. The Canadian Transport Commission may-and obviously in major proposals will-hold hearings on these proposals if it feels this would be in the public interest. In this way, merchants, shippers, railroad unions and residents in the area to be acquired for railway facilities or in areas that might be affected by railroad relocation schemes, can put their point of view to the commission.

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
A necessary condition for approval of the proposal is that the railway involved with neither gain nor lose from railway relocation and rerouting. There are sections in the bill and an appendix which set out the admittedly rather complicated formula which is designed to ensure that the railways neither win nor lose by a proposal.
The order that the commission makes relative to railway facilities could contain provisions for discontinuation of railway operations over any line within the railway transportation study or for relocation of railway lines, facilities, removal of tracks, buildings, bridges or other structures in the area and use of rail lines belonging to one company by equipment of another company. For example, proposals for a city where there were two or three different transportation centres and railway stations could recommend that they be combined into one "union station" where obviously the facilities of one railroad would be used by another. The use of rail lines belonging to one company by equipment of another, and the use of rail lines or rights-of-way by a public transit system-which is now a proposal in many major cities-will provide to them at the least possible cost, the right-of-way for the public transit facilities that many are now studying. If you go out to build a rapid transit system and have to acquire rights-of-way through urban areas by buying buildings and land, it will be too expensive. But if, under these provisions, you can use the existing rights of way for rapid transit that have heretofore been used for street and rail traffic, there will be an immense saving to municipalities and public transportation commissions.
When the commission goes through this whole process which recommends federal assistance for implementation of relocation/rerouting proposals, the Minister of Transport may authorize payment of a relocation grant toward the cost of implementing the project. Such a grant can be up to 50 per cent of the net cost of relocation and rerouting proposals. It is clear that we can make a contribution to the development of the plans of up to 50 per cent, and toward the actual implementation of this plan of 50 per cent of the net cost. I underline net cost, because obviously if you take railway facilities and move them from one piece of land to another area, there are costs and savings to the railway involved. The land that is set free is of immense value and is put on one side of the ledger, while the costs are put on the other. Any grant is 50 per cent of that net cost.
Financial assistance may be provided for grade separations for new railway lines and new safety devices on existing railway lines, if required, because of railway relocation/rerouting from one part of a city or around a city.
A needed underpass or overpass would be provided under Parts II and III of the act. Federal expenditures under this legislation are expected to be in the order of $250 million over the next five years for railroad relocation. Specific allocation for each year will be provided by a separate vote in the estimates of the Ministry of Transport.
Thus far, Mr. Speaker, I have concentrated my remarks almost entirely on part I, relating to railway relocations and reroutings provisions. I think these have tremendous

urban implications for cities across Canada. In the time that I have been minister, nothing that I have said or introduced has generated so much interest from municipal councils across Canada as these relocation proposals. I know that this is recognized in this House and that the opposition parties will agree to deal with this legislation quickly because they, too, know the great interest that municipalities have in the urban implications of the relocation proposals.
I want to turn briefly to parts II and III of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which are clearly transportation matters and under the jurisdiction of my colleague. They will be dealt with in more detail by the parliamentary secretary or by my colleague later in this debate.
Obviously of equal importance when dealing with railroads is the matter of public safety, which is embodied in parts II and III of the bill. These are concerned with special grants for grade separations, underpasses, overpasses, tunnels, bridges and railway grade crossings.
The provisions relating to grade crossings and grade separations follow recommendations made by the railway transport committee and the Canadian Transport Commission to increase the limits of federal assistance for railway grade separation projects. Also important are the recommendations that have been made by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities as to the level of contribution under the grade crossing fund.
Such expansion as is provided in the legislation is intended to bring grant provisions into line with the increased costs of construction of overpasses and subways. The cost of providing safe railway crossings and grade separations has climbed over the years. Such installations, especially in large centres, have become extremely costly and the act provides increased federal assistance either to provisions in the railway grade crossing fund or through new provisions for special grants for separations which are contained in part II.
The proposed new federal assistance covers level crossing protection work-signs, signals and that type of thing. Federal assistance covers level crossing protection work, reconstruction of or improvement to existing grade separations and construction of new grade separations. The proposed new levels of federal assistance are for level crossing protection work for which 80 per cent of the costs may be paid from the grade crossing fund up to a new limit of $1 million which is double the existing limit; for reconstruction of or improvement to existing grade separations, 50 per cent of the cost, from the grade crossing fund, up to a new ceiling of $625,000; the existing limit is $250,000.
In the legislation there are quite complicated formulas for the payment of portions of the cost of any reconstruction projects to $1,250,000. The parliamentary secretary will deal with this in more detail this evening. That is the financial formula for grade separations and grade crossings which is contained in parts II and III of the act, Mr. Speaker.
The commission may, apart from the formulae, recommend a special grant if it is satisfied that a grade separation is required for the protection, safety and convenience of the public, and that the new road or highway will divert
April 25, 1974

traffic from existing grade crossings. In addition to the financial formula, there is a special provision which will allow the Canadian Transport Commission to make recommendations for payment of a special grant.
The new act maintains the provisions of the Railway Act whereby a railway crossing must be in existence for at least three years before an application can be made for a grant from the railway grade crossing fund toward construction of a grade separation. The act provides exceptions to the three-year rule. These are designed to meet the observations of municipalities relative to this question. First, when the new grade crossing is required by a railway for a relocation or rerouting project, the three-year period will not apply. Second, when it is required for a new highway traffic rerouting scheme, it will not apply. The exception to the three year limitation provision is designed to deal with the situation in which there is a rerouting or relocation proposal, or a new highway traffic rerouting scheme. Then, the three-year period is waived.
Grants provided for reconstruction of or improvement to an existing grade separation will be made available where the grade separation has existed for at least 15 years. Formerly, the limitation was to grade separations that existed prior to June 29, 1955. This provision is included, as well, in line with representations which have been made to us.
In conclusion, I suggest this bill deserves the support of all members of the House. I very much appreciate, for my own part and that of my colleagues, the arrangements which members opposite have entered into for dealing with this bill. On behalf of the government I extend my thanks to them.
The provisions of the bill have been considered carefully. It holds out major benefits, in my view, for the reshaping of Canadian towns and cities. It pays renewed attention in parts II and III to the issue of public safety at rail crossings. It will greatly extend the federal government's ability to respond to the needs of our cities and to assist in improving the environment of most cities of Canada. It is an important urban initiative on the part of the government, one which I know is eagerly awaited by mayors, municipalities and provinces across the country.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-27, an important bill concerning rail line relocation. My colleagues and I are not taking a negative approach to the bill. We point out that exhaustive studies and consultations must take place with interested parties with regard to social and environmental objectives and the cost aspects. A number of cities are waiting with anticipation passage of the rail line relocation bill, namely, Toronto, Winnipeg and Wetaskiwin. An exhaustive study has been conducted in Winnipeg by a firm known as Damas and Smith. It brought out what is known as the Winnipeg Railway Study, to which I intend to refer.
According to the report, the objectives of the rail study were to develop alternative plans of railway facilities to those presently in existence which would appear to be technically feasible and desirable from an economic and
Relocation of Railway Lines
social point of view in the realization of a superior and more amenable plan for the future development of the urban community and its transportation facilities. The study recommended that most railway tracks be removed from Winnipeg's downtown area, freeing large amounts of real estate for urban development. Three alternatives being considered actively range in cost from $50 million to $92 million. Each of the four proposed schemes would have a major impact on the over-all future planning of the city, of its transportation systems and its industrial development.
One scheme recommends common running rights for CNR and CPR through downtown Winnipeg, plus a combination of both railway passenger terminals into one union station. One scheme would bury the railway tracks in the central core, with high banks for traffic and noise separation, and a further scheme supported tunnelling for much of the downtown track. All schemes took account of downtown development and found this to be in line with the ideas presented in the study. The study found that major economies and benefits would result for all parties involved in relocation.
The study says that the proposed program would bring the following benefits: release 200 acres of CP yards for more appropriate use; remove barrier effect of CN mainline and allow redevelopment of 50 acres and reductions in road-rail conflict and opportunities to extend and connect natural arterial connections.
If simultaneous relocation of both lines is not feasible, then relocation of the CP yards and main line is the main priority, with CN relocation being secondary. It is stressed, however, that both should occur simultaneously. However, in spite of what the report asserts, there are a great many people in Winnipeg who have grave reservations about the document. There are a great many questions still to be answered. They are, first, is rail relocation a pressing and urgent need compared to other concerns such as providing low income housing, improving deteriorated areas and reducing property taxes? Second, how will the citizens of Winnipeg benefit from the plan? Which citizens will benefit most? Third, does implementation of the rail study commit us to other plans such as the Downtown Development Plan and the Winnipeg Area Transportation Study? Is this plan really a way of getting things in via the back door? Fourth, where will the marshalling yards be relocated? Fifth, the study refers to the St. James Corridor. What is meant by this? I will go into detail in a few moments. Sixth, what adverse effects on the surrounding area will result from the relocation of the CP classification yards in Rosser, Manitoba? Seventh, are we to suppose that similar effects are to be incurred in that area in which the marshalling yards are relocated? Eighth, what about allocating moneys for other equally important projects like runway relocation? Ninth, what effect will the plan have upon our leisure areas? One scheme has tracks running through the centre of one of Winnipeg's most beautiful parks, Assiniboine. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker. Someone wants to put a railway line through Assiniboine Park, one of the most beautiful parks in Canada. I hope the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), one of the representatives of the area, is noting my comments about what is proposed for Assiniboine Parks.

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
I now wish to quote from a letter written by Damas and Smith on the subject of the Winnipeg rail study. It reads in part:
During the course of public meetings it became apparent that the strongest opposition to the railway relocation came from those people who own homes in or near the reception areas, i.e., the corridor into which the relocated railways would be placed (for example, the residents of Foxgrove Avenue in East St. Paul, and St. Michael's Road in St. Vital) and who believe that this relocation would lower the value of their property. Some sympathy for these people who feel themselves directly threatened was also found amongst those whose homes are remote from the reception areas and who would be less directly affected but nevertheless allied themselves with the opponents because they believe the proposed relocation to be unnecessary and unjust.
It continues:
The proposal to remove the yards but retain the main lines in their present locations is in effect what has been referred to in the Railway Relocation Study report as 'the Do-Nothing alternative'. Strictly speaking the Do-Nothing alternative of the report was thought of as just that-the alternative of doing absolutely nothing with the railways; but it soon became obvious that even if the public were to do absolutely nothing about railway relocation, the Railway Companies themselves would take action; and it seemed equally clear that the Railway Companies would act with respect to their yards but not to their main lines.
This suggestion may conflict with the provisions in the bill. Even if the municipalities may not wish to do anything, the railways might do something on their own. I continue:
Although a clear and reliable appreciation of the results of a Do-Nothing approach to the railway problem can only be provided by a detailed study, it is nevertheless possible to speculate about such a prospect, and to arrive at certain conclusions, however tentative and unsubstantiated they may be.
I mentioned the St. James corridor. One of our fears is that some of the CPR yards or their freight facilities might be moved adjacent to a residential area, namely Crestview Heritage Park and other areas off Sturgeon Road in west Winnipeg. I have a description of the properties the CPR has been acquiring. This is agricultural land They have acquired some 172 acres adjacent to this residential property. The last thing we want in that area is a classification yard or warehouse facilities for CPR. This is one of our main concerns in west Winnipeg. I quote:
For example, it is generally known that the CP Rail has acquired land in the Rosser Area for the relocation of their classification yard. I can be assumed that the plans for this yard are designed to meet the requirements of the CP and that the creation of a rational pattern of land use for this sector of the City is a secondary consideration, if indeed it is a consideration at all. Moreover, even if the classification function is moved from the present CP Rail yard to the new location in Rosser, the present yard will still be required for industrial support and car storage, and will therefore remain in its present location. The result of this Do-Nothing approach (on the part of the public) therefore would be to create a new classification yard in Rosser with possible adverse effects on the surrounding area, as well as the retention of the existing yard in its present location. There would appear to be no real advantage at all to the public in such a situation.
I quote from an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune dated October 29, 1973:
As the city's environment committee chairman, Abe Yanofsky, said, Winnipeg's previously anticipated cost of $20 million for rail relocation is now $50 million. That means Ottawa would be excepted to pay another $50 million or more. Add that to the cost of helping other cities relocate their railways and the price becomes astronomical.

It would be different if this was the only project the federal government has to worry about financing. But it isn't. As an Information Canada report said last year, federal and provincial government departments are now in the position where they don't even try to tell people how government programs can help them. As one official said: "If the general population was aware of the services offered, the government would go bankrupt."
It would, of course, be nice to see the railways removed from the downtown core and the city embarked on a massive reconstruction program, with parks and byways and a generally planned environment. But can taxpayers generally afford it? Perhaps the time has come to be realistic. As Coun. William Norrie said: "Rail relocation will probably not happen in your lifetime and mine."
If city hall really wants to save the taxpayers money, they could stop talking of relocating railways at a cost of $100 million and get on with the $13.2 million Sherbrook-McGregor Street Overpass before the price goes up. That way, the saving would be terrific.
There was considerable concern over rail line relocation at the last tri-level meeting in Edmonton. I quote from a news report in the Edmonton media:
A federal government program aimed at aiding provincial and municipal governments with the cost of rail relocation Monday got a critical reception by Manitoba Urban Affairs Minister Saul Miller and Winnipeg Councillor Robert Steen.
Federal Urban Affairs Minister Ron Basford announced here Monday during the second national tri-level conference that the federal government will pay up to 50 per cent of the net costs to the railroads of approved rail relocation schemes.
Mr. Miller said his initial reaction to the program was "extreme disappointment." Coun. Steen said the announcement makes rail relocation impossible.
"The idea of them only picking up 50 per cent of the net cost to the railway would put up the price of land (vacated by the rail lines) to such an extent that the costs to Winnipeg and the province would be exceedingly high," Mr. Miller said.
"Whether this land could then be used in a beneficial way is highly doubtful in my mind."
Mr. Miller said the Manitoba government supports the principle of rail relocation in Winnipeg "if it makes economic and social sense."
"But if it means that we are paying $100 million or perhaps $50 million to simply move something and then find that the costs of the land vacated is so expensive that we can't really use it in a proper way, then frankly I am not that convinced that it is a good thing."
(The principle of rail relocation was first proposed by the now-extinct Metro government to get railway facilities out of the centre of the city and to free the land they now occupy for other development.)
Mr. Miller said the federal program is a backward step because in the original Winnipeg rail relocation study the federal government had shared 75 per cent of the cost with Manitoba and Winnipeg picking up 7V2 per cent each and the two major railroads five per cent each.
"What you have here is a regressive step, and not at all a forward step"-
Coun. Steen... said Mr. Basford's announcement was "the most disappointing thing I have heard at this conference."
He said the city had been hoping the federal government would pick up at least 75 to 80 per cent of the total cost of rail relocation in Winnipeg.
"As far as I am concerned, this (announcement) finishes the hopes of rail relocation," Coun. Steen said immediately after hearing the federal minister's proposal.
Whether their fears are justified is hard to say at this time. The standing committee will certainly have its hands full with this bill. The Damas and Smith report on the Winnipeg railway study gives the advantages and disadvantages. Whether the figures contained in it are realistic today, I do not know.
Those are just a few of the concerns of the people of Winnipeg, the members of my party and myself with
April 25, 1974

regard to this rail line relocation. It is certainly something that will have to be studied very carefully in the standing committee.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you have been able to recognize this corner of the House. It makes one feel a little less uncomfortable around here when that happens. I wish to say, on behalf of our party, that we welcome this legislation. However, we are slightly amazed at the length of time it has taken the minister to finally get it on the order paper. I recall during the 1972 election campaign-*


An hon. Member:: Not 1974?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: No, 1972; 1974 is coming.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Is that a promise?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: During the election campaign, on October 10, 1972, the minister issued a very interesting press release. At that time, the minister was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) was Minister of Transport. In a moment of euphoria approximately 20 days prior to the election, they issued a very interesting press release which in part reads:
Special federal assistance is being prepared to move railways out of cities and let people in, two federal ministers announced today ...
Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Basford jointly announced the intended legislative package as an instance of federal policy in key fields, such as transportation, being directed to the best urban impact it can make.
We welcome the legislation, but the length of time it has taken to place it before the House for consideration is an indication of the priority the government places on urban issues. There is a lot of oil, a lot of wheat and a lot of lumber in this country, but the major problems in this nation are urban in nature and the sooner the House understands this the sooner the people will get more adequate representation here.
I must say I am pleased with the co-operation shown, the readiness among members in all quarters of the House to expedite the passage of this bill. The last bill of this nature was presented approximately 20 days before a federal election, and this one may well be before this chamber 74 days before a federal election. I believe the timing is appropriate. I hope its fate will not be to die on the order paper in the event of a federal election; I hope we shall not have to wait another year and a half before we see it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Don't worry, we shall re-introduce it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Somebody has said that the federal government has most of the power, the provincial governments have most of the jurisdiction and the municipalities have all the problems. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKinnon) described in some detail the plan the city of Winnipeg has in mind in connection with rail relocation, and the minister responsible for this legislation indicated the intention was to spend $250 million over five years. Mr. Speaker, the cost of moving the rails from Winnipeg alone will amount to nearly $100 million, not far short of half the amount allocated for the
Relocation of Railway Lines
whole program. It might be cheaper to move the city of Winnipeg and leave the rails where they are!


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Stanley would like that.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: This is some indication of the size of the undertaking. It seems to me the minister has underestimated what is involved. It is true that $250 million may sound like a lot of money, but it is a small amount in terms of urban expenditures required.
The increase in the grade crossing fund from $500,000 to $1 million is really small potatoes when one considers the extent of the increase in construction costs over the last five years-at least 150 per cent. I know that under section 16(1) of the bill special provision is made for projects which cost more than $1,250,000. I think the minister can expect that all the applicants will try to squeeze in under section 16(1). If they do, he will find his figure of $250 million wholly inadequate. I suggest that in many cases we should not relocate rail stations outside the centre of communities. A single track into an urban rail station makes a lot of sense. More important, when we consider relocation of tracks in urban centres, we should not allow ourselves to be hypnotized by the commercial value of the property. What will happen in the case of many of these communities is this: the blight of freight yards and tracks will be replaced by the blight of Eaton's and the blight of Simpsons-Sears or those high-rise bleak monoliths which sit in the centres of communities and provide nothing in terms of making them livable places. As the minister has pointed out, this measure will improve the urban environment but if we do not consider the value of the property as it relates to people rather than its commercial value, if we fail to appraise its value in terms of space, or parks, or livability, then the purpose of the bill will not be achieved.
The biggest problem in my community, in this area, at least, is a rail crossing which is creating a particularly dangerous situation because it is in a key position in an urban centre; a million people have to use this crossing to get to the emergency ward of our local hospital. This is important because they are running the risk of cardiac arrest-


Mr. Andre:: Those people shouldn't be driving!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: There is a real risk to people who are trying to get to the emergency ward. In addition, there is the usual urban frustration, line-ups for half an hour or even longer as trains go by at 15 minute intervals.
One of the provisions I welcome, and it may be one of the most significant and imaginative, is the provision, as I read it in section 6(2)(a), for what is effectively the expropriation of track time in order to give urban communities a chance to use those railroads for urban transit purposes. I wish the minister had gone farther with regard to expropriating track time. Why not expropriate the whole company and have a national transportation system. In other words, take over the Canadian Pacific, in which case we would be making some real progress.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I am glad to see the minister pounding his desk. In any event I can recall, as an alderman in my

April 25, 1974
Message from the Senate
community for many years, trying to persuade the CPR to give i is a little track time to move people into the urban core of the lower mainland. The number of reasons the company could find for not making track time available was incredible. I am pleased there seems to be a little muscle in this bill, giving this very necessary power to the Transport Commission.
As I say, the bill does not go far enough, but at this particular point we believe half a loaf is better than none at all, and the legislation will probably constitute a real contribution to the development of our cities and a better standard of life. We in this group have some reservations with regard to certain of its aspects, but we heartily support the legislation.



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 Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse)- Finance-Statement of minister concerning level of corporate profits and necessity to pass on cost increases; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Transport-Action to implement Transport Commission recommendations for prevention of railway accidents; the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty)-The Canadian Economy-Number of jobs created by corporate tax concessions.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-5, an Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the first day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, without amendment.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, (papers), private bills and public bills.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council rises on a point or order.


Mr. Foster:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In respect of the business of the private members' hour this afternoon, I understand that the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), in whose name stands item No. 9, is agreeable to withdrawing his notice of motion for the production of papers. There have been discussions between members of various parties, and I think there would be an agreement in the House to continue with Bill C-27 on railway relocation and railway crossings. If there were such an agreement perhaps we could make that an order, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are only a few days left of this parliament, we certainly will agree to this move to show our sincerity in moving this bill along, but we hope the government will not ask us too often to give up the private members' hour as we guard it very jealously.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it that the agreement is that motion No. 9 under Notices of Motions (Papers) is to be withdrawn with unanimous consent, and that we proceed to another order.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This would have to be agreed upon by everyone, including the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin).


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford (for the minister of Transport), that 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 read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, we in this party regard Bill C-27 as a very significant piece of legislation. As our House leader has said, in the interest of expediting the orderly passage of this bill, we are prepared to speak briefly on it and, we hope, constructively, so it can be discussed further in the Committee of the Whole.
By way of an opening comment, I think I should say that it is a good and constructive development that the government has finally recognized in a tangible way the connection between urban development and transportation. This piece of legislation is not only somewhat overdue, as has been said by hon. members previously, it develops a somewhat new concept further to the concept
April 25, 1974

the drafters perhaps had in mind. It is interesting to see, for example, that there is a very clear and somewhat innovative concept of the divisions of powers reflected in this particular bill. We have a division of powers as between federal, provincial and municipal authorities. This piece of legislation also involves at least two federal ministries, urban affairs and transportation. Clause 7 of the bill also involves the ministry of public works.
This concept of intergovernmental and interdepartmental co-operation is one that has intrigued me greatly. It is one that is welcome in many areas of legislation, and it is needed, for instance, in the activities of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It is certainly appropriate in the Departments of Urban Affairs and Transportation because, as all members know, there is a growing realization that many of the problems faced in this country require the concerted efforts of more than one government department.
It is very clear that much of the efficacy of this legislation will depend on the efficiency and expedition with which the CTC performs its task. One cannot help but be impressed when one reads this legislation with the great responsibilities the Canadian Transport Commission has. If this commission does not improve its tendency, I would suggest without meaning to be sarcastic, to frustrate to a certain extent and delay proceedings, then I think the thrust of this legislation could be seriously impaired.
There is no particular region in Canada that will not benefit by the provisions of Bill C-27, and I think it is significant in respect of the total transportation picture in this country. I say that because it seems obvious that if this legislation is carried out according to its scope, meaning and apparent intent, it could involve, in some areas of this country, significant rerouting of our major rail lines.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has said recently that he does recognize that his department lacks an over-all policy. Further to this, it has been pointed out on many occasions that one of the policies which must be considered in respect of the total transportation picture, is a policy in respect of the poor maintenance of the roadbeds of our major rail lines. This has many significant implications.
In addition to this situation, we are aware that a former President of the Canadian National Railway system questioned the priorities involved in allocating many millions of dollars to the STOL program in an attempt to improve transportation links between major cities, particularly in central Canada. This money, which has been tentatively and actually allocated in some cases for this STOL program, as opposed to what might have been done, in the opinion of the former President of the CNR might have been used to improve the rail systems in this country.
The reason I say this bill may have an important effect on our nation's transportation system is that if there are significant changes made to reroute and change some of the present railway rights-of-way, these new additions or changes to be made will presumably be of a modern and highly satisfactory nature in so far as technology is concerned. Having regard to the old adage that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, I would think that somewhat in a converse analogy, when these major rerouting changes are carried out, surely they will by contrast
Relocation of Railway Lines
expose the inadequacies of much of our railway systems to which they are connected, particularly in serving areas where passenger travel could be very profitable if the roadbeds of the rail lines were upgraded and updated.
For that reason, I think this bill might serve as a catalyst in persuading this government and the Minister of Transport that while they are making these changes in respect of some of the traditional rights of the railways, to which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) has referred, and to which the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) referred, and I have in mind the traditional rights in respect of expropriation and things of that nature, to use this piece of legislation as a springboard from which to refinance and perhaps rebuild larger stretches of railway rights of way so that Canada can take advantage of some of the technological advances presently known, to improve and upgrade our transportation system generally.
There is no doubt, as the minister has said, that this bill has significance in the realm of urban development. Certain cities, or the core areas of these cities, have to some extent been held back and sometimes actually stunted by the effects of having freightyards and railway rights of way in certain areas which, with the passage of time, are better suited for other purposes. This is true all across the nation. It is true in the city of Winnipeg which is one of the few cities that has had a comprehensive study done in this area. But it is also true of places like Halifax, St. John's Newfoundland and practically anywhere you might want to go across Canada. With the concept expressed in this bill it is obvious the government has recognized the need, even at a great deal of cost, to do something about this situation. Certainly, I think the government is to be commended in this regard.
There is another aspect, of course, of this legislation that is important. It has to do with the terrible safety record our transportation system, particularly rail transport, has accumulated over the years. In comparison to other industrialized nations, it is quite evident that our railway system is at about the bottom of the list. For those members who have not had the opportunity to do so I would really recommend that they make themselves aware of the contents of a study carried out by Professor Lukasiewicz of Carleton University. This man did a very interesting treatise or project involving the history of our railways in this country.
Professor Lukasiewicz paid particular attention to the situation involving the passenger carrying capabilities of the various railways and the failure of the CTC to effect meaningful changes despite the fact it has had a very definite regulatory function since it was formed. Professor Lukasiewicz points out that really the situation in this country's railway development has been one of institutionalized obsolesence. In fact, this is part of the title of the work he has composed. Unless the Minister of Transport is prepared to seize on the initiatives that this particular piece of legislation might provide, and unless he is prepared to carry on and do something tangible pursuant to the speech he made a couple of days ago in Montreal when he said that the railways and not the highways are our hope for the future in this country so far as efficiency

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
of movement of people is concerned, this piece of legislation will probably, although it will be useful, not have the far-reaching and sweeping effect it might otherwise have.
So far as the safety aspect itself is concerned, I see that the drafters of this legislation did have something specifically in mind because there is, as I recall it from reading the bill, a provision that approximately 80 per cent of the cost of installing devices like a revolving light for the main head beam of a locomotive be provided. This is the type of measure together with the improvement to our railway crossings, that has been trying out for attention over the years. Although I realize it is counter-productive to take the time of the House to flay the government for not doing so earlier, still I think there is merit in taking a few moments to say that it is difficult to understand why some of the obvious improvements contemplated by this piece of legislation were not brought forward a long time ago. However, I suppose this is in keeping with the general philosophy that until very recently this government has had, and may still have, of promising to make available remedial legislation and then somehow never managing to bring it forward in a decent length of time.
We will watch with great interest the uses to which the railway lands are put, which this bill will permit to be appropriated, pursuant to the procedures over which the Canadian Transport Commission has jurisdiction. I am sure many members, upon reflection, in respect of this principle, will want to elaborate on it during the committee of the whole proceedings because this probably will become quite an issue in many communities where railway lines are to be rerouted. I am very hopeful that when this issue does come up it will not be something that will turn into an exhibition of jealousy and fighting or perhaps be a political football in the municipal field. I think there should be some strict guidelines or jurisprudence developed very carefully so that these lands which will be made available will not be tied up by petty bickering either at the municipal, provincial or federal level. It seems to me that unless the minister is prepared to show more initiative than he has-and perhaps this is a fair comment to make in respect of both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Urban Affairs-he should make sure that the CTC carries out quickly its responsibilities under this legislation, otherwise much of its timeliness and much of the good inherent in it will not come to pass.
I do not know what the statistics are concerning staff employed by the CTC, but I suspect, like many other government commissions, agencies and departments it is too big. I suspect it is larger than is necessary. I also suspect that because of the scope of this legislation and the responsibilities given to the CTC that it will become even bigger. So, again I wish to point out to the minister that while he is watching the activities of the CTC he refrain from the obvious temptation to permit this empire to grow any larger, and that he look for quality rather than quantity when looking after the needs of this very powerful commission.
I suspect that the Minister of Transport, who probably will be closing this debate as has been suggested, may have some particular comment to make, as did the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, in respect of his particular interest in this piece of legislation which involves these

joint responsibilities between the two departments. I hope the minister will take this opportunity, although it may be to some extent related only in an indirect way to the bill under discussion, to answer the question to which many transport authorities in this country have been long awaiting an answer, concerning what the priorities are and what other measures are to be brought forward to supplement the upgrading of the railways and the roadbeds generally between the major population centres in this country.
We would like to know whether the minister still intends to proceed in the same way with regard to the STOL program or does he intend to divert some of the money-I think the figure is around $200 million if I recall it correctly,-to assist in the proposed aims of Bill C-17 and in expanding the improvements that no doubt will be required to link the existing roadbeds to the diversions and changes contemplated under this legislation. So far as the initiatives required are concerned, and which have been mentioned in the legislation-initiatives which if I read the bill correctly are at least by implication supposed to emanate from municipal and provincial governments-
I would hope we do not become involved in the type of situation I have noticed in respect of DREE, where there is a somewhat parallel situation, in that there are mutual areas of responsibility, particularly in growth centres, where one particular type of policy is advocated, by cities or municipalities, and the province is so jealous of its constitutional prerogative that it watches very closely to see that the cities or municipalities do not deal directly with the federal government, whereby adding administrative complications. I hope that this type of situation can somehow be circumvented in respect of this legislation and that methods will be explored by the federal authority to make sure that needed projects and improvements pursuant to this legislation will be undertaken without necessarily waiting for the provinces, municipalities or civic governments involved to decide what is the exact time at which they might proceed or by what method they would like to see it done.
I recognize that there will be certain problems almost "diplomatic" in nature, involved. I am not suggesting for one moment that the federal ministers of the Crown should try to over-ride or in other ways usurp the very real contributions that municipalities and provinces have to make in allocating priorities and determining the methods that should be employed. What I am pointing out to the minister is that I hope in some way an effort will be made to avoid any type of impasse that may develop and that early on in the application of this legislation there will be a great deal of time made available to try to establish guidelines, and to try to avoid any conflicts or jurisdiction, real or imagined, that could impede the proficiency and the speedy implementation of this legislation.
There are all sorts of comments that any member of the House could make about a bill that is as sweeping as this one. I think that it would be a mistake to go into it on a purely parochial basis. Much has been said on the subject of urban renewal. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has dealt with this particular subject in his usual learned fashion over the past few months. The
April 25, 1974

minister himself has spent a lot of time on it, and it is well known that the field of transportation and all the various ills implicit in it have been aired in a very complete way. Therefore, I do not propose to speak much longer on this occasion, except to say again that there are probably within this legislation areas of concern that are so long standing that it will take the people affected by them quite a while to realize that here is a vehicle which at last may be able to solve some of these impediments to urban development and to take away some of the roadblocks that have plagued our transportation system.
The only way in which a piece of legislation such as this can be made effective is to get it through the House as quickly as is reasonably possible after we have had a look at it in committee of the whole, and then to make certain that it is being implemented and administered in such a way that its provisions are not used as political footballs by any level of government, but that a genuine joint effort is made by the municipal, provincial and federal authorities involved to do something constructive, because few, if any, problems existing in this nation need attention more than urban development and transportation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to welcome this bill I should like to assure the minister that we do not do so wholeheartedly because if we were to welcome it without reservation I am sure that he would become somewhat apoplectic. There are some reservations, and some relatively major ones at that. For example, as my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) pointed out, it is not all that much money that we are proposing to spend in a very vital area over the next few years. As part of the announcement of this bill we were told that an estimate of some $100 million has been made as the cost of rail relocation in Winnipeg. Those who live in the Ontario area certainly know that a major project of a rail relocation in the Toronto area is intended. I assume that this will consume $150 million. So, we have $100 million for Winnipeg and $150 million for Toronto. What do we have left for Wetaskiwin?


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: And how much for Hamilton?


John Paul Harney: I do not know whether the railway still goes to Hamilton, but they might want some relocation there, possibly the relocation of the city.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Shame; withdraw that remark.


John Paul Harney: I will, Mr. Speaker. So, really, we should not be led down the garden path wearing rosy coloured glasses. We are not speaking about an awful lot of money here.
We must be a little careful about several other provisions of the bill. We must be careful, not just because it is a complicated bill, but because it is presented to us by a minister who is very eloquent and adept at making a bill look the best possible. As I make my remarks on the bill I will point out the good things that are in it and also the bad things that are in it. Some of the bad things that are in it are simply matters that demand clarification. When it comes to our work in the committee of the whole I will
Relocation of Railway Lines
urge the minister to clarify some of these matters. I know that he fully intends to be as clear as possible because, as the bill says at page 20, it seeks to provide an amendment so as to make certain matters abundantly clear.
Let me read to you the explanatory note:
The purpose of this amendment is to make it abundantly clear that a pedestrian walkway is a highway within the meaning of the Railway Act.
Rarely, in reading explanatory notes to amendments or bills, have I seen this kind of purple prose. Usually, the word "clear" is good enough. But the hand of the minister is evident here. In the same way I hope that he can make other aspects of the bill abundantly clear.
I come to the first matter which needs clarification. In the presentation of the bill, the minister said in effect that the bill will provide that where the railways are required, after the final processes of application and decision are through, to relocate rails, this relocation shall be done at no cost to the railway, that is to say, there will be a no-win no-loss provision for the railway. The relative clause of the bill is on page 5. I refer to clause 5(1) (a). If we read it carefully, we will see exactly what it is that the minister intended to underline here. The clause reads:
5. (1) The accepted plan, together with the financial plan, shall be filed with the Commission and the Commission may accept the transportation plan and the financial plan either as submitted or with such changes in either of them as the Commission considers necessary, if (a) the financial plan will not, in the opinion of the Commission, either
(i) impose on any railway company affected thereby any costs and losses greater than the benefits and payments receivable by the railway company under the plan.
So, it does appear to be clear that this is a no-win no-loss provision so far as the railways are concerned. What we want to do when we come to the committee of the whole is to hear from the minister whether or not this section also means that if it can be shown by the railway in any way that it can be at all inconvenient or that it can be put to a disadvantage, the plan cannot go through. If that is so, it will be possible in almost all cases for the railways to say "You are, in effect, affecting us adversely", or beneficially, "and therefore you cannot do it."
Another part of this particular section that needs to be clarified is the meaning of the word "railway". What do we understand by "railway"? As an example, in the city of Toronto, CN and CP are seeking to redevelop a major holding of theirs between Front Street and the lake, a project which involves billions of dollars of investment. The railways themselves are not doing the redevelopment, but, rather, subsidiary companies which are owned by the railways. To be specific, the redevelopment will be carried out by a firm called Metro Centre Developments Ltd.
I should like to outline what Metro Centre consists of in terms of its corporate ownership, Mr. Speaker. Metro Centre, we are told, is a joint venture of CP and CN. Accordingly, Metro Centre Developments Ltd. is jointly owned by CP and CN. To all intents and purposes this is the case, although in actuality Metro Centre Developments is owned 50 per cent by Marathon Realty Co. Ltd. and 50 per cent by Canadian National Realties. The latter is presumably owned 100 per cent by CN. Marathon Real-

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
ties, on the other hand, is owned 100 per cent by Canadian Pacific Investments Ltd. which has holdings in a host of companies including Cominco, MacMillan-Bloedel and others. Strictly speaking under the law, when we are dealing with Metro Centre what we are really dealing with is a firm called Metro Centre Developments Ltd., and this firm is owned by subsidiaries of the two railways. The railways, as far as their financial relationship with the development is concerned, are several times removed from it.
How would it be possible for us or for the commission to follow the letter of this bill, which will be an act it is presumed, and be able to indicate that the railways benefit or do not benefit? The railways can say, "You have moved our tracks, it has not cost us anything to establish north of Toronto, so it is not up to us to worry what is done with the land". Then under the shell game which corporations can play it will be very difficult for the commission or the public to indicate just who does benefit. Some tightening up must be done in the two camps. The "no win, no loss" provision could be a stumbling block in the actual relocation of railway lines. We should determine just what is meant by this provision. Just what do we mean by a "railway," and what do we mean by the corporation which benefits in this particular application?
I think it is important to understand that, surprisingly enough, this act may work, although perhaps inadvertently, more to the benefit of the railways than to the benefit of the public or urban centres in general. I will give an example of what I mean. It could suit the railway to move operations from downtown Toronto. It may be preferable for them to establish their passenger traffic north of the city, where the terminal is, to coincide with the major developments of freight rail traffic there in the last few years. Under this act the public would be paying for a relocation which the railway desires in any case. Even after all the compensation factors have been taken into consideration, and even after we had considered net benefits and so on, assuming we can sort out the benefits to the railways, what we might be doing is performing a favour for the railways of Canada. I am a little suspicious of this. Surely if this act were doing its stuff it would cause the railways to move for the sake of the national interest; and if such moves were to have a serious effect on their operations, surely we would have heard about it.
There is another item which is rather disturbing to some of us in this part of the House, and it concerns clause 5(2) on page 6 of the bill. The subsection provides that after the commission has received an application in good order and has checked it according to the provisions of this bill, it may hold hearings thereon if it considers this desirable in the public interest. This hearing provision is repeated with regard to grade crossings on page 12, clause 16(3)(e). There again there is the possibility of holding a hearing. When the bill comes to committee of the whole we in this part of the House shall move an amendment to make a hearing mandatory. The amendment will have the effect of forcing the commission to hold a hearing to which the public shall be invited and at which it can make representations.
I will give an example of the importance of such a provision. First of all, a general example. There will be in

many communities duly elected municipal governments which will see fit, according to their best lights, to agree to place an application before the commission, in co-operation with the railways, for a certain relocation plan. But even though the municipal government and perhaps even the provincial government in question may put forward this application, there may, nevertheless, be a significant part of the citizenry of that community which will not like the particular development plan. We know from the recent history of this country of the popular demand for hearings at which the people can make an input, at which people in urban communities are given a chance to have their say.
I come now to a particular example. A very few years ago it was the full intention of the province of Ontario and the council of metropolitan Toronto to proceed with the construction of the Spadina expressway. Most elected politicians were in favour of it but there was a small and growing section of the community in Toronto which began to object. Finally, after struggling for a long time and with great effort, they were allowed a preliminary hearing. This hearing led to another and to fuller hearings, until finally enough pressure was put on the municipality of Toronto and the government of Ontario that the decision originally taken by both levels of government to proceed with the building of the expressway was reversed.
Why do we not include a provision in the bill to make a hearing in each application mandatory? If there is no public interest, hardly anybody will turn up at the hearing and the commission will have spent money on an ad or two in the local newspaper; but if there is public interest, people should be heard. I think the time has come in this country for citizens to raise their voices in order to be heard.
Members on both sides of the House, NDP members as well as Conservative members, have pleaded with the government, particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), to allow a new, full hearing on the building of Pickering Airport. This sort of thing need not be done every time; but why not provide in the bill for it to be done automatically? If an application is brought forward which would involve major change and disruption or dislocation of the life of the community, that community would be given the chance to have its say, to provide its input.
Let me hold up Toronto, my community, as an example. There are enormous differences of opinion in this city as to how the Metro Centre development should proceed. When we speak of Metro Centre we are speaking of the spending of billions of dollars; we are speaking of the future shape of our city; we are speaking of a decision which will change and alter forever the very shape and nature of our city. There are enormous differences of opinion within Toronto about it and, we must allow these different opinions to be heard.
Let me repeat, for the benefit of the minister and of the House, that we intend to bring in amendments. I hope my friends to my right have heard me. I do not see any of them nodding, although I see some of them looking.


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: I am nodding.
April 25, 1974


John Paul Harney: I see the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. O'Sullivan) nodding. That is contagious. I see the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) shaking his head. Perhaps he is chatting. But the point has been made. I think we should consider amendments seriously.
We should also consider the size of grants to be offered by the federal treasury to meet the net cost of the relocation. I can imagine cities and towns like Toronto, Winnipeg, and possibly Wetaskiwin, mentioned earlier, undertaking to put up 50 per cent of the cost of a relocation project in co-operation with the provincial government. That course is possible for Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Vancouver, and so on. The definition section of the bill- and the bill provides funds for the redevelopment or amelioration of certain urban areas-defines "urban area" as "an area or areas . .. classified by Statistics Canada in its most recent census ..." According to the Dictionary of the 1971 Census Terms compiled by Statistics Canada, an urban area includes "(1) incorporated cities, towns and villages with a population of 1,000 or over," which includes most incorporated communities of Canada, and "(2) unincorporated places of 1,000 or over, having a population density of at least 1,000 per square mile", and so on. That definition covers practically every organized community in Canada. I wonder what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) would say if he were here.


Mr. Woolliams:: He is not here.


John Paul Harney: He had to go away, slightly ill. It is the weather which had that effect on him. If the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville were here I am sure he would say something like this: "Look at the situation in Yorkton, where both the CNR and the CPR have a crossing in town." Actually, the lines meet right in the middle of town, right along Broadway Street. He would say: "Surely we want some kind of redevelopment to make the centre of our town more attractive, but how can Yorkton do this, even in co-operation of the government of Saskatchewan, if it has to pay a significant part of the 50 per cent of the cost of the relocation which is not picked up by the federal government?" I wonder if this bill offers much of a gift to the smaller communities of Canada.
That brings me back to my first point. As only $250 million is being offered under the bill for the next five years, once Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and other large centres have taken their share, there will be not much left for other communities.
I said at the beginning of my speech that I welcome parts of the bill. I welcome without qualification Clause 6, particular subclause (2), which provides that the railways must comply with the request of the CTC when it asks them to make their rights of way available for purposes of public or rapid transit in our urban communities. Several members of the House, myself included, have asked questions for the past year and a half of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and other ministers as to when there will be legislation or direction which will tell the railways that their business is not simply that of transporting goods across the country but, also, that of transporting people and facilitating the transportation of people.
Relocation of Railway Lines


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Hear, hear!


John Paul Harney: Obviously, not everybody in this House comes from Toronto. Some of us do. Those of us who come from Toronto know of the enormous problem we face in urban transport. Despite that, the city of Toronto over the years has developed one of the finer urban transit systems in North America. Although it is good, it is by no means good enough.
In Toronto a major study was undertaken recently relating to the Scarborough Expressway, an expressway which was to have extended from the eastern part of the city. That study, produced under the direction of Dr. Richard Soberman who at one time worked either for the Department of Transport or the Department of Urban Affairs-


Stanley Ronald Basford: Transport.


John Paul Harney: -recommended that the expressway not be built. That was a milestone recommendation in the history or urban development in Canada. Further, instead of recommending some kind of Flash Gordon, super levitation, Kraus Maffei, linear induction, super technology project, the study recommended that we go to light rail transit. Simply put, the report recommended the use of super streetcars. But in order to make the light rail transit system for Metro Toronto possible in a financial and concrete sense, the rights of way owned by the railways would have to be made available to the Toronto Transit Commission, or whatever commission will be responsible for light rail transit.
I cannot describe the map of the area. Anyone who looks at the Soberman report will see immediately that the whole area in question is crisscrossed in the most intelligent and effective way by main railway lines, branch lines, feeder lines and what-have-you, which could be used to provide a means for letting the people of the area travel to work and back without disrupting the existing amenities of the area. Obviously this is one of the most sensible and least expensive ways of moving people about in our urban centres. I commend the minister, not for having listened to the questions asked in this House, but for having had the good sense to include this provision in the bill before us. I can see it can certainly be made use of by many of our urban centres.
That was a piece of good news. Now for another worry. We in this corner of the House are a bit fretful. I, among others, am a little worried because the railways might find this bill so much to their advantage. Under the guise of offering a better environment to the people of our urban communities, under the guise of removing the track slums in certain sections of our communities, or under the guise of the beautification of our communities, this bill may simply permit the railways to offer to move themselves, again in co-operation with the municipalities, away from downtown areas.
Surely at first many people would laud this kind of a move, but there may be a trap here. We have had much painful evidence in the past few years of the desire of railway companies to move out of the passenger business.

April 25, 1974
The Royal Assent
This bill may give them yet another opportunity of doing so.
If the tracks are moved away from the downtown areas, the stations will also be moved. This will make it more difficult, in some cases impossible, for people to take a train. If it were not for the kind of resistance there is in the Toronto area to the obliteration and razing of Union Station, we could easily have all rail passenger facilities moved out of that area in spite of the fact the Metro Centre plan provides for a transportation centre.
We saw what happened a few years ago in Ottawa. We thought that removing the tracks from the downtown area was a beautiful and good thing. Most, including those directly involved and those watching on, agreed with moving the station away from the canal to the outskirts of Ottawa. What has this done? It has made it even more difficult for people to take a train out of this city.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, April 25, 1974
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th April, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-5, an Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of

certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada-Chapter 6.
At 6.05 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (Langelier) that 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 read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, before we were called to the Senate for Royal Assent, I was concluding my remarks. By the way, I am not forgetting that I intend to conclude them shortly.

I was making the point just before six o'clock, when we were called out for Royal Assent, that we must beware that the provisions of this bill are not used by the railways in a devious fashion to move essential passenger rail accommodations, stations, and terminal points away from those places in our cities where they are most convenient. I was making the point that with the excuse of beautification, clearance of track slums or regional redevelopment, it could be possible

I am not suggesting it would be done-for the railway company under one of its many avatars to persuade the fathers of a city that it would be better to have a track relocation, and before the city knew it they would have a project they really did not want, a project which would involved moving a rail terminal facility out of reach, as it were.
I had given the example of what happened here in Ottawa. I did make the point, and I will repeat it, that I am sure at the time it was decided to move the station out of Ottawa many people approved, as they felt that something unsightly, something that brought in smelly, smoky trains, would be moved away from the region of Parliament Hill. Since then we have come to realize that modern passenger trains are not unsightly and need not be dirty. We have also come to realize that moving the station out of the reach of the travelling public further discourages the travelling public from using the railway.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) pointed out to us not long ago, modern thinking is that railways, particularly their passenger services, have to return if the
April 25, 1974

movement of people efficiently, safely and economically between our cities is to be carried out. Particularly now that we are confronted with an ongoing energy crisis we have to be ready to put more and more stress upon passenger rail travel.
One of the essential elements of good passenger rail service is that it be attractive and convenient. So I end by making this my last point of caution to members in respect to this bill, a bill which, along with my colleague the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), I welcome, but which has to be looked at nevertheless very closely. Perhaps the main reason I welcome this bill-and this may be a little philosophical-is that it is an indication that we are finally moving toward government ownership or control of the railways as opposed to railway ownership or control of the government.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words on the second reading of Bill C-27. As the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) made clear, this legislation will be of great value to Canada's municipalities. It provides significant assistance not only to urban development and redevelopment, but also will greatly facilitate the implementation of improved urban transit and, in addition, will more than double federal financial support in respect of public protection and convenience at railway crossings.
As many members of the House may know, this legislation in a certain sense can be said to have had its beginnings really and truly in western Canada, namely in Winnipeg. A few years ago the city of Winnipeg, together with the government of Manitoba, approached the Ministry of Transport for assistance regarding a major railway problem in the city. At that time it appeared the best solution might be to consider relocating railway lines in a major way rather than continuing to build and rebuild large and expensive grade separations near the heart of the city.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You speak better from your own notes.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: This is all I have at the present time, but I will make some comments when the hon. member speaks. I have noticed on occasion that he cannot even read his.
The Ministry of Transport provided 75 per cent of the cost of a $500,000 study which examined in detail a number of alternative transportation plans, each with its own railway relocation scheme. This effort was an excellent example of tri-level co-operation in which the federal government, the government of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg and both railways worked together in a spirit of mutual co-operation.
Winnipeg is but one example of many cities in Canada where railway relocations may be the best answer to deal with situations where the railway lines have been in place for perhaps 100 years and are now a serious impediment to desirable urban development or redevelopment. Canada is also fortunate in that many of our cities are well endowed with excellently situated rail rights of way which, if made
Relocation of Railway Lines
available for rapid transit use, would greatly contribute to the solution of urban transportation problems.
This legislation provides that the CTC may order existing rail lines to be freed of other rail traffic so that they can be used for rapid transit. Today one of the greatest difficulties in moving forward with intermediate capacity transit systems using modern streetcars, reserved lane bus systems, or perhaps some of the new technology systems currently under development, is the problem of acquiring the necessary corridors of land in which to operate such urban transit systems. Without the availability of railway rights of way often the only recourse is the expropriation of very expensive strips of land, including much valuable residential and other developed real estate. I need not remind the members of the House how difficult it is these days, and how wrong from a social justice point of view, to expropriate people's homes. I personally feel that this legislation fits perfectly the kind of legislation which will facilitate increased tri-level co-operation in many urban matters where action is so urgently needed.
The thrust of this bill is consistent with the direction the government is taking with regard to the whole field of a renaissance in the railway mode. We are not only looking at the need for greater and more effective use of passenger rail services in Canada, but we are also fully aware of the need to implement this policy in concert with many urban needs.
There are a number of other railway issues in Canada today. Many of these are social issues rather than economic ones relating to railway operations. Often from a social benefit or an export benefit point of view railway operations, which in themselves may not be economic, are none the less viable operations.
So far my remarks have dealt with the urban transit and urban development aspects of this legislation. I should like for the next few minutes to point out that this bill also contains valuable new provisions in the matter of public protection and convenience at railway crossings which are embodied in Parts II and III of this legislation. These are concerned with special grants for separations and modernization of the railway grade crossing fund.
The provisions relating to grade crossings and grade separations follow recommendations by the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission to increase the limits of federal assistance for railway grade separation projects. Such expansion is intended to bring grant provisions into line with the increased costs being experienced in the construction of overpasses and subways. The cost of providing safe railway crossings and grade separations has climbed over the years. Such installations, especially in large centres, have become extremely costly. The bill provides increased federal assistance either through provisions in the railway grade crossing fund, which are continued in Part III of the bill, or through new provisions for special grants for separations, which are contained in Part II. The proposed new federal assistance covers level crossing protection work, reconstruction of, or improvement to, existing grade separations, and construction of new grade separations.

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
The proposed new levels of federal assistance in Part III are as follows. First, level crossing protection work, 80 per cent of the cost of which may be paid from the grade crossing fund up to a new limit of $1 million for new construction. The existing limit is $500,000. Second, construction of, or improvement to, existing grade separations, 50 per cent of the cost of which may be paid from the grade crossing fund, up to a new ceiling of $625,000. The existing limit is $250,000.
Part II of the act provides special grants for very expensive grade separations and for new separations required by highway traffic rerouting schemes. For the very expensive grade separations there is an escalation scale of grants; for example, a grant of over $2 million for a new separation costing $3 million and a grant of about $1.3 million for reconstruction of a grade separation costing $3 million. New grade separations required by highway traffic rerouting schemes which are required to cross a railway line by means of a grade separation will qualify for special grants equal to 50 per cent of the construction costs.
This new railway relocation and crossing legislation deserves the support of this House. Its provisions have been carefully considered. It holds out major benefits in the reshaping of urban neighbourhoods. It pays renewed attention to the issue of public safety at railway and highway crossings and it will greatly extend the federal government's ability to assist in improving the urban environment in our nation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Shall clause 2 carry?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I might just speak to a point of order. I think we will be able to expedite the passage of the bill in committee of the whole. I might suggest that, on the clause now called, if any speaker is permitted to speak in respect of any clause on which he wishes to speak generally this might shorten the procedure when the bill is called clause by clause.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North. Is it agreed that while we consider clause 2 we will hear debate on all clauses?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I might indicate that that is quite agreeable. The suggestion of the hon. member for Calgary North is a worthwhile one.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair will act accordingly. On clause 2-Definitions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, it is probably refreshing to some of us to return to what I suppose we were accustomed to under the former rules, which is to have an opportunity to discuss a bill such as this in the committee of the whole House. We have heard six speeches today. I might say at the outset that this party, in so far as the principle of the bill is concerned, supports it 100 per cent. The mayors and reeves who were down here met not only

with members of the government but also with members of our party, and I understand the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party. They presented certain briefs and came out strongly in support of a bill for relocation of railways so far as it affects urban centres.
I should like to make a few points in respect of the bill itself. As I said at the outset, we support the principle of the bill. We believe the federal government must move into this field, because it is very expensive to relocate railways, change tracks and improve urban centres, thereby enhancing the quality of life for those living in urban centres.
It is now accepted, of course, that the railways fall directly under the jurisdiction of the federal government under our constitution. It seems to me that if the railways accept the responsibility laid down in the bill to make certain changes in agreement with the provinces and municipalities, then I sympathize with the minister in this regard. I think that one of the problems of any minister who is responsible for urban affairs is that he has to deal with three levels of government. Each level is jealous of its own powers and jurisdiction. Under Bill C-27, all three levels of government have some jurisdiction when it comes to making certain changes.
In this regard, what is most important is these conferences which I mentioned this week in a question which I put to the government. I referred to the tri-level conferences. In my opinion there should be at least two conferences a year of the three levels of government on matters relating to urban affairs. Some experts say that 66 per cent of the people live in urban centres. Actually, it would be more correct to say that 80 per cent of the population live in the large centres of Canada.
The minister in charge of housing, whether it be this minister or any other minister, must face the fact that three levels of government and three levels of bureaucracy are involved, and that he must obtain the acceptance of the municipality concerned, of the province, and finally of his own officials before any decision can be reached. The same applies to changes in railway tracks, if the minister decides that they should be taken out of the city so that the land may be used for other purposes. Each time he runs into the problem of having to deal with three levels of government and three levels of bureaucracy, which of course slows down the decision making process and sometimes makes it practically impossible.
I should like to digress for a moment to say that this is one of the great problems facing the minister, and that my sympathy is with him. In housing matters, the minister who represents the federal government finds that first a decision must be made at the city level, then at the provincial level, and finally at the federal level. The same is true of railway relocation.
We support this bill 100 per cent, although we may want to propose some amendments to it. In fact, I may support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Scarborough West. However, one thing which I would like to emphasize-and I think the minister and every member of the House would agree with me-is that it is necessary to obtain the co-operation of the railroads. Every government
April 25, 1974

has had difficulties in this regard. The railways must come to the conclusion that the governments of this country run the country. The country cannot be run by the railroads.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am not one of those who laughed or poured scorn on the Minister of Transport when he said that there is no transportation policy in this country. It is very difficult to establish a transportation policy which would be acceptable to the railways and which would be put into effect by them.
I digress for a few moments to point out tonight in this committee of the whole the difficulties that any government faces, whether it be at the federal or the provincial level. Of course, the railways fall directly under the jurisdiction of the federal government, let us make no mistake about it-and I draw that to the attention of my friends in the NDP. The fact is that whether it is the CPR, which is a private company, or the CNR, which is a Crown Corporation, they are both responsible to the federal government.
Inasmuch as the railway have failed to measure up to their responsibilities and to fulfill the mandate which this nation gave them, both the CNR and the CPR have failed the nation. So there is no difference between them there. So far as I am concerned, both the railway companies have failed the nation. Under this bill-and I want to emphasize this-we have undertaken to cover part of the cost of certain changes and to guarantee that the railways will not lose money if an agreement is reached at the municipal, provincial or federal level. So that if any changes are made, the companies themselves will not lose money.
One has to ask oneself: Will the railways, if given this new mandate under the bill for the benefit of the people who live in urban centres, measure up to their responsibility? I am not so sure that they will. This problem will face any minister in charge of urban affairs, whether it is the present minister or the future minister from this party.
We have been the opposition since 1963-11 long years, maybe too long-and in all that time we have been screaming about the shortage of boxcars, for example. In my opinion, the railways have been totally irresponsible in their failure to fulfil the mandate of confederation and to carry out the services for which they were created. I am using this as an example. If the railways fail to measure up to their responsibility under this bill as they have failed to measure up to their responsibility under the constitution, then what we are doing tonight will be to create one more new problem for the nation instead of trying to improve the quality of life of the average individual living in the city and trying to improve our cities generally.
It is interesting to note that Mr. MacMillan Q.C., President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of CNR, was called before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications last December 11 and interrogated by members of parliament. I should like to quote some questions and answers from the procedings on that occasion which will illustrate how serious the problem is and how paralysed is any government or any minister to get the railways to act in a responsible manner. The hon. member for Vegreville asked these questions:
Relocation of Railway Lines


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, when Mr. MacMillan previously appeared before the committee, he had indicated that he had comparative figures on the actual movements versus the targets for last year and this year.
That is talking about grain, Mr. Chairman.
I am talking about the boxcar allocation targets. I wonder whether you could provide this information to the committee at this time. It is for last year and for the current crop year, from August 1 to the present time.


Mr. MacMillan:: Last year, the Canadian National target was 99,419 and our actual deliveries were 97,040. Canadian Pacific's target last year was 101,907 and their actual deliveries were 99,352.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Was that for the total crop year, Mr. MacMillan?


William Hector McMillan: No, no!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: For the calendar year?


William Hector McMillan: August 2 to December 8.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Of 1972?


William Hector McMillan: Of 1972, yes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Fine.
I could read question after question, Mr. Chairman. These railways were asked to build box cars. Is that the kind of responsibility we are going to get from them- building 3,000 new cars to move grain out of western Canada? At the committee, Mr. MacMillan said they built 3,000 new cars for the shipment of grain. But when he was questioned it appeared that none of the cars were built, trimmed and shaped for the movement of grain. If the railways are going to be that irresponsible and get away with it in regard to movement of grain, what will they do when they receive money from the federal government to change the tracks and railroads that go through our major cities?
To further show the irresponsibility of the railways, ten years ago there were 88,000 cars that were fit to move grain. At the standing committee it was admitted that the number has now been reduced to 44,000 cars. If the railways do not want to move grain and do not want to change their tracks going through the cities, although they will agree with what the government wants, when they get back to their boardroom they will just do something else.
The minister is a charming man and I hope his charm will be strong. I hope it will be so strong that when this House approves this bill he sees to it that, when money is paid to the railways, they will carry out their mandate and their responsibility not only in accordance with the constitution but in accordance with the terms and conditions of this bill. As I said at the beginning and I repeat, I have sympathy for the minister in this regard. The railways seem to believe they are above the law, but he must force them to carry out their responsibility.
As I pointed out in my example, these facts boil down to a simple formula: that the railways, although subsidized by the taxpayers, without right or equity have reduced the number of grain boxcars by 50 per cent in the last ten years. In other words, the number of boxcars suitable for grain movement dropped from 88,200 in 1963 to 48,000 in 1973 for both railways. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific split 50-50. My question, Mr. Chairman, is: Should the government of this nation, whatever it may be, permit

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
the railways to run the nation, instead of the government running the nation and the railways?
It would seem to me that when money is paid by subsidy for the purpose of moving grain, or for building cars, or for lumber shipments, or for movement of other commodities, or for moving tracks out of the cities and large centres of Canada, the railways should be forced to sign an agreement and to live up to the terms and conditions of their agreement. Then the taxpayers' money is used for the purpose for which it was paid.
I feel sorry for the Minister of Transport, who had to admit-for he is honest-that this government did not have a transportation policy. My indictment is not against him or the government for not having a transportation policy; my indictment is against the railroads that have been able to run slipshod over governments for a number of years, and will continue to do so until this government and this parliament gets tough with them.


An hon. Member:: Take them over.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My hon. friend says "Take them over". If I thought that was the solution, Mr. Chairman, I would speak in favour of it. If I thought socializing the railroads would solve the problem, I would support it. But I find that the procrastination and negligence of the CNR is as great, if not greater, than that of the CPR. In fact, if you ride on the passenger trains of the CNR or the CPR you will find that you get service. I might even mention Air Canada and CP Air. At least CP Air has not got the monopolistic routes Air Canada has. I have tried both lines from here to Calgary so I know who gives the service.


An hon. Member:: Nationalize Eldon Woolliams!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says "nationalize Eldon Woolliams." I am going to digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman. I hold no brief for Imperial Oil Company, but when the NDP talk about profits they should think about the minister of this government who bought heating oil for $50 million, which is one-quarter of Imperial's profits. Yet nobody complained about that. However, when free enterprise makes a dollar, there is a great deal of complaint about it. I am not going to be sidetracked by that, Mr. Chairman.
Although this is a very short bill, Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably one of the most important to come before the House. In such major centres as Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton the railways own some of the choicest land, because the lines were built before the cities were. If we can get the railways to make changes and relocate in areas outside the cities, as has been done in Ottawa, then, when land is taken over for development within the city, whether by the federal, provincial or municipal government, I think a certain amount of that land should be set aside for parks.
I can only speak about the city of Calgary, which has developed very quickly during the last ten or 15 years. The streets are narrow and very little land has been left for parks. A large acreage of railway track goes through the city and an attempt was made by Senator Hays to have it moved so that the land could be used for other develop-

ment. It is not for me to say what happened at the city level as I was not a member of council and had nothing to do with it. The idea was good but it was killed, and the tracks are still there in the middle of Calgary.


Daniel Aiken Lang: Saskatoon did it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice says that Saskatoon did it, and I want to congratulate Saskatoon. The minister probably knows that is my home city. They have done an excellent job, and I do not know if the minister had anything to do with it or not. Anyway I congratulate him, although I do not think he was mayor at that time. Nevertheless Saskatoon has done a good job. I hope other cities including Winnipeg and Calgary can follow suit.
I see the chairman is getting itchy and feels I have used up my 20 minutes, so I will sit down. In committee of the whole I like to hear what others have to say. I will present some other ideas later this evening when the relevant clauses are called.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I rise, not to make general remarks, but to ask specific questions about clause 2. I was not in the House when the minister spoke on second reading and possibly he may have touched on the matter I am about to allude to. The definition section of the bill says that "urban area" means "an area and areas adjacent thereto that are classified by Statistics Canada in its most recent census ..." It would help us to understand the bill better if the definition were presented in less technical terms, as not every citizen of Canada reads the publications of Statistics Canada and knows exactly what that organization means by "urban area".


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Scarborough West touched on this point earlier and there is on record what is meant by this definition in the act. For the benefit of the hon. member, Statistics Canada has defined an urban area to include, "(1) incorporated cities, towns and villages with a population of 1,000 or over." I suggest that the bill will therefore apply to any legal entity incorporated as such town or village. Then the second definition is: "(2) unincorporated places of 1,000 or over, having a population density of at least 1,000 per square mile; (3) the urbanized fringe of (1) and (2) ..." That would include places with a density of population of at least 1,000 per square mile. As far as I can determine, this definition will encompass all inhabited areas of this country where it is appropriate that this bill should apply. We have calculated that within the Canadian Transport Commission's jurisdiction there are 672 such urban areas. Obviously, an urban area may include many municipalities, as there are many more than 672 municipalities in Canada.
After examining various definitions of urban area, we settled on that definition, being satisfied that it applies to those areas of habitation supplied with railway facilities, areas to which the procedures set out in the bill and the regulations can apply.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, another question occurs to me. According to the minister, Statistics Canada defines
April 25, 1974

an urban area as an incorporated city, town or village with a population of 1,000 or more or an unincorporated place with a population of 1,000 or better. He did not mention any district municipality.
I am sure the minister knows that in the province from which he and I come there are municipalities which are really urban areas, with populations well over 1,000. One such area in my constituency springs to mind immediately, because there is no railway in it, the district municipality of Campbell River, which I suggest has a population of at least 10,000. At one time it was a village; later it was defined by the province as a district municipality. If I heard the minister correctly, the district municipality of Campbell River is to be excluded from the provisions of the bill, even though it may more readily be considered an urban area than, say, the village of Tahsis, on the west coast of my constituency. I mention the village because it is unlikely that a railway will run through it in the near future.
Can the minister comment on what I have said about the definition of an urban area?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I know the city the hon. member refers to as being the place where the best salmon in Canada are caught.


Mr. Forrestall:: Says who?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The bill would apply to Campbell River in two ways. It would apply to the area as an incorporated municipality, or as an unincorporated place with a population of over 1,000 and a density of 1,000 per square mile. Remember, there are two definitions, one dealing with an incorporated municipality, the other with unincorporated places with populations of 1,000 and over. So the definition would include Campbell River. At the moment I am not sure whether there is a railway in Campbell River.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I do not think there is, but we will not go into that at the moment. May I ask another question. The definition section deals with "transport plan". The question which arises is this: How would this legislation apply, if at all, to new communities such as have sprung up in British Columbia and elsewhere which have been referred to as instant towns? I do not know of any served directly by railway. I think of the town of MacKenzie, north of Prince George. There is much talk about creating new satellites to urban areas. I ask the minister to look at clause 6(1) which says, "For the purpose of carrying into effect a transportation plan accepted by the Commission under section 5," certain things shall be done. I understand that section 5 deals with a plan, which would have to be accepted by the commission, which would include both the urban development and transportation plan.
I may be wrong, but as others have observed this bill is complex. If I am correct, and this is the aspect which interests me in relation to the development of new, planned communities, then may I say this. Clause 6(2) (c) empowers the commission, in relation to carrying into effect the transportation plan, to "require a railway company to build a railway line in such location as may be specified by the Commission within the transportation study area to which the transportation plan relates". That power could be important in relation to proper planning
Relocation of Railway Lines
and direction to a railway company to fit its service for a planned community which is to be an urban area. Can the direction be given before the area has acquired the minimum population of 1,000 but which, once the direction has come into effect, will, for the purposes of the next census, acquire sufficient population to be classed as an urban area? I wonder whether the minister could comment on the implications of the legislation for the kind of situation I am trying to suggest.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the question very much. I would answer it by saying that this legislation is obviously designed to deal with situations that currently exist and correct things. With regard to railway lines, if they are being under-utilized or could more effectively be utilized, the CTC by way of a transportation plan would be allowed to make an order as to a relocation, re-routing or re-use of those lands or rights of way.
With regard to new towns, we passed legislation in this House a year ago to finance new towns. If you were developing a new town, I quite frankly cannot conceive that you would design it to have a major railroad relocation as part of the plan or a year after the start. A new community being planned and developed now would use the best possible planning techniques and advice. It would not have to use this kind of technique to go back and correct or change things. I appreciate the hon. member's concern that we consider new towns or new communities, something in which I am very interested; but in developing a new community, you would plan it so you would not have to use these provisions at all.
The hon. member raised the specific question of rapid transit or public transit. Again you would not have to use these provisions because you would have to put in the transportation facilities as part of the plan for the new community.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I specifically stopped my quotation from clause 6 before I came to the matter of rapid transit because this is not the point. I understand that the thrust of this legislation is to try to deal with actions taken in the past which might properly not have been foreseen in their long-term results. I am glad to know the minister is concerned about the planning of new communities.
The question I am raising is what authority of direction there is to a railway company, whether it is the CPR, which my friend from Calgary loves so much, or the CNR, which is the subject of his criticism, to ensure that a railway will be located in accordance with the desire of planners of new communities.
I am no authority on the provisions of the Railway Act or the kinds of powers a railway company can exercise. However, some of us have been hearing about decisions made in the past by a former general manager of the CPR regarding the location of towns. This may have refreshed our memories or put in our minds the kind of authority railways have with regard to putting in their lines.
As I read clause 6, it provides that, under the circumstances prescribed in this bill, specific authority is given to the commission to require a railway company to build a

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
railway line, in effect where the commission says it should. The general thrust of this bill is to provide for a constructive liaison between decisions of a commission and decisions made at a community level.
I raise this point because unless the minister can indicate to the committee that under some other existing authority there is a power of direction to the railway companies that they must co-operate in the development of a new community with regard to the location of lines and so on, this is something that should not be considered. That is, if we are going to prevent mistakes in the future rather than being altogether preoccupied with the mistakes of the past.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I go back and say what I said before, namely that it seems inconceivable that you could plan a new community without planning your transportation facilities as part of that plan and without the need to rely on this legislation at all.
Let me cite two examples of new communities. One is in the national capital region, where I have been speaking of the development of a new community which at the moment is called Southeast City. It is being located there because of the attractiveness of the particular site and the fact that it now has a transportation corridor to it. One would plan that new community by providing transportation facilities to it as part of an original new plan for a new community, and without any reference to this particular legislation.
The other is the community of Pickering, being planned in association with the proposed new airport. That is a situation where the government of Ontario, in association with the airport, is planning a new community. We have again said we will co-operate with the provincial government in the provision of public transit and rapid transit facilities to that new community. They will be developed as part of a new transportation plan for that new community. They will be facilities that will not need correcting.
I want to say that in both examples I cited, Southeast City and the new community outside metro Toronto, they would be by definition an urban area deemed to be within an urban area. Southeast City would be deemed to fit within this definition if it wre necessary to apply it, although I cannot conceive of needing to make use of it. Both Southeast City and Pickering would be deemed to be within the definition.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I want to thank the minister. I raised this point deliberately under the definition section in order to relate it to further clauses of the bill. I want time to think about the minister's answer before we come to clause 6.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-27, one of the most important pieces of legislation which, I believe, have been put before us during this session.
This bill binds the government for many years. The first question I am asking myself on this bill before us is to know if there are priorities in the field of transportation other than the relocation of railway lines.

Farm producers of western Canada as well as lumber operators complain, justifiably so, of a lack of railway cars. There are also reasonable complaints that the passenger service between the major cities is really of inferior quality, and I believe that these should be priorities to consider in order to improve transportation services.
The relocation of railway lines may have a sound basis. The environment needs protection, and urban beautification is desired. There is also talk of pollution, but knowing how fast has been the growth of urban centres in recent years, I think that this will continue for quite some time. And, in spite of the answer given by the minister to my hon. colleague for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), that urban development plans will prevent new construction along the relocated railway lines, I wonder to what extent they will work out.
A few weeks ago, I heard an interview on the radio about the pollution problems in Montreal. We know that in the metropolitan area that problem is rather serious at times and a director of Miron Co. Limited was asked his views, because the company was charged with polluting the air around its plants. The director's answer, in my opinion, was correct. He stated that when Miron Company was set up on its present location, that is a rather long time ago, it was practically open country where there was no residential area and it was precisely why it had been chosen. However, today the city is surrounding the plant. How can the people be prevented from getting close to that pollution centre? We know that such a large cement plant does create pollution problems.
In my opinion, the relocation of railway lines could create a number of problems.
In the past, people used to build their homes near waterways. For instance, they started with the St. Lawrence River. Then, they established their settlements along the main rivers, for these rivers provided the best means of transportation of that era. Later, people built villages along railway lines. Today, we mentioned Calgary, Montreal, Quebec City and some other great cities which have existed for hundreds of years. In those days, development was fairly slow. Today, railway lines can be relocated, but steps will have to be taken to prevent people from crowding around the new railway lines which will be rerouted out of the great cities.
If land is to be recovered in downtown areas, much will be lost in the areas surrounding the cities. When the hon. member for Scarborough (Mr. Harney) spoke a while ago-I do not know whether he had Montreal in mind- but he spoke of railway transport as an inexpensive mode of transport at a time of energy crisis.
In Montreal, for instance, we have commuter trains which offer the workers an inexpensive and convenient mode of transport. In Montreal East, railway lines will have to be replaced by another means of transport. Of course we have the subway and buses, but because of the large number of cars and trucks on our highways and streets, buses are not the answer to the massive movement of workers from the outskirts to the city or vice versa.
April 25, 1974

To my mind, commuter trains are very useful, and I wonder whether it is wise to cancel that means of transport.
There is another means of transport between large centres such as Quebec, Montreal, Toronto and the large cities in western Canada or the Maritimes, namely the plane. Still, one has to leave from downtown and drive several miles to reach an airport. For shorter trips, if you take the train to go to Halifax or Vancouver for example, you will still find a station downtown.
But if you relocate the railways, you will have to travel a longer distance before you can get to a station.
Mr. Chairman, we might create problems while solving existing ones.
I suppose that when he prepared this bill before submitting it to the House, the minister has made some research to see how much money had to be invested in travelling.
The minister said that more than 600 municipalities would benefit from this act. My opinion is that it will require a considerable investment. I do not know if the minister has figured out how much it would cost in total, but I guess that the budget will have to be allotted each year and that the House will have to vote these sums.
There is another point just as important. Has it been foreseen, since the amount invested each year is rather limited, which cities will be able to relocate these lines?
I think there will be violent controversies between municipalities and provincial or federal governments.
A few minutes ago, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) mentioned the need for three-level conferences so that the three levels of government can reach an agreement on this question. But I am not so sure it would be useful to invite municipalities to such conferences to discuss these projects.
Recently Mayor Lamontagne of Quebec City compared the current situation of municipalities to that of a child of divorced parents. It is never possible to speak to both parents simultaneously; in the same way, municipalities cannot meet senior levels of government at the same time to discuss problems together.
Therefore, if we want to be logical, if we want to implement this program in order that it may bring the satisfactory results we are anticipating, municipalities will have to be allowed to have their say about the development of their area.
It may be, as the minister said a few moments ago, that in a large city, a relocation may involve more than one municipality. At that time, serious negotiations will be required to bring about agreement among the parties involved.
I think that on the whole, the bill proceeds from a good principle, but I feel that care will be needed in its application and in the surveys and studies to be conducted.
Perhaps we want to solve some of our cities' problems. Well and good, but I am wondering whether in doing so we will not be creating new problems.
In any event, if we relocate these railway lines and stations that were in the centre of cities, I believe that we must consider at the same time developing a rapid transit
Relocation of Railway Lines
service, not too expensive and suitable for workers living in the suburbs.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I should like to pick up the thread of the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Calgary North by making one or two comments regarding some of the fears we have on this side of the Chamber. It has been suggested by other speakers, I believe the hon. member for Central Nova and others, that we welcome this type of legislation. I liken it somewhat to a schooner with a full set of sails; but, as pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary North, we are a little bit concerned about the wind that is going to fill those sails. He was talking about the efficiency and adequacy of Canadian National Railways' management effectively to administer and operate within the parameters of this legislation.
This bill essentially extends to the CTC the authority for management of what is proposed and contained therein. While it is an arm of government, it seems we would be a little remiss if we were not to take a few minutes to look at the general competency of the CTC and the CNR to administer this authority. If you look at the past history of the CTC you will find it is not such as to give someone like myself any great encouragement that it will be able to deal efficiently with the authority and power as well as the funds given to it.
As in everything else, there are certain instances which occur from time to time that discourage one in this area, and I think in this type of debate it is appropriate to cite some of them. I intend to do so, as others have done, to indicate a lack of trust in the efficiency and adequacy of the CTC.
A case occurred only a month or two ago in which an application was made by the city of Dartmouth for funds to assist in the removal of one of our city's more inelegant examples of a CN 1920 baroque, if you will, and to replace it with something more modern, thereby doing away with a very dangerous intersection. Not only did the CTC take well over a year and a half to decide what to do, but having made a decision it failed to notify any of the parties that awaited its decision in order that they could get on with this work for well over a month. This would indicate not just a lack of concern on the part of the commission, but an absolutely disgraceful and callous attitude, if you will, toward municipalities and other bodies that simply must know of decisions like this for various reasons, including budgetary ones.
This undue delay in advising the parties of the decision of the CTC is continuing to have an effect on the progress of this work. Apparently having made a decision, it was filed away and forgotten. This happened a long time ago and I have seen nothing happen in this case, so it makes one question the efficiency of the CTC.
Another area of concern is this decision making process that is entrusted to the CTC. I have in mind the authority to make decisions in this whole area of urban rail transportation and to advise ministers of the Crown. I suppose the Minister of Transport is most likely to be the one

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
involved in this regard, particularly in respect of whether such shared cost programs should be initiated.
When we give authority to the CTC and a fairly heavy bank account, I think members of this chamber are quite justified in asking for some reassurance by way of action. We want some demonstrated reason for placing our trust in the ability of the CTC to administer, and I must say that my experience is such that I cannot help but be anything but concerned.
I suppose many examples could be given of this experience. I think of another one in the Halifax urban area involving a problem in the constituency of my dear colleague, our distinguished Chairman this evening. This has to do with a rail commuter service. I would cite this example to underline my concern about whether the CTC is in fact capable. This involved a long and protracted process, still underway, in the establishment of a commuter service to serve the outlying area of my own metropolitan Dartmouth-Halifax riding. In this instance all that was sought was a rescheduling of certain existing rail services to provide the people with a much needed service. The railway companies said no, not unexpectedly, citing their own problems, in the details of which I am sure hon. members are not interested.
To say the least, the railway companies, in this case both the CN and CP, were not very anxious or willing to do anything on their own and, accordingly, the citizens, with their somewhat impressive concern about this commuter service, presented a petition to their member of parliament. It eventually came across my desk and I wrote to the CNR, which again said no.
I then wrote to the Dominion Atlantic Railway which operated part of the commuter service on the tracks, and the reply I received was the same. They said they were merely a subsidiary of CPR and that since the terminal facility belonged to the CNR they could do nothing, that their hands were tied. I then addressed myself to the Minister of Transport, who in turn shuffled me off to the Canadian Transport Commission. He did so without any comment at all, I suppose believing I would flounder there.
On January 28 this year I addressed myself to the Chairman of the CTC and asked if he could advise me of the progress to date. That letter has not been answered to this point in time, April 25. Hon. members with longer memories will remember with some interest the contribution made in this chamber by a former member from Hamilton West who has since departed to a committee of the CTC. I believe he has been elevated to the position of executive director of the committee.
Mr. Macaluso, in a letter written to me over a month ago, advised me that studies in respect of this commuter service were underway but that no progress could be reported. I called his office this afternoon and the response was that there was still no word. Apparently the railway companies have not seen fit to answer the committee. So obviously the railway companies no longer tread in any fear of the CTC and feel they have successfully captured the commission.

This tale of frustration and indecision would seem to me after having been in this chamber some years, to be typical of the incompetence of the government. In addition, I am by no means convinced that the commission itself is being chaired, as it is in a sense by another of our former colleagues, in a manner that in any way demonstrates any concern, or indeed any desire, to accept the responsibilities charged to the commission under existing legislation, let alone any ability to deal efficiently with this new legislation. The inescapable conclusion I suppose one might draw from this is that the government in a sense lost the initiative to assist, let alone sustain, the CTC, which is being asked to exercise considerable authority under this particular bill.
I suggest that the apathy has spread to various other commissions and agencies. There would appear to be a lack of leadership and drive. There is frustration over the difficulty of obtaining simple things or getting things done for people, and yet when asking us to accept what is essentially a long overdue piece of legislation the government also asks us to give powers to a body whose chairman, and perhaps even the other members, should be fired.
With new blood on the commission perhaps it might be stirred up and we might get a little action. I suggest we will not get such action under the present system. I cannot even get an answer after 18 months in respect of a simple matter like a commuter service or the reason that a train schedule cannot be altered by five minutes in order to accommodate thousands of families who live in a very rapidly growing area, albeit not the largest area of Canada but a healthy and growing area.
I do not wish to wander from the subject matter before us and cover other areas, but there are a number of other matters which have been touched on by the hon. member for Abitibi and by my hon. friend from Vancouver Island, who spoke about planning priorities and so on. I do note that in virtually every phrase in the bill there is some reference to the convenience and safety of the travelling public.
I would be somewhat remiss if I did not direct another shot at the minister, not necessarily the minister who is guiding this bill through the House, in respect of safety and the assurance that Canadians must have in respect of their transportation facilities. This is the assurance that institutions such as parliament owe to the people who use the transportation system. I refer to the regulatory body which investigates accidents within the parameters of its regulatory authority. Here we are giving more authorithy to the CTC to administer a fund that will be established, yet we do not consider the other aspects. I suggest, and I believe other members in this chamber share my view, that there is nothing in the performance of the CTC to warrant any confidence in it with regard to the administration of this particular bill.
The requirement in respect of public inquiries is a permissive thing under this legislation. We might have wished the minister had provided within the bill a means by which the public at large could perhaps, by the simple instrument of a petition to the CTC or other body, apply for a public hearing. I note that my colleagues to the left in this chamber would like that provision to be mandato-
April 25, 1974

ry, so that there would be public hearings in every instance.
It would seem to me, however, that many applications for meaningful and useful assistance will be made under the provisions of this legislation, and not all of them by any stretch of the imagination will require public inquiries. Indeed, the process of establishing the mechanics of a public inquiry might in some cases unduly delay the issue. So rather than have this made mandatory, I wish the minister might have built in a provision for an inquiry to be made on the part of people who might be affected. I cannot help but say, perhaps just in passing but fairly seriously, that the Minister of Transport, and indeed even his delightful and charming parliamentary secretary, while sometimes agreeing with me, on many occasions are not prepared to do anything about ideas that are presented. They have not really demonstrated any enthusiasm in respect of the transportation needs of Canada. Perhaps that will change shortly, but there is no enthusiasm. That is a somewhat startling admission regarding those who have had a degree of absolute control over that area for long periods of time. But I think even the parliamentary secretary would admit that there are times when he himself is not enthusiastic, even though we are chiding him for being the only live spokesman for the department. The department has run out of steam; it has given no leadership. We have been waiting for this piece of legislation, as the provinces have been waiting for it, for ten years now, and the government asks us to approve it with enthusiasm when we know they will turn it over to a body which operates within their parameters and reports to them. But there is no steam there either; there is no energy. I do not think even Geratol will help the chairman of that commission. There is no demonstrated reason why we should express other than respect for the measure that is in front of us and a deep concern for the commission, the body that will administer it.
As I say, we praise the principle of the bill, but its implementation and effective administration cause me some concern, as I am sure they do many thousands of Canadians. I commend my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova, for the remarks he made here this afternoon. This is indeed an interesting bill. One aspect of it is that it seems to bring together several ministries of the Crown.
Perhaps I should stress again the need for the government to assure us that as the body behind this piece of legislation they will accept some responsibility with regard to the attitude of the CTC to the implementation of the provisions of this bill. The government should perk them up a little bit and get them working. Good God, a few mistakes once in a while are nothing compared with the work that can be achieved. It would be a welcome and refreshing thing to most of us in this chamber compared with their track record in recent years, which has shown them to be somewhat less than useful, at least as far as I am concerned.
Obviously the commission will have to do better in the future, but they will not do better unless the government spurs them on. My colleague, the hon. member for Calgary North, earlier asked who runs the country. It seems to me
Relocation of Railway Lines
that it is the CNR in these times. Obviously the CNR do not care about the CTC and they have never given a damn about the government. So I am not all that happy with the administrative mechanics behind this legislation, or with the demonstrated enthusiasm on the part of the CTC, indeed the absence of it on the part of the government, to make sure that the provisions of this bill are not only administered but administered with some imagination and enthusiasm. The government should ensure that this legislation does not bog down in some corner of somebody's back filing drawer, but rather that it is used to the extent that the provinces and municipalities require to correct some serious situations that have existed for many years and that worsen each year as property values go up.
Let the government take hold of the CNR and of the CTC and let them know once in a while that this chamber and they as the government do have some concern about the way in which these two bodies go about administering this act. When the government do this, some people on this side of the House will let them have the type of support that is required for the meaningful implementation of the provisions of this bill. For many of us this will mean a long overdue but very welcome involvement in work in our own communities.
We welcome this bill, Mr. Chairman, but I request of the government that they make absolutely certain that the administrative body is shaken up a little bit. Let the government point out to them the necessity for a more vigorous approach to the massive problems that they must tackle under the provisions of this legislation and make sure that they do so with some enthusiasm.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, earlier today I spoke in support of this bill, and now I would like to ask the minister two questions. I have a copy of the Winnipeg railway study which covers a number of aspects of rail line relocation with regard to the economic benefits and the social and environmental impact of such. I should like to quote from a letter from the Damas Smith consulting firm in the city of Winnipeg. They refer to CP Rail and say: "The railway has acquired land south of the main line". However, they do not say how far south. If they go as far south as they can, they will go up to Saskatchewan Avenue which is adjacent to residential property. They say;
The railway has acquired land south of the main line between the Perimeter Highway and the Airport for a new classification yard. It will probably build this yard.
As I stated this afternoon, CPR has been acquiring property adjacent to residential property. I should like to ask the minister: What protection will the city have in this situation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to the hon. member that I am not familiar with all the details of the Winnipeg proposals because I have not had to familiarize myself with them. The hon. member asks what kind of protection would be provided under this legislation. First, the initiation of the relocation proposal must come from the municipality or province. That is very clear in this legislation. They are the applicants to the CTC. They put together an urban development plan and a transportation plan on the basis of studies and work, and they
1778

April 25, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
put that to the CTC. So it seems to me that the protection about which the hon. member asks lies in the fact that the applicant is the municipality, in this case the city of Winnipeg. That is the first general area of protection. I am not referring at this point to specific sections, although this would be clear as we go through this bill clause by clause.
The other point is that the CTC will deal with the application, and on any major ones, as I made clear this afternoon, they will undoubtedly hold hearings. So if there is an objection to what the municipality has done, they will have the right to be heard and will have protection in that way. So the fact, that the municipality prepares the application and is the initiator of the railway relocation proposals is the first line of protection.
The second line of protection is the public hearings. The third, of course, is the CTC itself. If some part of the plan was clearly not in the public interest in terms of the urban area, the commission would not go along with the plan. The railroad simply cannot put in a facility wherever it wants without the approval of the commission. Those three areas are the protection which the hon. member asked for.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the railways are being presumptuous in acquiring land already, so you can understand our concern. My second question is another quotation from the Damas Smith letter to the city of Winnipeg. At page 8, it says:
The railway reception areas or impact corridors were studied in some depth in the railway study. It was concluded that these corridors should be designed so that the "community remains whole", that is to say the adverse effects of the railway should be designed out. This means that the cost of railway relocation will automatically include the cost of environmental protection.
When I see a map in the Damas Smith report showing a new rail line going through an area like Assiniboia Park, I wonder how the environmental protection cost would be covered for the largest environmental park in Winnipeg.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member is reading from is a set of proposals which set out a series of options for railroad relocation in Winnipeg, none of which has the approval of the municipality, the province or the federal government. They are just a set of proposals. If there is one proposal about the use of Assiniboia Park which is environmentally damaging to the municipality involved, I presume it would not be part of the urban plan.


Mr. Frank:: Mr. Chairman, I will try not to take too long. I appreciate the opportunity to ask the minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, of Transport for clarification on the funding of a specific relocation project which I feel should be a tremendous urban renewal step forward for the city of London, part of which represents an important part of my riding. The part of the bill that I am not too clear about is the percentage of funding that could be expected for such a project. In order to give the minister a picture of what I am speaking about, I should like to outline what is there now and the tremendous improvement that could be made by its relocation.

First of all, we have both main lines operating through the city of London. Both CPR and CNR are there, they operate as separate entities, but the facilities are somewhat different. The CNR has a relatively new station and the facilities are in reasonably good shape. The CPR station is somewhat antiquated and I doubt very enticing to passengers. The two railways operate about a mile apart, through the main core of the city. The CPR has only two crossings that are not open through the whole area, which is approximately four miles long. You can imagine the number of level crossings that people have to contend with, particularly in the mornings and evenings. Even though it is a single line track that the CPR operates on, it is hard to estimate how many hundreds of man hours are lost by people each day waiting on train switching or for a freight train of over 100 cars passing through. The yard area is on the east side of the city.
The CNR right of way is a double line track and, as I said before, is in reasonably good shape. The CPR right of way is located in such a position that it could fill a very desperate need for an east-west, in-city traffic route for rapid transit, automobiles, or whatever would best serve future in-city traffic flow.
I feel the possibility of dualing these two main lines through the city of London is unique. Some six miles from the present CNR station and less than two miles from the city limits to the west of London the two lines are literally side by side, separated only by a telegraph line. I know this area well because the two main lines go through property where I have lived all my life. The side by side area I speak of is immediately east of my property. It would be a natural thing to route these two traffic potentials to the two-track CNR line, and would be almost equally convenient to separate them to go their separate ways east of the city by way of a spur CNR line that already heads north east and presently crosses the CPR line. It would be quite easy to reroute them. After they have progressed through the city on the dual line, they could go their separate ways again.
No doubt the proposed in-city relocation would present some technical and manpower problems, but the many advantages would far outweigh the disadvantages. One problem, of course, that would have to be overcome would be the relocation of some employees in the yards in the existing facilities that operate within the city on the CPR line. However, I am sure that would not be a major problem.
This is a very brief explanation of the present situation and the possible future of the railroads in London. My question to the minister is for some clarification of the percentage of funding that would be possible. If I have made myself clear I would like an answer to that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks made by the hon. member for Middlesex. They point out a wonderful example of what happens in cities. He has chosen the city of London to demonstrate the need for this legislation. It is just such situations that are to be dealt with, and that is why I think the legislation should be passed as soon as possible.
With reference to the city of London scheme, I understand that they have consultants working on this. We have
April 25, 1974

been informed that the city is at a preliminary study stage, but the scheme is being worked out within the framework of the proposed railroad relocation bill. So that when the bill is passed the work of the consultants will fit the mechanism of the bill. The financial mechanism provided in the bill would mean that the city of London could apply to my department for 50 per cent of the study costs of developing the urban plan, and to the Department of Transport for 50 per cent of the cost of developing the transportation plan.
Then, once the relocation scheme is approved, they can get a grant equal to 50 per cent of the net cost to the railroads of the relocation scheme, plus moneys-we will deal with this when we come to the appropriate section- which might be required if some of the land were used for housing. That is, they could get money for housing or funds for special crossings under Parts II and III of the act.


William Charles Frank: I appreciate the minister's explanation, Mr. Chairman, and I hasten to add I appreciate what this bill will provide. I am well aware of the study which is under way. However, X am confused about the 50 per cent and the 80 per cent. Is there any possibility of an 80 per cent area coming into effect by this relocation provision?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Chairman, but I prefer to answer that when we deal with specific clauses under Part III which relate to funds payable with regard to grade crossings, new grade separations, or the construction of existing ones.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I approve of the bill. I should like consideration to be given to the tax load borne by communities smaller than Winnipeg or Toronto. I am referring to places like Weyburn. We should examine some of the cost factors involved in this legislation.
In the last 50 minutes I have heard many good questions asked, but have not heard one member say he opposes this bill. Within the last ten days the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities has told us to pass this bill. Considering the present situation of this parliament and the prospect which may arise in the coming weeks, I suggest that this bill should pass. Unless the next speaker says he opposes the bill, I suggest we should pass it. Of course, if someone opposes it we should be prepared to listen to him.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Chairman, I have some serious reservations about some proposals of the bill.


William George Knight: Every member from Toronto should vote for it.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The definition of "urban development plan" is fatuous. We are told that:
... 'urban development plan' means a plan respecting the development and use of land within or within and adjacent to an urban area whereby it is proposed to control and regulate the use of such land for purposes of industry, commerce, government, recreation, transportation, hospitals, schools, churches, residences, homes for the elderly or for other purposes or classes of users ...
I suggest that such definition in a bill in the name of the Minister of Transport is fatuous. If the urban development
Relocation of Railway Lines
plan does not provide for a home for the elderly, for a church, for a school or for a recreation centre, it cannot be considered by the minister. Perhaps the minister will say something about that.
Presumably the plan would be examined by the Canadian Transport Commission. Despite what the hon. member for Assiniboia said, members on my side have serious reservations about the Canadian Transport Commission. In September, 1972 560 people worked for the commission. It is now seeking budgetary authority for some 860 employees, representing an increase in employment of 60 per cent. The commission is under the chairmanship of a former member of this House. He was minister of finance but is now head of the Canadian Transport Commission. He is to be responsible for determining if transportation corridors in our cities presently owned by the railways are to be turned over to other authorities for other purposes.
The House must look carefully at the relocation provisions of the bill. While it may be necessary to relocate some railway routes, we must make certain that we do not lose valuable transportation corridors through cities, as cities can no longer obtain them by filing a plan with the commission and having the commission rubber stamp it.
Look at what happened in Ottawa. A conference centre was built where the downtown railway station used to be. That station was convenient for travellers who came from Toronto or Montreal. To get to and from the Ottawa railway station nowadays, you must take a cab or some other conveyance.
As a rapidly changing urban society we face many difficulties. Changes in our urban society will be reviewed by the Canadian Transport Commission. Members are concerned about the personalities of commission members who are to make determinations in these areas. We are concerned because through such determinations we could easily lose valuable existing rights of way in our cities.
That brings me to the situation in Toronto. People are concerned about the CPR line which runs through the city. That line causes some residents annoyance, because trains make a noise. One of the problems is this. That line could be abandoned in compliance with a redevelopment plan, and the result would be, say, some 176 extra acres for housing, for industry or for other innumerable purposes. The right of way could be preserved. However, the sale of a crucial five or even ten acres of that 176 acres might mean that there would no longer be a right of way through the city to meet the city's rapid transit requirements. It is so easy, when pretending to be bright, to be intelligent, to be capable, and with the best intentions in the world for improving the city, to wind up losing valuable rights of way which can never be replaced. The provisions of this bill would make it easy for rights of way to be lost. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Progress reported.
1780

April 25, 1974
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I directed a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) relating to the skyrocketing prices in the construction industry. I asked what measure was being considered to stabilize prices in this important sector of our economy. I raised that question because of the way in which prices are soaring. Many small construction firms are finding it all but impossible to continue in business. The report from one firm of chartered quantity surveyors, for example, indicated the following claim:
Material shortages and labor and material price increases will continue into the 1974-1975 period and contractors and sub contractors will be forced to carry substantial contingency sums in any estimate prepared during this period in order to cover costs that cannot be determined at the time of tender.
This is all but impossible for small companies to undertake. Many find this kind of provision all but beyond them because many of their would-be customers demand a firm price. Many of these small firms are not capable of absorbing the losses they risk in the present period of price instability.
To give an example, I draw statistics provided by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. With regard to residential buildings, if we take as a base index 1971 prices and signify that by the number 100, we find that prices of material rose in 1972 from 104.1 in the month of January to 115.1 in the month of December. In 1973, they rose from 116.8 in the month of January to 125.5 in the month of September.
In the same period, the cost of labour rose in 1972 from 105.8 in January to 116.1 in December and in 1973 from 116.5 to 123.4.
In the non-residential building sector, the same process was followed. If we take as a base index the costs in 1961 and signify that by the number 100, we find that the cost of materials in 1972 rose from 138.1 in January to 146.7 in December and in 1973 from 148.9 in January to 160.1 in December.
From this can be seen the predicament that is challenging every firm in the construction industry. It is an almost impossible problem for many small firms that have very little margin to go on. The escalation of prices continues, so that between the time a firm submits a tender to a customer and delivers its product, the contractor is almost doomed to suffer a loss. This is a risk that small firms find they simply cannot bear.
To illustrate, I will cite an example of one company just outside the area of metro Toronto. It found that electrical conduits increased in price 100 per cent in one year. The

cost of small items like switches, outlet boxes, fasteners and so on rose from 50 to 100 per cent.
This kind of escalation of prices resulted in the following experience. They submitted a tender on October 30, 1973. They estimated that the job would require $2,815 per 1,000 feet of cable. When the order was placed for supplies on December 18, 1973, the price had risen to $3,303 per 1,000 feet of cable. When the cable was delivered in mid-January, 1974 they were billed $3,517 per 1,000 feet. That meant an increase of $702 per 1,000 feet, or 25 per cent, in two and a half months. It was for that reason that an officer of that company wrote that the situation is running wild and urged that the government put on controls to end these large price increases.
I cite the predicament of that small firm as an example of small business who have various people working for them. I plead with the government to take more seriously the predicament of these small companies in the construction industry. They simply cannot carry on. I the present price escalation continues, some action will be necessary.
I plead with the government to pay more attention to the plight of these companies and to give them more support. What we need is an effort at price control, an effort to stabilize prices so that small companies submitting tenders and offering contracts can have some assurance that prices will not run hog wild during the period between tender and delivery. It is all but impossible for a small company to absorb a 25 per cent price increase in a period of two months.
This is a serious matter not only for businessmen but for the consumers involved. We read in one newspaper a report that the cost of building or replacing the most unpretentious house in metropolitan Toronto in 1974 will be 25 per cent more than last year. We are all aware of the difficulties faced by would-be house purchasers. These difficulties are now becoming almost insurmountable by people contemplating the purchase of a home, with costs going up at this rate.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it must be agreed that the profit picture varies from one industry to the other, and that the risks involved in doing business come from various areas and reach different levels.
Looking at Canadian industry as a whole, it may be seen that profits increased substantially in 1973. Their relationship to sales is not however at record level. Higher ratios were experienced in the 1950's.
Recent profit improvement derives mainly from the increase in prices relative to inventories. Disregarding gains on inventory revaluation, operating profits as compared to sales did not even reach in 1973 the average level of the period since 1949.
The profit increase was parallelled by very strong growth in capital expenditures by corporations. This is an encouraging sign for, in an inflationary economy, rising offer stemming from increased spending on capital goods will have positive results.
It must be remembered that a large part of those investments has taken the form of industrial and commercial
April 25, 1974

buildings, and this, allied to rapidly increasing housing construction, has led to considerable activity in the construction industry. Businesses in that sector are extremely varied and I am sure all of them have not managed to the same extent to match their profits with rising costs.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has said that, to his mind, higher profits, although useful from the point of view mentioned, would become undesirable if they were to exceed the level required to encourage the necessary productive investments. Basing himself on a study of currently available statistics, he said that, generally, the Canadian industry now enjoys enough prosperity to produce those investments, but that additional profits would be unjustified.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will say that the minister has in fact asked Canadian businesses, each in the light of its particular situation, to take into account the interests of the people. Those interests are not well served by price increases that produce profits exceeding those the companies need to finance the expansion of their production capacity, which is so important in present day circumstances.


TRANSPORT-ACTION TO IMPLEMENT TRANSPORT COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PREVENTION OF RAILWAY ACCIDENTS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is both appropriate and timely that I speak tonight about railroad safety since the Canadian Transport Commission hearings concerning the recent tragic deaths of railroad enginemen Boyd and Battuci in the middle of March are expected to conclude tomorrow in the city of Vancouver.
I think it is sad but true that it usually takes a death or two to bring everyone to his senses regarding the lack of track maintenance and sufficient regard for safety procedures, both of which items are and have been appallingly lax in my province of British Columbia for a decade at least, and certainly since the introduction of unit trains.
During these current hearings of the CTC we learned that the rock face which let go in March killing the two men, and one which is contiguous to the CPR main line rail track, have been described by a Canadian Pacific geologist as unstable and likely to crumble at any minute. Probably if they do it would rain death and destruction on the trains that pass beneath every day.
A 10-mile per hour slowdown was first issued, then cancelled, then reinstituted by the CPR in that slide area near Spencer's Bridge where the tragedy occurred. The CP main line number one passenger TransCanada passes this spot every day. I am told that a watchman has been placed in the slide area with a lantern, but if that rock face ever lets go it is goodbye watchman, bringing the tragic death total to three.
We have also assumed, because of these hearings and the nature of some of the testimony, that many CPR engineers tend to be a bit reluctant to be over-explicit in giving evidence before the hearings. I wonder if this could be because of the jeopardy their testimony might place
Adjournment Debate
them in with the company, since for two years or so engineers have had hanging over their heads approximately $130,000 worth of court injunctions which followed their protest in 1972 over an identical lack of safety features and decent working conditions. I could detail this if I had time.
In any event, their protests were the result of these identical conditions that caused the deaths of Mr. Boyd and Mr. Battuci in March. Only a sudden shock, such as the news in the middle of March that these two Kamloops men had died in the train wreck, makes us think about the fact that for railroaders the Fraser Canyon is an exceedingly dangerous place to work. Yet hundreds of men who live in my riding and surrounding ridings constantly face snow and rock slides and numerous other hazards as part of their normal routine, especially in winter months.
While each fatality is tragic and brings headlines rail deaths in the canyon, or for that matter all across Canada, are by no means uncommon. Derailments caused by track conditions on both national railways in 1972 were up three times over 1959, and nearly double the mishaps in 1969. Over the past 20 years the lines from Kamloops to the coast of Vancouver have been the scene of 115 accidents, with 14 killed and 51 injured. Additionally, in another 29 accidents at level crossings, and similar accidents associated with railroads, there occurred three fatalities and injuries to 42 people. In the last month since the tragic deaths of the two men there have been six serious derailments in that canyon.
The picture is so grim that in 1970 the CTC launched a study into rail safety and has published three fat reports, devastating in their condemnation of CN and CP safety practices. These reports only confirm what the CN and CP engineers, conductors and trainmen have been telling me for years. It is time the CTC got tough with the railroads who have stalled decent safety measures for years. The decline of track maintenance is criminal at a time when trains are longer, 150 cars, and heavier than ever before. In the Spencer's Bridge wreck the engines that plunged to the highway carried no ditch lights, no roll bars and no padding in the cab, permitting the cab to collapse like a tin can. But track maintenance, slide fences, ditch lights and roll bars cost money, and both our national railroads are far more interested in profit than they are either in service or safety. I think that has been demonstrated particularly over the past year.
Treating the railroads as a public utility is bound to improve service, but only an aroused public and a zealously vigilant Canadian Transport Commission can reduce the accident rate to a reasonable level. There have been far too many mornings when some railroader's family have awakened in horror to find that they no longer have a daddy.
One of the many reasons for the derailments has to be the heavy unit trains. Some railways, notably the Santa Fe in the United States, have quietly experimented with much smaller trains. They have found that the turnaround time is much faster and more productive despite the matter of economy of scale which suggests that longer trains are more efficient. They find that is not true at all. They are getting far more use from their rolling stock and equipment by using shorter trains, even though they have

April 25, 1974
Adjournment Debate
to use the same crew on a 100-car train as they might have had on a 150-car train. This is the kind of innovation that I think could be copied in Canada.
I close, Mr. Speaker, because I see you are getting ready to leap, but may I say I do not think the CPR would mind if the government took it over tomorrow. In fact I think the CPR has let its tracks and rolling stock run down in anticipation of this very move. But just the rail takeover would not be enough; we must do something immediately to stop this carnage in the canyon.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission has the obligation of ensuring that all railway operations in Canada are carried out in maximum safety. In order to identify the factors involved in railway accidents and explore the effect on safety of operation of the longer heavier trains now being operated, the commission undertook to conduct a railway safety inquiry.
The third report, issued on December 28, 1973, contained the committee's findings and recommendations in specific areas such as signal systems, staff training, slide detectors, fences, and track and bridge maintenance. This report indicated that the earlier formed railway safety advisory committee, consisting of members representing CNR, CPR, Canadian Railway Labour Association and chaired by the RTC, would be expected to work on the conclusions and findings of the general inquiry, and would provide a forum for discussion on matters of railway safety. The
work of the advisory committee is on a continuing basis and the committee is scheduled to meet at regular intervals for the purpose of dealing with material before it in accordance with established priorities.
The committee met on January 25, 1974 at which time the terms of reference of the committee were approved. During this meeting the following two areas were designated as priorities regarding the establishment of higher safety standards: first, condition of track-movement of long trains, heavy trains and high speed trains; and second, inspection of track, and so on. The advisory committee also gave official recognition to the formation of a group to deal with the subject of public disclosure of railway accident reports.
On April 5 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) released copies of correspondence which was exchanged between himself and the railway presidents on the subject of the CTC report and safety on the railways. These letters certainly highlighted the minister's concern that prompt, sensible and practical measures be taken. The minister has also announced his support for a new type of transport accident investigation structure.
We feel that through the mechanism of the railway safety inquiry and with the co-operation of those who manage, operate and maintain the country's railways, acceptable standards of operation and maintenance of railway trains can be achieved.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Friday, April 26, 1974