1974-04-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Fairweather.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table of the House notice of a ways and means motion with regard to taxation of petroleum and petroleum products for the coming month of May.


FISHERIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 to seek the consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the catastrophic decline of halibut stocks off the Pacific coast and in the Bering Sea and the need for the government to make some public statement of its intentions. I would not intend to debate the motion if it is accepted and take up the time of the House. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
That at eight o'clock this day the House revert to motions to provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State for External Affairs or another member of the government to make a statement regarding the government's position with respect to the halibut resource of the Pacific coast and the Bering Sea.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not consent. The motion cannot be put.


FINANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent question.
To control the frightening rise in the cost of living and the exorbitant interest rates, I move, seconded by the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House unanimously recognize the necessity of amending without delay the Bank of Canada Act, so that the latter be authorized to provide loans to provinces and municipalities at an interest rate equivalent to administration costs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent announcement by the British Columbia's Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources that the province of British Columbia will be making application to the International Joint Commission for a further order regarding the Skagit Valley, requesting that the commission should revoke its 1942 order in view of the irreparable damage to the province of British Columbia which will occur if the natural level of the Skagit River at and above the international boundary is allowed to be raised above its present level, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson):

April 30, 1974
Prisons and Reformatories Act
That this House endorse in principle the application of the British Columbia government to the International Joint Commission in an endeavour to stop the flooding of Canadian territory by the proposed raising of the Ross dam.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, the hon. member's motion 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. The motion cannot be put.


PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-283, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ronald George Atkey: Mr. Speaker, the Prisons and Reformatories Act provides for the imposition of sentences of definite and indeterminate terms on young offenders in British Columbia and in Ontario for offences under the Criminal Code which in the aggregate can exceed the maximum term fixed by the Code for these offenders.
The purpose of the Prisons and Reformatories Act is to reform and train young offenders and not to impose harsher punishment upon young offenders in British Columbia and Ontario. However, this appears to be the effect of this legislation at the present time as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in the recent Burnshine decision, and just as justice should appear to be done-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that under the terms of Standing Order 68 he can only give a brief explanation and indication to the House of what the subject of the bill is. He should not make a speech on first reading. Perhaps the hon. member will limit his remarks to that aspect of the matter.


Ronald George Atkey: In one sentence, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to clarify what appears to be an anomaly by putting before parliament an amendment to the Prisons and Reformatories Act so that parliament may make the decision, in the context of that act, as to what constitutes equality before the law as contained in the Canadian Bill of Rights.


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

Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 26 I ask permission to make a motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the persistence of the government of Canada in continuing to publish and to cause one of its agencies to disseminate and keep for sale a pamphlet, some of whose statements contain grave errors in fact and are in direct contradiction of articles of the British North America Act and the National Capital Act, and which statements are being promulgated to citizens of Canada as government policy despite the fact that a minister of the Crown has described the contents of the pamphlet as unfortunate and not representative of the policy of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West has sent the notice required under the provisions of Standing Order 26, which has given the Chair an opportunity to consider the interesting suggestion to be raised by the hon. member. I wish to thank him for his courtesy in providing the Chair with extensive background notes which have been of value in considering whether the ordinary business of the House should be set aside by virtue of the provisions of Standing Order 26.
As hon. members know, the criteria to be taken into consideration by the Chair in making a decision under the terms of Standing Order 26 are basically to be found in the Standing Order itself. In addition, decisions have been made from time to time which may give some indication as to some of the factors to be taken into consideration in reaching this kind of decision.
One of the main problems facing the Chair is to be found in the wording of Section 16(a) of the Standing Order which states clearly that "the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration". In my opinion, the test of a genuine emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration is one which can only be overcome in relatively extreme circumstances. Is the question submitted by the hon. member a genuine emergency? I would find it difficult to hold that it is, particularly as the matter was first brought to the attention of the House last Wednesday, almost a week ago. I might say that there appears on the notice paper a question, No. 872, in the name of the hon. member for Leeds bearing on the same subject.
Another factor that must be considered by the Chair in arriving at a conclusion on the acceptability of a motion under Standing Order 26 has to do with other opportunities for debate. As the hon. member knows, section 5 of Standing Order 26 sets up a number of considerations to be borne in mind, and one of them is that the Speaker shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means.
April 30, 1974

An announcement has already been made by the government that the House is to enter into debate on the budget of the Minister of Finance, with the presentation of that budget to be made on Monday next. In view of the fact that six and one half days will be allocated in the ordinary course of events to the budget debate, coupled with an additional 13 days which will be made available for supply proceedings, it follows that every second sitting day between now and June 26 will be a non-legislative day providing opportunities to debate important and urgent issues at the initiative of hon. members of the House. The Chair must conclude that one and perhaps two of the basic requirements of Standing Order 26 are not met in the present circumstances.
In view of what I have said and taking into account all the circumstances, including both the provision of the Standing Order and the practice, I do not think the Chair is at liberty to propose a motion for the adjournment of the House this day to discuss the matter raised by the hon. member for Ottawa West.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the Economic Review tabled by the minister yesterday which shows that the share of labour income fell to 70 per cent of the net national income for 1973 from the exceptionally high shares of 1971 and 1972. Is it the position of the minister that the working people got a more proper share of the net national income last year than previously? If so, does last year's proportion which was received by the working people of Canada represent the basis for economic policy for 1974?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker. That statement is merely a statement of fact in the Economic Review.


EFFECT ON REAL INCOMES AS CANADIANS SHIFT TO PURCHASE OF LESS EXPENSIVE GOODS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the report explains why the minister does not use the consumer price index to calculate real personal disposable income. The report states as follows:
... the CPI does not allow for shifts by consumers toward less expensive goods and services as price structures change.
Is it the view of the minister that real incomes actually rise as Canadians shift to less expensive goods as more and more of the goods they used to buy are priced beyond their reach?
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would put it a little more simply. Probably the widest indicator of the movement of prices in this country is the GNE deflator against which the calculation of personal disposable income is made. The CPI does have certain limitations in economic terms, such as were set forth in the Economic Review.


RATE OF INFLATION IN CANADA COMPARED WITH OTHER COUNTRIES-MEASURES TO DECREASE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the minister has referred to the gross national expenditure deflator which corresponds to the definition of price change in the economy used in the course of the review, and since the review admits that last year Canada had a greater inflation problem than any other major OECD country with the exception of Japan and this is the inflation index preferred by the review and by the minister, is this insidious position for Canada acceptable to the minister and the government? If not, what direct and comprehensive measures does the government propose to take to start to correct it?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the current comparative position. I will be dealing with the current figures next Monday evening.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with a matter which has been brought seriously to the attention of members of the House by west coast fishermen. Arising from an answer the hon. gentleman gave to a question last Friday concerning the International Pacific Halibut Commission meeting held on April 16, can the minister tell us what representations he has made to the governments of Japan, the Soviet Union and South Korea requesting them to curtail their fishing activities, particularly their take of halibut off the Pacific coast and in the Bering Sea? If representations have been made, what answers have been received and have the fishing activities actually decreased?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be meeting representatives of the west coast fishermen myself this afternoon to discuss this matter. Approaches have been made to the Soviet Union, Japan and Korea in connection with the halibut situation. Japan has already responded by taking some voluntary measures in the Bering Sea and has indicated its willingness to discuss further co-operation. The Soviet Union has also agreed to discuss the situation, and we expect the Republic of Korea will fall in line.

April 30, 1974
Oral Questions


David Lewis: The minister will no doubt recall receiving a letter in March from the chairman of the International Pacific Halibut Commission in which the chairman said there had been catastrophic reduction in the halibut stock. Were the hon. gentleman's representations made following receipt of this letter from the chairman to the effect that fishing must be restricted wherever it adversely affected the halibut resource? Are the responses he mentioned today responses in reply to representations made in consequence of the chairman's letter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is general agreement with the position expressed by the leader of the New Democratic Party. There has been gross overfishing. Our interest is the same as that of all the fishing nations in bringing about a reduction in fishing and restoration of the halibut stocks.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister whether he is taking steps to do what seems to me as a layman in this area the obvious thing, which is to request the Soviet Union, Japan and South Korea to meet with the United States and Canada-we are members of the International Commission-in order to have this matter discussed jointly by all five governments involved instead of making these bilateral representations?


Mitchell William Sharp: A meeting of the five governments is one of the possibilities. If that turns out to be the most useful approach we will follow it. Otherwise, we shall take action which might be more effective.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Can he tell us if the federal-provincial agreement with the Quebec government about farm labour ending March 31, 1974 has been renewed and, if not, are negotiations in progress between the two levels of government with a view to continuing this agreement?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check and find out and let the hon. member know.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact the halibut catch off the coast of British Columbia has declined by more than two-thirds since 1969, is the minister willing, in view of

the emergency, to impose a 200-mile limit arbitrarily so that we can solve this problem and negotiate with the other countries?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: No, Mr. Speaker.


PACIFIC AND BERING SEA HALIBUT-POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL ACTION BY CANADA IF NEGOTIATIONS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES TO PREVENT OVERFISHING FAIL
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a supplementary question about the halibut situation. Inasmuch as the chairman of the International Pacific Halibut Commission on March 15 in a letter to the minister suggested the possibility of even unilateral action on the part of Canada to prevent a continuation of the catastrophic decline of halibut stocks in the Bering Sea and off the Pacific coast, can he tell the House whether, if nothing arises in a concrete way out of meetings to take place with other countries, Canada has a contingency plan or is contemplating the taking of unilateral action? I am not asking what that unilateral action might be but whether the government is planning to take such action.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think we should try to solve this problem by co-operation rather than by threats, in the first instance at least.


An hon. Member:: But you are not going to.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact the Bank of Canada raised the bank rate some two weeks ago with government approval in order to contain lending by banks, would he care to say what the views of the government are on the report that the banks may again increase their prime rates so they can increase their deposit rates in order to cope with the excessive demand under the inflationary pressures today?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have had a very close relationship with the hon. gentleman over the years and I do not think he would really expect me to comment on interest rates or exchange rates.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I realize that the minister is on the eve of his budget. On the other hand, two weeks ago there was a great deal of approval by the minister for this move which was meant to curtail inflationary pressures, and we hear now that the move is afoot again. I should like to know whether he feels that the move is successful in containing inflation?
April 30, 1974


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the only frank answer I could give the hon. gentleman would be speculative, and I would not like to speculate.


SUGGESTED REDUCTION IN FEDERAL SALES TAX ON OIL AND OIL PRODUCTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the federal sales tax on oil and oil products increased by more than 60 per cent when the federal government raised the price of oil from $4 to $6.50 a barrel, does the minister not agree that he should have urged his own government to reduce the sales tax on oil and oil products instead of suggesting that the government of Ontario-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -reduce its sales tax which it has maintained at the same figure as it was before the federal oil price was raised?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is debate. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to rephrase the question or ask a supplementary; otherwise I will recognize the hon. member for Dauphin.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he will take the first opportunity on motions to explain to the House what justification he has for suggesting on Saturday that the government of Ontario should cut its sales tax which has remained stationary since well before the latest oil price increase, whereas the federal government sales tax on oil has increased by more than 60 per cent since the government raised the oil price? Will he make a statement on motions in the near future?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. gentleman that the Ontario tax is 19 cents while that of the federal government is two to three cents. I would also remind him that on Saturday I pointed out that if the Tories are serious about wage and price controls, the provincial government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask the minister whether he did not learn from the last election that you cannot fool many of the people much of the time.


An hon. Member:: We sure fooled you.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is why you are in the opposition, George.
Oral Questions


George Harris Hees: You are going to wind up as nothing after the next one.


Mr. Trudeau:: You need another five days off.


An hon. Member:: How was your vacation, Pierre?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. As the Economic Review indicates that most of the major sectors of the economy advanced in the creation of new jobs as much as manufacturing, and in some cases much more, is the minister still of the opinion that the fast write-off and corporate tax reductions to manufacturers were the major reason for the performance of that sector as far as the creation of new jobs is concerned?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will, of course, allow the minister to reply, but a question in those terms invites the minister to express an opinion. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Dauphin. If the minister can reply briefly he will be recognized for that purpose.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will have to read that question in Hansard because I really could not hear it through the fog emitted by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising for a
supplementary?


William Gordon Ritchie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any further plans to research the fast write-offs and tax reductions for manufacturers in view of the discrimination against other segments of the economy in certain areas?


John Napier Turner: At this stage in the session, Mr. Speaker, it might be a little awkward for me to answer that question.


HOUSING
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of the cutback in apartment construction in Canada's major urban centres, does the minister plan to announce at an early date new plans for a large-scale program to provide rental accommodation for low and moderate income families?
1874

April 30, 1974
Oral Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are supporting through the provisions of the National Housing Act the construction of a large number of family income units and are supporting the implementation very vigourously of the whole nonprofit sector of the National Housing Act. We are also supporting provincial action as it exists in this regard.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the chronic reluctance of the building industry to use the funds allocated for public housing, would the minister now consider taking direct action by having the government move directly into the building field as it did so successfully after the second world war?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial partnership operating in most provinces to develop public housing is not having difficulty in finding people to build houses.


Winona Grace MacInnis: How does it happen that so many people are unable to get rental accommodation in spite of what the minister says?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lisgar.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that some banks at least seem to be unwilling at the present time to lend money by way of farm improvement loans, has the minister had discussions with the officials of the banks in Canada with a view to ensuring that under the Farm Improvement Loans Act money will be available for farmers to use this spring?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take that suggestion under consideration, particularly in view of the fact the House has just passed amendments to that act.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. I have given him notice. Will the minister inform the House what the current strength of the armed forces is? Will he also advise the House whether there is a numerical floor beneath which he does not intend to let the strength of the forces sink and, if so, what is it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, I suggest to both the hon. member and the minister, in spite of the consultation that may have taken place before, that this question asks for statistical information and should normally be placed on the order paper. I believe that the hon.

member for Athabasca has a supplementary to a previous question. He will be recognized for that purpose and then there will be another supplementary.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister say why the government follows the practice of appointing only certain lawyers for the processing of CMHC mortgages rather than using any qualified lawyer who is licensed to practice? Further, how and by whom are these lists arrived at?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the appointment of lawyers by the government and Crown agencies has been explained many times in the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -by a series of Ministers of Justice, and that same procedure is being followed today.


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt that the hon. member's question was supplementary to a previous question. I would hope the Chair would be allowed to proceed as quickly as possible without too many supplementaries, especially those which are perhaps related but not genuine supplementaries. I will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca and then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House whether it is the policy of the government to give CMHC work only to lawyers who are members of the Liberal Party?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, but it often happens that the best lawyers are Liberals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This exchange of questions and answers may be interesting to members but I wonder it is getting us anywhere. I recognize the hon. member for Athabasca for a last supplementary.


Paul Yewchuk: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think this form of open and blatant patronage is scandalous and should be stopped.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. That is debate and not a point of order. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has been recognized.

April 30, 1974

Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Lisgar. I would direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. While the reluctance of the banks to lend money in the form of farm improvement loans is being investigated, will the minister also investigate the circumstances now existing in many farm areas where it is almost impossible to obtain farm machinery and where the prices of both machinery and repairs are rapidly escalating, almost moving out of sight?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the last part of the question. I was just referred to a document about the price of farm machinery and the price, unless the hon. member has other evidence, is not what he has presented to me. I will investigate the other suggestion. We are investigating it now. If there is anything we can find we will make further representations to the banks to find out if there is any truth in the suggestion that they are refusing to lend money to the producers of this country to produce food.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. With reference to the projected Ontario land speculation tax, can the Minister of Finance confirm that it is the continuing policy of the government to recognize such provincial taxes as a cost of doing business in the computation of federal taxes?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are still examining that piece of legislation to see whether it will achieve the purposes for which it was introduced.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the minister tell us when his consideration of this bill, which has been public knowledge now for at least a week and is going through the second reading stage in the provincial legislature, will be completed and he will be in a position to tell the people of Ontario?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is hypothetical until the bill is passed.


ALLEGED IMPROPER PACKING OR LABELLING OF DANGEROUS AIR CARGO-MEASURES TO PROTECT TRAVELLING PUBLIC
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that dangerous air cargo is often improperly packed or wrongly labelled at the origination point, can the minister inform the House whether he will undertake action to blacklist effectively the transportation of air cargo derived from originators who in the past have been proven faulty in their preparations for transport in order to protect the air travelling public from any future breakdown in safety regulations of this kind?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, everybody will understand that I will have to verify many of the facts alleged by the hon. member and then I shall be glad to answer him.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Because of the fact that the transportation of dangerous, improperly packed or labelled cargo has been allowed as a result of the lack of supervision and improper training of the personnel responsible, will the minister immediately undertake to formulate measures that will upgrade these procedures?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, before I take measures I think I will have to doublecheck the facts.


FEED GRAINS-SUGGESTED ACTION TO ENSURE PRICE PARITY BETWEEN EASTERN AND WESTERN CANADA
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
As the measures taken since September about feed grains and price parity between east and west have not had the expected results, will the minister announce soon what measures he intends to take during the coming months to reach this goal?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the hon. member's preliminary because the present policy has produced parity in prices of feed grains across the country, although those prices are significantly higher than people might have anticipated a year ago. However, it is our anticipation to announce the final form of the feed grains program for next year and for the future in the next few weeks.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I do not accept either the arguments on which is based the answer I have just been given. In view of the fact that the representations I receive every day from feed buyers
27451-55'.

April 30, 1974
Oral Questions
prove that prices have continued to rise and the margin to widen, I should like to put to the minister a very direct question hoping to get a very frank answer. Will he soon advise the House of the steps he intends to implement to give eastern producers equal chances with western producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is what I said, that within the next few weeks we would expect to indicate the feed grains policy for the future. But I would again say to the hon. member that the basic price of grain available to producers in the prairie region is itself the monitored price on which grain is offered into the eastern region, and there is therefore the assurance of equity in grain prices with, of course, cost differences and transportation between them. However, I do say to the hon. member that prices are a lot higher than anticipated a year ago by some people, but that really reflects a lot of circumstances, including world pricing conditions.


FINANCE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware that commercial lenders, by one method or another, are presently paying up to 12 per cent for some short-term money, and is it the opinion of the minister that that short-term rate is a fair market rate for these commercial lenders to pay?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would have to analyse the particular deal involved, the particular circumstances under which it was made, in order to give an opinion of that sort.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is the fact that lenders must pay up to 12 per cent on short-term money-these are the commercial banks of the country-an indication that we have a new tight money policy?


John Napier Turner: No, sir, and I am not
sure that the hon. gentleman is right in the totality of his premise.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which I believe is of fairly general interest.


George Harris Hees: Is this one you sent him?


Len Marchand: I gave him notice of it. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether he

has yet appointed the new Lieutenant Governor of the province of Alberta?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that was done at a cabinet meeting this morning and that the appointee will be a native Indian. This will be the first time in Canada that an Indian has occupied that function. I think this completes the record since we now have native Canadians in the judiciary, in the legislatures, and from now on we will have some in the executive. I hope there will be an increasing number. Indeed, perhaps the next prime minister could be either a woman or an Indian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You should have seen John Turner's face on that one. It turned absolutely black.


Some hon. Members:: His name?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: His name is Mr. Ralph Steinhauer of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has reference to the one I asked recently regarding the feasibility study carried out by CN-CP on an Arctic railway. Now that his department has had the CN-CP study for some weeks, and further to the commitment made on March 27 by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, would the minister say when this study will be made public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check to see exactly when we got the report or, if we do not have it, when we think we will have it. Maybe I will be able to inform the hon. member exactly tomorrow.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Would the minister also be prepared at that time to say when it will be made public?


Jean Marchand: I will be prepared to say that if I know it.


SUGGESTED LOWERING OF COMPENSATION TO OIL COMPANIES ON IMPORTS IN LIGHT OF PROFITS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the exceedingly high profits
April 30, 1974

being made by the oil companies in Canada this year, is the minister contemplating lowering the compensation rate paid to oil companies for eastern oil imported from offshore? Is he considering asking them to absorb some of the price increase on that oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question in committee last week.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact the minister's response was in the negative, and in view of the fact Imperial Oil has deferred taxes of over $150 million, does he intend to recommend to the Minister of Finance that we now collect those deferred taxes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: At such a sensitive moment I would hate to suggest anything to the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker.
 * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It refers to one I asked previously. In view of the fact more than half of the proposed designs for new passport covers now on display in his new office building bear no evidence whatsoever of the Canadian coat of arms, may I ask the minister how he could say in reply to a question of mine last week, as recorded on page 1672 of Hansard, that he had not heard of any such suggestion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I gave that answer I had not heard of these suggestions. I had not examined the covers that were on display. May I add that the government did not ask for any of these mock-ups to exclude the coat of arms or any reference to the Queen, and certainly I would never approve a passport that did not include the coat of arms and a reference to the Queen.


Donald W. Munro: I thank the minister for that reply, Mr. Speaker, but I am a little confused about the need for a new design. Can the minister tell us why the present form needs to be changed? Is it because in its present form the Canadian passport can be easily counterfeited and, if so, will he not concede that the removal of the coat of arms, which in itself is an intricate engraving, would make counterfeiting easier?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no argument with the hon. gentleman on this point. I do not intend to remove the coat of arms from any Canadian passport cover that I would approve. I agree with him that that is a minor consideration, however. The reason for asking for new designs really had to do with the cover rather than with the contents, and I think we could improve the cover.
Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary to the question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. While the Minister of Transport is checking into the various matters raised by my colleague, will he give the House the assurance that in future, when potentially dangerous cargo is to be transported, both the pilots and the ground personnel will be informed of the contents so they can effectively deal with a crisis situation if one should arise?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a committee studying this very important matter and I think we will be much more strict in the future than we were in the past. However, I am not in a position to state exactly what the future regulations will be.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He has said that the most reliable measure of inflation is that used by the Economic Review, the gross national expenditure deflator. Inasmuch as the review shows that for the second half of 1973 compared with the first half there was 9.2 per cent increase in Canada against 7 per cent in the United States and 6 per cent in the United Kingdom, would the minister explain briefly to the House why he has gone around the country with the Prime Minister saying that the Canadian performance is significantly better than that of the United States and even the United Kingdom when these figures in his own review indicate that this constituted a very substantial misrepresentation of the facts?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no misrepresentation whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: If the hon. gentleman looks at the deflator as it is applied to recent months, he will see that the rate of increase in the deflator in the United States and Europe has been higher than in any year in Canada. If he looks at the Economic Review he will also find some interesting statistics as to how the deflator is broken down into its foreign and domestic components, showing conclusively that the prime thrust of inflation in this country is foreign induced.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Will the minister please answer the question I asked? In view of the representations he and the Prime Minister were making all through the second half of

April 30, 1974
Oral Questions
1973, will he answer the question I asked and give the House an explanation rather than try to change the ground and talk about something different from what he was talking about all last year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is being selective in his citations in the sense that he is comparing the second half of 1973 with the first half of 1973. If he compares the second half of 1973 with the same quarter or the same half of 1972, he will see that what the Prime Minister and I have been saying is accurate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The figures for 1973 over 1972 show Canada at 7.2 per cent, the United States 5.25 per cent, and the United Kingdom 5.75 per cent.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have not got the figures with me but I will be addressing myself to the up to date figures on Monday night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he received complaints from the publishers of weekly newspapers that the increases in the cost of newsprint which have been implemented by all producers of paper are of a nature that makes it virtually impossible for them to continue publication? If he has received such complaints, has he looked into the combines situation?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, such complaints have not been drawn to my attention recently, but I will be happy to have them looked into from the combines point of view.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the settlement of the postal strike, has the minister changed his attitude to give ease to those of us who may be late in filing our tax returns?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think most people have no difficulty in complying with the deadline of midnight tonight, but it does appear that some Canadians would have difficulty meeting the deadline. Therefore I have decided to give some period of grace. Income tax returns of individuals

that are postmarked not later than midnight, May 21, should be accepted as mailed on time.


George Harris Hees: Why don't you make it July 8?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West. Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's West has the floor and we are running short of time.



HARBOURS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the fact the proposed expenditure during the present fiscal year in the area of small craft harbours is $18 million or less than the amount requested by his officials-pretty well half-and $7 million less than the amount requested by the minister, and in view of the motion that was presented to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry this morning by his parliamentary secretary, would the minister agree to discuss the matter with his colleagues and recommend that the amount allocated this year for the provision of small craft harbours be increased?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs now that he is back in the House. It is related to the very important matter raised by the hon. member for Athabasca. In a situation where only two lawyers are recommended to a constituent by an official of CMHC and he has had an unfortunate experience with one lawyer but not with the other-they are both good lawyers despite what the right hon. gentleman may say- and both are not qualified as far as he is concerned, is this constituent, as a Canadian, to be blacklisted from doing business with CMHC because of this decision by the government to use only Grit lawyers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, he can make his wishes known to the corporation.
April 30, 1974



GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for the administration of the Government Annuities Act. On behalf of thousands of Canadians who bought government annuities in good faith for their retirement hoping that they would be a good investment but who now find that because of inflation it is one of the poorest investments they could have made, I should like to ask the minister whether he is giving consideration to amending the act so that the government will no longer be able to use that invested money at the ridiculously low rate of 4 per cent? If the government will not agree to do that, will they give permission to the holders of government annuities to transfer them to some other registered retirement savings plan that will give them a good return on their investment?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take note of the hon. member's representation and discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Finance.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the repeated prophetic statements on the part of the minister over the past weeks that an interim report would be issued by the Food Prices Review Board on the subject of beef prices, can the minister tell the House when the subject of this report will emerge from the realm of fantasy into the realm of reality?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I answered that last Friday.



PROPOSED SALE OF MONTREAL ALOUETTES FOOTBALL CLUB-POSSIBILITY OF SUBSIDY OR PURCHASE BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the franchise value of the Montreal Alouettes has been so adversely affected by Bill C-22, particularly, according to the owners of that team, because of his policy, is it the minister's intention, in his efforts to keep the Canadian Football League intact, to consider subsidizing from federal funds the operations of that or any other CFL club or, indeed, to purchase the Montreal club outright?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, surely the hon. member cannot be serious about his assertion. As for the second part, the answer is no.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I simply ask the question out of fear. Since the introduction of the football bill, nothing the minister can do would surprise me. As the Montreal Alouettes are enduring operation losses of approximately $500,000 per year and as that team and other CFL teams may lose players to the World Football League, is the minister now prepared to see the Montreal Alouettes cease to exist or, if the occasion arises, purchased by foreign interests?


Marc Lalonde: In my opinion it might be better for the hon. member to wait for developments. He may be in for surprises.
* # *



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. Forrest all (Dartmouth-Halifax East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the expansion of container facilities in the port of Halifax and Dartmouth. Has the minister received communications and telegrams from interested parties in the two communities with respect to the proposed location of such facilities? More specifically, has he replied to such communications and can he give some assurance that no final decision has been made with respect to the development of the Fairview site, which is in the middle of a settled private home area, as opposed to the development of Navy Island Cove which is far more suitable?
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, in order not to give a vague answer I will have to check again and give a more precise answer tomorrow. I should like to find out exactly where we stand on this matter.



FINANCE


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact the Prime Minister said recently that "we can say with great confidence that the rate of inflation will probably decline

April 30, 1974
Oral Questions
later this year" and yet the whole thrust of the Economic Review, particularly with reference to commodity prices and oil, is that inflation will increase, can the minister tell the House which is the official position of the government?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am under the impression the hon. gentleman quoted the Prime Minister out of context.


Mr. Bell:: He said inflation was licked.


Mr. Baldwin:: Now we see the second coming.


John Napier Turner: I said to the House that the increases in food prices, world commodity prices and now in petroleum prices would have to work their way through the Canadian economy before any relief from inflation is felt. Certainly, it is within the realm of possibility that commodity prices might break in the latter part of the year.


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


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Minister of Finance that I am not quoting the Prime Minister out of context. I am just repeating his speech.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member was quoting me out of context.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I wish to read from page 11 of the speech of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members would like to hear the hon. member read that page of the right hon. gentleman's speech, but I wonder whether that would be in order. If he has a supplementary he will be recognized for that purpose before we call orders of the day.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I have a question of privilege, but the fact is that the statement was not taken out of context. It is here, in front of me. The important issue is this: in making and formulating economic policy, is the government working on the premise that inflation is declining or increasing because the Prime Minister said it is declining and the Economic Review says it is going up? Which position is the government taking on this question?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there is no difficulty in reconciling those statements. The Economic Review states, as I stated in the House, that food prices, commodity prices and petroleum prices have to work their way through the economy. After they do so there is the prospect of a moderation in prices. That is exactly what that statement says.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are engaging in a budget debate during the question period. The hon. member indicates he has a supplementary. Perhaps hon. members will allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Don Valley for that purpose. However, it

seems to me we are hearing debate between the hon. member and the minister and that has nothing to do with the question period.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your indulgence. I think this is a most important question. Again I ask the Minister of Finance, in making economic policy in this country for this year is the government assuming that the rate of inflation is going down or going up. It is a simple question and I ask for a simple answer, yes or no. What is the assumption?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it depends very much on what the hon. gentleman means by the rate of inflation and in which part of the year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am saying to the House that the country will have to absorb in an economic way the rises in basic commodity prices, both agricultural and non-agricultural, and in petroleum. When they work their way through the economy it will mean that toward the end of the year we will see some moderation in that rate.


George Harris Hees: You mean, the rate is going up and it is going down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume that problem will not be resolved at this time so the Chair will call orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, April 29, consideration in committee of Bill C-27, to facilitate the relocation of railway lines or rerouting of railway traffic in urban areas and to provide financial assistance for work done for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at railway crossings-Mr. Basford-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening, clause 3 of the bill was under consideration, together with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lot-biniere. The hon. member for Crowfoot had the floor.
On clause 3-Application to Commission.


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Chairman, the significant part of Clause 3 has to do with the accepted plan of a transport system within a study area. It is well known that the former president of the CNR, Mr. MacMillan, said that he could move people between Montreal and Toronto much more quickly by train if the track were straightened and the level crossings on the route removed. This bill
April 30, 1974

deals with all of Canada. I remember members of the National Harbours Board appearing before the transport committee in 1968 or 1969. They had a plan or map drawn for the relocation of tracks around and into the port of Vancouver. I think the minister piloting this legislation in the House was a member of that committee. He stoutly defended the wisdom of that plan. I wonder about the wisdom of that plan and how it fits into the present system.
It is a well known fact that the trackage into and around the port of Vancouver leaves something to be desired. Money appropriated under this bill is for the removal of trackage, if necessary, or the relocation of trackage or the dividing of highways and trackage where they meet. It is also well known that only seven cars can be put into the elevators in Vancouver. The freight trains must, therefore, be broken apart, which involves a lot of shunting with an engine and six cars repeatedly moving across or through part of the Vancouver area.
It is also a well known fact that the CNR uses the Burlington Northern yards to store and group their boxcars. These yards are in the United States. The CNR uses them to group their cars before moving them to the harbour. Some time ago I made a speech in this House on transportation. I stated that a harbour must have two facilities. It must be easily accessible to large ocean vessels and easily accessible from inland.
The Minister of Transport called a transportation conference here in Ottawa on April 10. The CNR and CPR submitted detailed maps. There were lengthy talks about the difficulties they could see in the trackage for the movement of grain and equipment. It was interesting to note that the average CPR car cycle from the prairies was 18 days. Once loaded and booked on to the CPR train in Calgary, it took 4.4 days for that car to move from Calgary to Vancouver, an unusually long time for the average boxcar loaded with grain, potash or whatever. Mr. Mar-tinelli of the CPR appeared before that transportation conference. He stated that the reason for the 4.4 days for the movement of grain from Calgary to Vancouver was the continual build-up of loaded boxcars in Vancouver which blocked the track. He said the greater the blockage of track the more difficult it was to move in cars.
Some members have suggested that the bill before us is designed to assist in the improvement of trackage between Montreal and Toronto. I do not think that is the only area in which it could be used. I suggest it could be used in Vancouver. I hope the hon. member who represents a part of that city will look at that car cycle and the problems outlined by the CPR at that transportation conference on April 10 of this year. The reason for the 4.4 days required to move cars from Calgary to Vancouver is strictly because of the backlog of cars on the tracks around the port of Vancouver. It takes another 4.4 days to unload the cars in Vancouver. To show the ease with which the cars move away from Vancouver, it takes an average of 1.7 days to move a car from Vancouver to Calgary. There is no backlog in the movement away from, just the movement into Vancouver.
Relocation of Railway Lines
We hear great explanations about what is the matter with the grain handling system on the prairies, how in many cases trackage has to be abandoned and how there must be primary elevators and central delivery points in order to speed up the movement of grain. If one looks at the CPR car cycle chart, it can readily be seen that it takes an average of 2.9 days to load a car and on two out of seven of those days the men do not work. The CPR also complained about that. They said they could reduce that 2.9 days if the elevator operators would work seven days a week rather than taking off Saturday and Sunday. Even with taking off Saturday and Sunday, it only took 2.9 days for a car to be loaded and moving again. It took 1.5 days for the car to get to Calgary where it sat for 1.7 days. It took a total of 1.8 days to get in and out of the port of Vancouver. I suggest that quite a bit of the congestion in and around the port of Vancouver could be eliminated if additional trackage were built and some of the present trackage in and around that harbour removed.
We all know about the tunnel. We have been told that CPR uses the CNR tunnel to get close to Burrard Inlet. Is additional track going to be built around Port Moody over what might be called the Indian Arm Inlet? If this were done, it might facilitate the movement-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him under the Standing Order has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Robert Jardine McCleave: If there is unanimous consent, the hon. member might be recognized again.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I can assure the minister that as soon as he answers some of the questions I put to him last evening and today, this legislation will be readily passed. However, one should point out the significance of the port of Vancouver and the need for track relocation to facilitate movements into that harbour. As I pointed out, the backlog of cars on the tracks in Vancouver is causing a delay in the movement of grain into that harbour. The slowness of the movement of cars over that track to the elevators in the harbour causes a delay in getting the cars unloaded.
What about the tonnage handled at the port of Vancouver? How important is it to Canada? I have a press release from the National Harbours Board dated March 17, 1972. It is a tabulation for the year 1971. I think perhaps the same figures hold true today, with perhaps a little larger tonnage. The total tonnage handled by all major ports in Canada was 93 million tons. Vancouver handled better than 35 million tons, well over 30 per cent of the total. The next largest port was Montreal, which handled 23 million tons. It is reported over the radio almost every day of the week that at least 18 ships are waiting to be loaded. The next day the ships move to Seattle to be loaded because they cannot get the grain cars, boxcars or containerization. It is a well known fact that the port of Seattle has 11 container handling devices. Vancouver has one and is hastily building a second. I have added the words "hastily building a second".
1882

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
The minister should be able to tell us what he has in mind, what he regards as being an acceptable plan. Can just any plan qualify for 50 per cent of the cost paid by the government during the study period? Are there any criteria set out? If there is no relocation whatsoever, is 50 per cent of the cost still paid for by the federal government? Can any city in Canada, regardless of its size, no matter how small the railroad, qualify for assistance? Should the British Columbia Railway wish to relocate within a city, would it qualify for assistance in the same way as the CN in the middle of Toronto? As I said last evening, the CNR owns 190 acres in downtown Toronto. Take the tracks off those acres and one has the most valuable piece of real estate in Canada. I am really not sympathetic to the idea of the federal government paying 50 per cent of the cost of getting the track off such valuable property. Mr. MacMillan, when he appeared before the committee, could not and would not try to estimate the value of that 190 acres in downtown Toronto. He said it couldn't be valued accurately at today's prices.
There are certain aspects of this bill which may involve extensive developments throughout the country by way of computerization and rapid transit systems. In these circumstances, it is hard to imagine that the government would not have some kind of plan. The minister told us nothing in this connection. For example, will there be a monorail system in Edmonton and a similar system in Toronto or should we expect a hodge-podge of transit systems to develop across Canada? Some might ask: what difference does it make? Well, it makes a very big difference. It is interesting to note that the mobile lounges being built for the Montreal airport will probably be identical to those used in Toronto. They are experimenting with two in Toronto at the present time. Preferably, a Canadian contractor would do the building, because our aim should be quantity as well as size.
I propose to read, now, from the Annual Review of the Economic Council of Canada for 1969. Here is what the Council had to say about the shape of our major cities in 1975 and the need for some kind of plan. I am not a great planner, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that if the government intends to pay out taxpayers' money it should lay down certain criteria in respect of rapid transit systems. If the program adopted by each of our cities had a basic similarity there would be a major saving in purchasing, since we would then be purchasing in quantity, in the first place, as well as greater ease of maintenance. Here is what the Economic Council forecasts:
By 1980, eight of every ten Canadians-some 20 million people-may be living in urban areas, with almost two-thirds of the population in about 29 major cities. In the past, our urban growth has generally proceeded in a haphazard, unplanned manner. In the future, we need greater attention focused on the adaptation of cities to people and not the other way around. Such an emphasis can be translated into demands for collective services and social capital of many kinds, for transportation, health, education, public utilities, recreational facilities, protective services, waste disposal and pollution abatement- demands that tend to increase more rapidly than income.
In that chapter dealing with transportation, the Council holds there must be some kind of initial concept. In this bill, the minister has held out a carrot to every major city. As I said last evening, one would almost think an election

was coming on, and that the minister wanted to visit every city personally and say to them: Build your own transit systems if you like; when the legislation is passed we will give you 50 per cent of the cost. He would not say how these systems were to be maintained or what cities would qualify, whether they would be cities with populations of
250,000	or 500,000 or a million.
The minister might be slightly annoyed because I am taking a good deal of time over this clause. I do so because I think it is important he should realize the need to give the committee some answers to the questions I have raised. I could resume my seat now, and speak again on clause 4, making virtually the same speech as the one I have just made. If the minister wishes me to repeat myself, I shall do so. But he must answer some of these questions if he expects this measure to proceed through the House as no doubt he would wish.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I had the honour to move an amendment to clause 3 so as to enable municipalities, once the province approves the program, to co-operate directly with the federal government, if necessary, and this without any prejudice to the provinces' rights.
With the unanimous consent of the House and after consultation with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) as well as our NDP colleagues, I would like to withdraw my amendment and move another, which would seem more agreeable to the House, in order to improve this bill. I therefore move:
That clause 3(1) of Bill C-27 be amended at lines 11 and 12 by deleting the words "acting on behalf of the province".
And in English-

That clause 3(1) be amended by deleting the words "acting on behalf of the province".


Robert Jardine McCleave: The committee has heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere which amounts to the withdrawal of the amendment offered last evening and substitution therefor of a new amendment. First, we shall proceed with the withdrawal of the amendment. This would require unanimous consent. Is it agreed that the amendment as offered by the hon. member last evening be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Fortin) withdrawn.


André-Gilles Fortin: That clause 3(1) be amended at lines 11 by deleting the words "acting on behalf of the province".


Mr. Peters:: I do not want to make a great issue of this, but the new amendment does amount to an amendment of substance, and I believe it is a retrograde step as compared with the amendment which has just been withdrawn. It only means that a municipality can act on behalf of a province. This could happen at any time if the province allowed it-


André-Gilles Fortin: It is entirely the opposite.
April 30, 1974


William Arnold Peters: I do not see that it is. The other amendment was complicated, but I believe it accomplished exactly what it was intended to accomplish. A city or a community could bring forward a plan, and the province might well say it is a wonderful plan-we have seen this happen in northern Ontario on a number of occasions. But these expressions of approval do not prevent a province from dragging its feet, which means that the project never gets ahead as well as it might have done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. While I am in sympathy with the amendment proposed by the hon. member, I feel I must caution you that it appears to be out of order and unconstitutional. I do not have a copy of the amendment before me, but I noted that the sentence in part would then read:
-for that transportation study area, the province or a municipality may, subject to sub-section (5)-
Municipalities are the children of provinces, and I would caution you to study that amendment very closely as I seriously think it is out of order.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I should deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot. In a way it does resemble the point I had doubt about last evening when the original amendment was suggested. I have given some careful consideration to that in the hours since then, and on balance I thought that both that amendment and the one before the committee now would be in order. If there are further points to be made about it I would be glad to entertain them, but the hon. member for Moncton has been so patient, perhaps he could be allowed to have his say. If a point of order really does arise, then we will get to it and dispose of it.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Chairman, I thought I should rise and speak on this bill because, even though I am fully in accord with the principle of this legislation and do not want to see it unduly delayed, there are certain features which are not quite palatable. I should like to see some changes made, and Clause 3 is the clause I really do not like. Before I get into that in detail, I should say to the committee that I welcome this legislation, which is so long overdue. It is something that we on this side of the House have been pressing on the government for at least six or seven years. The fact that it is overdue, I suppose, makes it no less welcome, but this does make one wonder about the priorities of this government, and why it would shillyshally and delay for so long without coming to grips with these problems.
I am pleased that the government has finally realized that there is a correlation between urban development, growth and transportation. This is something we in the Maritimes have recognized for a good many years, probably because our growth, not only urban but industrial, is so dependent upon transportation, and because transportation means so much to us. It has always been very puzzling to us to note the utter disregard, if you will, by the government of the fact that growth and transportation are so closely related. In addition, the government does not seem to want to adopt any constructive measures to tie one in with the other.
Relocation of Railway Lines
The city of Moncton, which I represent, has had this transportation problem ever since the railway came to Moncton. I do not want to leave the impression that we do not appreciate the railway, but because the railway was responsible for the growth of the city, and because the growth of the railway was haphazard and without planning, we have found that as the railway continued to grow and expand it did not do too much for the urbanization or industrialization of the city as a whole. So we have over the years tried to impress upon governments the fact that urban growth and transportation are closely related, and you cannot have one unless you tie it in with the other.
In the city of Moncton, for example, depending on whether you count every crossing or just crossings over major arteries in the city, we have anywhere from 12 to 19 level crossings in the centre of the city. It is not difficult to realize what this does to the whole growth and development pattern in the city. We have been trying for years to get assistance from the federal government to overcome this difficulty, but we have always been told that the only funds available are those earmarked for grade separations and grade crossings. As the committee knows, the grade crossing fund is designed primarily for the elimination of dangerous crossings, and while some of those crossings in the city of Moncton could probably be classed as dangerous, there are not that many level crossing accidents so they really do not qualify under the grade separation fund.
I recall raising the first question back in 1969 with the then Minister of Transport as to what the government had in mind, and whether there were any plans for legislation to assist cities in the relocation of crossings to aid urban growth. At that time, the answer was that plans were being drafted and something was underway. Again in December 1970, the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Jamieson, in reply to a question in the House, said that the government had started a pilot project in Winnipeg and he hoped there would be legislation within the next few months. Those few months have since stretched out into almost four years.
I did have some hope around the middle of October 1972 when the Minister of Urban Affairs and the Minister of Transport made an announcement in glowing terms that there would be immediate legislation, if they were returned, to assist the cities in the relocation of tracks. We all know now that was just what it appeared to be at the time, nothing but an election promise in the hope of gaining votes, because nothing was done, in spite of many questions in the House. Then again, the throne speech of that year contained a reference to this legislation, but nothing happened until there appeared again in the throne speech of this session a further reference to this legislation.
I do not want to be too critical of the government over the fact that it has been so slow, as I do not want to deter or discourage it from now going ahead with this legislation. I would like to see the legislation go through, but one of the things that disturbs me more than anything is Clause 3. This is the first clause which lets us see just how much power, responsibility and authority is being delegated to the CTC. If you look through Clause 3 and the following clauses, you find that the Canadian Transport
27451-56:!

nal plans for the city of Moncton the railway indicated publicly it was prepared to pay part of the cost Decause it felt relocation of the tracks would improve service and would be desirable from a railroading point of view. Now under this legislation, however, there apparently is no provision at all for railway participation and this is strictly a federal-provincial deal.
When the fact that the railways are not participating was brought up by some of the previous speakers, the minister said that there is no way to force them to participate. Then, he added he certainly thinks they would. Perhaps my whole concept of governmental control of railways and the CNR is all wrong, but I am amazed at the statement that the government cannot force the CN to participate. This is beyond my comprehension. It seems to me that the railways are deriving a benefit. I am not speaking of a monetary benefit. If the railways, through relocation, are able to speed up traffic and do a better job of railroading, not only should they be made to participate but really from my experience I believe they are willing to participate. So, I should like the minister to explain this statement because I cannot see why one partner to the enterprise should be allowed to get off scot-free. I cannot understand why they should not be told to pay a share of the costs. These are my main criticisms of the bill.
Certainly, so far as clause 3 is concerned I think the principle of the legislation is good. It has been long awaited. I know my community wants it. I hope they can come up soon with a proposal that will be acceptable to the municipalities involved. There are half a dozen small municipalities in the area that are involved. I certainly hope that once an application gets to the CTC, if it is going to be made the sole arbitrator, it will be processed with a great deal more dispatch than the government has shown in introducing this legislation.


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to participate in this debate on Bill C-27 which I think is extremely important for several hon. members, and particularly my riding.
When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) tabled this bill he had certainly been receiving many complaints for several years about the relocation of railroad tracks.
In my riding there were several fatalities caused by tracks completely outdated and inadequate to meet the needs of our municipalities.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to spend too much time on the value of this bill or the necessity for railways to modernize and adapt to current times.
I was pleased to note that the minister accepted the amendment introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) the purpose of which was to give autonomy and more latitude to municipalities which want to relocate railway tracks.
We admit that the province together with the municipalities must have a word to say in the relocation of railway lines but only when the province accepted an overall track relocation plan with the municipalities concerned. The purpose of the amendment of my colleague for
Relocation of Railway Lines
Lotbiniere which the minister accepted is to stop a province from vetoing a project approved by a municipality.
If a province accepted a relocation plan a municipality should not be afterwards paralysed by being forced to act on behalf of the province. That is what was contained in the bill and that is what we disliked. That is why my colleague for Lotbiniere introduced his amendment to allow a municipality to receive grants. Once the plan has been accepted by the province it will no longer be possible for it to paralyse a municipality by stopping it from acting on its behalf.
The bill, as presented by the hon. minister, could allow a province to stop a municipality from acting on its behalf when the general plan had already been approved by all municipalities and the province.
By removing from the bill these six words, which were not only useless but were also completely to the disadvantage of municipalities, it is now possible to prevent that an essential project, desired by all rate payers of a municipality and contained in a general plan accepted by all neighbouring municipalities and by the province itself, be paralysed for several years. Before the amendment of my colleague for Lotbiniere, the bill allowed the province to prevent a municipality from realising this plan by not authorizing it to act on its behalf.
Since we are and always have been in favour of decentralization and autonomy, we say that when all the municipalities and the province in particular have accepted a railroad relocation plan, it is up to the municipality concerned to implement as soon as possible a plan that everyone has already approved.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately for too long we have accepted joint provincial and federal plans where the bureaucracy and the policy of some provinces has paralysed the initiative of our municipalities, which urgently need this type of development. However, since the province intervenes between the municipalities and the federal government, we are now witnessing in the province of Quebec a waste of the funds placed at the disposal of municipalities, which cannot be used because the province stops the implementation of these projects. The province of Quebec has not yet signed the agreements, which means that in the other provinces, at the present time, the federal government invests and grants millions of dollars for reaching community objectives, while in the province of Quebec, because it refuses to sign agreements with the federal government, the municipalities are paralysed in the face of immediate and urgent needs.
Mr. Chairman, we do not want a repetition of this in the railway field. And this is why my hon. colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) insisted, as we all did, on amending the bill so that when the master railway relocation plan is adopted by one province and the municipalities, one province will not be able to paralyse railway development by preventing one municipality from acting on its own.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to this amendment, the municipalities will be able to act in their own name and claim the credits granted for railway developments and go ahead without waiting for the slowness of provincial

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
bureaucracy, as we have seen too often, unfortunately, in Quebec for some years.

Amendment (Mr. Fortin) agreed to: Yeas, 21; nays, 8.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 4-Financial Plan to Accompany Application.
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be some desire to carry the whole bill. I wonder why the government did not put all the provisions in clause 3.
Clause 4 concerns the financial plan which is to accompany the application, and I should like some clarification on this. We all know how costs are rising these days, so one would assume that the plan would merely be an estimate and not in any way final. Would the minister agree with that? Surely, many projects have been undertaken by municipalities across Canada from time to time where study groups have considered the relocation of a roadbed or the building of overpasses or underpasses separating the railroads and the highways, and generally all that can be submitted with the application is an estimate of the cost. Before the bill passes, I should like to hear the minister say that all he is asking for is a financial estimate along with the application, and not necessarily a financial plan to which the government would be bound. It is a simple question and I hope the minister can answer it so we can proceed to clause 5.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, obviously any relocation or rerouting proposals could, as the hon. member for Crowfoot points out, occasion expenditures in rail or transportation facilities and consequential changes resulting from that in street or highway linkages, if the area is turned into a public area for public transit terminals, and so on. It is the intention of clause 4 that the financial plan should show all those expenditures and how the relocation or rerouting is to be financed.
Basically the financial plan would document what the costs and benefits of the transportation plan are and how they would be shared among the various participants, what the sources and applications of the funds required by the transportation would be, and what the schedule of payments of the transportation funds would be, as well as any other information that might be required by the CTC.
The hon. member has raised the question of the federal contribution. Under this legislation the federal government may make a contribution of up to 50 per cent to the cost of railroad relocation and rerouting. He was concerned that out of this the railroads could net great benefits. The purpose of the rather intricate method of putting forward a transportation plan, the power given to the CTC to appoint appraisers and evaluators and the whole method of valuation set out in the act and provided in the schedule to the act, are designed principally to assure that the principle of this bill is carried forward, namely that the railroads will not lose nor benefit by reason of the relocation order or by reason of the infusion of public funds. That is the principle of the bill and that is why these financial requirements are provided.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I listened very closely to the minister's answer. Usually, he answers directly the question put to him but on this occasion he did not appear to understand the question and therefore, I suppose, could not answer it.
The question was: if the application by a municipality through a province is accompanied by a financial plan, in view of the escalating costs we have today, would the federal government hold the municipality or province to that financial plan or would it be considered an estimate and so have adjustments made to it after the application has been approved. It is a rather simple question and I see no reason why the minister should attempt to hedge. He can say yes, the financial plan will be adhered to or no, there can be adjustments and we will take it only as an estimate. That is all I am asking for. It is a simple question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, what? Yes, we will take it as an estimate or yes, we will hold them to it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, obviously some aspects of the financial plan will involve estimates because they will be estimates of future expenditures. However, any good financial plan will undoubtedly have contingencies and allowances for escalations in costs. The hon. member will note that one of the jobs of the CTC is to assure that all assistance provided for in the financial plan is in fact planned for, is in fact provided for, one way or another. This will be one of the jobs of the CTC. If there are estimates that are subject to escalation they have in their orders provided for them.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, a question in regard to clause 4 where, as outlined, the federal government will be responsible for 50 per cent of the cost. I am interested to know whether other government departments will assume some responsibility. For instance, in my own constituency there is a plan to relocate the rail lines going into Sault Ste. Marie and immediately adjacent to the city boundary. The rail relocation would have to pass through the Garden River Indian Reserve and, closer to the city boundary, the Rankin Location of the Batchewana Indian Reserve. I am wondering, where a relocation passes through an Indian reserve but where there is not an actual municipality to assume some of the responsibility, whether federal funding in such a situation would go above 50 per cent? Granted the main advantage of this relocation would accrue to the city of Sault Ste. Marie and not to either Indian reserve, although there is the possibility of sidings and an industrial park there. I am interested to know if the federal government would assume any portion which would normally be assumed by municipalities where a relocation passes through an Indian reserve?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, without specific reference to the case raised by the hon. member, the details of which I am not familiar with, and in reply to the question of whether there are funds available from other departments and programs, the answer is yes. What is provided here is a federal contribution of 50 per cent toward the net cost to the railroad of relocation. That does not cover nor provide for, because they are provided for under different statutes,
April 30, 1974

any moneys available under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for infrastructure, moneys for housing under the Housing Act or Central Mortgage and Housing, or moneys available under any appropriate program. For example, if land freed by relocation were to be used for housing, the programs under the National Housing Act would apply in that area. If it were to be used for the erection of a federal public building, the funds of the federal Department of Public Works would be spent.


Mr. Harney:: Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about definitions. I notice that the act does not define railway. It is important for the purposes of this bill that we understand clearly what a railway is. In my search for enlightment I consulted the Revised Statutes of Canada (1970) and therein found an act respecting railways. The definition section reads in part:
. .. "railway" means any railway that the company has authority to construct or operate, and includes all branches, extensions, sidings, stations, depots, wharfs, rolling stock equipment, stores, property real or personal and works connected therewith, and also any railway bridge, tunnel or other structure that the company is authorized to construct and, except where the context is inapplicable, includes street railway and tramway;...
Often, when we deal with railway companies, we are dealing with lists of articles and entities which go beyond the definition in the act respecting railways.
I raised this point for another reason. We speak of railway companies. Clause 5(1) of the bill mentions "railway company" twice. Is there a difference between the railway and the railway company for purposes of this bill? Do either or both of those terms include, for purposes of this bill, subsidiaries or affiliates of railway companies, whether wholly or partly owned by the companies. Obviously, in many cases of relocation, the benefits will not accrue to the railways as such but could affect the well being of companies owned by railways. I wonder if the minister would respond to my preliminary questions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I suppose we are transgressing against the rules by going back, but "railway" as mentioned in this bill has the same meaning as it has in the Railway Act. The Railway Act has been in existence for a good many years and definitions and explanations with regard to that act have been enforced by the CTC, in dealings related to the Railway Act, without any difficulty. The hon. member asked, does the bill define railway company. It does not. A railway company is defined in the Railway Act, which I do not have in front of me.
The hon. member referred to something he raised the other night. He spoke about the lands of the railways and the subsidiaries of the railways. For the purposes of this bill, railway lands are those lands owned by the railway company which are used for activities directly associated with the operation of the rail transport services of the railway company, such as railway rights of way, marshalling yards, terminal facilities and lands used for maintenance and repair depots for the servicing of equipment.
The hon. member asked about the subsidiaries of the railways or affiliates of the railways. The lands of such companies would be railway lands, clearly under the jurisdiction of this bill and clearly within the jurisdiction of
Relocation of Railway Lines
the CTC when it acts for the purpose of enforcing a transportation plan. If the lands are owned by non-railway subsidiaries, and I am not supposed to give a legal opinion, those lands would not be deemed to be railway lands, but would be subject to ordinary municipal ordinances, bylaws and regulations. So, the railways could not escape coverage. If they attempt to shift land back and forth between themselves, the railways, and non-railway subsidiaries, they would be covered either under this bill or under municipal laws. That is to say, railway operations with respect to railway lands would be covered by this statute and by the Railway Act, or in the case of non-railway lands, by the ordinances of the appropriate municipalities.


John Paul Harney: For the minister's information there is no definition of railway company in the act respecting railways. The act defines a railway but not a railway company, unless such definition has not been included in alphabetical order, according to normal usage. On the other hand, the bill before us talks about railways and about railway companies.
Mr. Chairman, you, I and the minister know that at some time in the future when the courts are asked to interpret parts of this bill, the minister's words as to what certain words in this bill mean will not be considered. I am not a lawyer, but I know that in court you cannot quote from House of Commons Debates and say, "That is what those fellows intended when they passed the bill." The judge will look at the language of the act, in English or in French, and interpret its meaning. That is why he has so much power.
There need be no difficulty with regard to definitions. Yet I am considerably worried about how this bill will apply if, for instance, there should ever be an argument about railway property which is not held as property for purposes of railway operation but which is held, directly or indirectly through an affiliate or subsidiary, for the sake of owning it and making a profit on real estate.
I am not worried about the definition in clause 4(a) which says:
(a) how the costs and benefits of the transportation plan included in the accepted plan are to be shared by the province, the municipalities concerned, the railways affected by the accepted plan and any other interests that may be affected thereby;
The subclause speaks of any other interests that may be affected. That is universal language, and that part is fine. On the other hand, clause 5 leaves room for confusion. It talks about railway companies, but the sort of universal definition found in clause 4 is not found in clause 5.
I know that we are slightly in disorder, if not out of order, in talking about definitions. On the other hand, we have been in disorder all afternoon, and I suggest that we are just reverting back to an earlier part of the bill. Hitherto, speakers have been wandering all over the place in their remarks. Perhaps the minister will say that, if the committee agrees, we shall go back to the definition part of the bill and amend the definition, so that once this bill is passed we shall know what is meant by a railway and by a railway company.

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the hon. member, I really do not see any difficulty at all. "Railway" is defined in this bill by reference to the Railway Act. I must admit that I am not sure whether the word "company" is defined in the Interpretation Act. Even if it is not, no CTC or no judge will have any difficulty defining the word "company" in giving to it the meaning ordinarily attributed to it, which is the common standard on interpretation. With all due respect, those meanings and the meaning of railway company in clause 5(1) will create no difficulty and there is no need to go back to clause 1 to put in a definition. A "company" is a legal institution and recognized word which has not created any difficulty in interpretation whatsoever.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I am not upset that I have not aroused too much concern in the minister, but I may be upset that I have not aroused much concern among other members. Maybe the point I am raising is too legalistic. I wish it were possible to wager across the House. I hope I meet the minister some 20 years from now. If he can tell me there has been no trouble with this definition or lack of definition, I will applaud him. Perhaps the only authority we can refer this matter to is Pierre Berton. He knows much more about the operations of railways and railway companies than many of us around here. Perhaps I can raise the matter again under clause 5. By that time, other members may have the same worry.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly not my intention to delay progress of this bill. At the same time, I do not think it is necessary to remind the minister of my interest in Bill C-27. I have expressed interest on behalf of the city cf St. Thomas and the constituency I have the pleasure of representing in the House of Commons. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to say that that city of 25,000 people carried out a railroad relocation study in 1971. It is probably the most comprehensive study that has ever been completed, certainly by any city of comparable size in Canada.
I am concerned about a couple of matters. I will keep my remarks to the bare minimum. The officials of the city of St. Thomas paid some $100,000 for the study. It was underwritten 75 per cent or $75,000 by the province of Ontario and the taxpayers of that city paid the remaining $25,000. The results of that study indicated that in 1971 the railroad relocation project would cost over $18 million. As the hon. member for Crowfoot indicated a couple of times today, with increased costs and the increase in the rate of inflation, $18 million in 1971 could well be turned into $25 million or $30 million by the time the project is carried out. I therefore think it is obvious that 50 per cent of the cost is too low.
Because of the long delay we have experienced in having this bill brought before the House, I think it is a case of being satisfied with half a loaf rather than nothing at all. Will the minister or his department consider any payment toward the study that has already been carried out by the city of St. Thomas or any reimbursement on studies that have been carried out by other cities across the country prior to the passage of this bill?

I have a second question for the minister. From reading the act, I realize that the federal government has a fund. I think it is called the railroad crossing fund. I believe there is between $15 million and $18 million in the fund. Over the past few years, this amount has been decreasing. Are the funds to pay for railroad relocations in Canadian cities to be taken from that railroad crossing fund by simply increasing it or is a new fund being set up to pay for these costs?
My third question may have been asked earlier. Is it necessary to receive provincial approval prior to a municipality making application to the federal government for funds?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this legislation. I know he has been asking questions about it for some time. I appreciate his interest in the fact that the city of St. Thomas has done a great deal of studying and work on this project, which I hope will come to quick fruition under this legislation when it is passed.
In answer to the first question as to whether funds will be available retroactively to pay for studies already completed, as much as I would like to say yes, I think I should say no. In fact, I must say no because cities have been making studies and plans for many, many years. If we applied this provision retroactively, we would exhaust whatever funds we have on retroactive studies. However, such plans would be eligible for 50 per cent of the cost of whatever studies might be necessary to put their work into shape for presentation under this new legislation.
In answer to the second question as to what funds will be available for relocation of grade crossings, there are budgetary projections which will be voted for each year by parliament. I am giving what are projections only. They are subject to being submitted and voted by parliament year by year. Over a five-year period, the funds for relocation would start out in one year, which is either late this year or next year, at $10 million and rise to $25 million for grade crossings and grade separations under Parts II and III going from $25 million to $30 million over the five year period. I emphasize those are solely projections which will have to be voted year by year and which will undoubtedly be varied, depending upon our experience in the application of this legislation when it is passed.


John Wise: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister misunderstood my second question with regard to funds. Are the funds to come from the existing railroad grade crossing fund, or are we to set up a new fund for relocation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman. The funds for Part I, which is the railroad relocation and re-routing proposals, will not be coming from the railroad grade crossing fund which is Part III. They will be coming from funds provided for in the estimates of the Ministry of Transport voted annually by parliament. The expenditures I mentioned include expenditures from funds available under Part II of the act and for relocation schemes under Part I.
April 30, 1974


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to ask the minister a question on clause 4. The clause concerns the conditions which are laid down and which must be met before an application can be considered. I am wondering about the status of studies already under way, for example, the study being conducted at Moncton and financed by the federal government and the province. Have those responsible for this study been advised of the conditions in clause 4? Is there any danger of this plan being submitted, and of the CTC saying: You have failed to meet the conditions of the act.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am trying to avoid becoming involved in the specifics of individual applications because, obviously,
I am not familiar with all of them. However, I recognize that work has been going on at Moncton for some time. Those concerned are, of course, aware of the legislation which is before the House. I hope that all the studies under way will be made to comply with the conditions of this legislation in anticipation of its passage.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Submission to Commission of Transport Plan.
John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, during my speech on second reading I told the House I was interested in proposing an amendment to clause 5(2) and that its purpose would be to ensure that the Commission would be obliged to hold a hearing before making an order under clause 6. As it stands, the bill simply says the Commission may make such an order.
The reasoning I put forward was that the whole question of the relocation of rail lines, the new use of properties which would be liberated by relocation, and, indeed, the whole direction and shape our cities might take as a result of major relocation was an extremely delicate one. I argued that in most cases it would take a good deal of time for interested parties-and in that term I certainly include the general public, the citizens of the urban areas affected-to find out what was going on, to determine what the implications of relocation were.
We know from experience that any change in the shape of a city is bound to affect many people, and thus it is extremely important to give citizens a chance to have a say. It is all very well for the minister to tell us that in the formulation of the original plan the public has an opportunity to make an input. I have no doubt the railways will be making an input and I have no doubt the municipalities will be making an input. However, I am afraid the nature of this input will be understood only by specialists. In the City of Toronto we have had experience of planning by specialists. All the specialists agreed, for example, that the Spadina Expressway had to be built. Only recently, there was no doubt in the minds of all the specialists, whether municipal or provincial, that the Scarborough Expressway had to be built. For years these views were unchallenged until citizens began to wake up to the implication of the construction of these expressways. After a long time, and after making many appeals, the people were finally allowed to express their feelings as to whether these auto routes were in fact as necessary as the specialists believed.
Relocation of Railway Lines
I do not see what harm could possibly be done by making it mandatory for the Commission to hold a hearing. If we decide to leave the clause as it is, citizens will have an opportunity to express their opinions only if they are allowed to do so by the Commission; the Commission itself would be in the position of deciding whether the public interest would be served by a hearing. I say: let the public itself decide whether its interests will be well served or not.
I know the minister may object to my proposal on the ground that it might give rise to a multiplicity of hearings. But, as I suggested in my comments on second reading, I do not think the number of relocation projects undertaken is likely to be large. I say this on the basis of the amount of money which the minister suggests should be spent over the next five years, and in the light of the sums likely to be needed by Winnipeg and Toronto. What will be left for St. Thomas or Wetaskiwin? I have the feeling there will be very few relocation programs carried out, so we ought not to be taken in by assertions that my amendment, if adopted, would lead to a tremendous number of hearings.
I maintain we would be honouring the needs of urban communities if we were to agree now to make the holding of public hearings mandatory, not simply a matter for the judgment of the Commission. Whether we like to think so or not, to a lot of the people in our communities the Transport Commission is an awfully distant institution. I should like to see the clause redrafted in such a way that there would be no going to the Commission, cap in hand, for leave to make representations at an inquiry, but there should be an automatic hearing. The administration need not be difficult. Already, in many of our cities, when rezoning is contemplated a public meeting has to be held. Advertisements are inserted in the newspapers announcing the purpose and date of such a meeting, and if there is no interest, if no one attends, there is, in effect, no hearing, and that is the end of the matter. But an opportunity for the public to protect its interests is always provided.
In his remarks the other day, the hon. member for Calgary North expressed great interest in supporting the amendment I suggested. I know, from discussions I have had with a member of the Social Credit party that there is interest on their part as well. I trust and hope that members of the Conservative party will continue to have this interest and that members of the Social Credit party will continue their interest. Whether the minister agrees with it is another matter, but I know he is certainly interested in it. With that appeal I should like to put forward an amendment which will read very simply this way. I would move, seconded by the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: You don't need a seconder.


John Paul Harney: Not even if I want one? I don't need a seconder, but it is nice to have one. I am informed I don't need a seconder, therefore I will not be seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming, but simply move the following amendment on my own:
That sub-clause (2) of clause 5 of Bill C-27 be amended on page 6 at line 17 by changing the word "may" to the "shall" and by inserting a period after the word "thereon", and also by deleting lines 18 and 19.

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The hon. member has proposed an amendment to Clause 5. Shall the amendment carry?


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to hear a representative of the New Democratic Party say in the House that "may" and "shall" have different meanings, because it seems to me at an earlier time the leader of that party argued that "may" and "shall" might have the same meaning under certain circumstances. I suppose it depends-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: On the context.


Walter David Baker: -on the context and also upon whose ox is being gored as well. Nonetheless, I want to say that we support the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Scarborough West in respect of this matter, for one very important reason. Whatever is done in respect of relocations of railway lines can have a very profound effect on the community, and can amount to a very significant intrusion into the way of life or lifestyle and, indeed, the composition of a particular community.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And the value of property.


Walter David Baker: And the value of the property as well as all the other factors that may have influenced the inhabitants of that particular area to chose that area in which to live. It is important that there be the ability on the part of the general public to express themselves publicly and formally in respect of the position the commission might take on a particular application.
This does not mean putting the CTC or any commission in the position of counting heads in terms of which way they choose to decide. Certainly, at present there is no opportunity at all for public viewpoints to be expressed, and they could vary and be as many as there are individuals. There is no danger that this viewpoint could be ignored with a reliance on such a trite phrase that, if it is in the interest of some invisible commission it is desirable in the public interest, then perhaps hearings will be held.
The hon. member for Scarborough West mentioned the Spadina matter and I could mention another one in the Ottawa area regarding the location of Highway 416 in respect of which I do not think there has been that type of public participation in the steps leading to the decision making. I do not know what will be the final decision as to the location of Highway 416, but I think if there were, a section in the statutes regarding a construction of this kind, which is an intrusion into the lifestyle of the area I represent, I am sure no one would be able to stand up in this place or anywhere else and fault the kind of public participation in the decision making process that would occur.
I support completely, as I think my colleagues do, the amendment advanced by the hon. member for Scarborough West. It is very interesting when you consider other statutes. The Ontario Municipal Board Act of the province of Ontario has a provision which does in fact leave a discretion with the board to decide whether there is to be a hearing. I forget whether it is in the public interest or otherwise, but there is this element of discretion in that statute.

However, the Ontario Municipal Board, and the Ontario government in land use and planning matters, have decided it is so important that there be public input with the board, as a matter of practice and procedure, if one of a possible thousand or 2,000 objectors file a written objection in answer to a notice that has been filed, that is sufficient to call a hearing. It has been my experience that quite often when there has only been one objector to a certain action a municipality proposes, the members of the board will come from Toronto to Ottawa, to Cornwall or to anywhere the hearing is to be held and convene a hearing. When they explain to the objector the purport of the by-law to be considered, the objection if often withdrawn. I suppose that is something that could be done by telephone or by mail, but there is such an adherence to the principle of the right to a hearing when something affects proprietary rights, or even seems to, it has become the practice of the province of Ontario and that board to do no less than that. I believe it ought to be the practice of any agency of the Crown in the right of Canada, and I certainly would hope the government would not see fit to argue with this, but would agree to this amendment.
If the argument advanced by the government is that there may be a lot of hearings and delays, then I think the question as to whether there are to be delays should not be laid on the public, on the property owner or on the person who sees fit to object. I think it ought to be laid where it belongs, namely, on the shoulders of the government or a commission which is responsible to the government. The minister could get on the telephone to the chairman of the CTC or of any other government board but particularly the CTC because of the intimate connection its chairman has with the minister as a former colleague, and urge as a matter of convenience and necessity that this matter be speeded up and that a hearing be held.
In conclusion may I say I do not believe that policy, expediency, or any other reason should allow the government to say it is not prepared to agree with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough West. If his motion did require a seconder and he wanted one, in the circumstances I would be prepared to second it because I think it has great merit. I commend it to the House and hope the government will see fit to adopt it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, may I just indicate that I think the present wording of the bill, not only this subclause but clause 8, which requires that all provincial laws be passed, ensures that the public interest and welfare is totally and completely protected under this legislation, but if there is any question on that, which obviously there is on the part of the hon. member for Scarborough West, I am happy on behalf of the government to accept the amendment to make sure that there is no doubt on this point.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Harney) agreed to.
April 30, 1974


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, just before clause 5 carries, I should like to stress once again the purport of the remarks I was making earlier on this whole question of relocation of rail lines. The minister has failed as yet to comment on the question of the Vancouver harbour, and the proposed relocation of some of the rail lines connected with it as well as the financial plans that have been brought forward from time to time. Will these plans have to be reshaped or redrawn by the National Harbours Board? Would a government agency be responsible for this? Would the municipality of the city of Vancouver or the province be the one to do it? The minister has failed to deal with these questions.
I should like to quote from an article by Mr. Mark Wilson of January 9, 1974 concerning these problems. The article is headed "Roundtrip over Burrard Inlet takes 14 days". That seems like an unusually long journey for a boxcar. The article goes on to say:
We are just not adapted to moving a car from say North Vancouver to Marpole. Besides, 95 per cent of the traffic coming from the North Shore is moving east like the potash, coal and sulphur trains returning empty to Alberta or Saskatchewan.
Then, further we find this:
CP Rail says the CNR service poses a problem, but it looks for long-term relief to the eventual relocation of North Shore bulk loading facilities at Roberts Bank.
The article goes on to suggest that there should be a great deal of relocation of trackage in that Vancouver area. Is the government aware of the existing change of the plan for the Vancouver area surrounding Burrard Inlet? There is a suggestion made with regard to the location of a new CNR marshalling yard which would do away with the Burlington Northern Railway marshalling yards. Surely the minister, who represents the city of Vancouver, could advise us whether or not there is an over-all plan now either by the National Harbours Board or the city of Vancouver that would follow up this relocation of tracks in and around that harbour.
I cannot see for the life of me why we should be forced to use an American marshalling yard. In fact the CNR uses two marshalling yards, one a great distance out of the city of Vancouver and the other the Burlington Northern. The CPR really uses a small marshalling yard near the Alberta wheat pool operation and one at the end of Moody Bay. I do not know why we cannot have a greater amount of cohesion in respect of traffic. I do not suggest that there should be a terminal railway company operating at the port, but I suggest there should be a greater relocation of trackage to facilitate the movement of boxcars in and out of that terminal which would assist in the movement of grain as well as, of container cars. I am sure the minister and his department could investigate to see what is being done with regard to an over-all plan for that harbour. There was a study in 1969. I am wondering whether it is still around or whether it is necessary to have another study made.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Order, it being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the Chair in order to permit the House to consider private members' business.
Cattle Marketing Board



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


[Stage Direction]
Mb-. 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 Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) - Health-Shortage of medical manpower-Government action to alleviate; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Grain-Request that feed grains be marketed by Wheat Board: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Canada-Alleged layoffs of employees in violation of collective agreement- Government action.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.
Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, today according to the order paper we are scheduled to consider bills, but as a result of some discussions which have gone on and because the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) graciously gave up his time two weekends ago we are ready to bring forward, with the consent of the House, private members' notice of motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Meadow Lake.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed to by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing legislation to provide for a National Cattle Marketing Board which would operate in concert with a cattle marketing board established by any province.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the above notice of motion appeared on the order paper over my name on March 7. In view of the serious situation that we have had with regard to cattle in this country in the last year, and more recently with regard to pork products, it seems to me it is about time that our country rationalized the whole system of handling products which are derived from cattle, hogs and sheep. In other words, perhaps the motion should be extended to include a national meat products marketing board.
I realize that before the government could act on this suggestion the provinces would have to agree to delegate powers to the federal government, or the federal government could pass enabling legislation on which the prov-

April 30, 1974
Cattle Marketing Board
inces might then act. Perhaps some members would say that this would be another intrusion into the free enterprise system, another example of socialist planning. Perhaps many cattlemen would not agree with this motion. But I point out that when prices are not stable cattlemen become very concerned. I, myself, am particularly concerned about the small beef producer, the one who raises 50 or 100 head of cattle. He is the one who is usually caught in a pinch when there is price instability. In fact in our so-called free enterprise system everything the producer buys is bought at an administered price. No one can tell me that the ordinary forces of supply and demand are really operating.
Some two or three years ago when farm income was at extremely low levels farmers were not buying any new farm machinery, or very little. They did not have the money. Farm implement agencies were experiencing difficulties. Farm implement manufacturers were having difficulties. But the prices of tractors and other implements required by farmers did not go down in accordance with the reduced demand. The same is true with respect to many other materials required by farmers.
I should mention that an integral part of a successful meat products policy or of a cattle marketing board should be a feed grains policy that would enable farmers to produce at a profit animals that are consumed for meat. At the present time, livestock producers are experiencing a disastrous period of price instability, a large measure of which can be directly attributed to the ill-conceived feed grains policy of the past year which has been very destructive and disorderly for producers of cattle, hogs and sheep. The government has moved from crisis to crisis in a series of somewhat disjointed and unrelated moves. Let me summarize these very briefly.
First the United States imposed price ceilings on finished beef. Then, Canada applied export permit regulations in August of last year. This was followed by the United States consumer boycott on beef, which resulted in a build up of finished cattle in the United States. Then, higher Canadian prices attracted heavier U.S. imports. Of course, this was affected by export controls on Canadian cattle going into the United States and, as a result, Canadian market prices slumped sharply in September.
The import duty on U.S. cattle was re-imposed last fall to protect beef prices to producers in Canada. This import duty did little to stop the flow of beef from the United States and, as a result, a special 3 cents per pound surtax on live cattle and a 6 cents per pound surtax on processed beef was applied last November. I believe that this surtax slowed down imports.
The surtax was phased out in January and February, and imports again flooded in, forcing cattle prices to new low levels, with little or no price relief evident for consumers. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), on March 15, introduced a beef subsidy program of 7 cents per pound for Grade A cattle and market prices to producers promptly dropped by amounts equal to or almost equivalent to the subsidy within a matter of days. The next step came when the subsidy was altered to 5 cents per pound, and extended to lower grades of cattle. The final step came when the minister required certification from U.S. health

officials guaranteeing that U.S. imported cattle and beef had not been administered the growth hormone DES.
With imports of U.S. beef almost shut off, market prices are again rising in Canada, at least for beef. In the last several days the minister reduced the subsidy to 3 cents per pound, I suppose having the ultimate aim of eliminating the subsidy completely. The results of the federal government's attempt to stabilize beef prices to both producers and consumers through tariff manipulation have been largely unsuccessful, because control of the market and prices has rested elsewhere. As a consequence, for the last ten months price patterns for livestock have been extremely unstable.
Basically, I have no quarrel with the beef subsidy program. However, I must point out that there should have been a number of safeguards put in place when the beef subsidy program was introduced. First, there should have been a floor price for producers, related to costs of production. Second, direct payments should have been made to the producers. Third, some restrictions, or control methods should have been designed to prevent the packing companies from making effective confiscation of the subsidies. In view of the way that all the programs were handled, I am of the opinion that they represented a measure of desperation rather than a firm commitment to stabilize prices. I have no argument with the banning of the importation of DES cattle from the United States. But what happens when the United States ceases using DES in its cattle? Has the government got a plan to stabilize meat prices both to the consumer and producer at that time?
It should be mentioned also that the economic loss problems encountered by producers of cattle, hogs and sheep over the past year could in large measure be traced back to the introduction of a feed grains policy that legalized an open market and an exploitive system of pricing in that area of Canada where the Canadian Wheat Board retains jurisdiction for orderly marketing. The intent of the policy, introduced on the pretext of creating equity, was to permit exploitation of grain producers by buyers outside the Canadian Wheat Board area on the same basis as had been practised within the Canadian Wheat Board area. However, it seems to me that this policy backfired on the government because world market conditions for grain were too high to permit profitable production of livestock based on open market prices. The federal government abrogated its responsibility for keeping its own house in order by exposing the producers of cattle and hogs to forces which in effect had been imposed upon grain producers in the prairie region and, which it was to be hoped, had gone forever. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, these forces are returning with the open market introduced for feed grains.
It seems to me that a rational and orderly marketing system for feed grains could establish a true cost-price relationship for the cattle industry, under which a program of price stabilization could function. The four western provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have hog marketing boards. In Saskatchewan in particular, with the subsidy or floor price available there, the hog producer has been cushioned from any harmful effects. However, it should be mentioned that in reply to a question yesterday about disastrously low pork
April 30, 1974

prices, the Minister of Agriculture indicated that Ontario should establish a hog marketing board such as the other provinces have.
I think the minister is being rather contradictory. In a speech a few days ago he said that Saskatchewan's hog support program was ill-advised because it placed Saskatchewan in a favoured position and disrupted hog production and marketing in Canada as a whole. If this is the case why doesn't the minister come up quickly with a cattle marketing board or, better still, with a meat products marketing board which would be responsible for the marketing of all red meats? Subsidy programs for prices can only work properly if they are national in scope so that producers, in fact, in one region are not economically disadvantaged as compared with producers in other regions. The only advantages they would have are the natural advantages. Farmers on the prairies have many natural advantages since they can grow most of their feedstuffs and there are vast areas of grasslands available as well.
In my opinion, a national meat marketing board would have the following main functions: (a) It could act as a regulatory body or agency with the authority to issue import permits and export permits. With this authority it would be capable of restricting large packers from bringing in huge numbers of cattle in order to lower the returns on meat products to producers in this country. After all, the only thing that the packers are concerned with is the profit motive and nothing else, regardless of how they disturb the rest of the economy, (b) I would suggest that a national meat products marketing board could also regulate profit margins; in fact, it could regulate the price of the product right from the producer to the retailer to the consumer, as is done with some milk products in Canada today in the highly regulated dairy industry; (c) if a subsidy is to be given to the producer, this authority or marketing board could make sure that it goes directly to the producer rather than to the scions of middlemen in between.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission acts as a body which very closely regulates and supervises the buying and selling of dairy products in Canada. As a result, despite difficulties the dairy farmers may have had, they have still had a greater sense of security than the hog producers and beef producers in the last year. A national hog marketing and cattle marketing board, or a national meat products board would put more order into our red meats industry, and I maintain that it should lead to stabilized and fair prices to both the producer and the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, this would help particularly the hundreds and thousands of farmers from Newfoundland to British Columbia who keep a herd of 50 or 100 head of cattle or who produce 200, 300 or 500 pigs per year. I am thinking of the family farm operation, which is a way of life, by means of which the family, can make a fairly decent living if they get a fair price for their products. I think this is a necessary step toward preserving the family farm and the smaller farm enterprises.
Cattle Marketing Board


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the motion debated this afternoon states that the government should consider passing legislation to establish a national cattle marketing board. Even though I am glad of the opportunity to discuss agriculture in the House, I have some serious doubts as to the validity of this motion.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members will long remember the evening of December 31, 1971, when the House sat to give second and third reading to the bill entitled: "An Act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council", better know perhaps as Bill C-176.
One of the amendments considered that evening had been moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It is recorded on page 10880 of Hansard and reads as follows:
That Bill C-176, an act to establish the National Farm Products Marketing Council and to authorize the establishment of national marketing agencies for farm products, be amended by adding the following to subclause (c) of clause 2 at line 17, page 1:
"except cattle and calves and products of beef and veal".
The purpose was to exclude cattle and calves from the part of the bill concerning the control of supplies. The motion was not put that evening since the government moved an amendment to paragraph (c) of clause 2, which read as follows:
"(c) "farm product" for the purpose of Part I, means any natural products of agriculture and any part of any such product and, for the purpose of the other provisions of this act, means
(i)	eggs, and poultry, and any part of any such product, and
(ii)	any other natural product of agriculture and any part of any such product in respect of which the Governor in Council is satisfied, as a result of declarations by provincial governments following plebiscites, or otherwise, that the majority of the producers thereof in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency under section 17 with powers relating to that product;
That is why, Mr. Speaker, there is now a legislation providing for the establishment of a national cattle marketing agency. Rather than wasting the valuable time of the House, I would suggest to the hon. member as well as to the producers who are interested to refer to sections 18 and 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
However, I should like to point out to the hon. member that a request for the creation of such an agency should come from the cattle breeders themselves, and before such agency is established, the governor in council must be satisfied that a majority of the producers of each of the farm products in Canada is in favour of the establishment of an agency, in accordance with section 17.
Sections 7 and 17 describe the procedure to be followed in order to determine the producers' wishes concerning the establishment of a national agency. Although there is a legislation to that effect, beef producers with whom I am in touch keep suggesting that they doubt an agency is necessary. Should there be a major change in this situation, I would be quite willing to see that this provision of the act is implemented.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that up to now, the government has given every opportunity and all the means required to

April 30, 1974
Cattle Marketing Board
the farmers who wish to avail themselves of the marketing act. They have everything they need at their disposal to set up those marketing agencies.
If the Canadian people want the farmers to increase their production, they must see to it that farm incomes are higher. The federal government took important steps in that direction last year. When food prices skyrocketed, the government did not apply price controls.
We are now discussing two types of stabilization programs. One concerns price stabilization, and we can achieve that with programs such as those coming under the Agricultural Stabilization Act. In order to meet present needs, we would update that act by extending it to more products and by raising the support level.
The other type concerns income stabilization which can be achieved through the creation of a common fund. The producers, the federal government and the provinces could deposit money into it, and producers could draw from it whenever the total revenue for a particular product is lower than a given level. Both types of programs could be designed so as to include the production costs factor.
It is the intention of the federal government to take important steps in order to establish our agriculture on a sound long term basis. The minister introduced a new farm credit legislation to enable us to help young farmers get started and to promote farm expansion and the purchase of still better farm equipment.
The minister also wishes to set up price and income stabilization programs so as to encourage farmers to invest for the future, with the guarantee that they will not go bankrupt tomorrow as it happened in the past, when an increased production had created short-term surpluses.
In addition, the minister wants to set up a cattle-insurance program, similar to our crop-insurance program, so that society can share some of the risks taken by the farmers when they increase their cattle production to meet the growing consumer demand, not only in Canada but also abroad.
Finally, the federal government is in the process of implementing a new national feed grains policy that will ensure equal treatment to all farmers, both producers and buyers, wherever they may be in Canada.
But what may be more important than all measures put forward is that the federal government did not intervene in the control of agricultural prices. Some countries have tried it with little success: not one more cow reached the market, not one more bushel of grain was produced and efficiency did not improve by 1 per cent. Those controls have had nothing but negative results wherever they were tried out. In the U.S.A., food price controls led farmers to gas their one-day old chicks rather than lose thousands of dollars in feeding them for the market. Farmers did not ship their cattle to the meat markets, which resulted in problems in the beef industry that are still being felt today. Food price controls have had such disastrous results that they overflowed the American boundaries, upset our markets and the income of our farmers who were getting ready to increase their production in an orderly fashion.
Canadian consumers paid current prices for their food and, in return, the farmers are responding today by maximizing their returns and their production.

In the next months, the federal government will take positive measures to insure the future of the Canadian farmers and of our farming industry. The Minister of Agriculture intends to bring down a legislation that will guarantee prices and incomes stability for the farmers, in order that they may invest capital in the farming business and increase production without worrying about a temporary excess that might disrupt the market and cause prices to decline. The consumer cannot ask the farmers to invest today to increase production if that will lead them to bankruptcy tomorrow.
The Minister of Agriculture has in mind legislation that will improve federal credit programs for the farmers and specially the young ones who want to take up farming or continue to work on the family farm.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has announced more generous compensation for farmers whose diseased cattle are condemned to slaughter under the Epizootic Diseases Act. This second increase in less than a year reflects the changes in the market value of the cattle. The change which will come into force immediately will boost maximum compensation from $300 to $450 for bure-bred animals and from $150 to $200 for the others. The compensation is added to the amount producers receive for the sale of their cattle to the slaughter house. When he made this announcement, the Minister of Agriculture insisted on the importance given by his department to the strict measures aimed at controlling cattle diseases.
Many countries envy Canada the excellent bill of health of its livestock. This is the result of stringent measures applied for quite a number of years as a means of security both for the producer, through the excellent condition of his livestock, and the consumer, through a constant supply of wholesome foodstuffs.
This is one of the reasons why last year Canada could export livestock and beef to over a hundred countries.
Moreover, the minister has announced that, effective April 7, foreign countries exporting to Canada cattle, lamb or sheep, either live or slaughtered, will have to submit a document certifying that these animals and meats have not received the DES treatment.
These documents will somehow guarantee that the imported meat complies with Canadian regulations; it has also been made necessary following the most recent changes governing the use of DES outside Canada. The only exceptions which have been authorized concern the shipments made before April 9, and animals for cattle raising purposes, the hon. Minister of Agriculture added.
During the Conference on Western Economic Opportunities held last summer in Calgary, the minister indicated that Canada was moving from a national policy on feed grains to a nationally co-ordinated policy on the livestock industry. We said the same thing in the Speech from the Throne sometime ago.
Any study of the meat industry in Canada should attach great importance to people as well as public and private organizations instead of relying on statistics.
Here is what the minister considers our objectives should be. Producers should have in mind maximum growth. He is considering a large expansion program for
April 30, 1974

meat and meat products. That market is expanding in North America, Europe, Japan and everywhere where the national standard of living is above the thresold of poverty. Producers in Canada have the tremendous possibility of increasing that production and meeting that demand. So one of the objectives would be to set up a range of government programs and policies which would allow them to produce more and reach those markets. The minister further thinks that producers should protect themselves against anything that could cut the ground from under their feet. He supposes that the first thing that comes to mind when he says protection is some form of protection against cheap imports. However, that is not exactly what he means but rather that protection against disease is the all important point. He means protection through research against the possibility of the meat industry in another part of the world overtaking us by developing new production and marketing methods. He further means protection against prices and saw-toothed production which would eliminate any chance of extending our market in the long run.
A third objective would be the greatest freedom possible for producers. In other words, a strategy could not be accepted even if it could produce the greatest benefits, the biggest markets and the most efficient production if it were to turn producers into slaves of the economy.
In view of those objectives the next step is to assess the situation as it now exists. We have the healthiest herd in the world thanks to the work of the Animal Health Branch. That gives us access to a greater export market than any other country in the v'orld. That also makes the cattle industry more efficient. Part of that policy includes a government program to import the best breeding cattle through our maximum security quarantine stations.
We have some excellent farmers and, what is more, they are the best farmers in the world. We also have evidence of the superiority of our stock breeders either exporters of pure-bred dairy cattle, beef cattle, pigs and poultry, or exporters of meat.
Our animal industry is competitive, and our exporters can prove that too. With our resources we can expect a major share of the expanding world market. We have land, water, energy, technology, money and business know-how, which all compare favourably with those in most of the other nations.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's motion is included in Bill C-176, and we are waiting for a request from the farmers to implement it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would have gladly yielded to my colleague from Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), but I had already advised the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken that I wanted to make a few comments on the motion now before us and which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider introducing legislation to provide for a National Cattle Marketing
Cattle Marketing Board
Board which would operate in concert with a Cattle Marketing Board established by any province.
Once again, parts of the French version are vague. I think we can say "par la province" or "par toute province", as we say "by any province" in English.
However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) covered the subject very well, when he said that the legislation now in the statutes is essentially permissive allowing as it does the setting up of any kind of agency to look after the marketing of agricultural products.
Therefore I would not elaborate on the very pertinent comments by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. This is, however, in my opinion an excellent opportunity for any dedicated member to speak on matters of particular concern to him or to his rural constituents. As I said time and again, Mr. Speaker, I represent an area in Canada, an area in the province of New Brunswick where high scale production of potatoes is conducted. When we debated some years ago the act establishing the National Farm Products Marketing Council, I addressed the House a few times to support government action toward the institution of agencies for marketing agricultural products. It gives me pleasure to mention that on the current board sits a former minister of agriculture for New Brunswick who, during our frequent meetings, keeps me informed of the council's work.
For me, as a member of parliament, it is a way of finding out about the council as such.
A moment ago I was speaking about potatoes and I think that it may be possible to establish parallels with cattle, a subject that particularly worries the sponsor of today's bill. In New Brunswick, potato farming is, for all practical purposes, more or less disorganized.
In the potato industry, the producers are not properly organized. Some belong to the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture and others to the National Farmers' Union. However, the shippers have much to say about potato marketing. Obviously, they do not cover the whole field.
In principle, I support the motion under study, but I hope that, if one day, the question of the establishment of a potato marketing agency comes up, the hon. member will return the favour and support any measure towards this.
To come back to what the parliamentary secretary said, the proposal made today by the sponsor of the motion is already covered by the law establishing the Canadian Farm Products Marketing Council. Perhaps the Standing Orders of the House might allow, on occasion, hon. members to answer the arguments that we, on this side, bring up to contradict the sponsors of some motions. Maybe this would enable us to reach some compromise whereby it would be possible to pass some motions which are excellent and very useful and intend mainly to improve the standard of living of farmers across the country.
Mr. Speaker, if I may return to my "potatoes", if you will permit me the expression, I regret the absence at the national level of a potato marketing board. I think that the responsibility for the establishment of such an agency-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member indicated, a moment ago, that he would revert to his "potatoes", but I

April 30, 197'
Cattle Marketing Board
think that if he followed the rules he would rather revert to his cattle, because I believe that cattle, or more precisely the establishment of a National Cattle Marketing Board, is under consideration. The hon. member has undoubtedly a more enthusiastic concern for potatoes than for cattle, but I would invite him, now that he has spoken of farm matters that concern more particularly his constituency, to give his attention to the motion now under consideration.


Eymard G. Corbin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this point of order. Sometimes we are carried away in the heat of the debate and we get too easily into digressions. It might be interesting for all the honourable members to know that potatoes are being found to have great qualities and research is currently being conducted for feeding cattle with potatoes in areas that do not produce enough feed grain.
For all practical purposes, Mr. Speaker, I want to follow your advice. I think I have pointed out a few points with respect to the study of this motion and I would like now to resume my seat to allow other colleagues to speak in this important debate.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, your comments to my colleague, the previous speaker, referring to meat and potatoes were very good. Perhaps the only thing left out was the gravy. I like a bit of gravy on my meat and potatoes. *
Be that as it may, those of us who were here in the last parliament will remember distinctly the long debate on Bill C-176, to establish a national farm products marketing agency. One of the factors around which the debate centred in a very hot and real way was that in the original bill there was some reference to cattle and cattle products. Those sections of the legislation were bitterly opposed by many people. There was a misunderstanding. Even though there were references to cattle and cattle products in the bill, there was no intention on the part of the government to apply its provisions to cattle. Later it was made very clear that any commodity group which wanted to be part of national farm products marketing legislation would have to take a plebiscite. A majority of the producers of any particular commodity would have to be satisfied before they could avail themselves of that particular legislation which is now the law of the land. It permits any commodity group to become part of the national marketing legislation if that is the desire of those producers. I want to reiterate on behalf of the cattlemen in my part of the country that it is still their view that they do not wish to become part of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. If at some time in the future they want to do so, they will so signify. Right now they are adamantly opposed to becoming part of the arrangements under this act. I was in touch with them only yesterday, and again today, and that is their view. I did not contact the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, but the president of that Association, Mr. Gordon Parkes, is from my constituency, from a town called Cache Creek.

To give an indication of the feeling of Canadian cattlemen toward the famous Bill C-176, I should like to read what was said at the time the bill was going through the last parliament. This was at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture held in Edmonton on February 4, 1971. Mr. Charlie Gracey, the Secretary-Manager of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, was the witness at the time, and this is what he had to say:
Beef producers have no need for Bill C-176 and reject it both on philosophical and economic grounds. We would like to emphasize that our opposition to this bill is not simply negative thinking on the part of the beef producers. We recognize, as do the producers of other commodities, that considerable problems do exist. We differ from many other organizations, however, in that beef producer groups across Canada are actively engaged in solving problems within the present structure.
I should like to refer the hon. member who introduced this motion to sections 18 and 23 of the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act. These sections clarify beyond doubt the opportunities available to commodity groups to take part in the arrangements made under that legislation. I should like to stress that the pressure for an agency must come in the first place from the cattlemen themselves, and that before an agency can be established the governor in council must be satisfied that the majority of producers are in favour of the establishment of an agency. Sections 17(1) and 17(2) spell out the procedures to be followed.
There are others, Mr. Speaker, who wish to participate in this debate. My hon. friend from Bruce (Mr. Whicher) is champing at the bit-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh no, he's not!


Len Marchand: He is a great cattleman as well. I just want to repeat on behalf of the cattlemen of British Columbia whom I have contacted that they do not want any part of this legislation.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks made by the last speaker, but he was not completely truthful when he indicated I was looking forward with anticipation to taking part in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You did not
want to speak at all.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Frankly, I think everything has already been said as to why this bill should not pass. With great respect to the member of the New Democratic Party who brought it forward- incidentally, he is a valued member of the agriculture committee and I agree with him on most questions of an agricultural nature-I have to say I disagree with the measure he has recommended to us this afternoon.
As a matter of fact, if I had my way I would sit down and let a vote be called. I should like to see how members of the New Democratic Party vote on this bill, because if they voted for it they would lose the respect of 98 per cent of the cattlemen across Canada. I say this because, as the parliamentary secretary has so ably pointed out, the cattlemen simply do not want a marketing board to be established.
April 30, 1974

Being somewhat political by nature, if I had not virtually been told to say something this afternoon I would sit down and let the vote go ahead, because I imagine this would place the NDP House leader in a very difficult position, a position in which he does not very often find himself. If he does get away with it today, it is through no fault of mine.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that 20 years ago in Saskatchewan a vote was taken on the issue of a cattle marketing board. Forty-seven per cent voted for it and 53 per cent against. It is the 47 per cent, the little guys, I am worried about.


An hon. Member:: What point of order is that?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: All I can say is that in the past 20 years the cattlemen of Saskatchewan have obviously smartened up a good deal. If the vote were taken today it would not be as close as it was 20 years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They have too much money.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The hon. member did not participate in the debates on Bill C-176, though I see members of the official opposition sitting over there who did. They were very active and effect was given to many of the amendments they advocated, resulting in the improvement of the bill, I believe. I hope the present government or any future government will not force any band of farmers, whatever they produce, to join an organization in whose affairs they do not wish to become involved.
It has been shown this afternoon that under the terms of what was Bill C-176 the cattlemen have every opportunity to do what the hon. member suggests they should be forced to do. What he is saying is that legislation should be passed to set up a national cattle marketing board. He does not promise there will be a vote or anything else. He just says that the government, acting in a dictatorial fashion, should set up a board. Well, Mr. Speaker there are rumours floating around the building these days, and I hope that the motion presented by the New Democratic Party gets wide circulation across Canada through members representing rural constituencies, because I think many people would take a dim view of the fact that such a motion has been introduced. It might be regarded as a friendly gesture in the hon. member's constituency, but if it is, it is the only constituency I know in which the cattlemen would like such a board.
I come from an area in which there are large numbers of cattle. I do not want to get into a friendly scrap with my friends from Alberta because possibly there are places in Alberta where there are as many cattle as in the constituency I represent. Be that as it may, we call ourselves the beef capital of Canada. And I do not know any cattlemen, not one, who would appreciate hearing hon. members of the New Democratic Party say to them: "You must be subject to a national cattle marketing board; you have no say about it."
The cattlemen have been given every opportunity to get a board established if they wished. Under the terms of Bill C-176, as I understand it, if the appropriate steps are followed the government has no alternative but to set up
Cattle Marketing Board
an agency in any way they desire. Surely we have not reached the stage in Canada when we are going to force the cabinet or anybody else, labour unions, school teachers or firemen, in Vancouver or wherever they may be, to join something they do not wish to join.
These are the things I most respectfully wanted to point out to my hon. friend, who I presume brought this motion forward with every good intention. I have made many mistakes in my political life and I suggest that my hon. friend has made at least one, and that one has been demonstrated in the presentation of this motion this afternoon.


Mr. Florian Cote (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, when I read the bill introduced by my colleague from Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly), I told myself: surely he did not consult with the members of his party who participated two years ago in the stormy debate on Bill C-176 to prepare that Bill. The principles which he has laid out this afternoon are described in the same bill.
But when 1 read the speech on the Cattle Marketing Board, I told myself: there is certainly going to be a heated discussion between 5 and 6 Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats, because the battle, in 1971-72 opposed two philosophies: on the one hand a desire to impose marketing boards too directly, and on the other hand, an attempt to reject my Progressive Conservative friends' position concerning these marketing boards. Between the two stood the government trying to make the marketing boards operative within as mush a diplomatic way as possible. And this was done by presenting the bill in the following manner. First, it was discussed with the people responsible for the local marketing boards in each of the provinces, who then decided in a democratic way, with the people responsible for the marketing boards at the provincial level, what decisions should be referred to the federal Department of Agriculture. Following that decision or that local decision, which was not arbitrary but which came from the grass roots


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wants to ask a question to the hon. member for Richelieu.

The hon. member may ask his question.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: My question very briefly is this. In view of the hon. member's exposition of the fact that there should be a vote held before a cattle marketing board is established-and I agree-once a marketing board is established and the people have accepted it, as they have the Canadian Wheat Board with its jurisdiction over feed grains, does he not think there ought to be a vote to dismantle this marketing board, it having been accepted by the farmers of this country?

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines


Florian Côté: I think so, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend is right, and this is what I am trying to explain to him. We should deal with all the other food products. Each provincial board should prepare the marketing of all foodstuffs, not only beef but also vegetables and other food products so that producers can become aware of the marketing of their own products.
This is why I would be disappointed to see this bill implemented arbitrarily, and I can see that my Progressive Conservative friends are in a very embarrassing position; earlier, when my hon. friend made his speech, they dozed. They just did not want to understand. They did not want to listen to the explanations given up to now because these were completely opposed to what they proposed. However, each time we discuss agricultural problems in this House, se are faced with the famous problem of marketing.
Those who questioned the government and harass the ministers are precisely the ones who denied the farmer the right to get marketing boards and to receive the help of the federal government. In fact, we are ready to assist them through Bill C-176 that have been presented precisely for that purpose. I wish I could have told several things to my hon. friend. Even though it is six o'clock I wish I could explain to him that it would put the farmer in a position directly opposite the one suggested by my Progressive Conservative friends. We should even not succeed in establishing it because the Progressive Conservatives would vote against us. It is bound to occur particularly under a minority government. When you wish to do a good deed you have to face a political party that, for the sake of its electoral interest, remain seated like my Progressive Conservative friends did this afternoon and so the governments cannot operate efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is six o'clock and I resume my seat.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour for private members' business has expired.

It being just about six o'clock, the House will now resume in the Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill C-27, to facilitate the relocation of railway lines or rerouting of railway traffic in urban areas and to provide financial assistance for work done for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at railway crossings-Mr. Basford-Mr. Turner (London East) in the chair.
John Napier Turner: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. When the committee rose at five o'clock it was considering clause 5, as amended, of Bill C-27, to facilitate the relocation of railway lines or rerouting of railway traffic in urban areas Shall clause 5, as amended, carry?
On Clause 5-Submission to Commission of Transport Plan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, at five o'clock I was attempting to sum up my anxiety and slight agitation about the minister's reluctance to speak about the area he represents, a portion of Vancouver, and basically about the shortcomings, which are obvious to me as a person from the prairies, in the transportation system feeding the harbour of Vancouver. I have almost begged the minister all this afternoon and last evening to speak and to point out clearly that there is a master plan, that the harbours board and the city of Vancouver have agreed upon and accepted a plan which will fall within the ambit of this piece of legislation.
I questioned the minister in this regard on clauses 3 and
4.	We are now on clause 5. I could go on and question him again and again, particularly on clause 10. My basic anxiety lies in the fact that the port of Vancouver is poorly served by the present railway network.
It is poorly served as clearly exemplified at a transportation conference on April 10, when the CPR said it took four days to send a boxcar loaded with grain from Calgary to Vancouver. This was caused by slowness in moving cars into the port, with a build up of cars moving into the terminal elevators at Vancouver. One of the marshalling yards at Vancouver belongs to an American railroad, and the Mann marshalling yard, some distance from the outskirts of Vancouver, is owned by the CNR.
In considering this bill, which suggests that the federal government will have money to relocate trackage, we should be told exactly what marshalling yards can be affected by it, what rail grade crossings come under its ambit, and what road and highway separations will be affected by it.
We have seen the Minister of Transport stand up in this House and say that transportation in Canada is in a mess. He does not have a transportation policy. Now we see the minister of state responsible for urban affairs introducing a piece of legislation that specifies the percentage which the federal government will pay to improve part of the mess, but we still have no over-all concept to tackel the entire problem.
April 30, 1974

I have pointed out the delays. I have said that there was an all-encompassing plan proposed for Vancouver. I zero in on Vancouver because the minister should be more aware of this plan than he seems to be. Just to give an example, I would like to read again from an article by Mr. Wilson, which was published on January 9 of this year. In it he points out that the British Columbia railroad also serves the port of Vancouver. I have asked the minister what railroads come under this legislation, but he has not even answered that question. He sits over there like a bump on a log, trying to get this legislation passed.
Mr. Wilson points out in his article that the British Columbia railroad claims there have been delays of 14 to 15 days in handing over cars to the CNR in north Vancouver for delivery to consignees in and near the Fraser Delta. For example, the British Columbia railroad moves lumber cars destined for mills on the Fraser River. When its cars can best be interchanged with those of the CNR they are tediously trundled over the Second Narrows Bridge to the CNR yard in Port Mann. All this takes somewhere in the neighbourhood of 14 to 15 days.
One did not have to belong in the House of Commons this past winter to realize that lumber cars were in short supply. Here we have trackage congestion which has caused a great delay in the delivery of lumber cars on the CNR, the CPR, and the British Columbia railroad. Further, grain cars have been in short supply on all three railroads.
I ask the minister whether this legislation will facilitate the relocation of the trackage. Is there a plan already accepted for the city and the harbour of Vancouver? I could quote from the record of committee proceedings in April, 1970, when the then chairman of the harbours board stated there was a major plan in existence for the harbour of Vancouver, Burrard Inlet and the whole complex.
I do not want to take up any more time in this debate, but I do not want the minister to get up and say if this legislation will assist in improving trackage facilities north and south of the Burrard Inlet? Will it facilitate the building of a railroad around Port Moody over the Indian Arm Inlet?
The minister remains silent in his seat, failing to defend his own area, where this harbour handles well over 30 per cent of the total tonnage entering and leaving Canada, according to a National Harbours Board press release dated March, 1972. I will do my best to make the Vancouver harbour authorities aware of the minister's silence. His silence means that this legislation will not alleviate the difficulties that have become apparent to all people who move tonnage in and out of Vancouver. I will make that abundantly clear to the authorities in Vancouver if there is an election in the very near future.
The minister has been asked pertinent questions concerning the area which he represents. He has failed to reply yes to any of the pertinent questions I have asked him; let that go on the record. The people of Vancouver will clearly hear the record. Like a lot of other members of the cabinet, the minister's tongue is tied. They can only do what they are told, and they have not yet been told to defend Vancouver harbour. They have not yet been told to improve the trackage at Vancouver harbour.
Relocation of Railway Lines
I only hope that some day representatives who are sent here from Vancouver will be subjected to sufficient pressure that they will have the intestinal fortitude to defend their area. If the minister would say that he apologizes to me because this legislation will not alleviate the lumber and grain car problems at that port, I would accept his apology. He could say that the next piece of legislation to be introduced would do so. But from his silence I can only conclude that he has no defence. The people of Vancouver should be made aware of this.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, up until now I have not replied to the hon. member for Crowfoot because I wanted to have his case fully on the record in all its glory and fulsomeness. He has now placed his remarks before the committee on clauses 5 and 6.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And 7, 8, 9 and 10 are yet to
come.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I am a very modest minister. I am very hesitant to mention Vancouver in relation to this bill because, if I do, the hon. member will probably say that I am using my position as a minister to favour my own city. But as I said on second reading and throughout the various stages, this bill will be of immense value in improving major urban centres across the country such as Halifax, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, and that jewel on the Pacific, Vancouver.
The hon. member for Crowfoot asks if we have a plan for Vancouver. His complaint is the same as mine. In the city of Vancouver, in terms of the movement of goods and the movement of people, we have had study after study after study. We have had studies by the National Harbours Board, by the city of Vancouver, by the B.C. research council, by the provincial government, by the two national railroads and the provincial one, all of which have made recommendations for the improvement of the movement of goods and people around the city of Vancouver. Until now, however, none has provided the mechanism for this, as we now have under the aegis of this legislation.
This legislation arms the Canadian Transport Commission with the authority to implement a transportation plan for a given urban area. For the first time it will have authority to order a co-ordinated, consistent transportation plan for the movement of goods and people in and through the port of Vancouver. As Minister of State for Urban Affairs, if I do nothing else but succeed in passing this legislation through this House, giving the cities of Canada the benefit of it, I will be very happy and proud of that. I know that the hon. member, in supporting the legislation, will be equally proud.
The hon. member for Crowfoot is concerned with the shipment of prairie products through the Rockies to the port of Vancouver. He says Vancouver has been poorly served by the railroads. In some respects the railroads are badly organized; in some respects the time taken for switching cars from one side of the harbour to the other, from CN to CP and to B.C. Rail, is a long, expensive, complicated and delaying process as he has suggested.

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
This legislation can provide a means for the city of Vancouver and the National Harbours Board to work out a railroad relocation, rerouting, rationalization plan and to put it to the CTC and the railroads. Hearings can be held and for the first time we can get beyond the stage of plans and studies and projects. We can now get down to the nitty gritty and reorganize railroad traffic through Vancouver to ensure an efficient, effective system for the movement of goods and people in and through the port of Vancouver.
The hon. member mentioned several projects, one of which was the moving of the Burlington Northern Railroad. The hon. member for New Westminster, who has taken a great interest in this legislation, is also interested in that particular aspect. How can the Burlington Northern be moved inland from the shores of White Rock, giving back to the waterfront area of White Rock the use of their beach property? Well, Mr. Chairman, this proposal can be put forward under this legislation.
The hon. member raised the question of the waterfront at Vancouver. The Department of Urban Affairs and the city of Vancouver currently have financed jointly a waterfront study in the city of Vancouver which, among other things, is putting forward proposals for the rationalization of the rail lines on the waterfront. Rather than being one of a series of studies, concrete proposals can now be put forward and implemented under the railroad relocation plan.
There are some projects that the hon. member did not mention. For instance, under this legislation we can rationalize and remove the railways from the area of False Creek, which is the heart of Vancouver. By that method the heart of the city of Vancouver can be rebuilt under an accepted urban and transportation plan.
Under clause 6 of the legislation the Canadian Transport Commission can order the use of railroad rights of way for rapid and public transportation systems. We can therefore use this legislation to provide public and rapid transit from Stanley Park through downtown Vancouver out to Marpole and the International Airport on the one side, and through Burnaby, New Westminster and the Fraser Valley on the other. That would be a tremendous move, a plan of incomparable value to the city of Vancouver and the lower mainland of British Columbia.
I have remained silent because I have not wanted to brag too much about the value of this legislation to the city which I represent; but the hon. member wanted an exposition of how this could bring about an improvement and a rationalization of the transportation system in the port of Vancouver. This legislation for the first time gets us beyond the stages of studies and rhetoric and gives us a concrete mechanism for implementing and improving transportation facilities to move western produce to Vancouver and to move people in the lower mainland.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a couple of questions in order to clarify his remarks, if I may. The minister said that the legislation encompassed a lot of things, but he failed to recall that at the beginning of my remarks I suggested it looked as if there was an election coming. This legislation will encompass almost everything, and so the minister could go
[Mr. Basford.}
through the country waving a magic wand saying "This is possible". I never doubted that he could say that in Vancouver. Indeed, he went through a long list of things that he could say it about in Vancouver. No doubt if there is an election he will go there and wave his magic wand.
Who is going to initiate this action? Is it a new policy of the government that the CTC shall initiate it? Will the CTC have the authority to go to the CNR and tell them that they can no longer use the Burlington Northern marshalling yards, that they are to be forced to move and that appropriate action will now take place?
Is the CTC to be given the power to tell the CPR that they must build a railroad around Port Moody and over the Indian Arm causeway? Is the CTC to have that authority under this legislation? I think the country and the House should know if that is the case, because the Minister of Transport has said repeatedly in this House and in the transport committee that he has no power, that the CTC has all the power. I think that members of this House who are concerned about transportation in this country should know whether we are giving the minister, who is responsible to the people, more power under this legislation, or whether we are giving it to the CTC, which is responsible to no one, as somebody suggests. I do not know to whom they are responsible. I read an article which said that Mr. Benson is not the father of the child of the CTC, that Mr. Pickersgill, a former minister of transport, was. It is said that Mr. Benson is the adoptive father of the child, that as such we believe he will treat the child well. I suggest such belief is not true. I suggest he feels like the adoptive father, and he will gobble up more and more power.
In a democracy, elected members are answerable to the people. To whom will the commission answer? If the bill empowers the CTC to direct the railways to make improvements in Vancouver, for instance, we should be told, so that we know what provisions we are passing. If we agree that the bill should do this, then the clause should pass. On the other hand, have the railways power under the bill to go to the CTC and ask for changes? Suppose the CNR is tired of using the Burlington Northern marshalling yards at Vancouver and wants its own yards built. Can the company go to the CTC and say, "Pay us 50 per cent of the cost of building new marshalling yards in the Vancouver area so that we can serve the port better and load and unload our cars more easily"? Do the railways have such power? Have the cities such power?
The bill refers to a transportation study and to plans which must be accepted. I know that the minister, representing the people of the Vancouver area, may wave his magic wand and say, "We will spend $1 million on this job and $1 million on that." Promises will be made, elections will come and go, and in the end the people will wonder where the money went and why the yards were not built. In the last election we saw cabinet ministers running here, there and everywhere, offering to build a new port in Toronto, a fancy facility here and another there. Some of those facilities still have not been built.
By whom is the transportation study to be initiated? Is it the CTC? Is it government policy to empower the CTC
April 30, 1974

to make decisions which may affect the National Harbours Board, or will such decisions be made on the basis of political expediency? Will the political party in power direct the CTC to do these things? These things are not clear.
According to the committee proceedings I referred to, $11 million was appropriated for the development of Vancouver harbour in 1969. We were told by an official of the board that $3 million was spent on the development of Roberts Bank. Clearly somebody said that that money must be spent on Roberts Bank. Under the bill we are discussing, who will say where money is to be spent? Will it be the CTC? Will it be the Department of Urban Affairs? Will it be the Department of Public Works? Or will it be the Minister of Transport, who already is sceptical about the role of the CTC? The minister should answer these questions. Who will direct whom with regard to improvements to Vancouver harbour, improvements which he suggested are possible under this bill?


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Chairman, in speaking on clause 5, I allude again to remarks I made this afternoon when I said that although I am reasonably satisfied with the purpose of this legislation, I am disturbed at the vast powers given to the CTC. As I said, members on my side do not place too much confidence in the Canadian Transport Commission. We are disturbed to note the speed, or lack of it, with which it acts on applications, and at the lack of parliamentary control ove the CTC. The situation is manifestly ridiculous. We are asked to pass a bill which will make available hundreds of millions of dollars to a body over which parliament has no effective control.
Let me explain what I mean. Clause 3 gives the CTC power to consider applications and determine if the applications are valid. Then the commission must determine whether funds are to be provided with respect to the financial plan and transportation plan. There is a study under way in the Moncton area on which $150,000 has been spent. It follows other studies, and before they are all completed we shall have spent perhaps half a million dollars on them. That may be fine, but I wonder what is the purpose of clauses 5(1) and 5(1) (c), where provision is made for plans to be altered. Clause 5(1) reads:
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,...
Subparagraph (c) of clause 5(1) says, in so many words, that if the municipality or province applying for assistance does not agree with the changes the commission has made to the plan, the whole thing shall be tossed out. Why provide government funds for an exhaustive study of a financial and transportation plan, which we assume will be done by reputable and responsible people, if the whole thing can be tossed out? Why include such a provision which negates the entire thrust of the statute? I think I have read the bill correctly.
Let me ask the minister, why is it necessary to give the CTC power arbitrarily to alter a financial plan or transportation plan as it sees fit? If we intend to give the CTC veto power, provision should be made for arbitration and consultation. If the CTC suggests certain changes, they should be referred back to the applicant, who may or may
Relocation of Railway Lines
not agree. This clause, as I read it, provides that the CTC can make any change it deems necessary, and only after the plan has been agreed to will the CTC approve it. Such language is not necessary. Why spend a lot of money on a plan which the CTC can toss out at will?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the answer is simple. Obviously, we must start from some base. So we provide for federal contributions for the development of a transportation plan or proposal-"proposal" may be the better word-and for an urban development plan or proposal. The municipality and the province must agree on the transportation proposal or the urban development proposal, and that proposal goes by way of application before the Canadian Transport Commission.
The Transport Commission has to hold hearings on that plan or proposal, because if it does not have the right to vary the plan, the hearings would be a nullity. There would be no purpose to them. The hearings are held on the initial plan, or on the initial proposal, which is a better word. The parties which may be affected by the proposal are heard from, after which the CTC makes an order carrying into effect either the original proposal or a variation of the proposal which may be necessary as a result of the hearings.
Let me give the hon. member an example. Moncton, from which he comes, is a crucial transport link in the Atlantic provinces. If someone were to come along and say, "We want to relocate the railroads and take them out of Moncton," the result would be the virtual destruction of the transport system of the Atlantic provinces.
The CTC must be empowered and able to make such variations in the plan to ensure that after relocation there is a viable transportation system for the Atlantic provinces and that communication through Moncton is not completely destroyed by reason of the relocation scheme. That is why they are given the powers they have.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Mr. Chairman, the answer the minister has given me has shed some new light, but I am at a loss to understand where the authority or direction is given to the CTC to hold a hearing. The minister said they must hold a hearing. The only clause I see that refers to a hearing is the one we are talking about amending. It says they "may" hold a hearing. There is nothing to compel them to do so. If there is a public hearing, that is fine.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member was engaged in another committee this afternoon, but clause 5(2) was amended this afternoon to make it mandatory that the CTC hold hearings.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister if, under clause 6 of Bill C-27, problems such as the one that occurred in Quebec City will be solved. You will all remember the struggles of Parish of Saint-Roch Pastor Msgr. Lavoie for the removal of the rails located in this area of Quebec City.
Does clause 1 give enough authority to the Canadian Transport Commission to order CN or CP to stop using all

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
rails located in the study zone provided in the bill and to which the plan refers? For example, if, in a plan put forward by Quebec City, it is established that the rails in this zone will have to be removed to allow the city to implement an urban plan, as accepted by the province and responding to the needs of the district and to the needs of the city, does this clause give enough authority to force the railway companies to remove the rails and the buildings located on the land? I would also like to ask the minister if, under this clause, a city, in this case Quebec City, can be exempted from going to civil courts? Can the Canadian Transport Commission demand the implementation of its orders to simplify procedure, that its decisions are expeditious, and that the taxpayers as well as the city involved are saved additional expenses?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, a very quick answer to the first part of the hon. member's remarks is yes. The CTC is empowered to order, for example, discontinuance and vacation or discontinuance of railway operations and the removal of the railroad facilities from that land, relocation of the lines and use of rail lines belonging to one company for another. Under clause 6 it is fully empowered to carry out the purpose to which the hon. member has referred. Knowing something of the Quebec city relocation proposals, although not in detail, I am quite satisfied that the legislation contains sufficient power to emplement these schemes.
With regard to the second part of the question, the answer is no, they do not have to go to court. The CTC has full authority in its own being and statutory existence to make orders and enforce them against the railways, which come fully within their jurisdiction.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Chairman, while we are dealing with this particular clause I must say I am very pleased the minister has accepted the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Scarborough West. As I study the provisions in this bill, I must say I find it very difficult to pass judgment on this piece of legislation before knowing what the overall transportation policy of the government is going to be.
I share the concern expressed by other hon. members about the very wide powers the CTC is being granted, powers which in my opinion go well beyond the matter of regulation. This was alluded to by the minister in previous discussion.
It is very difficult to know whether to take seriously some of the statements by government spokesmen which suggest that inter-city transport, particularly in high density areas, will revert to a large degree to rail transportation. That strikes at the very heart of this bill.
What concerns me even more is the procedure with regard to appeal provisions. I wonder if the minister can explain whether section 64 of the National Transportation Act, which gives the governor in council the power, at any time at his discretion, or upon petition of any party, person or company, to alter, vary or rescind any order or decision that has been proposed by the CTC, would apply to the provisions of this particular bill. I think that section is very important, particularly when we consider the vacuum in the entire transportation policy throughout the

various modes of transportation in this country, especially in the field of urban transportation.
I do not think any area of transportation is more important at this time, as far as the future of transportation is concerned, than urban transportation. It is quite clear to many members that we probably stand on the threshold of many new, innovative and technological concepts in the field of inter-city and urban rapid transportation. We hear talk of 300 miles per hour trains in high density areas such as Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, magnetic levitation trains.
We hear of the importance of surface transportation by rail as being something of very major importance in respect to fuel economy, having regard to the energy situation. It seems that at this time we are granting a tremendous amount of authority to a body, which is largely a regulatory body, to pass judgment on the future development of our transportation network in this very critical area. I believe there is a great future in surface transportation, particularly inter-city rail transportation.
At the moment we find the government spending huge sums to develop STOL aircraft for inter-city travel. We shall have to make up our minds soon whether to develop an efficient surface transportation network, or whether to rely on the STOL transportation system. The minister has often suggested that the CTC is an all-powerful body over which he has no control, save in exceptional circumstances, and we still do not know what those circumstances are. I am wondering whether section 64 of the National Transportation Act which set up the CTC would apply in this case, whether there is a right of appeal and, if so, what is the proper appeal procedure to be followed.
We know that the CTC has moved very slowly in implementing some of the sections of that act. I need only mention the famous rapeseed case which was brought to the attention of the commission in 1970 and with respect to which a decision is still awaited. It was demonstrated to the commission that the freight rate being charged was inequitable and prejudicial to the public interest. Yet after four years this case has still to be resolved.
Surely when we embark on legislation which is so important to the development of effective urban transportation, these questions should be settled before the legislation is allowed to pass. The bill is basically a good one and the government is to be commended for presenting it, but there are areas which need to be clarified and there is no better time to do so than the present. Having served on the transport committee for some time and having heard both the President of the CTC and the Minister of Transport give evidence before that committee, it is my impression we still cannot form any clear picture of the relationship.
The minister suggests the CTC is holding him up and preventing him from doing things he wants to do. The CTC, on the other hand, says there are matters of policy involved and that it has no control over policy considerations. In any case, I feel that adequate appeal procedures should be established, and if the minister can tell us what mechanism can be used for this purpose he would be doing the committee a service by clarifying an important part of the bill.
April 30, 1974


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that section 64, which relates to the general operations of the CTC, would apply to orders made under this bill. That is one method of control. I agree with the hon. member when he emphasizes the importance of developing our urban areas to the best of our ability and the part rail relocation can play in such development. Then again, if the hon. member would look at the financial formulae for which provision is made in the legislation he will see that, as far as other federal programs are concerned, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs must advise that they are co-ordinated and that moneys are available. The Minister of Transport responsible for the relocation aspect must indicate that a relocation grant is available and will in fact be paid. These funds are provided annually by parliament and in this way parliament can exercise control over the operation of this statute. The estimates of the Minister of Transport will provide an opportunity for members to examine this particular vote and ascertain the progress of the various applications before the CTC.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I shall comment only briefly on the remarks of my Progressive Conservative colleagues who fear that the Canadian Transport Commission will have too much power.
I do not agree with them and once again I congratulate the minister for having introcuced this bill, because I think it is important that the Canadian Transport Commission should have the necessary powers to implement the regulations it passes.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) earlier pointed out a problem that occurred in Quebec City. The problem was a very serious one, but the Commission, slow in its administration and encumbered by its bureaucracy, worked in such a way as to be detrimental to the Quebec City ratepayers.
Unless I am mistaken the Canadian Transport Commission is a Crown Corporation. I would like the minister to say what legal ties exist between the CTC and himself. And I ask those questions to enlighten our Progressive Conservative colleagues so they will understand the importance of the objectives to be achieved through this bill as well as the importance for the people of this country to be able to really benefit from this legislation by giving the CTC tools to work with.
Consequently, as a member of the opposition, while I agree that the CTC should be given the power to act effectively to solve the problem as they occur I would like to have the assurance from the minister that the Commission could be regularly accountable through its spokesmen in this House, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford). I would like the minister to give us his assurance on that, to say what legal ties exist between the Commission and the Department with respect to the implementation of this legislation so two absolutely basic objectives can be reached.
First, that Bill C-27 really meets the needs involved. A step forward was made this afternoon when it was recognized that municipalities are responsible governments. Tonight it would appropriate Mr. Chairman, for the minister to assure this House and particularly our colleagues in
Relocation of Railway Lines
the Official Opposition that that Commission will also be accountable to Parliament through the minister.
I have examined the status of Crown Corporations, considered agents in some cases and not in others and in any case, in all classes, these Commissions are supposed to be accountable to the House for the public monies they spend and the decisions they make.
Some difficulties are encountered with CBC but seldom with the Canadian Transport Commission, apart from the fact that it is much too slow to act.
Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is right in maintaining clause 6 as introduced as long as he gives us the assurance that the legal tie binding the Commission and the Department will ensure that Parliament's foremost requirement is met. Compliance with the law is essential provided that our fellow citizens be assured of the right or the privilege to really take advantage of this legislation. If our friends from the Progressive Conservative party understood Quebec, they would easily understand this section. We should see to it that from now on any law and regulations of the Canadian Transportation Commission can really be used and can deal with the problems facing Quebec in particular.
I understand that for our friends from the Progressive Conservative party Moncton, Vancouver, and the West are important, but it is about time that they should have a national view of the transportation problem and therefore they should recognize the importance of giving powers to a Commission by showing confidence in the Minister; it will always be time for a change of either the Commission or the Minister if this does not work.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I want to be very brief. I have already had the opportunity of speaking on this bill during second reading, but I do want to ask the minister a brief supplementary question or a question further to the point brought out by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville.
I do not have section 64 of the National Transportation Act before me, but having regard to the answer he gave my colleague I am wondering about section 64(2), which is to the effect that an appeal lies from a decision of the commission to the Supreme Court of Canada on a question of law or jurisdiction, upon leave being obtained from a judge of the supreme court. I believe there is a period of 30 days within which this process can be instituted. I am wondering whether the minister would not agree that if section 64 does apply-and I am happy that in his opinion and the opinion of his advisers it does-it would be better to have a specific section expressly setting this out in the act. Perhaps we should spell out some of the provisions so that we are not caught up with this question of jurisdiction and so it does not turn out that, in theory, this section might apply but in practice is difficult to implement.
What I am really suggesting is that, if this particular section is to apply, then there ought to be some effort made through this legislation to tailor it so it can apply as quickly as possible, without any problems arising as a result of the transposition of the provisions of this legisla-

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
tion to that area of the National Transportation Act where section 64 was originally intended to apply.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the commission referred to in this section is the Canadian Transport Commission, which would be subject to all the rules of its founding statute, namely the Canadian Transport Commission Act. So the answer to the hon. member's question is in the affirmative, namely that the rules and regulations set out in the National Transportation Act relative to the composition and rights of the Canadian Transport Commission would apply to the commission as spelled out in this legislation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I do, of course, accept what the minister says, and it may well be that he is perfectly correct. But I think section 64 does refer to a question of law or of jurisdiction. What is the situation if there is an appeal under this legislation by one of the parties which does not specifically fall within those two categories? Perhaps there are other considerations that the commission might decide to follow. Is the minister satisfied that the definition in section 64(2) is sweeping enough to take into account the purview or, if you will, the spirit of this bill, subject to this particular clause?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied on that point.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out in my remarks, paraphrasing the words of the Minister of Transport, he has suggested that only in very exceptional or rare circumstances does he exercise this right of appeal under section 64. I see the Minister of Transport in the House at this time and I am wondering whether he or the Minister of State for Urban Affairs could outline precisely what may have been meant by the phrase "exceptional circumstances". Because it appears that only under certain conditions does the governor in council deem it proper or advisable to exercise this right under that particular section. If this should become a loophole in respect of which this right of appeal can be exercised, perhaps it would be worthwhile to have that statement of the Minister of Transport clarified at this time.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the governor in council under the law would intervene at all times. But obviously that would not be a very satisfactory situation; otherwise we might as well not have the Canadian Transport Commission. The commission is appointed to perform certain functions under this legislation and it would seem proper that it should do so except in exceptional circumstances, in which case the governor in council would have to make the determination.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chau man, I do not want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily, but I think the hon. member for Vegreville has raised an important point regarding what are exceptional circumstances. Since the Minister of Transport is here in the House perhaps he might indicate to his colleague why there seems to be such consternation on his part as to the powers of the commission concerning matters of transportation. And perhaps the minister for urban affairs could put our minds at ease by assuring us that these appeal provisions will in fact be less onerous

than the Minister of Transport indicated when giving testimony before the committee.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Without going into the whole operation of the Canadian Transport Commission or the relations between it and the governor in council, I think it would be wrong to try in any precise form to spell out what are exceptional circumstances because then you would be foreclosing on the ability of the governor in council to intervene and hear an appeal in an appropriate case. Obviously the intent of the legislation is that the governor in council should feel free to intervene in exceptional circumstances. As I say, there would be no point in having a regulatory agency if the governor in council intervenes in every case. To spell out the precise set of rules which would govern this intervention would foreclose on any intervention in exceptional circumstances.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I really hesitate to belabour the point, but we are dwelling on this particular section simply because the Minister of Transport has indicated on several occasions in the House and in the committee that he really lacks the authority in this respect, and that the CTC has more power than does he. It is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that he can exercise his authority over the CTC. It is all well and good for us to be brainwashed with this phrase "exceptional circumstances", but perhaps we should find out how many times these exceptional circumstances have occurred during the time the National Transportation Act has been in effect.
The Minister of Transport has indicated on several occasions that the National Transportation Act is an ineffective piece of legislation, that it does not work because the principle of competition is wrong. In view of that I think it behooves us to take a second look at this particular provision. I am sure the Minister of Transport has been frustrated in his attempts to do certain things in the field of transportation because his efforts are hampered by certain legislative measures. I see the Minister of Transport in his seat and I would really appreciate his comments on this matter. Perhaps it would ease our minds if he commented on this, because it seems we could be involved in a set of circumstances in which the minister's hands are tied so that he cannot discharge the provisions of this act in accordance with its principle and spirit. If the minister is hampered because these exceptional circumstances do not apply, we could find ourselves being strangled because of the absence of policy and the very broad and far-reaching powers being delegated to the CTC by this piece of legislation.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not have any specific comments to make. The only thing I might say is that there is no doubt that the CTC has great powers in this field and that I am not sure it can be overruled.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I think it is fair to say to the minister who is piloting the bill through the House, in view of the comments we have had, that the CTC, which is already immensely powerful and is the subject of a lot of consternation, I think, from members on all sides of the House in terms of this very ambitious and worthwhile bill,
April 30, 1974

in many respects is being given still more power. At the same time we are still not sure, particularly in light of what the minister just said, that we have an efficient and practical way to appeal from the decisions of the commission. I think this is a very serious situation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether the Minister of Transport can tell the House the number of cases in which the governor in council has established its right of appeal under the provisions of section 64 since the enactment of the National Transportation Act. Has it been frequent?


Jean Marchand: Offhand-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. I think that this is more the type of a question which should be placed on the order paper when the House is sitting rather than in the committee. However, perhaps the minister wishes to reply.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the most recent case I can recall is the Bell Telephone Company case where there was an appeal by the governor in council. The rights of the governor in council are clearly set out in section 64 of the National Transportation Act to which the hon. member referred. Orders of the commission under this measure, Bill C-27, are subject to section 64, as I have pointed out.
In addition to that, the funds payable under Part I of this legislation are voted annually by parliament through estimates both of the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. So the control, it seems to me, is additionally there in that the Canadian Transport Commission, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will annually appear before the standing committees of this House under estimates for examination of the various proposals put forward under clause 1 of this legislation.
I think hon. members in the essence of their questions are concerned about the authority of the Canadian Transport Commission and how in fact they as members can ensure the effectiveness of the CTC. I think that is provided for under the National Transportation Act and under the budgetary provisions of this legislation, which provides for an immediate review by parliament of the funds spent and the allocation of funds.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's comments. It is quite obvious that in only one instance has the governor in council exercised its authority under section 64. I was waiting for him to provide other examples, but it seems that the case of the Bell Telephone Company is the only case in which the governor in council has established its right under section 64.
There have been many shortcomings in respect of the CTC and many criticisms about its operations by members in this House and indeed by members of the cabinet. Therefore I would simply say that if in the course of the life of the National Transportation Act we have had only one appeal under the provisions of section 64, this does not really offer much hope for an effective appeal procedure under the aegis of this particular bill.
I would urge that the minister seriously consider a more effective appeal procedure than that contained in this particular section 64, which the Minister of Transport has
Relocation of Railway Lines
pointed out is very difficult to exercise. It would seem that only under exceptional circumstances is the governor in council able to exercise its authority. If this piece of legislation is to be workable and meaningful to the municipalities for whom it is basically intended, I would feel much more comfortable if a more effective appeal procedure were provided within the bill. I urge the minister seriously to consider the suggestions put forward by myself and the hon. member for Central Nova.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The discussion is on clause 5, as amended.
Shall clause 5 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Acquisition of railway land.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, again I do not wish to take up too much time on clause by clause consideration but I have a few comments to make further to a point first raised, I think, with the minister by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain regarding the particular status of the lands in question with which the minister may deal pursuant to this clause. I do not believe the minister gave a specific commitment to the hon. member, although I have the impression that he asked for it, that he would obtain an opinion, or at least a statement of policy, concerning the exact status of the rights of way and other lands the railways have which in fact were granted to them for railway purposes.
I think this is a very important and fundamental part of this bill. Although the situation may vary from province to province, I suppose, depending on the history of railways that were built at various times since confederation and even before, if in some provinces the specific grants of land to the railways were for the purpose of providing a transportation system and it turns out that there is an opinion which may have some weight that the rights of way should revert back to the Crown when the railways cease to make use of them for railway purposes, then as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain pointed out we are in a somewhat absurd situation if the government purports to appropriate land which it may already own by virtue of this conversion.
I should like the minister to comment on this particular point, which was raised earlier in the discussion, and let us know whether in the meantime he has obtained information to the effect that there is some jurisprudence on this point and whether or not he is satisfied that in all parts of the nation to be affected by this bill the railways will in fact be the recipients of compensation for the loss of rights of way.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I did make some inquiries further to our discussions in the House the other day, only to be advised that any generalized opinion on this subject was impossible and impractical because of the great variety of original conveyancing clauses covering mineral rights, including reversionary rights relating to mineral
1906

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
claims. These vary according to the incorporating statutes and according to the grants made, which in turn vary from railroad to railroad and even from section to section. There are literally hundreds of documents and statutes which cover this point, and before being able to give a precise opinion one would have to know the precise railroad, the precise time of its construction, the precise time of the conveyance, and its precise location in Canada.
However, I would point out to the hon. member that since 1903, under section 136 of the Railway Act railroads do not acquire mining and mineral rights unless specifically mentioned in the grants to them. So all I can say by way of general opinion to the hon. member is to give him the assurance I previously gave him in the House the other day that we would use the expropriation power to acquire all the rights that were necessary to carry out the transportation plan, but would acquire no more rights than we felt the railroads were entitled to under law.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister to specify the exact meaning of clause 7. For example, we read the following:
7. When the Commission makes an order under subsection 6(1) requiring a railway company to cease to operate over a line within a transportation study area, the Commission may ...
Not "shall"-
... recommend that the Minister of Public Works acquire any land that is or was occupied as part of its railway undertaking...
Since the commission is free to decide whether the Department of Public Works shall acquire the lands occupied by the railway companies involved, if the commission does not decide whether the Department of Public Works must do the acquisition, can the minister say whether the lands occupied by the railway companies will automatically become the property of the city or municipality which has made an application for the relocation of the railway to carry out an urbanization plan as provided in Bill C-27? Mr. Chairman, it would be convenient to be enlightened about the provisions of clause 7 and the fact that commission may act but is not compelled to do so under the legislation. The said provision should then read as follows: "the Commission shall". Now, Mr. Chairman, if it was possible to give us some information, we would greatly appreciate it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, if voluntary sale of the land could not be carried out as part of the plan, it was necessary to put some expropriation power into the legislation that could not be given to a municipality or a province, which would not have expropriation power over a federally incorporated and controlled railroad. Therefore it was necessary in this clause to confer power within the federal government, namely on the Minister of Public Works, to expropriate land used for railway purposes as part of the railroad relocation scheme. The Minister of Public Works would expropriate it, using the federal jurisdiction and federal power solely as trustee for those who were ultimately to acquire the land pursuant to the urban development plan. That could vary from city to city. It could be the municipality, it could be the province. The land could be sold to the general public or commercial interests, or

assigned to recreational interests. Clause 7 is simply necessary to provide somewhere in the legislation a federally constituted authority, if need be, to expropriate a federally incorporated railroad property.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Could the the minister explain the meaning of land that is or was occupied, as part of the railway undertaking, by the railway company? Does that simply mean the right of way, or any land adjoining the right of way?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It would mean generally lands used for railway purposes, railway lands owned by railway companies which are used for activities directly associated with the operation of the railway transport services of the railway companies. As I made clear this afternoon, these lands could be for rights of way, marshalling yards, terminal depots, etc. Lands unconnected with railway purposes which might be owned by the railways would be covered by normal laws, by municipal ordinances and provincial powers of expropriation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate the minister's answer, but in a number of smaller communities the railways own a great deal of land now occupied as empty lots, usually rented to customers of the CPR who ship their products by the CPR or CNR, and who in turn lease this property for storage purposes or other temporary purposes to their customers. Would that be considered as part of a railroading operation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am not able to be precise in reference to any given city or situation, but what I would want to make clear is the intent of this legislation, namely that under clause 7 and other clauses it is designed to cover land which is designated as railway land and under the jurisdiction of the CTC. All other land would be covered by municipal ordinances and provincial laws, the intent being that the lands owned by the railroads, whether for railway purposes or for other purposes, under one heading or the other, are totally controlled.


Paul Yewchuk: Further to the questions asked by the hon. member for Vegreville I would like to give the minister an example so that he may clarify the matter a little further. I can think of a town in my constituency that has approximately 30 acres of land, in a strip 30 feet wide, running parallel to the railway tracks. It is not used for railway purposes. It is just sitting there awaiting possible future use. What would happen to that?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I can be called upon to give what might be used as a legal opinion on the standing of certain lands. It would depend on whether or not in fact that land was being used for railway purposes within the meaning of this bill and the National Transportation Act.
I repeat what I said before. The purpose and intent of this statute is that that part of the land falling within the definition of railway or "used for railway" is covered by CTC; other lands are covered by the usual municipal ordinances.
April 30, 1974


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I just want to try the minister's patience one more time and ask for a further definition. In committee we had a lot of discussion about the status of hotels vis-a-vis the railway. How does the minister envisage the situation where a hotel might be situated quite close to a railway right of way and perhaps have some railway facilities in it or adjoining it? Is this going to be considered as railway property in the sense that the minister has just discussed?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, again it would depend. The hon. member said a hotel owned by a railroad, and then he said a hotel with railway facilities in it. They are two different kinds of hotel. If it is a hotel owned by a railway and not connected with railway lands, then it would not be on railway lands within the meaning of this act and would obviously be covered by a municipal ordinance. If it is a hotel over a railroad station it is obviously built over railway lands.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-Recommending Relocation Grant.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, with respect to subclause (3) on the matter of the interest rate, may I ask if there are any guidelines or any formulae that the government has in mind to establish the rate of interest?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the intention would be to set the interest rate from time to time to reflect the general state of the national economy and the financial situation of the railway company involved. I am advised by the financial managers that the Department of Finance has a well-established practice in matters of this type and has set interest rates for this purpose in a variety of circumstances.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, would that be established on a semi-annual or on an annual basis?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot answer that precisely. I hazard a guess that it is done quarterly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are we dealing with a certain percentage over the prime rate here, a formula something similar to that in use in farm improvement loans or Farm Credit Corporation loans? Is this a rate established at a certain percentage above the government bond rate or the prime lending rate? I wonder if the minister might elaborate so that we can determine precisely what the formula is.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this section on the interest rate is to reflect the fact that modern capital investment techniques will be used in determining the net cost of the relocation. Ihe purpose of determining the net cost of railway relocation is to determine an "as is" value for the assets to be taken into account. To determine the capital value, it is necessary from time to time to set an interest rate pursuant to that order and this section. That is done in the usual and normal way by the Department of Finance. It is not related to such cases as Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation where there is a bor-
Relocation of Railway Lines
rowing rate and a lending rate, with a margin established by statute. This is a rate set by the Department of Finance for the purpose of determining capital values.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. minister to shed some light on clause 11(2) of the bill which reads as follows:
A relocation grant shall not exceed fifty per cent of the net costs of railway relocation as determined pursuant to section 13.
Since the federal government will assume only 50 per cent of the costs, can the minister advise the House who will assume the responsibility for the remaining 50 per cent? Will these costs be shared equally by the province and the municipality where the relocation is to take place, or will they be entirely the responsibility of the municipality and, in this case, who will submit the necessary application?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, what we have spelled out in the legislation is that 50 per cent of the net cost of the railroad relocation would be paid by the federal government. We have not tried to spell out any strict cost-sharing formula, as I think this would be a mistake and add an inflexibility that we do not want. We spelled out that we would pay 50 per cent; the remaining 50 per cent is to be found elsewhere. It will be spelled out in four ways: a contribution from the provinces; one from the municipalities; it is conceivable that the railroads will make some contribution; and it is conceivable that some private, nonrailway interests will make a contribution in order to get some schemes going. For example, if the railroad land was to be developed for commercial purposes, it is conceivable that the commercial interest would be prepared to make a contribution to the municipality toward the contribution they would pay. We have not tried to spell out where the other 50 per cent should come from. Without wanting to establish some strict cost-sharing programs I would think that provinces would assist municipalities generously in supporting these railroad relocation schemes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Valuation of Lands.
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could give an explanation of this clause, which states:
Where pursuant to this act a determination of the value of any land is required to be made by the commission ... the commission may appoint such qualified land appraisers as are necessary to determine the value of such lands.
What does an interested party do if he is not satisfied with the valuation placed on a particular piece of land? What is his remedy under this section? I should like to comment that I would hope that the land appraiser's qualifications will not be determined by whatever political persuasion he happens to hold.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the latter part of the question is no. That party would have the right, of course, to appoint his own evaluators, to establish his own case with regard to evaluation and put it forward at the public hearing. The determination of land values would be involved in any financial plan. Such determina-
27451-57!

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
tion would form part of the financial plan of the relocation, and would be taken into consideration in the order of the CTC with respect to the relocation grant. All of these areas are subject to public hearing. So valuations put forward under this section would be subject to challenge and to cross-examination by the party which feels its property is being undervalued. That party would be free to bring whatever evidence is available to support any different appraisal or valuation.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, if all this has been done, if all available persuasion has been brought forward and the commission has made its ruling but the parties are still aggrieved, what must they do next?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The remedy-I hope we are not going back in our discussion-would be the provisions pursuant to section 64.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: The committee will now consider Part II of the bill. Shall clause 15 carry?
On clause 15-Definitions.


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question relative to definitions contained in clause 15. Definitions are important to my community, where there are more than 30 crossings, where there should be grade separations, and where such work has been held up for several years because of inadequate funding, particularly on the part of the federal government. This has happened because the formula, which when initiated by the Diefen-baker government, represented something like 50 per cent of the cost of building the separation, has become eroded through inflation so that it provides only about 25 per cent of the cost. Therefore, I welcome the initiative the minister has taken and which the bill represents.
I want to ask one question about the definition of costs. I refer to the first paragraph of clause 15. Do the costs of construction directly involve only those costs having to do with the actual construction of a grade separation, or do they include costs which are necessary to the project but which do not necessarily form part of the construction? For example, some land acquisition might be necessary; some damages might be involved in the work. All these could represent reasonable and unavoidable costs.
My question to the minister is this. When a municipality draws up its plans for a separation of grade and makes a cost proposal to the CTC-that is, to the authority which designates what will be the federal share of the financial burden-will the costs figure include all reasonable costs, including those to which I referred, or will costs be confined simply to actual costs of construction?
The answer to my question is of concern to every municipality, and certainly my own, where 400,000 people live in 72 square miles and where, because there is a lack of grade separations, there are fatalities and traffic congestion and tie-ups day after day. I hope the minister will give a favourable reply.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the wording of clause 16 refers to costs, and that is to be interpreted as reasonable costs.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Would the minister mind repeating what he said? I could not hear.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Costs, as referred to in clause 16 of the bill, will be interpreted by the CTC, as I am informed, to mean reasonable costs.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: In view of the minister's answer, would he be willing to include the words "reasonable costs" in the legislation, either in clause 15 or clause 16?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that is necessary, as that would be the judicial interpretation given to the word "costs". The definition of costs in clause 15 is specific. It relates to the costs of public utility plans. There is a reference in clause 16 to costs which would be interpreted as the hon. member wants, because the judicial interpretation would be that costs are reasonable costs.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-Application for special grant
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Chairman, may I continue my dialogue with the minister relating to the definition of costs. I take seriously what he said about the interpretation of costs under clause 16 and I wish to make this point. If the judicial interpretation of costs will be as the minister suggests, it seems reasonable to make that definition the legislative definition as well. In order that there shall be no doubt in the minds of municipalities and government officials as to what the legislation spells out, I propose that clause 16 be amended by adding in line 4 of the clause the words, "all reasonable". The clause as amended would read:
Where a proposed construction or reconstruction of a grade separation of a railway crossing is desired in a province and all reasonable costs thereof, excluding the costs of relocating any public utility plant, appear likely to exceed one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars...
And so on. This amendment ought to be acceptable to the minister as it does not affect what he suggests is the intention of the government and of the CTC. It would clarify the intention for any people reading the act. It would clarify it for any local official and make it abundantly clear to every interested party that this is the intention of the government.
If it is not the intention of the government, that is something else. If the minister does not intend "costs" to mean "all reasonable costs", I can see why the government would resist my amendment. But if the government means exactly what the minister has said it means, and the amendment is not accepted, then I am forced to wonder why. I hope the minister will accept the amendment, as he has accepted other amendments which have improved the bill and made it easier to interpret. Therefore, I move my amendment, hoping he will find it acceptable.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I would be quite happy to amend the clause or have it amended, with the addition of the words "all reasonable" costs. I accept the hon. mem-
April 30, 1974

ber's suggestion. I do not know whether I should move the amendment or have the hon. member move the amendment and I second it.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It will be easier for the Chair if we proceed normally and consider a written amendment, to make sure there is no mistake. In the meantime we can proceed with the discussion on clause 16 while an hon. member or the minister sends a copy of the proposed amendment to the Chair.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Chairman, I shall become involved in this debate for a few moments only. May I ask the minister why, in a bill that has to do with relocation, there is a special clause having to do only with grade separation? It provides that the municipality has to go through the province to apply for grade separation. It changes the ground rules for the grade crossing fund, which state that funds may come from some source other than the grade crossing fund. It seems incongruous that this particular clause should be in this legislation. I wonder why it is, and not in the other legislation that now administers the grade crossing fund. Why is it necessary to have a province involved when a municipality can now go directly to the CTC under the provisions of the grade crossing fund? Why are we talking about amounts of money here?
As a municipal politician, I have been involved in a number of grade crossing funds and separations. I recall one that was over as many as seven tracks. The cost did not go as high as half a million dollars. All of a sudden, we are now talking in terms of $1!4 million. I am trying to conceive of what type of grade separation could cost that amount of money. I have raised a number of questions; I will wait for some of the answers and then follow them up.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As the former mayor of Belleville, the hon. member would have been involved in several grade crossing matters. I refer him to Part III of the bill, with which he will be familiar. It is a re-enactment, with increased financial limits, of the historic grade crossing fund. The procedures under Part III are exactly the same as they always have been, namely that the municipality can go to CTC and get a grant from the grade crossing fund for its grade crossing and grade separation proposals.
Part II is a totally new procedure. It is designed to deal with grade separation and highway relocation proposals that cannot be dealt with even under the increased amounts in the grade crossing fund. It is a design to cover what I can call special expenses and especially large grade crossings and grade separations or highway relocations. I think the procedures set out here should be different from the grade crossing fund procedures in Part III, simply because they are so big and designed to be so major that it is essential that we avoid any conflict between a municipality and its province with regard to these major undertakings and major highway relocations. That is the reason for the difference. I underline and emphasize to the hon. member that the procedures he is familiar with under the old grade crossing fund are duplicated or repeated in Part III of this legislation with increased limits.
Relocation of Railway Lines


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I have one brief supplementary. Do I understand from the minister that this is the reason for requiring that the municipality go through the province, that it cannot apply in its own right?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: On clause 16, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be disposed to accept a very simple amendment to coincide with the one proposed earlier to clause 5(2) by the hon. member for Scarborough West. If so, would he consider substituting the word "shall" for the word "may" on line 26 of page 12 in respect to holding a public hearing?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. We should try to proceed in an orderly way. Maybe we should dispose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Scarborough East before we get involved in any other suggested amendment. I hope the hon. member for Scarborough East will allow me to make a slight correction to his amendment. His amendment still has the word "the" which does not make any sense. The amendment suggested by the Chair would read as follows:
That clause 16(1) be amended by deleting the word "the" after the word "and" and substituting therefor the words "all reasonable".
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Stackhouse) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 16 as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I want to be fair to the hon. member for Central Nova, who is suggesting another amendment. I want to give him the chance to present the amendment.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the committee it would be constructive to amend clause 16(e) at line 26 of page 12 to provide for a public hearing. Rather than "may", I suggest it should read the commission "shall", as was the case in respect of clause 5(2) to which the hon. member for Scarborough West made a similar amendment. I would like to propose this amendment at this time. It is a very simple amendment; it involves substituting the work "shall" for the word "may" on line 26.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to discuss this because I want to move along as quickly as possible. I would like to accept the amendment if I could, but the situation this afternoon was not entirely the same. I agreed to an amendment which made holding a hearing by the CTC mandatory, but under Part I of the act. The scheme here is a little different in that when the commission is conducting an inquiry, there could be a hearing held by the commission itself or by the applicant. Under Part II, the applicant will invariably be a municipality. The commission can do two things; it can either order that it itself hold a public hearing, or that the municipality or applicant hold a public hearing. The amendment would provide that there be a public hearing, possibly by the

April 30, 1974
Relocation of Railway Lines
applicant and by the commission. I think this gets somewhat complicated. I implore the hon. member not to complicate it in this way.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the minister to clause 16(1), which says from line 1 on:
... appear likely to exceed one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, an application may be made to the Commission by the province or by any municipality on its behalf ...
The English version says:
... the province or by any municipality on behalf of the province ...
I should like to ask the minister whether that means, as was the case with clause 3, that the municipality can apply to the commission for a grade separation otherwise than with the agreement of the province, on behalf of the province, or does it merely mean that the municipality is acting on its own behalf?
Mr. Chairman, the explanation of the minister becomes extremely important because it will create a logical tie between clause 3 in Part I and clause 16 in Part II.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Again I say to the hon. member that Part II is somewhat different from Part I. This afternoon I accepted on behalf of the government the submission the hon. member made; but here in Part II we are dealing with matters which intimately involve the province. For example, clause 17 concerns highway relocation schemes. It is the province which organizes and conducts such schemes. I think it would be quite improper to pass legislation saying that a municipality could go before a federal board with a provincial highway relocation plan.
Again I implore the hon. member, it being five minutes after ten, not to complicate the matter in this way. I acceded to his request this afternoon, which I thought was well put, and I urge him to accede to mine this evening. I say that here, in clauses 16 and 17, we are dealing with matters which intimately involve the province.


André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to tell the minister that I accede to his request and agree with his explanation.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have been asked whether I should not put the amendment. There has been discussion of an amendment but a copy was never brought to the Chair. Although it is a very simple amendment, I think we ought to proceed in an orderly way, and that the amendment should be in writing. As far as the Chair is concerned, there is no amendment before the Committee at the moment.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I have given some consideration to what the minister has just said and discussed the matter with my hon. friend, a former mayor of Belleville. In the circumstances, I believe that what the minister has said is correct, and I should like to withdraw the amendment in any case.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 23 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Progress reported, bill read the third time and passed. [English]
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and myself I should like to express to hon. members of the House, as a matter of privilege, our very great thanks and gratitude for the special arrangements which have been made for the passage of this bill. We have heard from many speakers during the committee stage and there have been many members of all parties who have resisted the temptation to speak. I know, as does the Minister of Transport, that there are members of all parties who have a very deep interest in railway relocation in their cities and who, in order to get this bill through to the advantage of their cities, have remained silent. To those who spoke and to those who did not, I offer my very great thanks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: That will be considered a question of consideration rather than a question of privilege.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up a question I asked the minister regarding the inequity in medical services across Canada and the methods of overcoming this problem. The minister was kind enough to state that he would talk to his counterparts in the provinces, as they were reviewing the matter, and would let me know what can be done. Surely this is the eleventh hour in respect of this matter and the answer should have been given long ago.
There are many areas across Canada without doctors. There are areas where nurses alone do the medical work hundreds of miles from any doctor. How can the academics come up with an intelligent answer when only the provincial registrars know the number of doctors under registration?
The establishment does not even know how many doctors are in active practice, part-time practice, occasional
April 30, 1974

locum-tenens, administrative positions, research and teaching, part-time teaching and practice, how many specialists are doing only referral work, private practice and referred work. How, then, can we know if we have too few doctors or too many doctors when we have no national figures compiled by the Canadian government or the Canadian Medical Association? In addition there are no official figures on the increasing number of older people in Canada, which means an increase in the workload on the doctors. Who has the figures in this regard?
The federal government brought in medicare to establish equality of medical care to the rich and the poor across this land. Just as in so many good intentioned schemes on the part of the government, the poor have suffered the most. The government has done nothing to cure uneven geographical distribution of medical care.
Medical schools have not dealt adequately with inequality of medical care and its uneven geographical distribution, or the over-production of specialists at the expense of training general practitioners.
Medical schools could have made dedication instead of academic qualification the number one requirement. Academic qualification means very little in respect of the kind of doctor who will be turned out in the field. In any event it would seem that a higher priority is given to academic answers than to judgment and dedication in the work field.
The powers that be state that without the immigrant doctors we would be worse off than we are now because many of these doctors serve in outlying areas. We certainly would be in an unthinkable position without all the foreign doctors who come to our shores to practice. However, more Canadian boys and girls should be admitted to our medical schools. We should not be stealing students from India and other countries which are much worse off than Canada. We should not be rejecting our own boys and girls. What kind of foreign aid is this? The Canadian students could be admitted and their fees paid, if necessary, if they are willing to serve in those areas which require medical practitioners. The minister says that we have over-production. He said that we have one doctor for every 633 people. How does he know this?
We are told that in the province of Ontario 25 per cent of all registered doctors do not practice medicine. I challenge the minister to give us accurate figures on how many doctors nationally are engaged in full general practice, part-time practice, administrative positions, government employment and so on. Yes, we have those academics who believe they can solve the problem by removing local hospital boards and administrators and putting in regional directors, by establishing clinics of about five persons and by establishing a quota system and a 24-hour service. What a day the bureaucrats would have and how expenses would skyrocket with doctors on salary administered by the bureaucrats! The bureaucrats apparently do not realize that in the area where I live and practice one can now see a doctor 24 hours a day just by going to the emergency department of the local hospital where a specialist is in attendance when necessary.
Adjournment Debate
How will the situation change? Only by having more doctors. Let us return to the statement that there is an ample supply of doctors in cities. If this were the case then medical services would be competitive and the people would have a free choice in respect of doctors. After all, the taxpayers are paying for these services and have that right of choice. If you do not consider your doctor to be satisfactory then you should have the opportunity to change to another. I always hope this will be the situation. After all, the taxpayer is a little closer to the doctor. He is not out of touch, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the provincial ministers appear to be.
In an effort to increase the number of graduates the federal government should pay the university so much per graduate and increase the amount paid in respect of every medical student who practices in an outlying district. This would increase the output per university. The university could give the doctor a temporary certificate which would become permanent after five years of general practice. After all, courses at medical schools are expensive. The expense per year in respect of Ontario universities is about $6,000 per student. Five years in general practice would equip a doctor very well, and if he cared to go on he would become a much better specialist. Alternatively, loans could be considered for a needy student which would be forgiven in five years if he qualified. Or a straight tax incentive could be given.
If the government is as concerned as it appears to be, the problem of supplying Canadian graduates to understaffed medical areas could easily be accomplished by these methods, instead of by pushing the immigrant doctor into these areas. After all, it is not quite fair to take from the underdeveloped countries the cream of their crop because such people are badly needed in these areas. India has one doctor for every 6,000 people. I wonder what the situation would be had we not sponged all these immigrant doctors, one half of whom have come here in the last ten years. The influx of doctors from outside Canada between 1950 to 1960 was one-third of our registered doctors per year, and from 1960 to 1970 it was one-half of our registered doctors. Just a little over one-third were registered to practice in the province of Ontario. Those doctors on the whole practised good medicine. Most were from Great Britain, the USA, Europe and India, and they made a great contribution not only in the teaching field but also in the actual field of practice.
Next to immigrant doctors from Great Britain was the American physician. We will always remember names like Penfield from the United States, Austin from Guys Hospital, Miller from Edinburgh and Melvin from Aberdeen- all great teachers. What would medicine in Canada have been without them?
Let us stop this arbitrary nonsense now. We have grown up. The Canadian people have a right to know facts, not platitudes or guesses. They are paying the cost, something that sometimes the academic establishment forgets. People expect to be able to see a doctor when they are sick. They have that right.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the question of the supply of physicians is one presently under active consideration. It

April 30, 1974
Adjournment Debate
was discussed at the recent meeting of federal and provincial ministers of health in February, at which time a consensus was reached on the necessity of achieving certain objectives: first, a better balance between the requirements for physicians of all kinds, taking into account the role of allied health workers and the two sources of supply, Canadian medical schools and immigration; second, to give a higher priority to Canadian students aspiring to a medical career and to Canadian graduates wishing to practice in Canada; third, to promote a better distribution of physicians' services, particularly to serve rural areas as well as to relate specialty training to community needs. In the minister's view, well co-ordinated measures must be taken to achieve these objectives, considering the particular circumstances in each province.
Some of the options to be considered include physician quota systems by regions, restrictions on immigration, and appropriate medical school enrollment. Physician quota systems are being considered by certain provinces in conjunction with other measures to regulate the supply of health manpower.
The hon. member is also undoubtedly aware that new regulations have recently been drafted which have the effect of limiting applications in occupations which have no general demand for them in Canada unless they are destined for pre-arranged employment, or there is a demand for this occupation in a certain location in Canada and the applicant agrees to proceed to that location.
The federal government will be meeting with the provinces to determine better their manpower needs in the medical profession. We believe that, for the present at least, these measures can do much to assure a proper flow of doctor immigration and protect opportunities for our own qualified Canadians entering this profession.
Subsequent to the hon. member's question of March 27 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) received the report on the planned intake of Canadian medical schools that he mentioned in his answer of that date. Between 1966 and 1972 the number of physicians graduating from Canadian medical schools rose from 881 to 1,292. This increase in output is expected to continue until 1976, and then level off at nearly twice the output of 1966; that is, at over 1,700 medical graduates per year.
Further, we are creating a reserve capacity to produce many more physicians if necessary. It is estimated that by 1982 the output of Canadian medical schools could be increased by another 23 per cent, to cover 2,100 physicians per year.
Having said all this, may I conclude simply by stating that the government shares the hon. member's concern that all Canadians have access to equitably distributed and high quality health services at reasonable cost. For this reason it is actively involved with the provinces in the review of physician supply.


GRAIN-REQUEST THAT FEED GRAINS BE MARKETED BY WHEAT BOARD
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on August 1 of this year feed grains in this country will be going on to the open market. This is a policy put forth by

the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is in charge of the Wheat Board, despite the fact that the farmers on the prairies are very much opposed to it.
The wheat pools, the Farmers Union, the farmers involved in the co-operative movement, and most farm organizations across the prairies are opposed to putting feed grains on to the open market. In the last few months I have received many letters on this topic, many petitions signed by farmers in my area, as well as having many conversations with individual farmers, not just from my area but from right across Saskatchewan.
On April 2 of this year I moved a motion in this House that had been suggested by many of the farm organizations, namely;
That this House support the principle of orderly marketing and instruct the government to maintain the Canadian Wheat Board as the sole marketing agency for feed grains.
Unfortunately that motion did not carry. Later in the agriculture committee members of my party put forward another amendment, namely that the committee go on record as advocating that the Canadian Wheat Board be the sole marketing agency for feed grains in this country. Every single Conservative member of the committee voted against the motion and that is why I am pursuing this matter tonight.
A few days after April 2, I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). To the Minister of Justice I put the question that, in view of the fact that prairie farmers were so upset with his proposal would he withdraw it and maintain the Wheat Board as the sole marketing agency for feed grains? He would not give that commitment despite protests from the prairies. When I asked the Prime Minister, he refused to intervene on behalf of farm organizations and prairie farmers.
I have a letter from the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) which puts the Conservative Party on record as encouraging the minister to put feed grains on the open market.
1 think this matter is of vital importance to the farmers of this country who fought for years for the formation of the Wheat Board so that it could act as an orderly marketing agency for them. It took a war, a depression, hard times and many, many farm bankruptcies to get the Wheat Board established. Now we are seeing feed grains taken away from it. Farmers are afraid that this might be the first step toward dismantling it and be the end of orderly marketing in this country.
That is something that this party will not tolerate and that farmers' unions, wheat pools, co-operative organizations and almost all farmers on the prairies will not tolerate. They remember the open market, the grain exchange, the grain buyers in Winnipeg and the fluctuations in price. They would sell grain at a particular price, and when they got it to market the price had changed. They do not want that again. They do not want to work to a gamble by dice in the casino. It is immoral that such a thing should happen and this party will not tolerate it.
April 30, 1974

People who play the commodities market speculated in flax and rapeseed last year. I read of one person who said that by investing $1,000 in flax and buying on margin, a million dollars could have been made in the last year and a half. This is the sort of thing that will happen if feed grains are placed on the open market. The farmers do not want to see that happen after all their work.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it should be the policy of this country to market all grains through the Canadian Wheat Board. Why should farmers have to speculate? They are already speculating with the weather. We should have orderly marketing in this country, which in the long run would help the consumer because of stability of production and prices.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker, so I will anxiously await the Minister of Justice's announcement that he is going to withdraw his proposal and keep the Canadian Wheat Board as the sole marketing agency for feed grains. I know that is what he is going to say so I shall take my seat.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I regret to see the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) fall into a pattern that was fairly common to certain members of his party in days gone by, those who associated themselves with the leadership of such groups as the National Farmers' Union in the Saskatchewan area and who discredited that movement. The technique is the one adopted by the Stalinists and the followers of Hitler, that of putting up a straw man and then saying that is a horrible thing and everybody should be against it.
The hon. member says we should have feed grains in the open market notwithstanding the fact that we have pointed out time and time again that there is no question whatever that the bulk of feed grains, as presently being marketed, will be changed in any way. The bulk of feed grains will be sold through commercial channels under Wheat Board control. They will continue under Wheat Board control. The Wheat Board will exercise the full and complete control which is evident now.
He also says he is in favour of orderly marketing. I tell him I am as much in favour of orderly marketing as he is; but I will do more about it-I will see it happen. Any proposal in relation to feed grains that we have made includes maintaining full control of the Wheat Board over the movement of the grain. The board must also know where the grain is going, from where it has come, and, therefore, what can be done with respect to marketing. We shall make sure that the board retains full knowledge.
The hon. member asks farmers whether they are in favour of orderly marketing. I say that I am as well. He says that the Wheat Board should be retained as the sole marketing agency for Canadian grains. I say to him that it is not now the sole marketing agency, never was, and never can be, as neighbour will sell to neighbour and grain will move about on the prairie regions.
That is the source of his problem. He and the NFU socialists who lead that organization-I refer only to the leaders and not to the rank and file-agree that equity in pricing is desirable in our current handling of feed grains. They then put forward proposals which will not create equity in pricing. We are looking at certain proposals and have looked at modifications of them in the year of discus-
Adjournment Debate
sions which is just coming to an end. We are at the point of decision. We are looking at proposals which will maintain in full the control of the Canadian Wheat Board over the export market, the quality of grains, and over bulk movements in the market. The board will retain the control it presently exercises. The only thing in question is the domestic market and how to obtain equity in pricing within the prairie region for farmers who buy grain there to feed animals and for farmers in other parts of the country who also buy their grain there.
The hon. member says he knows how farmers stand on this issue. Quite recently he raised another issue. He was sure he knew where the farmers stood on it. I am referring to the rapeseed plebiscite. He thought it was a simple, straightforward issue. It turned out that the farmers were seriously divided, but, on balance, were in favour of maintaining what he called the open market system for that particular product.
I do not doubt that one or two years from now the hon. member will admit that all his fears and doubts meant nothing, as usual, and will have to agree that we produced the policy which is best for the prairie farmer and for Canadian agriculture as a whole.


AIR CANADA-ALLEGED LAY-OFFS OF EMPLOYEES IN VIOLATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight will be brief and to the point. They centre on Air Canada's recent violation of their collective agreement with the unions. I am referring to the lay-off early last week of some 4,800 employees by Air Canada as a result of the airport firefighters' rotating strikes. While this strike is now over and most Air Canada employees are back on the job, the lay-off was in violation of a collective agreement and is indicative of the disastrous manner in which this government deals with strikes in the public sector.
On April 23 in this House I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) the following question concerning the lay-offs:
As Air Canada has laid off some 4,800 employees and these lay-offs have been labelled as a complete violation of the collective agreement, what action will the government take to rectify the violations of the agreement by Air Canada management?
The parliamentary secretary to the minister answered, in part, that:
-the unions involved can follow the grievance procedure provided for in the collective agreements. However, Air Canada does not feel it is in violation of any provisions of the collective agreements.
This is the type of answer one would have expected from a government whose transportation policy is, to quote the minister, "a mess". What the government is saying is that if the unions do not like the lay-offs they can file a grievance. What sort of an answer is this for the 4,800 who were laid off without pay? This attitude almost precipitated another strike in Canada, this time by air line pilots. The pilots felt, as do I, that Air Canada's lay-offs were a contravention of a collective agreement.
As many of us know, Air Canada employees, especially those at Dorval, have much to grieve about. With regard to
1914

April 30, 1974
Adjournment Debate
these layoffs, Air Canada's management clearly ignored the longstanding principles and precedents relating to seniority, resulting in a violation of the contract; that is, in staff reduction of the lead mechanics, without normal options. For example, article 12 on page 53 of the agreement states clearly as follows: first, that the principle of seniority shall be based upon the principle of preference consideration for employees with long service and, second, that seniority privileges, as governed by the provision of this article, shall be a factor in reduction of forces. As well, page 65K of the agreement states that staff reductions will be made strictly on the basis of seniority.
This brief examination of parts of the agreement shows the longstanding principles related to seniority of Air Canada employees. The basic union agreement has over the years guaranteed the protection of seniority rights, and any new interpretations deriving from letters of understanding, and so on, clearly should not override basic principles. Something is wrong when men with over 30 years' experience are laid off. Such layoffs create morale problems. Surely poor morale is a sufficient .enough problem within Air Canada. This loss of rights only serves to further lower morale and standards.
Furthermore, the addendum letter of understanding, page 93 of the agreement, was a result of union concern over discriminatory practices; for example, the company retaining managers and clerical staffs on duty while reducing union staff. I am not saying that there should never be layoffs. Obviously they are an economic necessity in certain strike situations, but they should be conducted according to agreements and longstanding practices. One has to wonder why only union employees were laid off and not foremen and supervisors. Is there a two class system of layoffs? If so, what protection does this give the little guy?
That which I have discussed to this point is, as I mentioned, merely a small example of the manner in which Air Canada and the entire government handle labour relations. Witness the recent rash of strikes by public employees. First the airport firefighters, then the river pilots and postal workers. While the pilots did not walk off the job, the air traffic controllers plan to very shortly.
What does all this say? Well, to me and most other Canadians it says that a definite communications barrier exists between the federal government, the Treasury Board and their employees. This is especially pronounced in the Department of Transport. The government does little to deal with labour problems until it is confronted with a crisis situation-for example, strike. Then the government acts.
In light of this recent plethora of strikes and the accompanying government inertia, the idea of a public interest disputes commission is indeed a sound one. No wonder, it is a Conservative idea. The present methods of dealing
with labour problems in the country seem to have failed dismally, for we are guaranteed at least one postal, air or rail strike annually. Such a commission could deal with labour disputes not only in the government sector but in all areas of public services. The feasibility of establishing such a body should be given serious consideration by the government so as to minimize these labour disputes that tend to disrupt the country.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I say in the first place that the government does not negotiate agreements between Air Canada and its employees, and never has done so. The Canadian Airline Pilots Association and the Canadian Airline Flight Attendants both have collective agreements with Air Canada. As a consequence of a walk-out by firefighters, Air Canada was faced with the situation of having a great many employees with no meaningful work to perform. Under these circumstances, certain employees were placed on off-duty status.
A similar situation occurred in 1971 when the air traffic controllers went on strike. Air Canada has recognized the hardships created for its employees by third party strikes and has established a policy which has the full support of the Canadian Airline Employees Association and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
Briefly, the policy is that, in the event of a third party strike affecting Air Canada's operations, where meaningful work is available the company would try to keep employees on the payroll. Where employees had to be placed on off-duty status, the company would, on application by an employee, grant a week's compensation which could be repaid by cash, payroll deductions over three months, subsequent overtime, or, in some cases, vacation credits. This policy would be reassessed at the end of each succeeding week of a third party strike. Neither CALPA nor CALFA find this arrangement satisfactory, as they feel the company should continue to pay salaries in such a situation.
Provision is made within the respective collective agreements for third party arbitration of differences. This is an inherent part of the collective bargaining process. Air Canada, on legal advice, is convinced that it has not violated any of the provisions of the collective agreements. If the employees in question are convinced that Air Canada is incorrect, their agreements provide a means of recourse to them, one which is not only legal but is their right.
I am sure all members of the House will agree that where collective agreements are in force between Crown corporations and their employees, and when well-established means of settling differences are available, it would not be proper for the government to intervene on behalf of either party.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.39 p.m.

Wednesday May 1, 1974