May 5, 1950

RAILWAY ACT

AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND

LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisfer of Transport) moved

that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:

That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Railway Act to increase the annual grant to the grade crossing fund from $500,000 to $1,000,000 for six consecutive years from April 1, 1951.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Will the minister make a statement, please?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

Mr. Speaker, the object of the resolution is to increase from $500,000 to $1 million the amount which may be paid into the grade crossing fund. There will also be a provision to increase the payment which may be made in the case of any one project from $100,000 to $150,000.

I think it might be useful to the house if I were to give a short historical analysis of the grade crossing fund and the various changes, whether by way of amendment or otherwise, which have taken place from time to time.

The fund was established in 1909 by 8-9 Edward VII, chapter 32, section 7, which appropriated and placed to the credit of the fund $200,000 per annum for five years from April 1, 1909. Under this statute not more than twenty per cent of the cost of construction work could be paid out of the fund.

In 1914 the annual grants of $200,000 were extended for five more years. In 1919 those grants were extended for ten years from April 1, 1919, and it was provided that not more than twenty-five per cent of the cost of construction work could be paid out of the fund, with a further provision that not more than $15,000 could be paid in the case of any one crossing or for any one project. In 1926 the act was further amended to provide that the amount payable out of the fund in the case of any one crossing should not exceed forty per cent of the total cost, and should not in any case exceed $25,000. In 1928 the limit was increased to $100,000. In 1929 the annual grants of $200,000 were extended for ten years from April 1, 1929.

Between 1934 and 1939 additional amounts were credited to the fund under various statutes. No additions were made to the fund between April 1, 1939, and April 1, 1947, but by chapter 70 of the statutes of 1947 the fund was to be credited with $200,000 per annum for ten years from April 1, 1947. Again, by chapter 27 of the statutes of 1948, the annual amount to be credited to the fund for the nine years commencing April 1, 1948, was

increased to $500,000.

As I have stated, this legislation will increase the annual grant for a period of six years to $1 million, beginning April 1, 1951. The house might like to have on record the amounts paid out of the fund over the last few years, which have been as follows:

1946- 47

$227,3181947- 48

250,5201948- 49

293,9161949- 50

581,385

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Brooks:

Would the minister give the amounts by provinces?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

I have those figures, but I think they should be given at the appropriate stage on the bill.

Payments authorized to be made out of the fund, as the house will have noticed from the statement I just gave, have increased consistently in the last few years, and because of that fact it has been found necessary to bring in the bill which will be founded upon this resolution. Many projects involving large grants from the fund are in prospect at the present time, and the board expects that over the next seven years applications for grants will continue to increase.

Railway Act

Another reason for bringing in this legislation at this time is the increase in the cost of construction. It is felt that the limit of $100,000 upon any one project, which was established in 1928, is no longer sufficient, because in 1950 costs have increased greatly, as the house knows. For that reason authority will be sought to raise the amount that may be allocated to any one project to $150,000.

There is more information that can be given at a later date, but I think what I have said should be sufficient for the resolution stage. I have no doubt this measure will commend itself to the house.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):

Mr. Speaker, the railway grade crossing fund is always an interesting subject of discussion. In his review of the history of the fund the minister has indicated that the present resolution contemplates two broad purposes, the first being to increase the annual statutory amount available from $500,000 to $1 million per annum for the six years from April 1, 1951, and the second to permit $150,000 instead of the previous limit of $100,000 to be used for any one particular work coming within the scope of the act.

I do not propose to review the history of this legislation, except to say very briefly that these provisions, which are embodied in section 262 of the Railway Act, have been most beneficial in their operation during the forty-one years they have been in effect. The amounts made available under the statute, of course, do not represent all the money that has been paid into the railway grade crossing fund and made available for crossing protection. During the days of the depression, particularly, large sums of money were made available by parliament to supplement the annual statutory grant, which at that time was $200,000.

Hon. members will realize that during the forty-one years the railway grade crossing fund has been in existence a substantial total amount of money has been made available by parliament. The annual report of the Department of Transport for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1949, shows that total authorizations from 1909 to 1949 amounted to $14,062,000 odd. Certain of those authoriza-; tions lapsed, but total expenditures to March 31, 1949, were just under $12 million.

Hon. members will also realize, of course, that this does not represent the entire amount that has been expended on grade separation during this period. That total of some $12 million simply represents the contribution made by parliament toward the cost of grade separation and crossing protection works, under the direction of the

Railway Act

board of transport commissioners. The minister has not given the total amount spent for this purpose, though he did so when the 1948 amendment was before the house. While I have not seen the latest figures I think they probably amount now to something like $50 million which has been spent in this period of time on grade separation works, which includes the contribution of $12 million from the railway grade crossing fund.

The uses to which the fund has been put in these years have been uniform. The fund has always been designated by parliament, and is still designated, as being for the following purpose: to aid actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of highway crossings of railways at rail level in accordance with the provisions of section 262 of the Railway Act. I infer from the statement the minister has made today that no enlargement of or changes in the scope of those purposes are intended.

On the subject of the limit on individual grants, sir, it is quite clear, from a review of this legislation in the forty-one year period it has been on the statute book, that the practice of parliament has been from time to time to increase both the percentage and the total amount which may be ordered by the board of transport commissioners to be contributed out of the railway grade crossing fund to the cost of any crossing protection. This has been a uniform development throughout the period. The direction of the change has always been upward, both as to percentage and total amount. It is interesting to hear the minister indicate that one of the purposes of the bill is to increase, not the percentage, but the total amount for any one work from $100,000 to $150,000, for the ample reasons which the minister has given.

In indicating the reasons why this measure should be entitled to support, I should like to say briefly that there are some factors that are readily apparent. When the railway grade crossing fund was first established, it was intended to assist in meeting principally the problem of maintaining public safety; that is the paramount consideration in the application of these moneys. On the other hand, there are additional considerations, such as the question of public convenience, more expeditious transportation on the part of both the railways and those using the highways, and, to some extent, employment. These have been factors worthy of consideration.

The report of the board of transport commissioners for the year ended December 31, 1948-the report for the calendar year 1949 is not available in printed form as yet- indicates not merely what has been the trend of accidents at level crossings in the past,

but also how the accidents have been influenced by the type of crossing protection available at these highway crossings. At page 97 of the report we have the figures for the ten-year period 1939-1948 showing that at crossings of highways and railways in this period there have been 3,541 accidents, in which 1,342 people were killed and 5,024 people were injured. The year 1947 had the highest accident record in the ten-year period. In that year there were 638 persons injured and 162 killed in 442 accidents.

Let us just translate those statistics into other figures. It means that every day of the year there was an average of more than one accident at a railway crossing. In the year 1948 there were 414 such accidents, with 159 persons killed and 566 injured.

A further table on the same page of the report of the board of transport commissioners indicates how those accidents in the year 1948 were related to the type of protection existing at the crossings where the accidents occurred. I mentioned that there were 414 accidents in that year. This is how the statistics are broken down in the report: Number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by gates, 8; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by automatic highway traffic signals, one; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by bell, 6; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by bell and wigwag, 40; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by flashing light signals and bells, 10; number of accidents which occurred at crossings protected by watchmen, 7; number of accidents which occurred at crossings unprotected, 342.

It will thus be seen that of those 414 accidents in the year 1948 over eighty per cent of them occurred at unprotected crossings. I submit, sir, that is a fact of great significance in our approach to this problem, and the question presented to us whether the house should authorize an increase from $500,000 to $1 million per annum in the fund.

I am sure hon. members of this house are going to approach this question from two points of view. Not the less important or less urgent of the two is the humane consideration. The fact that we have, as revealed in the figures I have just read, a record of death, maiming and tragedy to many families in this country, will give every member of the house cause for deep regret, and a desire to do what may reasonably lie within the power of parliament to meet the needs of the situation. I am sure I do not need to dwell on that aspect of the problem.

Because the problem has economic aspects as well, sir, I mention these briefly. As I understand them, every one of these economic factors favours the increase in the proposed statutory appropriation. As the minister mentioned, there is, first, the increased cost of crossing protection works, and that has been a factor of great importance. The limitation that has existed of $100,000 has meant that the fund has not been available to carry the full share that might well be expected of it when works of major importance and high cost have been directed by the board of transport commissioners.

The second aspect, sir, is the plight of the railways. The railways are faced with serious financial problems. I am not going to discuss any questions that are now engaging the attention of the royal commission on transportation, or have been engaging the attention of the board of transport commissioners. I do say that the railways are faced with serious financial problems, and they are not in a position to undertake the cost of a program of crossing protection in this country on any substantial scale.

A third factor, sir, and it is one to which importance must be attached, is the fact that throughout the years there has been an increased tendency, recognized in the legislation, for the public represented by parliament, to participate in meeting the costs of these grade separation works. Mention has already been made of the way in which the percentage and amount available out of the fund for any particular work have been increased by legislation. It is a fact that the invariable tendency of legislation pertaining to the fund since its inception has been to increase provision for public contribution to the cost of grade separation works. Indeed, even within the limits created by parliament, the board of transport commissioners, in awarding sums out of the grade separation fund toward the cost of crossing protection, has applied a similar tendency on its own part. In a decision of the board in 1928, the case of Toronto

v. C.P.R. and C.N.R., reported in 34 Canadian Railway Cases at page 143, the board recognized that tendency in these words:

The tendency, on the whole,-

That is to say, the tendency within the jurisprudence of the board in relation to awards out of the fund.

-has been to increase the percentage contribution which the city or municipality is required to make.

That is to say, the portion that the public has been called upon to contribute by reason of the public use of these crossings.

The fourth factor is the great and extensive highway improvement program undertaken by most, if not all, of the provinces.

Railway Act

This highway improvement and extension program is a factor that is going to have a direct bearing upon the question of crossing protection.

A fifth factor is the heavy increase in highway traffic. I have obtained some statistics on this subject, but the statistics for 1949 are not yet available. Anyone who has made a study of the increase in highway traffic will not fail to have been profoundly impressed by the tremendous increases that have occurred during the period of the life of the railway grade crossing fund.

The earliest figures on the numbers of motor vehicles registered in Canada go back to 1904, when there were 535 registered. In 1909, the year when the railway grade crossing fund came into existence, there were 4,809 motor vehicles registered in Canada. Every year, with scarcely any pause, save in several of the depression years, there has been a steady increase in the number of motor vehicles registered in Canada. I mention the figures for only a few of the years. In 1915 there were 95,284; in 1920, 408,790; in 1925, 724,048. The million mark was passed in the year 1928. In 1935 there were 1,176,000. In 1940 the 1,500,000 mark was passed. In 1948 the number of motor vehicles registered in Canada had passed the two million mark. The figure for that year is 2,035,352.

Parliament must have regard to that stupendous increase, during the relatively short period of time to which I have referred, in the number of motor vehicles using our highways in all the provinces, and in the number of vehicles that are daily crossing railways at grade.

A sixth factor that might be mentioned is the higher speed of motor vehicles today. The higher speed of motor vehicles has unquestionably been a factor in the accident toll at grade crossings; and the fact stares us in the face that more powerful motorcars are being turned out all the time, and that the degree of care exercised by drivers has not always kept pace with the increase in the power of the motorcars under their control.

Then there is one additional factor, although it has not always been as potent a factor as it was during the depression years when parliament was voting additional moneys for the purpose of providing employment while proceeding with the beneficial work of eliminating crossings. It is a fact that at different times during the depression years the fund was exhausted because so many grade separation schemes or crossing protection schemes were undertaken, and there was not always enough money in the fund to meet the demand. There are in Canada, more particularly in certain areas,

Railway Act

problems of unemployment to which beneficial works carried on with the assistance of the railway grade crossing fund can help to contribute a solution.

In conclusion, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that the house must recognize the need for increasing the sums provided at the public expense to contribute toward these works of grade separation and crossing protection which are of general public benefit. We have a bigger problem in this respect today than we had in the past. The bigger problem justifies an increase in the funds voted by parliament.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express support of the legislation anticipated by this resolution. My only regret is that it does not 50 a bit further.

It so happens that the constituency I represent, Winnipeg North Centre, has the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway cut into it at the eastern end; and then that railway line, after forming the northern boundary of the constituency for most of its length, bisects it again at the western end. In other words, there are grade crossings in Elmwood at the eastern end of my riding, and in Brooklands at the western end.

I make reference to that fact because I think it serves to justify the principle which is at the heart of this grade crossing legislation, namely that the cost of these grade separation projects is a cost that should not be borne to any extent, if at all, by the local people. After all, the line of the railway to which I have referred is the main line of the Canadian Pacific running from Montreal to Vancouver. Since that line serves the whole of Canada, and since its revenues are derived from all over Canada in part because it is able to go through the two communities that I have named, surely it should not fall upon those communities to protect themselves against the hazards of grade crossings in those areas.

It seems to me there is no doubt as to the justification for this principle, namely, that at least a good-sized portion of the cost of the grade crossings should be paid for out of the general revenues of the nation rather than that that cost should be imposed upon the local people. In fact, when I think of a community such as Brooklands, at the west end of Winnipeg, or a community such as Elmwood, which, although it is part of Winnipeg, is at the east end of the city and is in a sense a community by itself, I cannot see any fairness in their having to pay anything at all towards the elimination of grade crossings on the main transcontinental line of the Canadian Pacific railway. So I earnestly

hope that as time goes on it will be recognized that the cost of eliminating the hazards of level crossings in such areas should be borne, I would say, by two authorities, namely, the federal government and the railway concerned.

As it now stands, a community such as Brooklands could apply for the elimination of one or two grade crossings where the Canadian Pacific railway passes through the village. But the public finances of that particular community are limited, and they know it would be useless to apply, because, if the application were granted, in the end a portion of the cost would be assessed back to them by the board of transport commissioners. This makes it completely prohibitive so far as that community is concerned.

Elmwood is not in a.much better position, because, although it forms part of the city of Winnipeg, and it would be the city that would have to make the application and therefore bear part of the cost, when the people of Elmwood go before the city council in Winnipeg they find themselves confronted with the fact that they are just one community at one end of the city. The city must think twice before taking money out of the city treasury to remedy a condition at one corner of the city, when they also have in mind the factor I have already indicated, namely, that the need for the grade separation in question arises because a transcontinental railway happens to go through that area.

The minister knows that from time to time I have raised the question of the grade crossings in the areas to which I have just referred, and have expressed the hope almost every year that necessary changes would be made in the legislation so that these particular grade crossings might be eliminated.

I am sure when I refer to Elmwood and Brooklands in Manitoba I am citing cases which are but typical of many like unto them throughout the country. There must be many a municipality, through which a main line or even a branch line of a railway passes, which cannot afford the money it would have to pay-the share of the cost that would be assessed against it-if it did make application to the board of transport commissioners for a grade separation and such application were granted. Yet in these cases the hazards are such that the grade crossings should be eliminated.

I must also express disappointment in the fact that the hope the minister held out to me a couple of years ago seems to have been put on the shelf-and I use that figure of speech advisedly. As late as April 20, 1948, as it is recorded at page 3167 of Hansard, the

minister told me that, at the request of the then department of reconstruction and supply, the board of transport commissioners had made a survey of possible grade separation projects-and I quote the minister's words:

-so that there would be on the shelf a list of projects of a public nature upon which certain sums of money might be expended when the need arose.

The minister went on to make it clear that the projects envisaged when the department of reconstruction and supply asked the board of transport commissioners to make that survey were to be paid for not out of grade crossing funds, but out of other funds to be appropriated by the government. Nevertheless that statement from the minister did suggest to me the hope that the shelf concept of the government had not yet been put on the shelf, and that in due course provision might be made thereunder to eliminate the grade crossings in the community of Elmwood.

I still have on my files a copy of the front page of the Elmwood Herald of Thursday, May 6, 1948.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fleming:

Is that your picture on the front page?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Thank you for drawing attention to it. The leading article of this issue refers to the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on April 20, 1948. This indicates the sort of hope that it gave to the people of Elmwood who were interested in the matter. The most important statement of the minister on that occasion was that although he could not see any way in which I could persuade him that the grade crossing in Elmwood could be eliminated under the legislation as it stood, still there was this survey that had been made at the request of the department of reconstruction and supply, and the chances were pretty good- since there were a great many of these grade crossings reported upon in that survey-that the ones I was interested in might be on the shelf to be proceeded with when the time came for the government to implement that shelf concept with respect to public works projects.

Well, I am afraid we have to come back to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). The shelf concept has been put on the shelf. We are not going to get public works projects, as was so clearly promised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) back in April of 1945, for the purpose of relieving unemployment and providing these necessary public improvements.

This means that so far as grade crossings are concerned we are left with only one means by which they can be built, namely, under the provisions of the grade crossing 55946-141

Railway Act

fund. This being so, since the matter is back on Jhe doorstep of the Minister of Transport I hope he will give still more earnest consideration to the plight of communities such as I have mentioned-and I have referred to them because they are in my constituency; but I am sure there are many like them across Canada. I hope he will give more consideration to their plight and try to find some way to broaden the provisions of the grade crossing legislation so that the hazards experienced by these communities through which main lines of railways pass, hazards which are not the fault of the people in those communities, can be eliminated by the building of more grade separation projects.

I suggest that if the Minister of Transport will give more thought to this matter, not only will he be giving due consideration to the sacredness of human life, and to the points made by the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming), but he will also be taking on at least part of the job of providing employment, with which his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce seems unprepared to proceed-even in a time of serious unemployment.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
LIB-PRO

William Gilbert Weir (Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal Progressive

Mr. W. G. Weir (Poriage-Neepawa):

Mr. Speaker, I suppose all hon. members can make references to situations in their respective parts of the country, so far as railway crossings are concerned. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) having referred to a situation in his constituency, I am bound to say that there are other places in Manitoba where there is very heavy traffic, which are of equal significance and often present greater hazards.

He has referred to a railway crossing in an ordinary, settled community. I would place on record for hon. members, and for the benefit of the minister, another situation in our province which I believe deserves special consideration. Just west of Winnipeg the two main lines of railways approach the city of Portage la Prairie, and are crossed on both sides of that city by the trans-Canada highway. This, in itself, presents a serious problem in a rural part of the country where, for the most part, automobile traffic travels faster, and the ordinary means of protection, such as stop signs, are sometimes forgotten.

On those crossings there are the ordinary stop signs; no doubt most people recognize them. However they have the very serious disadvantage in that all cars are supposed to stop, thereby holding back for a considerable distance traffic that might otherwise get out of the way-and this might happen when there might not be a train within miles.

Railway Act

My point is that in places where there is heavy traffic it would seem to be common sense and perhaps economical in the end if the traffic were stopped only when trains were in the vicinity instead of requiring everybody to stop every time they come to a railroad crossing.

This brings me to one other thought I want to present to the minister, and in this connection I should like to give an illustration. Take where the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific main lines cross the trans-Canada highway at two different places. This would seem to warrant the argument that the provinces and the railroads, possibly with the help of the grade crossing fund, should bear a larger proportion of the cost for highway crossings in those places than might be the case in other places.

The trans-Canada highway is something affecting all Canada or all of a particular province, and it would seem to me that the local people have some right to ask that their proportion of any cost for protection of this nature should be lower than what others are required to pay. I submit that for the consideration of the minister and to those who may be interested, not only in the grade crossing problem by itself but also having regard to the trans-Canada highway.

I should like to make one more observation. There is a situation between Portage la Prairie and Winnipeg which is quite hazardous and I hope the minister will see that adequate stop signals are put on there at the earliest opportunity.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Before the debate continues I should like to point out that the house is considering a resolution which precedes the introduction of a bill. It does not seem to me that it is in order at this time to discuss individual cases or to make pleas to the minister that consideration be given by him or his department to changing conditions at particular points, where the railroads cross a highway. That would be quite in order at another time, but at the present time hon. members should discuss the general principle set forth in the resolution.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word. I come from a riding which is crossed by the main line of the Canadian National Railways and where the situation is quite serious, both in hazards to human life and in the great inconvenience and loss of time on busy city thoroughfares traversed by this main line. I think the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) have outlined the situation quite fully and the general

considerations which should apply. I fully endorse what they have said and I should like to be on record as supporting the measure.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
PC

Alfred Johnson Brooks

Progressive Conservative

Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) upon his comprehensive remarks with regard to this matter. I feel that the amount being set aside for this purpose is entirely inadequate to meet the needs. I am sure that in my province for every crossing that is protected there are twenty where there is no protection at all. Perhaps this was all right in 1909 when we had only $200,000 provided for this purpose, but that amount at that time compares more than favourably with the $1 million being voted at this time. According to the statistics given by the hon. member for Eglinton, there were only a few thousand motor cars registered in 1909 whereas over 2,500,000 cars are registered today and that does not take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of cars that come here on visits from the United States.

I am sure it must occur to everyone that this amount is inadequate for the protection needs of this country. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir) referred to the trans-Canada highway. I think some provision will have to be made to provide protection in those towns through which the trans-Canada highway passes. We expect that that highway will pass through our town in New Brunswick-I see the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Gregg) smiling-and we have a crossing situation there which is very dangerous.

It does seem to me that the provisions of the Railway Act should be extended to protect those areas where gates, lights and so on are not sufficient. As the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa mentioned, traffic is often held up for quite long periods. With the trans-Canada highway going through populated centres like the one I have referred to there are going to be many holdups of traffic. Of course, that is not the serious feature as far as protection is concerned- the loss of life is the most serious-but it should be considered. More protection should be provided to the public at these crossings than is provided at the present time.

As I said a moment ago, $1 million is only a drop in the bucket. Perhaps some other means could be adopted to provide the necessary protection, but there is no doubt that the present protection does not meet the needs of the situation in Canada today. I hope that in future some other provision will be made for the protection of the public in this regard.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
PC

Agar Rodney Adamson

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):

Mr

Speaker, I should like to make just one observation. I think the figures that have been given indicate the wisdom of the government in acceding to certain pressure by myself to amend the Railway Act to abolish whistle signals in built-up centres. The huge majority of these accidents take place at stops which are unprotected. Protection by means of wigwags or bells is of extreme value and the measure which I fought for and which was finally adopted to stop the nuisance of whistle blowing in a particular area in my riding has been effective and has in no way been responsible for causing highway crossing accidents.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Is the minister going to answer some of the questions that have been asked, or does he want some more?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
LIB

Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport)

Liberal

Mr. Chevrier:

I think most of the questions raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are of the type that should be raised when the bill is before us. We are dealing now with the principle of the resolution, namely, whether or not there should be an increase from $500,000 to $1 million. I think that matters that he and other members have raised as to particular projects might well be taken up when we have the bill before us.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

Or they might be taken up on your estimates later today.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 181, to amend the Railway Act.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Alfred Dion (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

When shall the bill be read a second time?

Topic:   RAILWAY ACT
Subtopic:   AMENDMENT TO INCREASE ANNUAL GRANT TO GRADE CROSSING FUND
Permalink

May 5, 1950