April 25, 1974

PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

Was that for the total crop year, Mr. MacMillan?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
?

William Hector McMillan

Mr. MacMillan:

No, no!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

For the calendar year?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
?

William Hector McMillan

Mr. MacMillan:

August 2 to December 8.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
PC

Robert Jardine McCleave (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

The Chairman:

Of 1972?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
?

William Hector McMillan

Mr. MacMillan:

Of 1972, yes.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

Fine.

I could read question after question, Mr. Chairman. These railways were asked to build box cars. Is that the kind of responsibility we are going to get from them- building 3,000 new cars to move grain out of western Canada? At the committee, Mr. MacMillan said they built 3,000 new cars for the shipment of grain. But when he was questioned it appeared that none of the cars were built, trimmed and shaped for the movement of grain. If the railways are going to be that irresponsible and get away with it in regard to movement of grain, what will they do when they receive money from the federal government to change the tracks and railroads that go through our major cities?

To further show the irresponsibility of the railways, ten years ago there were 88,000 cars that were fit to move grain. At the standing committee it was admitted that the number has now been reduced to 44,000 cars. If the railways do not want to move grain and do not want to change their tracks going through the cities, although they will agree with what the government wants, when they get back to their boardroom they will just do something else.

The minister is a charming man and I hope his charm will be strong. I hope it will be so strong that when this House approves this bill he sees to it that, when money is paid to the railways, they will carry out their mandate and their responsibility not only in accordance with the constitution but in accordance with the terms and conditions of this bill. As I said at the beginning and I repeat, I have sympathy for the minister in this regard. The railways seem to believe they are above the law, but he must force them to carry out their responsibility.

As I pointed out in my example, these facts boil down to a simple formula: that the railways, although subsidized by the taxpayers, without right or equity have reduced the number of grain boxcars by 50 per cent in the last ten years. In other words, the number of boxcars suitable for grain movement dropped from 88,200 in 1963 to 48,000 in 1973 for both railways. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific split 50-50. My question, Mr. Chairman, is: Should the government of this nation, whatever it may be, permit

April 25, 1974

Relocation of Railway Lines

the railways to run the nation, instead of the government running the nation and the railways?

It would seem to me that when money is paid by subsidy for the purpose of moving grain, or for building cars, or for lumber shipments, or for movement of other commodities, or for moving tracks out of the cities and large centres of Canada, the railways should be forced to sign an agreement and to live up to the terms and conditions of their agreement. Then the taxpayers' money is used for the purpose for which it was paid.

I feel sorry for the Minister of Transport, who had to admit-for he is honest-that this government did not have a transportation policy. My indictment is not against him or the government for not having a transportation policy; my indictment is against the railroads that have been able to run slipshod over governments for a number of years, and will continue to do so until this government and this parliament gets tough with them.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Take them over.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

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

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Nationalize Eldon Woolliams!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

The hon. member says "nationalize Eldon Woolliams." I am going to digress for a moment, Mr. Chairman. I hold no brief for Imperial Oil Company, but when the NDP talk about profits they should think about the minister of this government who bought heating oil for $50 million, which is one-quarter of Imperial's profits. Yet nobody complained about that. However, when free enterprise makes a dollar, there is a great deal of complaint about it. I am not going to be sidetracked by that, Mr. Chairman.

Although this is a very short bill, Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably one of the most important to come before the House. In such major centres as Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton the railways own some of the choicest land, because the lines were built before the cities were. If we can get the railways to make changes and relocate in areas outside the cities, as has been done in Ottawa, then, when land is taken over for development within the city, whether by the federal, provincial or municipal government, I think a certain amount of that land should be set aside for parks.

I can only speak about the city of Calgary, which has developed very quickly during the last ten or 15 years. The streets are narrow and very little land has been left for parks. A large acreage of railway track goes through the city and an attempt was made by Senator Hays to have it moved so that the land could be used for other develop-

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

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
LIB

Daniel Aiken Lang

Liberal

Mr. Lang:

Saskatoon did it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
PC

Eldon Mattison Woolliams

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Woolliams:

The Minister of Justice says that Saskatoon did it, and I want to congratulate Saskatoon. The minister probably knows that is my home city. They have done an excellent job, and I do not know if the minister had anything to do with it or not. Anyway I congratulate him, although I do not think he was mayor at that time. Nevertheless Saskatoon has done a good job. I hope other cities including Winnipeg and Calgary can follow suit.

I see the chairman is getting itchy and feels I have used up my 20 minutes, so I will sit down. In committee of the whole I like to hear what others have to say. I will present some other ideas later this evening when the relevant clauses are called.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
NDP

Thomas Speakman Barnett

New Democratic Party

Mr. Barnett:

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

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
LIB

Stanley Ronald Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Basford:

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

After examining various definitions of urban area, we settled on that definition, being satisfied that it applies to those areas of habitation supplied with railway facilities, areas to which the procedures set out in the bill and the regulations can apply.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
NDP

Thomas Speakman Barnett

New Democratic Party

Mr. Barnett:

Mr. Chairman, another question occurs to me. According to the minister, Statistics Canada defines

April 25, 1974

an urban area as an incorporated city, town or village with a population of 1,000 or more or an unincorporated place with a population of 1,000 or better. He did not mention any district municipality.

I am sure the minister knows that in the province from which he and I come there are municipalities which are really urban areas, with populations well over 1,000. One such area in my constituency springs to mind immediately, because there is no railway in it, the district municipality of Campbell River, which I suggest has a population of at least 10,000. At one time it was a village; later it was defined by the province as a district municipality. If I heard the minister correctly, the district municipality of Campbell River is to be excluded from the provisions of the bill, even though it may more readily be considered an urban area than, say, the village of Tahsis, on the west coast of my constituency. I mention the village because it is unlikely that a railway will run through it in the near future.

Can the minister comment on what I have said about the definition of an urban area?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
LIB

Stanley Ronald Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Basford:

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

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
PC

J. Michael Forrestall

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Forrestall:

Says who?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
LIB

Stanley Ronald Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Basford:

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

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink
NDP

Thomas Speakman Barnett

New Democratic Party

Mr. Barnett:

I do not think there is, but we will not go into that at the moment. May I ask another question. The definition section deals with "transport plan". The question which arises is this: How would this legislation apply, if at all, to new communities such as have sprung up in British Columbia and elsewhere which have been referred to as instant towns? I do not know of any served directly by railway. I think of the town of MacKenzie, north of Prince George. There is much talk about creating new satellites to urban areas. I ask the minister to look at clause 6(1) which says, "For the purpose of carrying into effect a transportation plan accepted by the Commission under section 5," certain things shall be done. I understand that section 5 deals with a plan, which would have to be accepted by the commission, which would include both the urban development and transportation plan.

I may be wrong, but as others have observed this bill is complex. If I am correct, and this is the aspect which interests me in relation to the development of new, planned communities, then may I say this. Clause 6(2) (c) empowers the commission, in relation to carrying into effect the transportation plan, to "require a railway company to build a railway line in such location as may be specified by the Commission within the transportation study area to which the transportation plan relates". That power could be important in relation to proper planning

Relocation of Railway Lines

and direction to a railway company to fit its service for a planned community which is to be an urban area. Can the direction be given before the area has acquired the minimum population of 1,000 but which, once the direction has come into effect, will, for the purposes of the next census, acquire sufficient population to be classed as an urban area? I wonder whether the minister could comment on the implications of the legislation for the kind of situation I am trying to suggest.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   RAILWAY RELOCATION AND CROSSING ACT
Sub-subtopic:   PROVISION FOR PLANNING, ACQUISITION OF LAND, GRANTS, GRADE CROSSING ASSISTANCE
Permalink

April 25, 1974