Mr. 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

Mr. Cote:

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.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Turner (London East)):

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.

The Deputy Chairman:

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.

Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):

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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):

And 7, 8, 9 and 10 are yet to

come.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):

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?

Mr. Thomas (Moncton):

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?

Mr. 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.

Mr. Thomas (Moncton):

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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):

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?

Mr. 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.