Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The railways are being protected against any possible risk. It is all very well to say that these men are having their feet set on the ladder, but are we going to kick away the ladder just when it is set up? Does the minister really believe that in four months, at the rate of pay proposed, these men can save enough to see them through the winter? I do not think he can really believe that. With the whole unemployment situation as it is

and a lot of us know about seasonal unemployment in the west-what are these men going to do when October comes, with no provision whatever made? Surely, if this is the government's plan, or an important part of their plan to deal with unemployment, they ought to be able to see things through a little further than four months.

Mr. FINN:

I should like to ask the

Minister of Railways a question. No doubt he believes in equity, yet I find the amount of money being paid the Canadian Pacific Railway is the same as is being paid to the Canadian National Railways, although the latter named system has a mileage of 24,000 as against only 17,000 miles of the former. Therefore there is a difference of 7,000 miles. Why should not these moneys be apportioned according to mileage, so that each railway would get its fair share, and the Canadian Pacific Railway would not get the unearned increment.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

Has the minister any particular schemes in view for the expenditure of this money, or will he simply pass it on to the board of railway commissioners? As I remember it, the Minister of Railways recommends the points at which this work is to be done. Is that the procedure?

Mr. HOWE:

My understanding is that application may be made by any one to the board of railway commissioners.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

Directly?

Mr. HOWE:

Yes, either by the railways

or by persons. The board of railway commissioners examine the situation, and if they

Supply-Railway Commission

approve the work they make application to the Department of Railways and Canals for the expenditure. The million dollar fund will be administered entirely by the board of railway commissioners.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

The Minister of

Railways has to give his approval before any of these schemes is put into effect, does he not?

Mr. HOWE:

Recommendation is made to

council by the Minister of Railways.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

The board of railway commissioners consider the application. If the minister receives one in the first instance he passes it on to the board; it is considered by them; inspection is made on the spot, and if they think the work may be done properly under this vote the recommendation will come back to the minister who has it in his power or discretion either to ask for an order in council approving, or to let the matter drop.

Mr. HOWE:

I assume that is correct,

although as a matter of fact, if a recommendation is made by the board, it is passed on automatically.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

The minister has discretion which is not often used; is that correct?

Mr. HOWE:

Yes.

Mr. REID:

Before the item is carried there are one or two figures I should like to lay before the minister. I do this in an endeavour to show where we are drifting in connection with money spent in the elimination of crossings. I do not know whether hon. members are aware that in the past twenty years, out of a total of 31,784 crossings only 1,252 have been protected, leaving 30,532 unprotected crossings. In that time the total amount of money spent in Canada on crossings has been $36,000,000. My reason for presenting these figures to the minister is that I am endeavouring to point- out where we are drifting, and I am asking if we are spending the money to the best advantage. A few years back the system was changed by the railway companies, at which time they displaced workmen by eliminating the watchmen and taking away barriers, instituting a new system known as the wigwag signal. May I point out to the minister that the installation of the new system costs about $5,000. an amount equal to a watchman's pay for eight or ten years. The strange point is that the change has not protected the lives of the people, at all. As a matter of fact deaths and accidents have increased since

the elimination of the watchmen and barriers and the installation of the so-called new system. I for one would like to know who receives the royalty on these installations, and possibly the minister could find out why the Canadian National Railways are charged more than the Canadian Pacific Railway for the installation. This is a serious matter. It is true that a bill has been introduced by a private member. I do not know whether it will bring about the desired result, but I know that after looking through the report of the board of railway commissioners I have come to the conclusion that never in the lifetime of any member of this house, nor in the time of any generation yet born will we eliminate railway crossings in Canada if we proceed at our present rate, unless we pull up the tracks.

The information in the publication by the board of railway commissioners shows that crossings are increasing rather than decreasing and yet we have spent only $36,000,000 in twenty-five years, and are spending only $1,000,000 at this time. We are satisfied with saying: Oh well, by spending a million dollars we are doing something to protect life and limb at railway crossings. The matter has only been scratched. I listened attentively to the observations of the hon. member for East Kootenay when he stated that $5,000,000 would not be sufficient to eliminate the great number of unprotected crossings. We must protect those crossings, if we are going to do the job properly. I would ask the minister to investigate the matter carefully. I believe we would do well to replace the barriers on our highways. It is true that most provinces have regulations stipulating that buses must stop at crossings, but I do not believe we will ever pass laws compelling every motor car to stop before attempting to cross. We may do that, but I have my doubts.

It is my view that the whole matter should be given careful consideration. When one considers the number of accidents which have taken place he is at once aware of the serious nature of the problem. In 1935 there were 242 accidents, in which 114 persons were killed and 304 injured. That is not a complete total of the injured people, because all the figures are not given by the board; only serious accidents and deaths are reported to them. If one examines the figures available for the period between 1915 and 1932 he will find that crossings protected by gates showed a death ratio of fourteen per thousand as against thirty-eight per thousand protected by the modern method.

As I have pointed out, crossings are increasing in number, and deaths are increasing. Yet

Supply-Railway Commission

we are spending these large sums of money. I know the minister is anxious to have the item passed, and I shall not hold- it up, but I thought it was my duty at least to show him that the matter is far more serious than has been hitherto indicated.

Mr. LENNARD:

Do I understand that none of this money will be used for the elimination of level crossings?

Mr. HOWE:

The whole sum will be used for that purpose. The board of railway commissioners will have the disposition of it, and I understand practically all of it will be for the elimination of level crossings.

Mr. LENNARD:

I am familiar with crossings along trunk roads in Ontario, and I know that those crossings have -been death traps for years. It is indicated in the vote that "the governor in council -may from time to time determine." He is baking a -mighty long time to arrive at his determination. I agree with the hon. -members for Kootenay East and New Westminster in their statement that the amount should be augmented ten or fifteen times. We should speed u-p the work of removing level crossings and death traps in Canada.

Mr. STEVENS:

May I add a word to my earlier observations. It must be obvious to hon. members that this vote does not represent a serious attempt to face the question of the elimination of level crossings. In the first place it is applicable only to places where applications are made and where local authorities are prepared to shoulder their share of the cost. The minister will correct me if I am wrong when I state that under the law the municipality, or the applicant, must pay one-third, the railway must pay one-third and the balance comes out of this provision. Some division of that kind is made, I believe. I may not be quite correct, but there is a division. It is obvious that it will be only certain municipalities or cities that will make application. As the hon. member said a moment ago there are within fifty miles of this city crossings that anyone who drives a motor knows to be veritable death traps, but the local municipality is either unwilling or unable to make application with respect to them, and so the death trap continues to exist. There is no impelling force to induce any authority to take hold of the situation, and so it just stays as it is, and that is all there is to it.

This is a great national problem. Canada ought to be ashamed of its highways in relation to grade crossings. My hon. friend said that $36,000,000 has been spent in twent-y-

five years, but he must remember that those tremendously expensive crossings in Montreal and at the station in Toronto come under this grade separation fund, and I imagine that the major portion of that $36,000,000 has been used in the great cities, which does not touch at all the situation we have described as it exists throughout the country. I am sonry that the minister and the government seem to resent suggestions of this kind. It is a vital matter. In the first place there is a tremendous need for employment, and this is a case where provision can be made not only for employment but for the elimination of one of the greatest outstanding, shall I say, national dangers.

When I said $5,000,000 I -think I put the arnount very low. I would suggest that the minister and the government consider increasing this expenditure by an additional sum, though perhaps not in this estimate, because I know a great many members of this house are very much in earnest about this particular problem. Members, particularly those supporting the government, do not like to embarrass it, but I want to say to the minister and the government that these are constructive and useful suggestions which catch the ear of the people of this country who understand the situation, and they are willing to support any government which will take the necessary measures. It is not a political question ; it is not a question affecting a-ny section ; it is a national question. This is a great opportunity to meet a great national need.

I urge upon the minister once again to consider a definite policy apart altogether from the present statute, which, although it may operate all right in normal times, is restrictive, and seriously to consider a forward movement and the establishment of a national policy in this matter.

Mr. MASSEY:

I speak as a prejudiced

witness, which I admit very frankly, in view of the fact that there are in my riding, which is the municipal riding of the east part of Toronto, three grade crossings, not only exceedingly dangerous -but also very important from the point of view of the amount of traffic that is compelled to pass over them. For many years the question has been discussed and rediscussed of the possibility of changing these grade crossings into subways or otherwise, and if my hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Church) and my hon. friend from Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) were here they w-ould bear me out in what I have to say.

I would ask the minister if this vote that we are asked to pass to-night may be regarded

Supply-Railways-C.N.R.

as simply the first vote along the lines suggested to him by those who have spoken during the last few minutes. One could say a great deal under this item on the necessity of such work as is here contemplated being done on a wide national scale, and I earnestly urge upon the minister that not only in municipalities but throughout the country, on the highways and byways, there is much work of this kind that needs to be done in the interests not only of safety but of subdividing traffic, which is something very much to be desired. I would ask the minister if this may be regarded as simply the first vote along these lines.

Mr. HOWE:

This vote is supplementary

to the ordinary grade crossing vote, which as we all know is a statutory grant towards the removal of grade crossings. This, in the opinion of the railway commissioners, will cover the government's share of the applications which are made to the board and of which the board approves. If more money is needed I think the government will be glad to consider a larger grant next year.