Mr. Basford:

As the former mayor of Belleville, the hon. member would have been involved in several grade crossing matters. I refer him to Part III of the bill, with which he will be familiar. It is a re-enactment, with increased financial limits, of the historic grade crossing fund. The procedures under Part III are exactly the same as they always have been, namely that the municipality can go to CTC and get a grant from the grade crossing fund for its grade crossing and grade separation proposals.

Part II is a totally new procedure. It is designed to deal with grade separation and highway relocation proposals that cannot be dealt with even under the increased amounts in the grade crossing fund. It is a design to cover what I can call special expenses and especially large grade crossings and grade separations or highway relocations. I think the procedures set out here should be different from the grade crossing fund procedures in Part III, simply because they are so big and designed to be so major that it is essential that we avoid any conflict between a municipality and its province with regard to these major undertakings and major highway relocations. That is the reason for the difference. I underline and emphasize to the hon. member that the procedures he is familiar with under the old grade crossing fund are duplicated or repeated in Part III of this legislation with increased limits.

Relocation of Railway Lines

Mr. Ellis:

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

Mr. Basford:

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MacKay:

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

The Deputy Chairman:

Order, please. We should try to proceed in an orderly way. Maybe we should dispose of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Scarborough East before we get involved in any other suggested amendment. I hope the hon. member for Scarborough East will allow me to make a slight correction to his amendment. His amendment still has the word "the" which does not make any sense. The amendment suggested by the Chair would read as follows:

That clause 16(1) be amended by deleting the word "the" after the word "and" and substituting therefor the words "all reasonable".

Shall the amendment carry?

Carried.

Amendment (Mr. Stackhouse) agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman:

Shall clause 16 as amended carry?

Carried.

The Deputy Chairman:

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

Mr. MacKay:

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

Mr. Basford:

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

April 30, 1974

Relocation of Railway Lines

applicant and by the commission. I think this gets somewhat complicated. I implore the hon. member not to complicate it in this way.

Mr. Fortin:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the minister to clause 16(1), which says from line 1 on:

... appear likely to exceed one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, an application may be made to the Commission by the province or by any municipality on its behalf ...

The English version says:

... the province or by any municipality on behalf of the province ...

I should like to ask the minister whether that means, as was the case with clause 3, that the municipality can apply to the commission for a grade separation otherwise than with the agreement of the province, on behalf of the province, or does it merely mean that the municipality is acting on its own behalf?

Mr. Chairman, the explanation of the minister becomes extremely important because it will create a logical tie between clause 3 in Part I and clause 16 in Part II.

Mr. Basford:

Again I say to the hon. member that Part II is somewhat different from Part I. This afternoon I accepted on behalf of the government the submission the hon. member made; but here in Part II we are dealing with matters which intimately involve the province. For example, clause 17 concerns highway relocation schemes. It is the province which organizes and conducts such schemes. I think it would be quite improper to pass legislation saying that a municipality could go before a federal board with a provincial highway relocation plan.

Again I implore the hon. member, it being five minutes after ten, not to complicate the matter in this way. I acceded to his request this afternoon, which I thought was well put, and I urge him to accede to mine this evening. I say that here, in clauses 16 and 17, we are dealing with matters which intimately involve the province.

Mr. Fortin:

I should like to tell the minister that I accede to his request and agree with his explanation.

The Deputy Chairman:

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

Mr. MacKay:

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

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 23 inclusive agreed to.

Mr. Basford:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and myself I should like to express to hon. members of the House, as a matter of privilege, our very great thanks and gratitude for the special arrangements which have been made for the passage of this bill. We have heard from many speakers during the committee stage and there have been many members of all parties who have resisted the temptation to speak. I know, as does the Minister of Transport, that there are members of all parties who have a very deep interest in railway relocation in their cities and who, in order to get this bill through to the advantage of their cities, have remained silent. To those who spoke and to those who did not, I offer my very great thanks.

Hear, hear!