1935-02-13

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. EULER:: 1.	What is the amount of the national debt?
2.	What is the amount of the debt of the
Canadian National Railways:	(a) to the
public; (b) to the government?

Questions
3.	How much, if any, of the amount in the answer to (b) of question No. 2 is included in the national debt given in the answer to question No. 1?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Net debt as shown by transactions passed through the books of the Department of Finance to December 31, 1934, $2,764,964,291.
2.	Debt of Canadian National Railways at December 31, 1934 (preliminary figures subject to verification by company's auditors):
(a)	To the public	 $1,246,330,439
(b)	To the government:
Loans	$672,307,663
Accrued interest on	loans	 459,486,186
Cost to government of Canadian government railways turned over to C.N.R. for management and
operation	 404,279,909


SI .536,073,758
[Stage Direction]
3.	All of the amount of $1,536,073,758 has been absorbed in the net debt of the dominion with the exception of $42,529,129, made up as follows:
(a) $26,780,208 of loans advanced for capital and refunding purposes in the years 1932, 1933 and 1934.
;b) $15,748,921 included in the cost of Canadian government railways which represents the amount (less repayments) of the open and stores accounts of the Canadian government railways at the time of their transfer to the Canadian National Railways for operation.
Both these items are treated in the public accounts as active assets and are deducted from the gross debt in arriving at the net debt.

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How many radio licences were collected in British Columbia during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934?
2.	How many broadcasting stations are licensed in British Columbia, of what power and wave length are they, and what are the names and addresses of the respective licensees?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Fiscal year
1931-	32	
55,5341932-	33	
61,3681933-	34	
55,9781934-	35, to end December,1934	(9 months)	
67,715Licensed power	Frequency in	CallLocation	Licensee	in watts	kilocycles	signChilliwack, B.C..	. Chilliwack Broadcasting Co. Ltd., Wellington avenue, Chilliwack. B.C	100	780	CHWKKamloops, B.C..	. Review Publishing Co. Ltd., Wilcox-Hall building. Kamloops, B.C	100	SSO	CFJCKelowna, B.C...	. Okanagan Broadcasters Ltd., Water street and Mill avenue, Kelowna, B.C...	100	630	CKOVLulu Island. B.C.	. Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, C.N.R. station building, Vancouver, B.C	1000	1100	CRCVSea Island, B.C..	. G. C. Chandler, Hotel Gros-venor, 848 Howe street, Vancouver, B.C	500	600	CJORTrail, B.C	. Kootenav Broadcasting Co., Ltd, frail, B.C	250	910	CJATVancouver, B.C..	. United Church of Canada, corner Hemlock and 12th avenue, Vancouver. B.C..	50	1410	CKFC
Questions

2. Eleven:-Concluded
Location	License	Licensed power in watts	Frequency in kilocycles	Call signVancouver, B.C..	. Sprott-Shaw Radio Co., Room 1604 Bekins building, Vancouver, B.C	100	1410	CKMOVancouver, B.C..	. Vancouver Daily Province, 142 Hastings street west, Vancouver, B.C	100	1010	CKCDVancouver, B.C..	. Western Broadcasting Co., Ltd., Hotel Georgia, 801 George street west, Vancouver, B.C	100	1010	CKWXVictoria, B.C....	. Victoria Broadcasting Association, 620 View street, Victoria, B.C	50	1450	CFCT


PELEE ISLAND CABLE
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	When ivas the cable laid between Kings-rille and Pelee island?
2.	On whose recommendation?
3.	What was the cost of installation?
4.	How long was it in service?
5.	How many times was the service disrupted while the cable was supposedly in use?
6.	Has the Kingsville Pelee island service been abandoned?
7.	When was the cable taken up?
8.	What was the cost of raising the cable?
9.	What was the total cost, including all expenditures, of the Kingsville Pelee island cable?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	October 2, 1927.
2.	Assistant general superintendent of government telegraphs.
3.	$614.
4.	October, 1927, to June, 1933.
5.	Nine.
6.	Yes.
7.	Taken up during summer of 1933 and placed in service on Quebec division.
8.	$271.
9.	$7,116.07.


PICTOTJ, N.S., CUSTOMS HOUSE CARETAKER
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has any appointment been made to the vacant position of caretaker of the customs house building at Pictou, Nova Scotia?
2.	When were applications to fill this vacancy asked for by the civil service commission?
3.	What date was fixed for the receipt of applications by the civil service commission?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No. Due to the illness of the late incumbent of the position, the department selected a person to carry on the duties of the position temporarily. This was approved by the civil service commission in

the absence of eligibles or lay-offs for assignment. Upon the death of the incumbent of the position, the department requested the commission to fill the vacancy. Consequently in order to secure a qualified candidate a competition has been advertised.
2.	Posters advertising the competition were sent out on January 25, 1935.
3.	February 2, 1935.


BAIE DES HA HA HARBOURMASTER
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	Who was the harbourmaster of the harbour of la Baie des Ha! Ha!, county of Chicoutimi, from 1926 to 1931?
2.	On what date was he appointed?
3.	On what date was he dismissed and for what reason?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Mr. Georges Henri Lavoie.
2.	August 22, 1925.
3.	February 23, 1932; for political partisanship.


KAMLOOPS, B. C. POST OFFICE
Mr. HANBURY:: 1.	Were tenders called for painting the old post office building, Kamloops, British Columbia, during 1932?
2.	If so, were such tenders advertised, in what papers, and on what dates?
3.	Who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?
4.	Who was the successful tenderer?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes, tenders invited for painting and repairs in November, 1931.
2.	No, tenders were invited from: W. J. Moffatt, Pinchbeck & Pinchbeck, Johnston & Company, W. J. Ellis & Company.

Questions as Orders for Returns
3.	W. J. Moffat	$662
Pinchbeck & Pinchbeck	 694
Johnston & Company	1,135
4.	W. J. Moffat.
In July 1932 the resident architect was authorized an amount estimated at $161.50 for painting and repairs to caretaker's quarters.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1928	May June
1929	May June
1930	May June
1931	May June
1932	May June
1933	May June
1934	May June
Of this amount the estimate for painting was $108.


BUTTER PRICES
Mr. DUGUAY:: What was the price of butter in England and in Canada, during the months of May and June of the years 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932,
1933, and 1934?	
Canada wholesale	United Kingdom
jobbing price of	Australian
creamery No. 1	butter per pound
pasteurized	at London, England
per pound at Mont-	(converted at
real, Canada	current rates of ex-
	change)
$	$
.345	.312-.345
.357	.310-.362
.354	.342
.365	.324-.366
.297	.245-.279
.271	.247-.280
.211	.226-.236
.207	.231-.237
.169	.176-.179
.164	.179-. 182
.196	.150-.153
.189	.160-. 163
.206	.167
.209	.165


CHICOUTIMI, QUE. UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	Has the provincial government paid to the federal government a sum of money spent by the city of Chicoutimi for unemployment relief?
2.	If so, what is the amount, and why was it paid?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	The federal government received from the province of Quebec repayment of a sum of money on account of relief expenditures made by the city of Chicoutimi. [DOT]
2.	$4,831.72 representing amounts irregularly included in certificates of expenditures previously rendered to and paid by the federal government.
blindness among ex-service men


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Has the attention of the government been directed to cases of blindness now developing amongst ex-service men as a result of being gassed during the war?
2.	If so, will the government consider the advisability of establishing a specialized medical section of the Department of Pensions and
National Health to develop preventive and curative measures as far as possible in such cases?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I can answer this question shortly. The attention of the government has been directed to the possibility of this being the case and they are quite willing to do everything possible that is necessary under the circumstances.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How many relief camps are there at present in the province of British Columbia?
2.	How many single homeless men are there at present in such camps?
3.	What was the total cost of operating such camps in 1934?
4.	What are the main divisions of such total costs and percentages thereof under headings of food, clothing, supervision, etc.?
5.	What is the average per diem per capita cost of operating such camps?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Return tabled herewith.

Questions as Orders for Returns



TRADE SPECIALISTS

Mr. BOULANGER:: What is the number, classifying them by trade as much as possible, of the labourers, tradesmen, foremen, managers, superintendents or directors of factories who have been admitted into Canada in the capacity of specialists in their trade, and for the reason that such specialists were not available in Canada, since the 7th of August, 1930, to date?



QUEBEC FEDERAL AGRICULTURE EMPLOYEES

Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What are the names, addresses and the duties of the employees of the federal Department of Agriculture, in the province of Quebec?
2.	What is the salary of each?
3.	What are the names of those who are bilingual?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: Return tabled herewith.



BRITISH COLUMBIA PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: 1.	How much money was appropriated for public works, under the Building and Construction Act of 1934, for the province of British Columbia?
2.	What contracts have been let to date, what are the names and addresses of the respective contractors, the amounts of their contracts, the nature of the work and locations of said works?
3.	What work has been clone by day labour, at what rate of wages per hour in eacli instance, and at what places has the work been done?



LAND SURROUNDING LEVIS, QUE., FORTS

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Has the government received offers from private individuals for the rental or purchase of land surrounding the three forts at Levis, Quebec?
2.	If so, from whom?
3.	For what amounts?



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION

Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1. What amount lias been voted to Mr. O'Meara, chairman, and the two commissioners of the Quebec harbour, in lieu of automobiles taken away from them in the month of August, 1932?
2.	What amount was paid for repairs to the Packard automobile used by Commissioner LeBlond, from January, 1932, to August, 1932, either in paint, accessories, mechanism, tires, etc.?
3. How many gallons of gasoline and oil were used from January, 1932, to August, 1932?
4.	How was the sale of the Packard automobile used by, Commissioner LeBlond made?
5.	What amount was paid for same by Commissioner LeBlond?
6.	Was the difference in the price of the licence from August, 1932, to February, 1933, reimbursed by Commissioner LeBlond?

7.	Has the insurance to the amount of $363 been reimbursed by Commissioner LeBlond?
8.	Since August, 1932, what quantity of gasoline has Commissioner LeBlond received from the commission?
9.	What amount was voted to Commissioner LeBlond for a voyage to Saint John, N.B., on the 27th February, last?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: I think this question should stand as an order for return and I shall table the information received from the harbour commission.



PENSION APPEALS

Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	How many appeals for the granting of pensions or for increased pensions of ex-service men remain unheard?
2.	If any, how many of the said appeals have been pending for the following lengths of time: fa] three to six months; (b) six to nine months; (c) nine to twelve months; (d) over tivelve months; (e) over eighteen months; (f) over twenty-four months?



EX-SERVICE DISABILITY PENSIONS

Mr. MULOCK:: By what amounts have payments on account of ex-service men's disability pension been reduced during the fiscal years 1931 to 1934 inclusive, by reason of, the discontinuance of 6.851 pensions: (a) by reason of death; (b) all other causes?


William Pate Mulock: By what amounts have payments on account of ex-service men's disability pensions been reduced during the fiscal years 1931 to 1934 inclusive, by reason of 30,245 pensions being reduced during that period: (a) by reason of death; (b) all other causes?



WAR VETERANS' ALLOWANCES

William Pate Mulock: By what amounts have payments on account of war veterans' allowances been reduced by reason of 2.130 war veterans' allowances being discontinued during the fiscal years 1931 to 1934 inclusive: (a) by reason of death; (b) all other causes?
Mr. MULOCK;
By what amounts have payments on account of war veterans' allowances been reduced by reason of 929 war veterans' allowances being reduced during the fiscal years 1931 to 1934 inclusive?



FARM INDEBTEDNESS

Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	How many persons own and operate farms in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	What is the total municipal assessment in each province?
3.	What is the total amount of mortgage debts on farmers' lands, in each province?

Agricultural Implements-Customs Duties
4.	How many farmers have borrowed under the Canadian Farm Loan Act, in each province. during the past four years?
5.	What amount has been loaned under the said act, in each province, during the past four years?


Mr. BENNETT:: I think this question
might stand as an order for return.
farmers' creditors arrangement act-



QUEBEC OFFICIAL RECEIVERS

Mr. LAFLECHE:: What are the names of the official receivers appointed in the various judicial districts of the province of Quebec, pursuant to the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, and what is the postal address of each and the name of the county where they reside?


Mr. RHODES:: Return tabled herewith. MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



DOCTOR DAIGNEAULT

Mr. GAGNON:: For a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, memoranda and reports, exchanged and submitted between the Department of Agriculture and the different offices of the said department in Montreal, Ottawa, and elsewhere, and any other persons, from July 1, 1930, to February 1, 1935, relating to Doctor Daigneault, an employee of the Department of Agriculture in Montreal.



GRANDE RIVIERE, QUE., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of all accounts for materials, including stone and iron, and of the paylists in connection with work done by the Department of Public Works at Grande Riviere, Gaspe county, during the years 1932, 1933, and 1934.



AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the best interests of Canada demand that the burden of customs taxation be lessened on the instruments of production in the agricultural industry and to this end, farm implements and machinery should be free from customs duties.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the house at any length on the introduction of this motion. I think however it would be of interest to recite briefly the history of customs duties as applied to farm machinery, and to point out their detrimental effect upon the farming industry of this country. I do not think there will be any disagreement with the statement that agriculture is the most important occupation of the Canadian people.
Nearly half the population of Canada are engaged in agriculture, and if agriculture is not prosperous no industry in the country can be prosperous. Those statements I think will go without challenge. Agriculture has been considered Canada's basic industry, and without giving hon. gentlemen opposite undue credit, all political parties, including hon. gentlemen in the comer, have repeatedly made statements of that character in this house and on the public platforms of the country.
Then I think I am safe in saying that at no time, at any rate since the days of confederation, has agriculture suffered more severely than it has during the past three or four years. I think the anxiety exhibited by the government at this session to try to meet this situation is evidence that they too realize the serious situation in which the agriculturists of Canada find themselves. I do not for a moment agree that the remedies which the government seek to apply are going to bring the necessary relief to agriculture; on the contrary I think that some of their policies are responsible for conditions in which the farmers now find themselves. So far as I have been able to discover there has been no time when there was a wider spread between prices in the secondary industries and agricultural prices than there is now. I am not going into a discussion of tariffs at this time, there will be opportunity for that at some other time. But the effect of the excessive protection granted to secondary industries in the session of 1930-31 has been to widen the spread between the prices of agricultural products and of industrial commodities to an extent never before experienced. Consequently, the prices of goods that the farmers have to purchase in order to carry on their business are far out of line with the prices obtained for the products of the basic industries, and while that statement is true of perhaps all basic commodities it applies in the highest degree to those of agriculture.
This has been an acute political question in Canada ever since I have been interested in politics. Going back to the days of Sir John A. Macdonald-that is a considerable distance-I well remember his enunciation of the national policy; that in the interest of the industrial life of Canada it was necessary that secondary industries be given some protection from products of competing industries outside. At that time the farm machinery business was assisted, if it can be called assistance, by increased tariffs for its protection.
In those days the manufacture of farm machinery was well distributed in the old province of Ontario in which I was then living.
782	COMMONS
Agricultural Implements-Customs Duties
Many of our little towns grew up as a result of the manufacture of farm machinery, and became prosperous communities. Farm machinery is essential to the life of the farm, we are forced to buy it, we cannot carry on our avocation without it. But gradually through the application of that protective policy its manufacture has become concentrated, and the amalgamation of the manufacturing companies has taken place. That was the beginning of the difficulties we are experiencing to-day, not only in connection with the manufacture of farm machinery but also in almost every other avenue of secondary industry. We have had the concentration of wealth and activity, through combines and combinations of those engaged in these industries, in large centres, and gradually the small towns have been deprived of these industries. That is true of other industries as well as the manufacture of farm machinery, and it is becoming even more apparent to-day. I believe implicitly that the application of high tariffs for the protection of these industries has been one of the primary causes of this situation, and has resulted, as it must result, in communities like Toronto, Montreal and other cities growing until they became very large centres of population.
What has been the result? Undoubtedly excessive taxation has been imposed upon these manufacturers in the large cities, because invariably as population increases taxation and living costs go up. I do not believe, for example, that an artisan in the Massey-Harris plant in Toronto can live as cheaply to-day as he could when basic commodity prices were at almost the same level that we find them now. Living costs are higher largely as a result of his residence in communities of this character. I am willing to admit that costs have gone up a little, but the farmer has received no appreciable return for his increased costs in this connection. During the past two or three years he has received the lowest prices known in this country, except in the period from 1890 to 1893. I have a very good recollection of the prices of farm commodities at that time, and they compare rather favourably with the prices of to-day.
Excessive tariffs in connection with secondary manufacturing industries were applied during the regime of Sir John A. Macdonald in order to encourage and protect infant industries, and) we were told at that time that as soon as these industries were on their feet they would not require this protection. I believe the statement made at that time by the Conservatives who imposed these tariffs

was quite true, as I think it is true to-day, but what has been the result? Not imperceptibly but gradually these combinations have grown and have spread into every avenue of secondary industry in the country while the farmer, despite his efforts at organization and cooperation, finds himself, so far as price levels are concerned, in the position he occupied back in 1890. There does not seem to be very much hope for him. We see his markets being closed daily, and why? The answer is obvious. If we do not buy we cannot sell, and his hope of widening his market and raising his price level does not seem to be very bright either now or for the future. Undoubtedly during the next decade at least we will have a surplus of farm production in this country; no one will deny that. You cannot take half the agriculturists of 'Canada and te'll them they must cease the production of wheat, of cattle or of dairy products, the three most important items of farm production in Canada. No one will deny that this country was made prosperous by the very fact that we did produce these commodities in abundance, and were able to sell them. Hon. gentlemen say we cannot sell them now, that we cannot go into prohibited markets, that we cannot enter markets with higher tariffs than we have, that we are being shut out. Certainly we never will go into any market unless we are prepared to take goods in exchange, and in my opinion that is the rock upon which my hon. friends opposite are wrecking the ship of state today.
I should like to take a moment or two to point out the price spread now existing in order to show how it varies with the application of excessive tariffs. Taking the year 1926 as 100, in 1930 farm products stood at 82-3, while manufactured goods were 87-3. In 1931 the price level of farm products dropped to 56-3, while manufactured goods were 74-8. In 1932 farm products dropped again to 48-4 with manufactured goods dropping also, but only to 69-8. In 1933 there was an improvement, and in fairness I must say that there was an improvement again last year, although I am not in possession of the figures. In 1933 farm products went up to 51, but there was a corresponding increase in manufactured goods to 70-2. My argument, Mr. Speaker, is that unless you keep the spread much smaller than is indicated by the figures I have quoted you are bound to have difficulties in the agricultural industry.
Let me give a little personal history, and I will speak only of the years 1907 and 1908. In both those years I was employed as a

Agricultural Implements-Customs Duties
salesman for the Massey-Harris Company. Wheat in western Canada was selling at 90 cents a bushel for .No. 1 hard. We were not getting an excessive price for our wheat. Cattle were bringing about five cents a pound and dairy products were reasonably priced. I was able to sell, and the farmers were able to buy, a IMassey-Harris binder for $160 cash, and I am sure any farmer in this house will agree that a Massey-Harris binder of that day was very little different in its construction, its weight, or the contents entering into its manufacture, from the binder of to-day. Corresponding prices prevailed for all the other tillage machinery. It is true that during and after the war prices of farm machinery went up tremendously, almost as high as they are to-day. I do not want my hon. friends to think for a moment .that I am going to blame the Conservative government for those increased prices, nor can they blame them on the Liberal party. I simply wish to quote facts in connection with the manufacture and sale of farm machinery. The explanation given at that time was that due to the terrific losses incurred by the farm machinery companies during the war and to the excessive cost of labour, they were forced to increase prices. But, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that we as agriculturists were in a much better condition to buy, because we had a corresponding price level in the goods we had to sell. During that time, immediately after the war, I sold wheat for S2.40 per bushel. Naturally in those days we did not have the difficult conditions we have to-day. I mention these facts merely to show the exact situation.
I bring the resolution forward to-day for this, among other reasons, that in almost every other line of manufacture there have been drops in the selling prices of goods. Perhaps in some lines there have been slight increases, but generally speaking, with the single exception of farm machinery, the price of goods has dropped. I am not permitted to discuss a matter before the price spreads commission but I believe you would permit me, Mr. Speaker, to observe that the statement made before that commission only a few weeks ago by the representative of a firm manufacturing farm machinery did not lend very much hope to the agriculturists of Canada, and gave them no reason to believe there would be any reduction in the prices of farm machinery. Surely the time has come

in fact, I say the time has long since passed- when there should be a reasonable reduction. The purchaser of an automobile can go into the market to-day and purchase a product
much better constructed than the car that was offered in 1926 or 1927 and containing about the same amount of material. I believe hon. members will agree with me that the purchaser of that automobile would enjoy a 30 per cent or 40 per cent reduction, as compared with the prices obtaining in the years I have mentioned. I use this illustration because it more nearly corresponds with the manufacture of farm machinery. A few moments ago I quoted the price of a binder in 1908, and may I say that that price of $160 continued with very little change up until the time we entered the war. What are we asked for the same implement to-day? We are offered a product almost identical in construction, containing no more material than in former days, and are asked well over $280. Hence my desire to bring this matter to the attention of the house.
Then, I have one other reason for speaking at this time. May I observe in passing that I believe the government has done very well, so far as the farmers in the drought stricken areas of western Canada are concerned. I believe they are to be commended for their action. I must say however that they have made a tremendous expenditure of money. Tremendous expenditures have been made for the relief of other agriculturists who are not in circumstances quite so unfortunate, but who, despite all that may be said, are very rapidly approaching bankruptcy. I am not so familiar with the situation in the east, but I believe western members will agree with me when I state that in western Canada we cannot carry on very much longer with our old implements. I defy any hon. member to go to a farm of any size in western Canada which has not long since passed the stage where it should be replacing worn out implements. They are not being replaced, and for the very good reason that the farmer cannot buy them. This year, next year and in following years if the farmers are to till their land at all and if they are to carry on business they will have to buy heavily. It seems to me that by insisting upon excessive prices which they ask of the farmers both in eastern and western Canada the implement companies are standing in their own light. Those farmers are the least able to pay, and I have not hesitated to make that statement.
It may be that hon. gentlemen opposite have in their minds some scheme whereby they will regulate the industry. I do not know about that. Even if the duty were taken off to-morrow I do not believe it would make very much difference to the farm machinery companies. They are so well
784	COMMONS
Agricultural Implements-Customs Duties
organized that they are pretty well beyond control, and some other means may have to be taken to control prices. I am willing frankly to admit that. But why does the government persist in leaving those companies behind a 25 per cent tariff which results in placing a burden, and an extreme burden, upon the purchaser? Do not be misled by the statement that on every occasion they do not add the protection. If hon. members wish to have evidence as to that may I point out that the year before last the government put into effect an increased duty on parts. We were buying parts, for the very good reason that we could not afford to buy new machinery. But the moment that order went into effect, up went the price of parts to a point just within the amount of protection afforded. I am asking the government to consider the possibility of removing the duty. It may be that they will
have to take some other step, but I can assure them that the added burden of the high cost of machinery will finish the job of breaking the backs of our farmers. If some change is not made there will be bankruptcy right and left.
I do not believe the help extended to the manufacturers of farm implements has done them any good, beyond that of maintaining prices. An investigation of the figures showing the result of the application of duties on farm implements indicates that those duties do not tend to give employment, as hon. members opposite fondly hoped they would. Naturally that must be the result, because they are not doing the business. The following table which I have secured from the bureau of statistics will I suggest serve to indicate it cannot be claimed that by the application of the policies adopted by this government we have helped the employees or the implement companies.
Agricultural Implements Industry
Gross value
Employees Salaries and wages of production
1930	
7.405	$9,564,069	$26,902,1391931	
4,471	4,997,732	11.175,4041932	
2,758	3,097,975	5,510,0781933	
3,039	3,047,501	5,326,416
The fact is that the business is not to be had. The objection I take is that the manufacturers do not need and never did need the protection they are being given. They were always able to compete. It is a well known fact that farm machinery was sold in Germany and in foreign countries cheaper than it was sold to the Canadian farmer. I do not say that condition exists to-day, because I doubt if there is very much exportation of farm machinery at this time. The farmers feel they should have some relief along these lines, and for that reason I have brought the matter to the attention of the house hoping that there is foundation for the rumours I have heard

probably one should not listen to rumours-* to the effect that hon. members opposite are about to change their minds in this connection, and that there is to be a right about face. I hope it is true, because they will have my unqualified support if it is, and that there will be some relief afforded by way of reduction in the duties on farm machinery and the implements of production of other basic commodities. That is to be devoutly hoped for. So far as this particular industry is concerned, looking back at its history and conditions at the present time, for the life of me I cannot conceive that it requires any protection of any sort. I have presented the facts, Mr. Speaker, as briefly as I could, and as I understand that 
other hon. members are to speak on the motion, I now leave it to the judgment of the house.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, at an earlier stage of the session in dealing with a matter touching our relations with another country I put forward the suggestion that it is not the part of wisdom to deal with matters touching our relations with another country when we are in the midst of negotiations with that country. On that occasion my remarks were construed in some quarters to emanate from fear or a feeling of subserviance. As a matter of fact there is nothing further from my mind and nothing could have been further from the mind of the government. The attitude of the government with respect to its full right to take such action as it may deem proper in the interests of Canada in its relations with other countries was plainly manifested by the action that it took in the autumn session of 1930, when there was no hesitation on the part of the government in taking such action by means of the tariff as the government thought wise, and without reference to any repercussions elsewhere. Furthermore, similar action was taken following the empire conference when the agreements were implemented in the autumn session of 1932.

Agricultural Implements-Customs Duties
What I had in mind at the time was that to deal with matters which would have a repercussion in another country when you were not in negotiation with that country was one thing, but to do so while you were in the midst of negotiations was an entirely different thing. If the action was in any sense adverse it might very well be regarded as a matter of sharp practice. On the other hand, in disturbing the status quo that existed at the time you entered the negotiations you disturb the situation to the detriment of one party or the other, and I submit that under those conditions you do not make for that happy approach to the problem which ought to be the approach of two parties seeking to effect an agreement which is mutually advantageous.
Having said so much, I do not lean upon the circumstance that my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) in one of his opening remarks indicated, but from another angle altogether I say that it is not the part of wisdom to go into this matter at this time. In one of his opening sentences my hon. friend said:	There will come a time when
we can discuss tariffs fully. May I submit that while my hon. friend from West Edmonton is entirely within his rights in moving this resolution, he has moved it with reference to a specific article and at a specific time. I submit in all deference that apart from the earlier question which I raised, the proper time to deal with matters of this kind is on the budget, when we are dealing with tariff items.
But there is another consideration. My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) has upon the order paper a resolution in very similar terms dealing with the subject of fish, and in the votes and proceedings of to-day there is a notice of motion in similar terms to be moved by my hon. friend from Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Campbell) with respect to the mining industry; and we might go on seriatim. As a matter of fact there would be nothing to preclude every member of the house from moving a specific resolution with respect to every item in the tariff-all to no purpose as far as the accomplishment of the object they had in mind was concerned, and certainly it would impede the business of the house to a very marked extent.
I hope this remark will not be misunderstood. I do not say it in any censorious spirit, but my hon. friend from West Ed-taonton in the earlier portion of his remarks referred to the circumstance that this has been a political question for many years. It has. But there are two types of political 92582-50
questions. There is the political question in the narrow or party sense, and there is also the more important political question in the wider or national sense. I do say this, that while it may be good party politics to deal with this subject in this manner at this time, in all deference I say that it is poor national politics to do so when it has reference to a trading position concerning our relations with another country.
For the reasons I have indicated I do not propose to deal with the merits of this question. If it is thought desirable that that should be done at this session, it could be done on the budget. Much less do I intend to traverse the ground that has been covered by my hon. friend from West Edmonton, and my reasons will be apparent when I move the amendment to the resolution which I now move without further discussion. I move, Mr. Speaker:
That all the words after the word "that" in the first line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
In view of the negotiations now in progress between Canada and the United States with the object of effecting a trade agreement between the two countries, this house is of opinion that public discussion of the rates of duties on the instruments of production in the agricultural industry is untimely and inadvisable.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of
order. I submit with deference that the amendment is completely out of order. It consists of two portions. One is a complete and direct negation of the motion that has been moved by my hon. friend from West Edmonton, and the second portion purports to give reasons for that negation. Now, although it mentions the reason for the amendment I submit that the reason given, thfe negotiations now proceeding, is no justification for an amendment by way of negation to a resolution properly moved.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, may I submit that this amendment is not a 'negation. It amends the original resolution and calls for an expression from the house that at the present moment we should not take certain action with respect to a certain subject. I do not propose to traverse the ground because I submit the amendment conforms entirely to the definition of an amendment which says that an amendment must amend. We do amend by leaving a portion of the original resolution and we alter the sense of the expression of the house with respect to the subject matter by the character of the amendment itself.

786	COMMONS
Agricultural Implements-Customs Duties


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
rise to speak to the amendment except to say to my hon. friend that if it will assist the discussion, which is bound to follow if this motion is declared in order, and if the Minister of Finance believes that it will be detrimental to any negotiations pending to continue the discussion, we are quite willing to forego our desire for a discussion at this moment, and we will move the adjournment of the debate.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I appreciate exceedingly
the suggestion made by my hon. friend and I think he is approaching the matter in the spirit in which I think it should be dealt with and in which I should desire to see it approached, from the point of view of the public interest. Of course, the amendment would not preclude discussion; the debate could proceed. It is not necessary, so far as that point is concerned, for His Honour to give an immediate ruling on the point of order; but I submit, in view of the suggestion made by my hon. friend, that of necessity, in our negotiations with the United States, we shall be dealing with tariff items which must have reference to the numerous articles which would in all probability be covered in a discussion of these various resolutions dealing with these matters. And in the nature of things, if discussion must be had upon it, it would be far wiser to have it after these negotiations had been concluded than it would be to prejudice their successful conclusion in advance. It does not preclude the matter being fully discussed by parliament and such action being taken as might be deemed best; but it does, I suggest, in the national interest, cause us to pause and ask ourselves whether it is wise for us to negotiate, as it were, with respect to certain articles in the open market place under these conditions. It would be good judgment, I think, bearing in mind the circumstances that there will be plenty of opportunity, on the budget or otherwise at a later stage, to discuss the matter, not to continue the discussion now.


Charles A. Stewart: It is our
desire on this side of the house to assist the government in every way possible. We reserve the right to be critical, of course. That is our right, and we have a perfect right to place on the order paper motions that are in order and to discuss them. That we intend to do. At the same time, if the minister feels, as he has just now announced, that it will be prejudicial to any pending negotiations which will be of benefit to the (Mr. Rhodes.]
Canadian producers-at least, I should hope they would be-then I am content to ask my seconder to adjourn the debate; that is, on the understanding that the minister withdraws the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It would be competent
to adjourn the debate, with the amendment attached. It is not necessary to dispose of it now, but I am content to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to move it again, on the understanding that the debate on the main motion be adjourned at the present time.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: How can this matter
be discussed on the budget if this motion and the amendment are on the order paper?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There need not be any
difficulty on that point, because if it is deemed wise to discuss the matter at that stage we can have the order discharged, and I should be content to have that done, bearing always in mind the main consideration of which I have spoken, namely, the question as to the status of the negotiations at that time.
Amendment withdrawn.
On motion of Mr. McKenzie (Assiniboia) the debate was adjourned.



MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto) moved:: In view of the very rapid and appalling number of accidents, deaths, and injuries, on Canada's highways from motor vehicles;
And whereas many recommendations and resolutions are being passed by judges, magistrates, coroners, and grand juries, and the press all over Canada calling for reforms and action by parliament and for more drastic regulation and legislation to safeguard the public;
And whereas these annual losses are a direct challenge to modern civilization and social and industrial society;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house an adequate inquiry and survey as aforesaid should be made immediately with a view this session to a rewriting and reconstruction of existing federal legislation, and to have clauses placed in the criminal code to help check and stop this great loss of life.
He said: The object of this resolution is the same as the purpose of a bill which I introduced in the session of 1929-30, to amend the criminal code, having regard to the terrible loss of life on the highways of this country.

Motor Vehicle Accidents
In my opinion there should be a department of transport in Canada. Six years ago in Great Britain a committee of both houses of parliament was appointed to study the same question over there and they sat for three sessions, going fully into the matter, with the result that a ministry of transport has been established. There they have been introducing some reforms. It seems to me that, in view of the wide stretch of territory in the provinces, there should be a dominion department for the whole country, because we have at present many provincial departments dealing w:th this question and the laws are all different, as are the returns. No united effort is being made to cope with the question.
No one of independent mind will doubt for a moment that the condition of motor traffic in Canada on our highways is as discreditable to this country as were the effects of prohibition in the United States, which led to such politics and lawlessness in that great country. I submit that this problem of motor statistics must be approached with an open mind, and I doubt whether any hon. member in this house has examined the statistics as they should be. If he did he would be horrified at the disclosures. No doubt hon. members have studied the problem, but I do not think that generally speaking they appreciate its importance. If we do not look at the facts with an open mind we are not likely to see the truth in its real gravity.
It is one of the commandments of God that no one shall kill or do murder, and there is a second commandment with respect to one's duty to one's neighbour, and these commandments have been violated. So there is the question of selfishness. Pope says "Worth makes the man," and human life should be respected on our highways. Many men of real worth, through selfishness and carelessness, have violated the laws not only of God but of man as well in motor slaughter. No other invention has contributed more to the education, pleasure and enjoyment of the people than has the motor car, but its use is one thing; its abuse is another. As with every great invention, use and abuse are two distinct things. During the past century scientific discoveries in medicine, preventive medicine, chemistry, biochemistry and physics have resulted in untold good to humanity, but the abuse of some of these discoveries, for instance in chemistry, biochemistry and physics, has in war proved a curse to mankind, and so to-day the abuse of the motor car is a curse to humanity. On looking into this question one finds that it involves terrible annual losses in deaths, accidents, injuries and financial 92582-50}
losses as well. It causes untold sorrow and suffering, intense pain and grief exceeding anything the human imagination can conceive. The only evils which have equalled it are plague, pestilence and famine, battle, murder and sudden death. When I read in the papers of the terrible occurrences on our highways I begin to doubt whether I am living in a Christian country, and the same applies to England and the United States because the deaths that are caused are unjustifiable homicides. I have seen in some of our homes the widows, the orphans and the fatherless suffering and they cry out to this parliament to do something to relieve this situation. Disasters of this nature happen in every constituency in this country. I am not here to decry the motor car industry. It would be misleading and mischievous to attribute all the blame for all the ghastly horrors that are occurring on our highways to those who drive and use motor cars, but pretty nearly fifty per cent is due to motor car owners who misuse their cars. There is no dispute about this because facts are facts and one has to study the records to know the facts. As I study the record of thousands of cases of deaths in this country I am driven to the conclusion that beyond dispute a large portion of this is to the discredit of motor car owners. This small minority appear to have exploited for their pleasure or profit the generous tolerance of others by using their cars in an irresponsible, careless, cruel, and, I might 6ay, unchristian way. Their fault is grievous and they can have no ground for complaint if they are to be put under further restraint so far as the criminal code is concerned. Ignorance and thoughtlessness are but small palliation. Obedience is the only reparation they can make and it is long overdue.
I should like to quote what the late Chief Justice Meredith of the common pleas division said while addressing a grand jury at the assizes at London. He had been forty years on the bench and one of the ablest judges; he presided over more jury trials in Ontario than any other judge. The present provisions of the criminal code are inconsistent. Everyone knows that sections 2S4 and 285 of the code, which for some years have been the law of Canada with regard to motor accidents, are too uncertain and inconsistent to secure a verdict in any court in this country. Justice Meredith said in charging the grand jury:
And as now nearly everyone is a car owner and 'car driver, young and old of all sorts and conditions, it is difficult to get justice in even a eivil action. Car-driver-jurors have nearly all the speed fever; and self preservation instincts are so strong that they will not be
Motor Vehicle Accidents

side; 141 from a failure to signal; 22 from cars running away, and 1,023 from drivers going off the travelled highway.
From this study it will be seen that approximately 67 per cent of all accidents reported were attributable to drivers. Driving on the wrong side of the road, driving off highways, driving too fast and cutting in were the main causes. Of 2,989 cases I investigated the causes were as follows: Crossing at street intersections with signal, 75; against signal, 105, and where there was no signal, 350; crossing between intersections, 559; waiting for or getting off street cars, 97; standing in safety zone, 4; getting on or off vehicles, 58; children playing on street, 884; men at work on highway, 76; riding or hitching on vehicles 63; walking on highway, 143; coming from behind parked vehicles, 286; crossing highway, 129, and while on the sidewalk, 107. In my own city of Toronto the other day one of our leading business men was walking along the street; a car ran up on the sidewalk and knocked him down, and he was killed instantly. It will be seen from the figures I have given that one of the greatest causes of accidents is the practice of letting children play on the street, or allowing children to dart from behind a parked car or cross between intersections. Where there are no sidewalks pedestrians generally walk on the left side of the roadway, facing the traffic, and accidents are fewer. Poor visibility is also a contributing factor to many accidents.
Then just a word as to the time when these accidents occur. The peak of all accidents on highways is from five to six o'clock in the afternoon, and about twenty-five per cent of the accidents occur between five and eight o'clock in the evening. By the days of the week accidents are evenly divided from Sunday to Friday, with a sharp rise on Saturday, especially in the summer time. There are more accidents on Saturdays and Sundays between six and seven o'clock in the evening, while pedestrian accidents are more frequent on urban roads on Saturday. These accidents occur more often on rural roads on Sundays, while during the summer the greater proportion of the accidents occur over weekends. The late Mr. Justice Hodgins, in his report on compulsory insurance, recommended compulsory, adequate and uniform methods of accident reporting; the collection and analysis of accident and traffic statistics; the study of accident causes and trends, and of traffic problems and regulations.	What he meant was that the
[Mr. Church.J
acquisition of knowledge must be the basis of intelligent regulation. He urged the following reforms:
(a)	Education, embracing definite causes of accidents, and the need of preventive action on the part of the individual, and of law enforcing.
(b)	A better means of observing and aiding the effectiveness of various restrictive measures.
(c)	Better attention of highway employees on existing highways and their connections.
(d)	Safety education and advertising, by advertising billboards, and safety teaching especially in primary and secondary schools, teaching the rules of the road and safe driving to those of the children who are approaching or who are of driving age, and maintaining and endeavouring to stimulate public interest in the accident situation.
The 9,241 accidents, resulting in 525 deaths, occurred during the following months:
Accidents Deaths
January	462	17February	411	30March	380	22April	626	36May	839	42June	857	55July	877	36August	1,022	72September	973	57October	1,026	55November	821	56December	947	45These accidents occurred points:	at the	followingStreet intersections	. 3,084Detour streets	. 2,442Rural intersections	. 358On straight road	. 2,103Private driveway	. 239Curve	. 465Hill	. 277At level railway crossing. .	. 157On bridge	. 115Not stated	. 1
In 98-5 per cent of these accidents road conditions were said to be good. More than half of all accidents occurred during daylight; 8-7 per cent occurred at dusk and 34-4 per cent at night. Of the drivers involved in 13,336 accidents in Ontario, 12,561 were male and 775 female. The ages of the drivers in
these accidents were as follows:
Under 18 years	 273
18 to 24	 2,492
25 to 54	 6,097
55 and over	 642
Not stated	 3,832
The experience of the drivers involved was as follows:
Less than 3 months	 168
3	to 6 months	 135
6 to 12 months	 65
1 year or more	 8,651
Not stated	 4,317

Motor Vehicle Accidents
The condition of the drivers involved was as
follows:
Intoxicated	 137
Physical defects	 13
Extreme fatigue	 49
Normal	 13,137
The fact that 98-25 per cent of the drivers were reported normal at the time of the accident suggests that accident causes are mainly mental rather than physical, and the need of sobriety when driving cannot be too strongly urged especially now that in Ontario we have so many beverage rooms. Many firms who see the hazard of mental and physical fatigue limit the daily mileage and hours of work of their drivers. If private drivers would follow this example accidents would be fewer, and I believe there should be a federal law to this effect. In the nine years from 1923 to 1931 there were 3,654 fatalities in Ontario. In 1931 there were 571 fatalities,
classified as follows:
Motor	vehicle drivers	
122Motor	vehicle passengers	
152Pedestrians	
255Motor	cycle drivers	
15Motor	cycle passengers	
5Bicyclists	
18Other persons, and drivers of horse drawn vehicles	
4
Two types of accidents occur more frequently than others, that is, collisions with pedestrians and collisions between motor vehicles. It is very evident that the human element is the preponderant factor in motor vehicle accidents, and education must be largely depended upon to improve the situation. Transportation should be a means to an end and not, as has become fashionable now, an end in itself. When it is remembered that there were over 200,000 accidents in England, with more than 6,000 people killed, I think it will be agreed that it is time for legislation. I think the time has come for this parliament to have a survey made of the whole situation, and I would advocate such a step being taken. I am only speaking as a private member, but I have seen the horror of mothers and little children when men have been brought in from the morgue, and something should be done. As I have said, we should have a federal department to deal with this problem, a department which in Canada has been long overdue. How we have managed thus far to get along without one I do not know.
There is one other feature to which I should like to refer. Mechanical road transportation is bankrupting the great Canadian railway systems and exterminating legitimate and highly economic horse transport, not on its merits, but because it has rendered the public
highways unfit for horses. Mechanical road transports and aerial transports are enormously subsidized, not only by the public at large but by those competing forms of unsubsidized transport which are being reduced to bankruptcy by subsidized competition on the roads, by the increase in their rates, and taxes for the reconstruction and maintenance of the roads.
Millions of tons of heavy goods are being moved uneconomical^ by foreign oil, instead of economically and without the aid of public funds by British and Canadian coal. Few people will dispute that the foregoing evils have very definitely attached themselves to the post-war world of transport, and few will regard it as an exaggeration to describe as chaos the state of affairs that is developing under our very nose. How are we meeting the situation, which will soon reach the state of emergency? Stated shortly, we will meet it by experiments, palliatives and increased road subsidies. Each interest involved advances proposals which will leave their own particular interests unaffected even though they are not definitely advanced. Thus we have the clamour for more and bigger roads, involving countless millions of dollars in construction and future upkeep. Some go so far as to advocate the conversion of certain railway tracks into motor speedways. Others urge the compulsory dismissal of all but motor vehicles from the public highways, and as a cure for the growing congestion and rising death rate an increase of speed and the removal of all restrictions. Others again suggest an increase in traffic signallers, and even a special traffic police force at the expense of the public, so that the regular police may attend to their proper duties.
I urge that we should have a federal department, because we are competing with our own national railways. I suggest the law in point is set out in sections 285 and 286, and the amendments made in 1930 have created greater doubt than ever before. It is almost impossible to convict a man to-day. One may go out on the highway, kill a man with his motorcar, and after the trial walk out of the court scot free. Judges and juries are complaining, and I believe the time has come when we must give some protection to the people of all the provinces in the dominion. If some action is not taken we will continue to have these thousands and thousands of people killed, or wounded and placed in hospitals. Now is the time to take the action I have suggested. Due to the loss of life for which motor traffic has been responsible,
Motor Vehicle Accidents

together with the personal injuries and damages which have been suffered and the financial losses sustained I say that we have in this motion one of the most important problems of these days.
In the session of 1930 I introduced a bill to bring our law in line with the law of the United States, and particularly that of the state of New York. In that state they have an offence known as involuntary homicide and I suggested we should accept their law. Even a person operating a car may not have been altogether liable, and although the man who was .killed .may have contributed to the accident, the driver of the car may be convicted of this offence, and for the past ten years the offence of involuntary homicide has been known in the state of New York. Under the penalty he may be forbidden to operate a car not for fifteen or twenty days, but for two or three years. In that state they are trying to do something to curb this long list of motor fatalities.
It may be that the government would not consider sending this matter to a house committee. We have very capable ministers who would do well to take notice of the report which I now hold in my hand. This is the report of police officials in Canada, and is signed by General Draper of Toronto, Chief Joliat of Ottawa and Mr. Barnes of Montreal, together with Inspector Grant of the provincial police in Toronto. This report contained in thirty pages makes suggestions which would be sufficient to cope with the situation. If a house committee has not time to consider the matter I suggest a royal commission could be appointed and instructed to make findings regarding this problem.
In my native city of Toronto I have been in homes when the bodies of bread winners have been brought in, and I have witnessed the suffering of the women and children. The bread winner may go out in the morning to attend to his work, and before six o'clock he .nay be brought home or be lying on a slab in the morgue. No wonder the city of Toronto has had to enlarge the city morgue. Then we must consider the expense to which the municipalities are being put to enforce traffic regulations. Sixty per cent of the time of police officials is taken up in the enforcement of traffic regulations. I live in a residential district where we do not have occasion to see many policemen-it may be because we are law abiding people-but it is altogether possible that those policemen are doing their duty on traffic work. Hardly any time is left for the enforcement of other laws and for protecting the life and property of the people of the city.
[Mi. Church.]
In this House of Commons we have to-day a government of reform, a progressive government, a government which is ready to get down to business, and ready to get a new deal for the average man. I should like to hear where the Liberal party stands on this particular question, and it would be interesting to know how hon. members in the corner of the chamber receive this resolution. Steps should be taken to protect the life of the average citizen. I am not here to attack the motor industry; I am a protectionist of protectionists. I believe the motor industry is a credit to our country, and has made a great contribution to the general education of our people. But the abuse of the privilege of operating motor cars has resulted in one-half of one per cent of the people on our highways going out and committing murder, because that is all it is. It does not make any difference how the man is killed; he dies, anyway. What is the difference whether he dies from a motor car accident or from a pistol shot fired by a burglar; he dies, anyway.
We are twenty years behind the time in our laws respecting motor cars, and we are suffering the penalty. I am of the opinion there should be some reforms in our jury system; about one-third of the jury should be women. I believe they would be more competent than some of the men I have seen on juries. The time has come for jury reform. Women may now sit in the high court of parliament and in the Senate. Probably the Senate would be the proper place to consider this matter. Certainly the Senate in Washington got some relief from many of the evils. The matter should not be left to over-worked cabinet ministers who sit on the front benches, and who are working day and night to relieve the situation under which our people have been placed.
Since 1930 this government has been investigating the problems affecting the people. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has been most active, and so has the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I have been asked to bring this matter before the House of Commons, and I promised three or four widows in my constituency, after seeing the condition in which they had been placed, that I would place the matter before this chamber, as I did on former occasions in 1928, 1929 and 1930.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, the speech which has been delivered by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) is a tribute to his industry and public spiritedness. I am glad he has seen fit to bring to the attention of the house the appalling situation which has existed

Motor Vehicle Accidents
for a number of years throughout the world in regard to accidents upon the highways of various countries. I sincerely trust his remarks and the statistics he has placed before hon. members will come to the knowledge of the attorneys-general of the various provinces of the dominion, in order that they may study the situation in the light which the hon. member has pictured it to-day.
There can be no doubt the situation is serious beyond words, and we regret that in each succeeding year it becomes more serious. In every civilized country the question has been carefully studied with the view of improving the alarming situation. But it is rather disconcerting to learn that notwithstanding all the efforts which have hitherto been put forth, the record of accidents shows an increase rather than a decrease. Fortunately or unfortunately there are limitations placed upon this parliament in regard to dealing with such matters, and as the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) has very pertinently pointed out, practically the only remedy which can be applied by this parliament is in regard to enactments in the criminal code. All highway traffic in Canada is directly under the control of the various provinces of Canada, but the punishment of offences which are in the nature of crime is under the jurisdiction of this parliament. I waited patiently through the remarks of my hon. friend from East Toronto to see if he had a practical suggestion to offer for the amendment of the criminal code in respect to negligence or in respect of accidents arising from tihe result of negligence in regard to highway traffic, but the only suggestion I gathered from his language was that the various clauses of the criminal code should be stiffened up, as he put it, and that a new system should be introduced whereby women should be permitted to serve upon the juries. Well, these suggestions are worthy of consideration, but I may tell my hon. friend that in other countries where experiments have been made in increasing penalties under the criminal law beneficial results have not followed. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the heavy penalties imposed in various countries, the record of accidents shows a substantial increase year by year.
The provisions in the criminal code in my judgment are fairly adequate at the present time, but I do not believe that such accidents can be greatly lessened by penal legislation. I believe the only improvement that will ever come about will be by a process of education. That is the view taken in the United States by many men who have made a close study of the question, and that is the view of the committees in the British House of Commons.
We know that a campaign of education in regard to motor traffic is going on at the present time in various countries in the world. They utilize moving pictures for the purpose; they utilize sign-boards for the purpose; they also deliver lectures for the purpose; but at the present time this educational process has not produced any very marked result.
The criminal code in this country provides by section 284, which was cited by my hon. friend from East Toronto:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, by any unlawful act, or by doing negligently or omitting to do any act which it is his duty to do, causes grievous bodily injury to any other person.
That is a very broad and general section, applicable to all kinds of negligence which causes grievous bodily harm to any person, and the penalty prescribed is a penalty of two years imprisonment. Does the house think that if the penalty were made five years imprisonment or ten years imprisonment it would improve conditions on the highways?
I doubt it very much.
The next section of the criminal code is 285. This pertains particularly to motor car traffic. It provides a penalty of two years imprisonment in the case of anybody who is found guilty of wanton or furious driving, or racing or other wilful misconduct, or who by wilful neglect, does or causes to be done any bodily harm to any person, and subsection 4 of this section is the one which is so frequently before our courts. It provides additional penalties for anyone in control of a motor car who is intoxicated or under the influence of any narcotic drug.
I have heard it argued that these penalties should be increased, some people say up to life imprisonment. We have a clause in the criminal code which permits a charge of manslaughter to be laid in case of accidents through negligence which result in death. In any case where in the opinion of the crown prosecutor the facts are such as to warrant an indictment for manslaughter, that indictment is laid under the present law as it stands under the criminal code. But in many cases crown prosecutors feel that it would not be proper to lay a charge of manslaughter where the facts in regard to the accident or the happening would not warrant such a charge. When a man is charged with manslaughter and found guilty of the offence judges in our country have a very wide discretion as to the sentence which they may impose. A man may be convicted of manslaughter and the judge may fine him a shilling or send him to penitentiary for life.
Motor Vehicle Accidents

There is a very wide discretion left to our judges in that respect, but under sections 284 and 285 which I have just read to the house the charge is not one of manslaughter but merely one of criminal negligence, and under sections 284 and 285 the majority of charges are laid in regard to highway accidents. It does not require the death of the unfortunate person to found a charge under sections 284 or 285, but if death ensues, charges may be laid under these .two sections where the penalty is only two years' imprisonment. Would it, in the opinion of the house, serve any useful purpose to increase these penalties? I doubt it very much. I would not be adverse to trying it out, -but I am told that in certain parts of the United States where the penalties have been increased there has been a constant increase in motor car accidents, and so it has proved in England. They have tried in Great Britain to remedy the situation by alteration of the speed limit laws; they have permitted the speed limits to be increased and decreased, but year by year the accidents increase, notwithstanding the changes that have taken place in the law. It is for that reason that I am rather driven to the conclusion that only by a process of educating the public, by teaching motor car drivers the use of care and caution and the courtesy of the road as it is called, will any improvement eventually take place.
It is appalling, it is worse than appalling, to contemplate the number of deaths that are taking place every year in our own country from motor car accidents-550 deaths in the province of Ontario from motor car accidents last year. It is appalling, and some remedy must be found for a situation of that kind. But when one has regard to the fact that all traffic laws are under the jurisdiction of the province, that all the licensing of motor car drivers is under the jurisdiction of the province, that all questions of speed limit, crossing regulations and the like are under the jurisdiction of the province, there is not much which this parliament oan do save by increasing the penalties under the criminal code.
We have done what we can in investigating the causes of accidents. The statistical branch of this government has gathered very valuable statistics in regard to accidents on Canadian highways, and I assume it was from this report that my hon. friend quoted to-day. The railway department is carrying on a very serious investigation in regard to accidents at railway crossings, but their jurisdiction is limited in that respect. Then in those provinces in which the Royal Canadian Mounted fMr. Guthrie.]
Police have any authority, in the six provinces in Canada where they are entitled to operate, they make a very close study of the question of motor car accidents and highway traffic; but in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia that force has no such authority. If I thought that any good would result from an investigation before a committee I would welcome the proposal in this resolution that this matter go to a committee. I cannot see anything that this parliament can do save to amend the criminal code, but if any practical suggestions are made for an amendment to the code I shall be glad to consider them with the idea of including them in an amending bill this session. I must say however that my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Church) has not advanced in concrete form any suggestion for amendment to the code which to my mind has any practical value. I should like the discussion to continue however. Something may develop upon which we may seize before the discussion is concluded. I am quite open to receive all suggestions for amendments to these motor traffic clauses of the criminal code if any satisfactory amendments can be .suggested.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I quite agree with what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has said, but from my observations I am inclined to think that the first thing to be done is to stiffen the law as regards automobiles crossing at level crossings, because that is where the greatest danger lies. We read of accidents to buses carrying children to and from schools and carrying workmen. The other day in British Columbia a number of workmen comprising a relief gang were travelling in a bus which was struck by a passing train. These accidents happen daily.


Hugh Guthrie: That is where the provinces pass laws.


Charles Marcil: But is there no possibility of placing in the code some provision that will make it an offence for anyone in charge of an automobile not to stop at a crossing? That is where the difficulty lies at the present time. If you could compel people to stop at these crossings, if you could compel them to observe the law, the number of accidents would greatly diminish.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: This question, as the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) indicates, trenches upon the railways, but I do think that the proposal which he brings forward is entirely provincial. At the present time the province of Quebec has a regulation which

Motor Vehicle Accidents
provides that motorists shall stop at railway crossings, and I assume that the enforcement of that injunction is in the hands of the province. So far as I know, that is the only province in which there is such a law.
I think the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) deserves the appreciation of the house and its support for this resolution, because the loss of life not only in this country but throughout the world is appalling in consequence of motor traffic, whether the vehicles are privately or publicly owned. The other day I observed in the press that the number of deaths in the United States in the past year was, if I remember rightly, 33,000. That struck me at the time, because I happened to remember that in the battle of Marengo, Napoleon had 30,000 men. In other words, his entire army was 3,000 less than the number of people who had been killed in the United States in one year in motor accidents.
I wish to make just two observations which may be of interest to hon. members, because this whole question concerns us all. These observations refer to level crossings and to the interprovincial conference which was held in Ottawa a year ago at my request to consider questions relating to motor traffic. Let me first discuss the question of level crossings, because after all a great many accidents take place throughout Canada at these level crossings, of which there are about 30,000 that have neither an overhead bridge nor a tunnel. This dominion in 1909 instituted the level crossing fund, to which the dominion government has been contributing $200,000 per annum, a fund which is administered by the board of railway commissioners, its purpose being to assist in the elimination of level crossings. Unfortunately, for the first few years of its existence, very few cities took advantage of the fund, with the result that a considerable sum accumulated. Suddenly however cities throughout the country learned about the fund-apparently they had not previously been aware of its existence-and they began to apply in such large numbers that to-day the fund is over-spent, or overpromised if I may use that term, so that S200,000 per annum is found inadequate. Since this government came into power it has twice advanced increases. In 1931 we advanced an additional $500,000 towards the fund, under the unemployment relief legislation and in 1932, we advanced another $500,000.


Mr. SPENCER:: What percentage does the federal government contribute towards these undertakings?


Robert James Manion: There is no fixed percentage; it depends on the allotment made by the board of railway commissioners after inquiry. They can give up to forty per cent and as high as $100,000, but not higher than that sum, for one elimination. The amount used to be $25,000 up to 1929, and then it was raised to $100,000; and it is since the allotment has been raised to the latter figure that the fund has been found to be inadequate. Twice since this government has been in power we have increased the allotment by $500,000, making an extra allotment of $1,000,000, and the government is seriously considering at the present time, at the request of the Prime Minister himself, increasing the allotment this year.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Does the application come from the provincial government or from the cities?


Robert James Manion: It may come from the
province, but more usually it comes from the municipalities and sometimes from one of the railway companies. The application then goes before the board of railway commissioners, who adjudicate upon the matter, allotting so much to be paid by the railway company, so much by the city and so much by the dominion government from the railway grade crossing fund.
The other point I wish to touch upon has reference to the interprovincial conference of December a year ago.


Mr. COOTE:: Is the dominion government empowered to make an advance to help to pay the cost of electric warning signals?


Robert James Manion: Yes; that is all taken
into account in connection with the elimination of level crossings, and in some instances the fund has paid the whole cost of the wigwag system. Some of these undertakings have unfortunately run into considerable costs in some cities, such as Toronto, London and Hamilton. Some of the amounts are very considerable and this has tended to consume the fund.
The other point to which I wish to refer 

and this is as much for the information of hon. members as for any other purpose-is in regard to the conference held in December 1933, a conference which was called at my request, after consultation with the railways, to deal not so much with accidents as with the whole question of motor traffic as it impinges upon the transportation situation in Canada. The conference dealt largely with
Motor Vehicle Accidents

common carriers rather than with the private car, though it is true that so far as passenger business is concerned, private vehicles, both in this country, in the United States and England, do interfere more with traffic on the railways than do public motor conveyances. At that conference the nine provinces were represented, and as anyone who has attended an interprovincial conference knows, it is not easy to get the nine provinces to agree unanimously on any subject. We did, however, succeed in having a series of nine resolutions passed, all unanimously, dealing largely with these common carriers. I will read four of the resolutions, which are very brief. They were submitted from this conference back to the provinces themselves in the hope that the provinces would put them into effect inasmuch as they come within provincial jurisdiction.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Were
the provinces represented by ministers or by expert engineers?


Robert James Manion: Nearly all the ministers
of highways from the various provinces were present, and for the most part they brought experts with them. The conference was quite successful; we had a very fine attendance and a good cooperative spirit was shown. The four resolutions which I shall read are as follows:
3. This conference endorses the principle that common carriers of persons and property shall be suitably insured.
That would not particularly assist-in fact it might do the reverse-in checking the accidents spoken of by my hon. friend, but at any rate it would take care, at least to a certain extent, of the financial worries of people who were left as dependents of persons who were killed.
5.	The conference recommends that legislation be enacted limiting the mileage or hours of labour of operators of passenger vehicles.
That is merely to prevent what was occurring on the public highways to a certain extent, that is drivers from being compelled to drive for sixteen, eighteen, or sometimes a greater number of hours without proper rest.
6.	The conference agrees that, in the interests of public safety, a standard of fitness should be required of all public vehicles used in the transportation of passengers.
7.	This conference agrees that operators of public passenger vehicles should require a medical certificate of physical fitness to operate such vehicles.

Since those resolutions-there were three others that have not so much bearing upon the resolution of the hon. member for East Toronto and I shall not read them to-day- were passed, it was our desire that the provinces should enact them and place them upon the provincial statute books. In some cases this has happened. I have not a complete report because at the time it had been the intention of the government to have another interprovincial conference last autumn, when this subject would again be discussed by provincial representatives who would come here for the purpose. But as the house knows, the interprovincial conference which was to have been held last autumn was suspended or postponed, for various reasons which I shall not discuss at the moment. The chief reason I mention these resolutions to-day is that in view of the serious loss of life, the serious damage that has been done to even the morale of the people of this country, I think it is the duty of all of us as members representing the different constituencies in Canada to educate the people of our own sections in this important matter and also to impress upon the various provinces the advisability of putting into effect some or perhaps all of these resolutions which were unanimously passed by the provincial representatives last year.
Not only would the putting into force of these resolutions have the effect of lessening the number of accidents at least to a certain extent, as is obvious from the terms of the resolutions, but it would also have the effect of putting upon a more nearly even basis the competition between motor vehicles on the one hand and the railways on the other. No one realizes more fully than do hon. members the very serious problem of the railway situation in Canada. One of the great causes of that railway problem is the fact that there is such a heavy competition between motor buses, motor trucks and private automobiles on the one hand and railways on the other, and the fact that motor competition has been carried out on a basis, to a certain degree, of unfairness to the railways, inasmuch as railway rates, operations and schedules are all regulated by the board of railway commissioners, whereas on the other hand motor traffic is not so regulated. These resolutions were passed to some extent for the purpose of giving, by their enforcement, a fair deal to our great transportation systems in Canada, because this country could not possibly get along without transportation by railway.

Motor Vehicle Accidents
I have nothing further to add. Again I say that I think the hon. member has done a public service in bringing such a question as this before the house. We sometimes discuss questions which to my mind are of less importance than the one he has brought up.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: How many level crossings have been eliminated in Canada in the past year?


Robert James Manion: I cannot give the figures offhand, but I shall be glad to have the information for my hon. friend the next time my estimates come up; perhaps to-morrow.


John Campbell Elliott: While the minister is in his seat, there is just one other point I want to mention and that is the matter of the elimination of accidents at level crossings. The minister will remember, as no doubt other hon. members will, that on at least two prior occasions I have urged that it would be advisable as part of our employment relief scheme to do anything that could reasonably be done in certain districts to eliminate some of the more dangerous level railway crossings. I think in every section of the country we have had our attention called to very serious accidents at such crossings. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has directed attention to some such accidents that have happened in Quebec. Last year I called attention to a serious accident that happened in the county of Elgin at West Lome. Unfortunately these were not exceptions to the rule; many accidents of the kind occur. I think the regulation in effect in Quebec with regard to requiring all motor vehicles to come to a full stop on coming to a railway crossing is a very sound one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did they not repeal that?


John Campbell Elliott: I was not aware that they had.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It is still in force.


John Campbell Elliott: I know the practice prevails in Quebec; you see practically every motor vehicle stop as it comes to a railway crossing. Unfortunately in some of the other provinces we do not follow the rule very well. In connection with the conference with the nine provinces I was wondering whether the minister could tell us whether the question of a uniform law of that kind throughout the different provinces had been discussed and what the attitude of the various provincial representatives was toward that subject if it came up.


Robert James Manion: I do not think that question came up. I believe it is worthy of discussion.


John Campbell Elliott: It is a very serious question. I urge particularly upon the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) that as part of our unemployment relief scheme, or under whatever heading the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the members of his government may see fit to have some regulation made, something be done to eliminate many of the more dangerous level crossings that still are altogether too numerous throughout Canada and make a greater contribution to motor vehicle fatalities than any one other cause.
Then there is the question referred to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) with regard to amendments to the criminal code. Of course that is within federal jurisdiction. The other matter is under provincial jurisdiction.
I refer to the question whether the minimum penalty is large enough. I do not think anybody will argue that the maximum penalty as now provided by the criminal code is not a proper one, and perhaps the best evidence of that is that very few judges give anything like the maximum penalty. In saying that I am not criticizing the action of the judges, but a minimum penalty of practically nothing where a jury has found a man guilty of manslaughter is a very mild penalty for the offence. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not here in the chamber at the moment; I was wondering if his department were considering the advisability of increasing the minimum penalties provided in the act. This is a most important question, and I think the house should appreciate the efforts of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) in bringing it up and submitting the mass of data which he has collected.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces, *which after all are in control of highway traffic, would thank the members of this house for offering them any advice in regard to a matter that i3 within their jurisdiction. I gather from the discussion that perhaps the only points with which the federal government could deal are the penalties provided under the criminal code for negligence in cases of automobile accidents and in respect of accidents which take place at railway crossings. I am sorry I did not hear all that was said by the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church), but it occurred to me that it would be well to know the relative percentage of accidents taking place at railways crossings and on highways generally. I judge that the number of accidents in general traffic on the highways must be much larger than those at railway crossings.
Motor Vehicle Accidents

With regard to what the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) said as to the contributions made by the federal government towards the elimination of level crossings, I would say that the sum of $200,000 a year is utterly inadequate to have any appreciable result-


Richard Bedford Bennett: We increased it to
$500,000, and as Hon. Mr. Dunning pointed out when he was Minister of Finance, no one seemed to want to go ahead with the elimination of grade crossings.


William Daum Euler: I did not know that the amount had been increased to half a million dollars. But in view of the fact that we have, as the Minister of Railways stated, some 33,000 level crossings in Canada, even half a million dollars is almost negligible for the substantial elimination of those crossings. In my own city of Kitchener, we have a level crossing of the Canadian National railway which practically, though not entirely, cuts through the heart of the city, where traffic is quite congested between the two towns of Kitchener and Waterloo. To eliminate that crossing alone would require literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have sometimes suggested that its elimination be undertaken largely as a matter of giving employment, but as the municipalities are required to pay a substantial part of the cost they simply cannot afford to do it in these days. I think I can say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that that is one of the reasons why the municipalities are not taking advantage of the amount that is placed at the disposal of the board of railway commissioners for that purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not do it before the depression.


William Daum Euler: Even before the depression the municipalities were pretty hard up. When the tax rate goes up to 42 mills, as in my town, they cannot spend much in that way. For my part I should like to support a larger appropriation for that purpose.
To my mind the chief causes of highway accidents are two-and here perhaps I am going into the provincial field. First there is excessive speed, and in that regard I refer not so much to the passenger automobile as to the buses. I know on the main highways in my district buses will pass the ordinary automobile and run at fifty to fifty-five miles an hour. It has been a marvel to me that with these cumbrous vehicles operating on our roads in Ontario we have not had more accidents than we have. They are exceeding the speed limit all the time. I often wonder why the authorities in my province permit these buses to operate at speeds much in 
excess of the speed of the ordinary automobile and of the limit fixed by the law. In Quebec there is a regulation that all automobiles must stop at railway crossings. In Ontario we have that law with regard to buses. I have a suspicion, however-perhaps I shall be corrected by my Quebec friends-that in that province as far as passenger automobiles are concerned, that rule is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Oh no, it is not.


William Daum Euler: Then I shall correct my statement; I speak only from a very limited experience.
Another main cause of accidents on the chief travelled highways in my province, and I believe this applies perhaps even more in Quebec, is that the highways are too narrow and have too many curves. The trouble as I see it, and I do a good deal of driving, is the practice of cutting in. If the highways were wide enough to enable three cars to run abreast, many of these accidents would be eliminated. Of course we come there to the question of expense; our provincial and county and city authorities will have to decide whether it is worth while to spend the amount necessary to widen the highways so as to make them safe, as compared with the loss of life that takes place. I do not flatter myself to the extent of believing that what we say here is going to have any appreciable effect on those really in control, that is the provincial authorities. Be that as it may, certainly the prevailing loss of life and injury is to be deplored. I believe I have stated the chief causes of accidents, namely speed, especially on the part of the buses, and the narrowness of the highways, which leads people to try to cut in, not realizing the speed at which the car from the other direction is approaching.


Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: 
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, there are three types
of drivers to whom I object very strenuously. The first is the road hog, the second is the intoxicated driver and the third is the habitual offender. I have had quite a good deal of experience with the road hog, and from my experience I 'believe that appellation is an insult rather to the hog than to the driver. Many times I have seen these drivers hog more than half the road, forcing other drivers into the ditch in order to avoid accidents. I think, with the last speaker, that possibly the best way to deal with these people is to report them and have their licences suspended.
I am also very much against the granting of licences to habitual drunkards. I believe many accidents have taken place because the drivers were addicted to strong drink. I know of accidents at cross roads in which both drivers were intoxicated, and in some instances both drivers were killed. I think perhaps our penalties are too light, and that if you made them more severe it might have a good result. I also believe that the penalty for a second offence should be much greater than the penalty for a first offence, and I heartily agree that the most practical way to deal with this problem is to suspend the licences of drivers such as I have mentioned.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has stated that there are some 33,000 level crossings in Canada. I think it might be well to have an investigation made to decide how many of these crossings should be eliminated. In the prairie provinces there are hundreds of railway crossings which I do not think should be eliminated. If overhead bridges were built it would simply mean that in the winter time the snow would blow off and teams drawing sleighs would be unable to cross. If
Motor Vehicle Accidents

subways were constructed they would fill up in the winter time, so in many cases I do not think it would be desirable to eliminate the crossing-'. Undoubtedly in many cities and communities throughout the country level crossings might foe eliminated with great advantage, in order to afford the public a greater degree or safety, but I do not think that is the case on the prairies.
It has been suggested that all motor vehicles foe required to stop at all railway crossings. I appreciate the fact that in the east, where sometimes the view of approaching trains is not very good, such a law might be very desirable, but it would seem rather absurd to enact a law requiring motor vehicles to stop at railway crossings where you can see right and left, for miles. Here again I think some body might determine what are the dangerous crossings, and perhaps signs might be erected at such crossings calling upon the drivers of motor vehicles to stop, look and listen. I can imagine that if a general law were passed, applying to our part of the country, requiring drivers to stop at all level crossings, if some driver did not obey that law it might become the occasion for some vexatious prosecution. I think if we could decide on the level crossings it is really desirable to eliminate we would be able to approach the whole question with a little better knowledge.
I am in hearty accord with what has been said about the drunken driver. Further, I have had the experience described by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovich) namely that of meeting a road hog who will not give any more than the very smallest part of the road to which one is entitled. If anything could be done to penalize a man who deliberately raced a train to the crossing, certainly it should be done. He is not only a fool but he is a criminal and should be dealt with with the utmost severity. By his foolish action he is risking not only his own life.and the lives of the people in his motor vehicle, but the lives of the people in the train. I believe we would do well to make some of these matters subjects of investigation, and by doing so we would approach the whole problem with a better understanding of the facts.


Hon. FERNAND RIXFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only a word on this resolution. It is evident that hon. members are agreed as to the principle involved. In my view the resolution is somewhat drastic and radical in its expression of opinion, and I am not sure whether or not we should adopt it in its present form. It seems to mo

that a complete inquiry into and survey of the matter is perhaps hardly necessary. There is no doubt however that although much has been done by way of education we have not yet reached a satisfactory state, so far as the motorists are concerned. In several of the provinces there are safety leagues which have done excellent work. We have one in the province of Quebec, and I have no doubt it has informed a large number of people of the necessity of being cautious on the road. Unfortunately however it has not succeeded in convincing a small minority of motorists who must be penalized and who do not exercise proper caution in the driving of their motor cars.
I agree with former speakers who state that a certain class of motorists should be severely penalized, and perhaps it would be possible to effect an amendment to the criminal code making the penalty more severe for the damage they cause. I do not wish to go over the arguments which have been presented, but may I observe that it might be worth while to have a more drastic application of the existing regulations. I believe it is within the knowledge of any public man, whether he 'be a member of the House of Commons or a city alderman, that the case most frequently .brought to his attention is one where there has been a breach of some motor car regulation. Although this resolution deals with highways I believe by way of analogy one may allude to what takes place in the cities. Hardly a day passes in the city of Montreal when people in their offices do not receive calls not only from friends but outsiders who have been given notice by a policeman that they have been guilty of disregarding either parking regulations, regulations governing the operation of traffic signals, or some other traffic bylaws. We are asked to write letters or to make telephone calls in an effort to free them from the small penalties their offences merit.
For about two weeks last fall one would read in his paper every day that a pedestrian had been killed or that cars had collided. The press began to take notice of the situation and did very good work in bringing to the attention of public authorities the fact that accidents had become very frequent on the streets of our city. Municipal and provincial authorities gave orders to their officers to disregard any demands for clemency made by people who had not obeyed the rules. For a number of weeks motorists who through friendships or otherwise had been able to escape penalties had to pay them. The movement had the desired effect, and although it

Motor Vehicle Accidents
may have been a coincidence the fact is that since that time we have had much better order in the handling of our motor traffic.
I believe the same principle might apply to the highways, and that this house might endorse the opinion that we should have more drastic application of existing regulations. My concluding observation will be that any person who has been in public life must know no favour is asked more often than the favour to free someone from a penalty he has incurred through his neglect to follow traffic regulations. I am not suggesting an amendment, but -perhaps I may be pardoned for having added this small touch to the discussion. I would suggest that when we give assent to this motion we at the same time confirm the opinion that not only stricter regulations but more accurate application of existing regulations are needed.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to see that ample provision is made this year for assistance to the grade crossing fund. In my constituency there have been several very bad accidents in which several people have been killed at grade crossings. Those accidents were in municipalities where there are twenty-four hour electrical services and where electrical warning devices might have been erected to save those lives. I have been told such a device may be installed at a single track crossing at a cost of approximately SI,800. Only last month a young man was killed in my constituency, and I am sure a warning device at the crossing would have saved his life. The accident occurred on a very cold night, when the side windows in the car were covered with frost, making it very difficult to see the approaching train. An electrical warning signal would have saved a life which, I know, would have been worth more than the $1,800.
I have taken this opportunity to urge the minister to see that ample provision is made for the grade crossing fund. There are thousands of level crossings where it is almost impossible to construct overhead bridges or subways, but where electrical warnings could be installed. The costs seem so reasonable that I believe they would be warranted, and especially in these times when we are attempting to create employment. At the same time we would be taking a precaution towards the saving of life and the preventing of accidents. Enough has been said on the resolution in connection with the enforcement of better conduct on the part of motor car drivers. I
<)2:>82-51
believe that is a matter with which probably the provinces will have to deal. I do believe however that this government might protect a great many level crossings where accidents have occurred in the past and are likely to occur in the future. I have in mind one crossing in my constituency at which, since I have been a member of this house, there have been several accidents and several people killed. I believe a proper warning device would have saved those lives, and if installed would prevent accidents in future.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank
the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) for having brought this resolution before the house. The number of accidents from motor cars in Canada is really alarming. In my own province of Quebec, if you go before our courts, especially in Montreal, you will find that half the time of our civil courts -I am not speaking of the criminal courts-is taken up in the hearing of cases arising out of motor car accidents on our highways and streets. I think this is a problem that deserves very careful consideration, and something should be done to reduce as much as possible the casualties on our highways and streets. There is no doubt that eighty per cent of accidents are due to the negligence of the driver, and in nine out of ten cases when two cars collide I would say that the accident was due to the negligence of both drivers. That has been my experience before our courts.
I was interested in the remark made by my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who stated that one of the causes of so many motor car accidents was the narrowness of our streets and highways. I think there is a great deal in that. In my own constituency, for instance, there is a well known road called the Chambly road, a section of the Sherbrooke highway leading to the Jacques Cartier bridge. You cannot go over that road at any time without seeing at least one or two motor cars in the ditches, five or six feet deep on both sides of the road. Why? Because the traffic is heavy on that road, and it is too narrow. This is a matter that deserves tiie attention of our provincial authorities. As a matter of fact I have drawn their attention to that state of things. I do not say this in any critical sense but only to indicate that our provincial authorities should see to it that proper roads are provided where there is very considerable traffic. I believe that in doing so a great number of accidents would be avoided.

Motor Vehicle Accidents

I have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker, except to say once more that I am pleased my hon. friend from East Toronto has brought this matter before the house and given every member the opportunity to express his views on this question. What has been said to-day will be very useful both to this house and to the authorities in the different provinces in Canada on account of the publicity given to the debates in this house.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, before this debate closes I would like to express a few ideas that have occurred to me during the discussion this afternoon. I think every man who has had experience in the criminal courts recognizes that one of the reasons why we are not getting the number of convictions we ought to get in these criminal cases is because the law of criminal negligence has not been clarified. If the law regarding criminal negligence were clarified, there would certainly be more convictions under tills portion of the criminal code.
I had the experience in an action for damages of proving that there was negligence and obtaining judgment for a large amount of damages, and then I had the experience of defending the man who was the negligent party in another action in a criminal case and he was acquitted. Now clearly there is something wrong in the law when we have an administration which says, on the one hand, that there has been an act of negligence, and on the other hand, that there has been no act of negligence.
Another idea that has occurred to me is that many of the judges sitting alone on a case of this kind are reluctant to make a conviction, and most juries, if you have a case in which you can evoke a certain amount of sympathy, will not convict. It has occurred to me this afternoon during the course of this discussion that an improvement might be worked in our jury system in regard to criminal cases arising out of automobile accidents, and I make this suggestion for what it is worth as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has asked for suggestions. Would it be proper to amend the law regarding criminal procedure in such a case so that the attorney general might ask the chief justice of the province to appoint a jury composed of county court judges and police magistrates? We would then not only protect the operation of the law from a too sympathetic judge or a too reluctant jury, but we might have a more reasonable administration of the law. This whole question of criminal negligence is one of the most vexatious questions that the courts have to determine.

Another method that might be adopted would be for the government to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to pass upon the question as to just what amount of negligence constitutes a criminality in criminal cases. Any lawyer who has had any experience in the courts knows that any jury certainly, and a great many judges, have really not made up their minds as to just what degree of negligence constitutes criminality.
I think the suggestion which has been made for the passing of a dominion act providing that every operator of a motor vehicle should be forced to stop before coming to a railway crossing would have a most salutary effect, notwithstanding as has already been stated in the house, that it might leave room for vexatious prosecutions.
I do not think we should achieve anything by stiffening up the penalties in the code. The difficulty lies in getting a clarification of what constitutes criminal negligence and in getting an administration of the law that will be free from human frailty. It has struck me, in view of the appalling loss of life which is occurring in motor car accidents every year in this country, that this is a question of sufficient importance to be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations.
I must thank my hon. friend from East Toronto for bringing this resolution before the house. It is something that certainly can be improved by legislation, by changes both in the substantive law and in the law regarding criminal procedure.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, in closing
the debate I want to thank the members of the house for the way in which they have received this resolution. The Minister of Justice has asked for practical suggestions by way of amending the criminal code. We have now before us the report of the Chief Constables' Association of Canada, the members of which include Chief Draper of Toronto, the police chiefs of Montreal and Ottawa, and representatives of the provincial forces, and they recommend amendments to the criminal code. One of the amendments which I think ought to be adopted is the one which is to be found at page 2756 of Hansard of 1930, which is the law of England. It provides in effect for dealing with anyone driving a motor vehicle or automobile under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This point was referred to by the hon. member for Lisgar and the proposed amendment in this regard he supported in 1930 when I had the matter before the house. I believe that the report of the chief constables' association and the?

Unemployment Insurance
amendments I have suggested, as well as amendments with regard to those who are allowed to drive cars after they have killed someone, should all be adopted. I submit that we should create a new offence, involuntary homicide, and people of this class should not be permitted to drive a car for two or three years at any rate. Then there are those who drive without a permit; something must be done to deal with such people. Another matter which I have brought up before is the damage that results from accidents for which tourists are responsible. A tourist from the United States may kill a man, or he may injure somebody's car, and he gets bail and skips out of the country and civil damages cannot be collected. It seems to me that the law relating to bail should be amended.
This whole subject was discussed for two sessions in the old country, and when the general statutory amendments are under consideration I hope that the Minister of Justice will favourably consider the suggestions which are now before him and the many reforms that may be proposed. This is not a matter of law but one of policy, and no private members can furnish the facts. It cost a good deal of money in the old country to gather all the information for a proper report; thousands of pounds were spent summoning witnesses. It would be impossible for me, a private member, to deal at all adequately with a matter of this kind, which is one of policy, and one for all parties in this house to study. Moreover, the question ought to be taken up in the Senate. I have a letter from the chief of police in Hamilton who expresses the opinion that in the great majority of instances accidents are caused by carelessness on both sides, and he thinks that if the legal speed limit were enforced these accidents would be very largely eliminated. But so long as the demand for speed is not opposed but catered to accidents will continue.
As I have said, I am not opposed to the motor interests, for I believe that the responsibility is fifty-fifty. There are many people who have not been properly educated to show due consideration for others when they use the highways. The whole question is one that is very much involved. The Minister of Justice is willing to have it referred to the committee on industrial relations, but I doubt whether that committee can properly deal with a problem which, as I have pointed out, was under consideration in the British parliament for the space of two sessions. At any rate, it is a problem that has to be faced, 92582-611
whether now or in the future, and I do not think that the time of the house has been wasted to-day in the discussion that we have had. I am willing to withdraw the motion in the hope that the amendments that have been suggested will be placed before the Department of Justice with a view to having many of these reforms written into the code. In view of the discussion we have had this afternoon I am ready to report progress on the resolution, but I can assure hon. members that if I am returned to this house again I intend to continue bringing this question up session after session until the people are given some relief from the present intolerable condition. We must legislate against motor manslaughter and motor murder until it becomes less fashionable. I suggest that the government take the matter up in the recess in conjunction with the provinces and have an elaborate report prepared for presentation to parliament. When the criminal code is under consideration I shall suggest one or two recommendations which I brought forward in 1930, and in the meantime I beg to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 14, 1935