1942-05-22

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour to whom I sent notice of my intention to do so. I have a telegram from the Montreal trades and labour council, signed by J. Gariepy. The trades and labour council protests the dilatoriness of the Department of Labour and urges the appointment of a commission immediately to investigate charges of discrimination againt union members by the Dominion Engineering Company and the Montreal Locomotive Works, which have been brought to the attention of the trades and labour council by responsible officers of the Montreal war labour organization production committee. Will the minister give immediate attention to this matter, in order to prevent serious trouble developing in these war industries?


Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram similar to the one received by the hon. member, and made inquiries. These are the facts. A telegram was received from Paul Fournier, president of the trades and labour council, Montreal, on May 6, complaining that the Dominion Engineering Company, at Longueuil, Quebec, had dismissed an employee because of labour activities. The telegram was acknowledged on the same day and a Montreal conciliation officer immediately dispatched to investigate the situation. The company alleged that the man was discharged because he stayed away from work three nights without giving a satisfactory explanation. This is the first time we have been asked to investigate this matter through the appointment of a commissioner. We have no knowledge of anyone having been discharged by the Montreal Locomotive Works for the reason
Procedure as to Bills

alleged in the telegram just received. I shall be glad, however, to make further inquiries into the matter, and if the circumstances warrant the appointment of a commissioner to investigate the matter I shall be very glad to see that that is done.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. II. LECLERC (Shefford):	Mr. Speaker, is it the intention that the house shall sit on Monday night?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Yes, it is.



PROCEDURE AS TO PRIVATE AND PUBLIC BILLS

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last night the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) asked if at an early day it would be possible to consider private bills. There are fifty-two private bills standing on the order paper for second reading, fifty of which are divorce bills. The other two deal with incorporations. I am informed that none of them is controversial. The second readings would in all probability be passed as a matter of course, and the bills would be refefred to the private bills committee. The clerk of the house is of the opinion that the matter could be disposed of in about fifteen minutes, as one motion could be made for the second reading of all of them.
Under the circumstances I suggest it might be understood that these bills be taken up at the first hour on Friday, a week from to-day.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: May I ask the Prime Minister if a similar arrangement could be made for the consideration of public bills? With all due respect I think some of them are more important than many of those appearing in the list of private bills.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid they are in a different class. However I shall be glad to have consideration given to the hon. member's request.



HON. WALTER NASH ADDRESS OP NEW ZEALAND MINISTER TO WASHINGTON AT MEETING OP RECONSTRUCTION AND REESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Has the Prime Minister any observations to make with regard to my suggestion of last night as to Hon. Walter Nash's address?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): The hon. member's observations have been drawn to my attention, and I have considered them. I believe it would be inadvisable to create a precedent which would involve an adjournment of the house to listen to an address being delivered in another part of the building.



TORONTO HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (For the Minister of Transport) moved the second reading of Bill No. 68, respecting the Toronto harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 23, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Transport for the second reading of Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Appointment of auditors.
Thomas Miller Bell: Where are the explanatory notes for this bill?


Mr. HOWE:: Apparently there are none.
It is a routine bill to appoint auditors for the Canadian National Railways, and it is passed every year in exactly the same form. I think it was assumed that members of the House of Commons had seen the bill so often that explanatory notes were not necessary.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Are the auditors the
same as a year ago?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Exactly the same. There is
no change of auditors or salary.
Bill reported.
Mr. HOWE moved the third reading of the bill.


Mr. FRASER (Peterborough West):: Would it be possible for the minister to have a more complete statement in the auditor's report than we have this year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as I know the auditors are a law unto themselves as to what

Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act
they put into the report, but I shall be glad to call their attention to my hon. friend's remarks.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PETROLEUM


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 2, to repeal the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act-Mr. Gibson-Mr. Fournier (Hull) in the chair.
On section 1-Act repealed.
Grote Stirling: When this bill was before the committee last the minister was not present, no doubt there have been drawn to his attention certain remarks which were made on that occasion by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). The point which he desired to make was that just after the house adjourned last year an order in council was passed doing away with the operation of the act, and he expressed regret that so shortly after the adjournment of the house the government had seen fit to take that action. The bill now before the committee is simply for the purpose of repealing the whole act, and we would raise the contention that as long as the proclamation runs for the use of the War Measures Act, ample power is in the hands of the government to do anything it wishes. But when the proclamation ceases, in effect we shall then be in the position where we shall be without an act of this description. The act provides for the placing of a considerable number of powers in the hands of the government, and the question arises whether there are other dominion acts under which the government can control the storage, importation, refining, inspection, licensing and so on of petroleum products. Would the minister explain how he contemplates carrying on these most necessary functions after the War Measures Act has ceased to be used for this purpose and after this act has been repealed, and does he not consider that instead of repealing the whole act it would be preferable to amend sections in it to have them meet the usages of to-day?


Mr. GIBSON:: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was before the committee earlier in the session I was unable to be in the chamber, but I understand that at that time the leader of the opposition raised several points with which I should like to deal to-day.
First of all he referred to sections 3, 4 and 5 of the act being repealed, and he expressed the view that some competent authority should provide regulations concerning the importation, transportation and storage of petroleum products. At that time he took the view that this act was being repealed because the oil controller had practically unlimited powers to deal with the petroleum industry, but that is not the reason why this act is being repealed.
When the original act was passed in 1877 there were no regulations governing the petroleum industry, and it was considered desirable that some regulations should be provided to control the petroleum producers. Since that time the essential provisions of the act have been largely duplicated and superseded by provincial legislation, municipal by-laws, the Customs Act, the customs tariff and regulations of such bodies as the board of transport commissioners, the national harbours board and various fire marshals. I should like to read an extract from the report of the dominion fire commissioner presented at a national conference which was held in connection with the regulation, control, transport and storage of flammable petroleum products. At that time he stated:
For more than a quarter of a century the dangers incidental to the use of gasoline have been recognized in restrictive legislation. The dominion within its limited jurisdiction, the provinces under general powers, the municipal authorities, the railway companies, the insurance interests and the petroleum industry itself have, each and all, prescribed rules and regulations for the transportation, storage and handling of this flammable product.
As a result of the regulations which had been enacted under authority of provincial and municipal laws and by-laws, the provisions of this act became entirely outmoded. I am informed that there is no essential requirement of this act that is not being dealt with by some competent authority.
With regard to the suggestion that this act should not have been suspended by order in council, I might add that when it came to my notice that the act was entirely outmoded I did prepare a bill for introduction at the last session of parliament. But it was not considered an important bill; the session went on until about the middle of June, and it was decided that no further legislation should be introduced at that session. In order to carry out the provisions of the act an annual expenditure of about $25,000 is required, together with the services of employees who are very much needed in other branches of our customs work. Under the circumstances the government passed an order in council under the
267S	COMMONS
Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act
provisions of the War Measures Act suspending the operations of the act until such time as a bill could be brought in to repeal it. I do not think anyone has paid the slightest attention to the matter during the interval since the act has been suspended, and certainly no one has been inconvenienced.


Thomas Miller Bell: A good many things were done under this old act which is now said to be obsolete, and in view of the present oil situation and the necessity for securing the greatest possible supplies of oil I should like to bring to the attention of the committee a matter which I believe should be dealt with under a bill which has to do with petroleum products, and which I think is related to the bill now under discussion. Only to-day I received from Sudbury, Ontario, a copy of a resolution passed by Indians on Manitoulin island relating to petroleum leases and capped oil wells located there. They point out that all records of these leases have been lost; that they cannot get any information from the local Indian agent; that there is very little record among the surviving Indians as to what took place, except that the chief of their band at that time signed some leases and outside capital did some drilling for oil prior .to the last war. There are several wells capped, and for years there has been oil seepage on these lands, so the Indians are sure valuable oil wells can be developed there. I also have a copy of a letter by Doctor H. W. McGill, of the Department of Mines and Resources, who says:
. . . it is presumed that reference is made to the petroleum and natural gas mining rights which were granted by letters patent in 1909, under the Great Seal of Canada, to Philomine Poirier, of Shediac, New Brunswick, and the Great Northern Oil Company Limited, and subsequently transferred to other parties. These patents cover some 60,000 acres of the unceded reserve, and although no development has apparently been attempted in the intervening period, this department has not the right or authority to lease or dispose of these petroleum and natural gas mining rights to other parties.
It seems to me that in the present circumstances we need on the statute books a petroleum act which will deal with this very important natural resource, perhaps in a different way from that in which the act that is now said to be obsolete does. Why should companies be able to cap wells and keep them capped, sometimes for many years, as in this particular case, while the government apparently has no power either to transfer the leases to somebody else or to compel certain work to be done to develop such oil reserves? Of course I know perfectly well that our legislation regarding property is designed in the interests of property owners, and we have

gone far beyond the old idea that the right of a man did not go beyond the tilling and possession of the surface. But we have also ceded valuable rights which from time immemorial have belonged to the Canadian people; and I seize this opportunity to bring this matter to the notice of the Minister of Mines and Resources as well as the minister in charge of this bill, in order that this and other similar cases may be investigated. I believe we should at least give the Dominion of Canada, in view of the circumstances now existing, the right to deal with companies and corporations who are holding valuable resources, including petroleum, without allowing the country to reap any benefit from them. It is about time we revised our laws regarding leases and the right of companies to prevent the use of resources which properly belong to all the people and which are of vital importance to the nation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I want to follow on from where the hon. member for Yale left off. If I understood him aright he suggested that this act should not be repealed but that a new bill should be drawn up and introduced, if not now, then some time later, and from what the minister said I gathered that he had this in mind a year ago.


Colin William George Gibson: Not to draw up a new bill.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What was it the minister said?


Colin William George Gibson: I was going to ask for the repeal of this bill a year ago.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And not draw up a
new one?


Colin William George Gibson: No. The reason for not drawing up a new bill is that the control of petroleum products is a matter coming largely within the jurisdiction of the provinces and that jurisdiction is being exercised. Consequently there is no need for such a bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I
do not agree with the minister at all; this act does not deal entirely with matters now under the jurisdiction of the provinces, because it deals with the inspection and checking of the qualities of oil and naphtha. If that provision is done away with, how can we be sure that we get what we pay for? The various provinces may have different laws, and we might have different kinds of oil and gasoline throughout the country. I realize that at the present time the Minister of Munitions and Supply has absolute control over oil, gasoline and everything else, including even the clothes we wear. But after this war is over we want to know that we

Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act
got what we paid for, and I honestly feel that the act should be redrafted. Of course it is entirely out of date now; it mentions coal oil and naphtha street lamps, though we may have to come back to those before the war is over. As I say, however, the act is out of date at the present time, and I feel that it should be sent to a committee or be redrafted by the department and a new bill introduced. The act should not be simply repealed. I took this stand on February 23, when the matter was before the 'house previously. If the act is simply repealed it will be like throwing off a coat; we shall be left without a cover. The minister said that it cost the country about $25,000 to administer the act, but that $25,000 is well spent if we get what we are supposed to get in connection with oil and gasoline.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps I might go on from where I left off. The minister says that the whole matter is under the control of the provinces, but one area, which I hope may become one of our most important, is under federal jurisdiction. That is the area at Fort Norman, in the Northwest Territories. There is every prospect that the area to which I refer may be very largely developed. A day or two ago I had a letter from a former Hudson Bay factor who is well acquainted with that area, and he stated that in his opinion there is a large oil deposit, so far untapped, in the vicinity of Mackenzie river, north and south and east and west of Fort Norman. I had a letter from another geologist who has been in that part of the country, who made a similar statement. Therefore that oil, which may develop into something important, is under the control of the federal government.
I should like to add something to what was said a moment ago about leases. This has to do with land in northern Alberta which was formerly under the control of the federal government, but latterly has been turned over to the province. There were a number of very valuable oil leases on the Peace river and several wells were drilled near the town of Peace River, presumably under leases granted by the federal government. Who owns those leases now?
I have said here before, and I say again, that in any new bill of this kind a limit should be placed upon the duration of leases. I am altogether opposed to granting to any individual or company leases which will last indefinitely; there should be a provision whereby in default of development the property reverts to the crown. That, of course, cannot apply to the property of the province
of Alberta, but it should be applicable to oil leases hereafter granted in the Mackenzie river valley or anywhere in the Northwest Territories. Evidences of oil are to be found along the Hudson bay, in the Northwest Territories. If there is no federal measure to control the leasing of lands in that territory, by what method will they be controlled?
I strongly support the contention of the hon. member for Yale that the act, instead of being repealed, should be kept in force until after the war. In any event at the present time the government have all the power they require. Then, after the war, will a new petroleum and naphtha inspection bill be brought before the house? I assume that any new enactment should be broad enough to include gasoline, diesel oil, fuel oil, and the rest. At the time the original act was drawn, in 1877, probably gasoline was a waste product, having no value. To-day it is the most important product from the distillation of oil. It is the first off; kerosene is second, naphtha third, fuel oil fourth, diesel oil fifth; and lesser oils, I suppose, follow after that. I think the hon. member for Yale has made a suggestion to which the minister should listen.


Colin William George Gibson: This act, of course, does not deal with leases or with the production of oil. It provides for handling at the refinery, and-


John Ritchie MacNicol: There is a refinery at Fort Norman.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes. I say that the act
provides for inspection at the refineries. At one time it was necessary to prevent gasoline from being mixed in with coal oil for illuminating purposes, and, gasoline being a byproduct, that sometimes occurred. But since the advent of the internal combustion engine every effort has been made to secure gasoline for the purposes of automotive power, with the result that the refiners themselves are taking every possible means to see that the gasoline is produced for the purposes for which they require it, and very careful tests are being made by the refiners themselves. While we have our officers there they are simply duplicating the tests which are already being made in the interests of the refiners.
In addition to that, the provincial governments have very long lists of requirements. I might quote briefly from provisions contained in the Gasoline Handling Act of Ontario to give some indication of the supervision. particularly that which is exercised by that province. I will not read the items in full, but under the provisions of section 12 of that act:
2680	COMMONS
Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act
The lieutenant-governor in council may make regulations,-
(a)	providing for the appointment of . . . inspectors, . . .
(b)	providing for the issuing of licences. . . *
(c)	prescribing the records and books . . . to be kept. . . .
(d)	providing for the making of returns. . . .
(e)	exempting any person or class of persons from the operation of . . . this act;
(f)	requiring that all gasoline stored or offered for sale in Ontario shall be graded according to such scale as the regulations may prescribe;
(g)	requiring importers, manufacturers, jobbers and vendors of gasoline to indicate the grade and price of gasoline offered for sale;
(h)	fixing the grade or quality of gasoline which may be offered for sale;
(i)	providing for the sealing of pumps, tanks, reservoirs and other containers of gasoline;
(j)	prescribing the construction, equipment and operation of conveyances and containers used for the transportation and storage of gasoline, kerosene and distillate;
(jj) prescribing the method, manner and equipment to be used in the handling, storing, selling and disposing of gasoline, kerosene and distillate.
(k)	providing for the holding of inquiries into the operation of this act. . . .
(l)	generally for the better carrying out of the i>rovisions of this act.
That indicates the amount of control which is now being exercised by a province. To have the dominion duplicate the control is an unnecessary expense, one which is serving no good purpose.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In relation to, say Fort
Smith on the Slave river in the Northwest Territories, which as yet is only a very small community, there are motor cars there, but what distance they can travel I do not know. I motored over some of the roads in the immediate vicinity of Fort Smith. Will there be an act on the federal statute book to control matters such as the minister has just read, and which now apply in provinces, in the Northwest Territories?


Colin William George Gibson: I understand that these
matters can be regulated under the provisions of the Northwest Territories Act. In addition, those refineries will come under the provisions of the regulations of the board of transport commissioners, which deal exhaustively with the transportation of petroleum products.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Suppose someone wishes to drill for a well in the Northwest Territories, or Baffin Land, where there are large coal deposits, and probably oil deposits; to whom would he make application for a licence to drill or to produce?


Colin William George Gibson: I assume it would be to
the council of the Northwest Territories that he would make application or pay any licence fee payable.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the act which pertains to the Northwest Territories cover everything under the Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act as it now exists?


Colin William George Gibson: Well, I have not studied
the Northwest Territories Act, but I know they have power to bring in any regulations which they deem necessary to safeguard the people of the Northwest Territories.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I am pleased that the minister read the Ontario regulations, because this proves what I said before. If there are regulations in each one of the provinces, what assurance will the people have that they are going to get the same grade of gasoline, oil and petroleum products throughout the country? At the present time I understand there is uniformity in the grading of gasoline and oil from coast to coast, but if this act is repealed we shall have one grade for Ontario, another for Quebec, another for Nova Scotia, and two or three grades in the west. That is why I feel that the federal act should remain in force so that the people of Canada will be protected under it, because, as the minister said, it carries penalties and regulations covering inspection. That is why I say it should be revised and reenacted.


Grote Stirling: The minister appears to be quite satisfied in his own mind that the powers contained in this act are in the hands of other authorities. I can follow that argument with regard to some of these powers, but it still appears to me that such questions as storage and perhaps importation should remain in the hands of the dominion government. It is possible that under the Customs Act he has full sway over importation, but in the case of storage I am not so sure. The great distributing companies import their crude and first of all they have to store it. There are very considerable expenditures of capital on the shores of both oceans and on islands, and it would seem to me very desirable that tne control of storage, for instance on the Pacific side, should remain in the hands of the dominion government. From the point of view of regularizing the methods of storage and overseeing the carrying out of all kinds of storage that are permissible, it would be desirable to have that in the hands of the dominion rather than leave it to the different views which may be held in the various provinces.
{Mr. Gibson.]

Petroleum and Naphtha Inspection Act


Colin William George Gibson: In regard to dominion regulations over importation, that is covered by the customs regulations, as respects one part, and the regulations of the various dominion Harbour boards where petroleum products are imported by water. At the same time, importation by rail is controlled by the board of transport commissioners; consequently there is dominion control over importation. When it comes to storage, while I do not want to be unduly modest, I do think that perhaps the members of the different harbour boards have more knowledge of what the regulations should be than I could have here in Ottawa.


Grote Stirling: Of course, storage is taking place outside the domain of the harbours.


Colin William George Gibson: Yes. I will come to that. So that where any petroleum product is stored in harbours it is dealt with by the regulations of the harbour boards; and the regulations under this act are not applicable where municipal by-laws exist providing special regulations for storage in cities and towns. Consequently, in cities and towns, by-laws have been provided and the provisions of this act do not apply in such cities or towns, so that it is of little real value from that point of view.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When I spoke on February 23 I mentioned the fact that aeroplanes in Canada and the United States are using 100 octane gasoline. After this war is over it is most likely that automobile engines on this continent will be using 100 octane gas-that is, the new engines made. That gasoline is just as powerful as any explosive made to-day. We have an explosives act, and I am afraid that if you do not keep this act you will have a good many accidents and the minister will be sorry he ever threw it out.


Colin William George Gibson: If what my hon. friend says is true, any enactment that might be necessary could be brought in dealing with situations that might arise of that sort. At the present time, however, these matters are regulated by the provinces, and it is only duplicating provincial jurisdiction for us to have on our statute books an act which duplicates a provincial act.


Thomas Miller Bell: One thing disturbed me when the minister was speaking. He said that most towns and cities had by-laws governing this matter, but he did not say that all towns and cities had such by-laws. Is it compulsory under any statute for a municipality to enact by-laws dealing with the matters that are repealed under this particular bill? If not, then the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) is perfectly correct in his contention that we may be sorry we have repealed the dominion act.


Colin William George Gibson: Each province has a fire marshal, and there is the dominion fire commissioner. He calls them together and I believe he coordinates the work that they do. Each provincial fire marshal draws up suggested regulations for the prevention of fires and explosions, and these are incorporated in municipal by-laws. I cannot say that every individual town has adopted these by-laws, but I know that that is what the provincial fire marshals endeavour to have carried out. The object is to have by-laws enacted in each of the municipalities for the prevention of fires and to safeguard the handling and use of flammable material.
Mr. DIEFENBAIvER:	The explanatory
note says that practically all the operative provisions of the act have been superseded by other acts and regulations. Could the minister furnish the committee with information as to which sections are not now superseded by other acts or regulations? Secondly, having regard to the fact that the entire act is being repealed, the utility of which has been proven over the years, I should like to know how many prosecutions for infractions of this act have taken place during the past five years. One could then conclude whether or not the act is a dead letter, or what the reason is for its repeal at this time. If the act has been used during the past five years, if penalties have been imposed for the infraction of various sections of it, then a further explanation by the minister would be necessary as to the reason for complete repeal of the act.


Colin William George Gibson: I understand that the act has been practically inoperative for the last twenty years, with the exception of the collection of licensing fees by the Department of National Revenue and the tests carried out at the refineries. There are at present fifty-one refiners in Canada. We have to provide an inspector to make tests at each of these refineries, duplicating the tests made by the refineries themselves; and samples have to be analysed, and so forth. I do not know of any prosecutions that have been laid under this act. Beyond these tests that are being made the act has practically been out of use for, I understand, about twenty years.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: That still does not answer the question. It is too general. I should like to have information as to how many prosecutions, if any, have taken place under this act. Prosecutions would not arise necessarily in connection with inspections; there are many other types of penalty imposed for other offences, and I should like that information, which could be readily procured by the minister.
"	,	COMMONS
Petroleum and Naphtha, Inspection Act


Colin William George Gibson: I have just procured it. I understand there have been no prosecutions in the last five years.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When this war is over we shall probably have a great influx of tourists. If these tourists come to Ontario, their carburettors on their motors will be set at such and such a point. They go into Quebec, get a different grade of gasoline and have to change the carburettor again, and that will be the condition right across the country. That is why I say that this measure should remain in effect so that this government may have control over gasoline, oil and petroleum products and that the grade will be uniform.


Colin William George Gibson: I should think any province that wants to encourage tourist traffic would provide regulations that would ensure good gasoline being provided to tourists.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Yes;
good gasoline is all very well; we are supposed to get good gasoline now, but there is grade 1 and grade 2, and both grades are different from what we used to get. For the gasoline we are using at present you have the carburettor set at one town; then you go to another town and have to set the carburettor again. Of course at present we are so short of gasoline that there is little automobile travel, but even if you drive around town, the carburettor has to be adjusted all the time.
. Mr. GIBSON: These measures, of course, have been brought in under the War Measures Act as a war necessity. I think the provinces would try to set their standards after the war, when there is no war necessity, to have similar standards for the whole country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not clear yet as to control in the Northwest Territories. The present act covers the whole of Canada, including the Northwest Territories?


Colin William George Gibson: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: How are you going to repeal this act which covers the Northwest Territories? As the minister says, it does not make any difference in the provinces, but still it covers one million square miles of the Northwest Territories. What dominion act will apply to the Northwest Territories?


Colin William George Gibson: The Northwest Territories council is responsible. It has the same powers as any provincial government, and can make such regulations as it sees fit.
Bill reported.


Air. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


Thomas Miller Bell: Next sitting of the house. I think we should satisfy ourselves on one or two points that have been raised.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Acting Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11, to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Grote Stirling: Does
the minister wish to make a statement now, or in committee?


Air. MICHAUD:: I would prefer to make
it in committee, because I understand that several hon. members wish to speak and have statements to make; they can make them all at the same time.


Grote Stirling: There are one or two
observations I should like to make at this stage. This is a measure that comes before the house every year. For many years it has seemed to me not a desirable way to arrive at an adjustment which has been considered necessary as between the dominion government and the city which is the capital of Canada. It is not an adjudication; it has not been arrived at by any form of arbitration ; it is rather in the nature of something which the dominion government holds out to the city of Ottawa and intimates that it may take it or leave it. That does not seem to me to be a desirable way to arrive at what this sum of money should be, if a sum of money should pass. If we are to proceed once more with a bill which shall be debated and examined in committee I think that examination in committee could be better made in the banking and commerce committee than in committee of the whole house. It is almost impossible for me, an individual member of this house, sitting in committee, to possess myself of the very considerable number of facts which should have weight in arriving at a decision as to whether or not I should support this measure.
The financial relations between the city and the government, and the expenditures which the city has to make and those which the government has to make cover a very wide field. I believe I am right in saying that in the last four years properties which have

City of Ottawa Agreement
been expropriated by the dominion government in Ottawa have reduced the assessment roll of the city by somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12,750,000. That naturally has had a distinct effect on the rate of taxation which the city has had to collect for its revenue. I believe it has affected the revenue of the city by as much as $106,000, which, it will be noticed, is $6,000 greater than the proposed grant. But besides that effect on the revenue of Ottawa, the city has also lost an additional $11,000 in business tax revenue. Then there is the question of street cleaning. When property passes into the hands of the dominion government the city does not charge the government the cost of swilling the streets, which is on a footage rate. Then again the city takes the view that its expenditures for fire protection have been increased consequent on the addition of so many wooden buildings.
On the other hand, there are facts which must be given due weight. There is the federal district commission which receives a grant of about a third of a million dollars from the dominion government; there is the expenditure of, I think, $2,750,000 by the dominion government for dominion government properties and lands; there is the further expenditure by the dominion government on the central experimental farm. In these ways there is a contribution to the health and happiness of the citizens of Ottawa in the provision of most beautiful parks. All these factors have to be taken into account, and perhaps the largest of them all is that consequent on the existence of the dominion government in this capital city there is an immense expenditure of money by what we know as the civil service, which money passes through the tills of the various business premises and creates a feeling of business satisfaction of a very large monetary value. All of these are matters to which due consideration must be given in arriving at a decision.
I maintain that it is not possible for us on second reading, and particularly in committee of the whole, to collect the necessary information, and to give it the consideration which must be given, before we can arrive at a decision on the value of this bill. I think a better method should be devised, and it should be devised for one reason, namely that we endeavour to get away from this annual hand-to-mouth arrangement between the capital city and the dominion government. We must endeavour to arrange for an agreement on a basis longer than that of twelve months.


Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, each year as this bill comes up in the house for discussion there seems to
be some uncertainty on the part of some hon. members as to the relevant facts bearing on the relationship between the government and the corporation of the city of Ottawa. Having the honour of representing the constituency of Ottawa West, which comprises about two-thirds of the area of the city of Ottawa, I think it might be useful if I brought certain of these relevant facts before the house for consideration.
There is a little uncertainty as to the exact origin of the claim that formed the basis of the first grant; but it appears that in 1897, as the result of a petition from the city of Ottawa, an arrangement was made which resulted in the creation of the Ottawa improvement commission, and the payment by the dominion government of certain moneys to be expended through that commission.
In 1919 a new arrangement was made on a different basis, and in that year provision was made for the payment of a sum of money directly to the corporation. Later on, in 1927, the Ottawa improvement commission was changed, and the federal district commission was set up.
The grant for which provision was made in the bill now before the house is not to be confused with the provision made for the federal district commission for other purposes. Part of the lands and parks controlled by the federal district commission are within the limits of the corporation, and part of them are in the adjoining municipalities. As I have pointed out, there is some obscurity as to the original claims asserted, and the agreement itself referred to in the bill before the house does not seem to throw much light on this point. It appears, however, that the payment was intended at least indirectly, if not directly, as a payment for the substantial loss in taxes by reason of the exemption of crown properties.
The agreement of 1919, which was the first one providing for a direct payment to the corporation, provided for $75,000 a year. That agreement is set out in a schedule to chapter 15 of the statutes of 1920. In 1925 a new agreement was drawn changing the amount payable to $100,000. In other respects, however, it renewed the agreement of 1919. The 1925 agreement was for a period of five years. From 1930 on, there has been an annual statute, and the agreement has been renewed each year.
There are a great many items which must properly be brought before any body considering a proper and fair allowance. My suggestion as to the best method of arriving at a fair amount is to have the whole matter gone into by a special committee which would hear the detailed evidence of the various depart-
City oj Ottawa Agreement

merits of government and city departments. I see no other way of arriving at a satisfactory amount and certainly there are too many factors entering into the matter to permit of arriving at an accurate amount in this house.
I have obtained some tabulated information from the assessment department of the city of Ottawa. In order to understand the basis of what has been done, and to show the inadequacy of the present payment, I suggest it is necessary to have this information before us. I hold in my hand a statement showing for the years 1925 to 1941 the amount of exemption from assessments on lands and buildings of the dominion government, exclusive of the federal district commission, and also the tax rate and the levy equivalent; the same information with respect to lands and buildings of the federal district commission; a statement showing for the years 1920, 1925, 1930, 1935, 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1941 the grants to the city of Ottawa by the dominion government; the tax levies for those years, and the percentages of those levies which the dominion government grants represent. Then, in addition, I have a statement showing the assessed value of properties taken over by the dominion government and the federal district commission for the years 1921 to 1941, both inclusive.
With the permission of hon. members I would ask to have these figures placed on record.


Georges Parent: That could be done only with the unanimous consent of hon. members.


Grote Stirling: I would draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that if this bill is to be disposed of this afternoon hon. members will not have the benefit of that information, unless it is now imparted to the house.


George James McIlraith: I shall gladly do so, if it is the wish of the acting leader of the opposition. It would take some time to refer to all of them, and I had in mind referring to only a few.


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the large revenues the city of Ottawa is receiving just now, this could be put on the record and the bill read six months hence.


George James McIlraith: I can say to my hon. friend, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, that the city of Ottawa is not receiving anything like the revenues to which it is entitled.


Grote Stirling: Might I suggest that the hon. member deal only with the last four or five years.


George James McIlraith: That was what I had in mind.

For the purpose of illustration I shall take the year 1925. In that year the assessment of dominion government property, exclusive of the federal district commission, was $5,739,875 for land, and $28,234,150 for buildings, or a total of $33,974,025. The tax rate in that year for public school purposes was 31-10 mills. The levy equivalent would have been, on the public school rate basis, $1,056,592. That was the first year in which the payment of $100,000 was made.
In 1941 the assessment of dominion government land, exclusive of that of the federal district commission, was $19,146,925, and that of buildings in the same year was $40,604,750, making a total assessment in that year of $59,751,675. I had not the 1942 tax rate at that time, but it has since been fixed, and it would show well over $2,000,000 payable. The figures for 1940 are land, $18,651,100 and buildings $38,584,784, a total assessment of $57,235,884. The tax rate for public school purposes in that year was 37 mills and the levy equivalent would be $2,117,727. I might say that the separate school assessment rate is something over 7 mills higher for all the years I have given. In each case I have taken the public school rate which is the lower rate by a considerable margin. It will be noticed from these figures that the levy equivalent has more than doubled since this sum was first arrived at. The grant has not been increased in any amount.
Then dealing with the federal district commission, in the year 1940 the assessed value of their lands in the corporation of Ottawa was $3,947,537, and of buildings, $83,350, or a total of $4,030,887. At the tax rate for public school purposes of 37 mills the levy equivalent would be $149,142, or considerably more than the total grant.
Dealing with the assessment value of properties taken over by the dominion government and the federal district commission, we have the following:
1937		 $349,450
1938		 870,225
1939		 651,750
1940		 376,725
1941		 848,900
It will be seen that there is a continuous loss of revenue each year by virtue of the new expropriations, in addition to the permanent condition that exists. I can give these figures in detail for all the years.


Mr. BOUCHER:: Perhaps with the consent of the house the hon. member could file them.


Grote Stirling: With the agreement of hon. members, perhaps those might be placed on Hansard.


George James McIlraith: The statements follow:

City oj Ottawa Agreement
Statement showing, for years 1925 to 1941. the amount of exemption for assessment on land and buildings of the government, tax rate and levy equivalent.
Assessment exemptions	Tax-rate,	Levy	Year	Land	Buildings	Total	mills	equivalent	1925	$ 5,739,875	$28,234,150	$33,974,025	3110	$1,056,592	021926	
5,770,725	28,297,700	34,068,425	31-70	1,079,969	231927	
6,141,525	28,442,000	34,583,525	31-70	1,096,297	901928	
5,870,725	28,635,059	34,505,784	31-35	1,081,756	331929	
6,696,925	29,540,209	30,237,134	31-35	1,136,034	151930	
7,442,125	31,289,359	38,731,484	35-59	1,378,453	511931	
7,478,125	32,375,559	39,853,684	35-00	1.394,878	941932	
7,478,025	33,393,609	40,871,634	37-95	1,551,078	511933	
7,615.150	33,376.309	40,991,459	36-80	1,508,485	721934	
7,590,025	33,317,459	40,907,484	36-80	1,505,395	261935	
7,648,800	33,751,659	41,400,459	39-00	1,614,617	901936	
7,881,725	35,667,509	43,549,234	39-00	1.698,420	131937	
8,332,375	35,609,209	43,941,584	39-00	1,713,721	771938	
17,870,900	35,438,309	53,309,209	38-50	2,052,404	581939	
18,110,750	36,094,159	54,204,909	39-00	2,113,991	451940	
18,651,100	38,584,784	57,235,884	37-00	2,117,727	701941	
19,146,925	40,604,750	59,751,675	1942 rate not yet struck	
Note.-The tax rate shown is the rate to public school supporters.
Statement showing, for years 1925 to 1941, from date of annual grant by the dominion government to the city of $100,000, the amount of exemption for assessment on land and buildings of the Federal District Commission, tax rate and levy equivalent
Assessment exemptions	Tax rate,	LevyYear	Land	Buildings	Total	mills	equivalent1925	
$2,079,350	$ 18,500	$ 2,097,850	31-10	$ 65,243 141926	
2,081,750	20,000	2.101.750	31-70	66,625 471927	
2,186,250	19,200	2,205,450	31-70	69,912 761928	
3,720,450	24,700	3,745,150	31-35	117,410 451929	
3,848,550	17,200	3,865,750	31-35	121,191 261930	
4,097,925	67,200	4,165,125	35-59	148,236 361931	
4,112,725	67,200	4,179.925	35-00	146,297 371932	
4,098,600	81,200	4,179,800	37-95	158,623 411933	
4,079,150	81,350	4,160,500	36-80	153,106 401934	
4,080,250	81,350	4,161,600	36-80	153,146 881935	
4,109,840	81,350	4,191,190	39-00	163.456 411936	
4.087,290	16.200	4,103,490	39-00	160.036 111937	
3,647,940	33,350	3.681,290	39-00	143.570 311938	
3.968,313	31.350	3.999,663	38-50	153,987 021939	
3,959,688	83,350	4.043.038	39-00	157.678 481940	83,350	4.030,887	37-00	149,142 821941	
3,690,537	83,350	3,773.887	1942 rate not yet struck	
Note: (1) The tax rate shown is the.rate to public school supporters.
(2) Figures of 1925 and 1926 are for the Ottawa Improvement Commission which became later the Federal District Commission.
Statement Showing, for the Undernoted Years, the Grant to the City of Ottawa by the Dominion Government, the Tax Levy for these Years and the Percentages of these Levies which the Dominion Government grants Represent.
Year	Grant	Tax levy	Grant in percentage of levy1920 	... . $ 75,000	$3,207,987	Per cent 2-3381925 	... . 100,000	4.304,513	2-3231930 	. ... 100,000	4,730,106	2-1141935 	.... 100,000	5,840,822	1-7121938 	
100,000	6,118,878	1-6341939 ....	... . 100,000	6,172,525	1-6201940 	.... 100,000	6,181.631	1-6171941	.... 100,000	5,903,950	1-693
The above figures do not include the old city hall site nor part of Queen street now used for park purposes.

Assessment Value of Properties Taken Over by the Dominion Government and Federal District Commission Years 1921 to 1941 inclusive
Total
Year	assessment
1921		 $ 87,550
1922		   718,400
1924	 79,325
1927		 443,925
1928		 960,850
1929		 74,800
1930		 817,080
1931		 12,000
1933		 139,425
1934		 1,300
1936		 27.150
1937		 349,450
1938		 870,225
1939		 051,750
1940		 376,725
1941		 848,900
The assessment values in the above statement are those of the years in which the properties were taken over.
City of Ottawa Agreement

In the statement showing the assessment value of properties taken over by the dominion government and the federal district commission, the figure for 1930 is $817,080. This figure includes a property which was already exempt from taxation. I refer to the Knox church property, so that the figure would be misleading to that extent. I am sorry I have not the precise information as to the assessed value of this property. As an offset against that, these figures do not include certain properties which were owned by the city and taken over by the government. I have particular reference to the property known as the old city hall site, and also part of Queen street.


George Russell Boucher: Now part of the park.


George James McIlraith: All are now part of confederation square park and Elgin street. As I said a moment ago, the taxable real property in the city of Ottawa for 1941 amounted to $157,279,947, and the assessed value of the dominion government real property exempt from taxation-this is exclusive of federal district commission property-is $59,751,675. It will be seen that the dominion government property exempt from taxation by virtue of being owned by the crown is equal to approximately two-fifths of the taxable real property in the city. This perhaps will illustrate, better than anything else could, the seriousness of this situation.
In previous years it has been stated that this was a condition that existed in all cities in Canada, but as nearly as I can find out the assessment figures in other cities do not seem to support that statement. For example, the annual report of the assessment commissioner for the city of Toronto for the year 1941 shows an assessment for all rates of $886,105,856, while the total exemptions amount to only $156,476,799.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is included in the $156,476,799 figure for Toronto?


George James McIlraith: That would be all real property exempt from taxation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Federal government property, Ontario government property, and so on?


George James McIlraith: I take it that it covers federal government property, church property, and so forth.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the hon. member the value of church property in Ottawa?


George James McIlraith: I have not the value of church property, but I have the total exemptions.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the amount of total exemptions in Ottawa?


George James McIlraith: $102,181,163, and of that amount the dominion government exemption is $59,751,675. It will be noted that the exemptions in Ottawa are relatively a very substantial item, whereas those in Toronto are not nearly as large. I have the figures for other cities in Ontario which more or less show the same situation as exists in Toronto. If any hon. member would like to refer to this booklet I should be glad to let him have it. I think it will show that the problem is perhaps peculiar to this city, although it may exist in small measure in other areas.


Grote Stirling: It may differ in extent, but not in principle.


George James McIlraith: That is probably the correct way of expressing it, but the extent has become so serious in Ottawa that we feel it is a problem which ought to be dealt with. I do not at the moment suggest that the problem is a simple one that can be dealt with by taking the value of crown properties and assessing them in the ordinary way, because, as was stated by the acting leader of the opposition, there are other considerations that enter into the matter. However, I think it is fair to say that as properties are expropriated the city must maintain practically all the services that it has to maintain when those properties were owned by private commercial concerns. Perhaps there is some difference when it comes to police service, because policing costs of government buildings do not exist as they do in connection with private commercial concerns.
There are two particular services with respect to which the situation is rather serious. There is the matter of fire protection. The contour of the ground in this city is such that the great majority of the government buildings, including the parliament buildings, are on relatively high ground. This involves the necessity of maintaining rather expensive booster stations in connection with the waterworks system in order to provide adequate fire protection. I believe that this was the reason for the construction of a booster station in Ottawa in 1912, and at the time the parliament buildings were destroyed by fire, during the last war, the fact that this booster station had been erected contributed greatly to the saving of the library of parliament. With the added fire hazards due to the erection of the new wooden buildings, quite a substantial burden has been cast upon the city, and as a result the fire department must be maintained at a higher degree of efficiency than otherwise might be necessary. There is another item, small perhaps but nevertheless worthy of consideration. As these new build-

City of Ottawa Agreement
ings are completed it becomes necessary to install additional fire hydrants and other water facilities, and this has become quite a substantial item during the last few years.
Then there is the whole question of the supply of water. Under the present agreement the city supplies without charge all the water used on the grounds of the government buildings; water for street cleaning; all the water used on the parks and driveways within the limits of the corporation, and so on. In 1939 the estimated cost of supplying this water was placed at an amount in excess of 830,000. Since 1939 there has been a very substantial increase there also. With respect to water supplied for use in government buildings, the government makes payment. The water rates now being charged had their origin in the agreement of 1920, to which I previously referred. In 1932, following the installation by the city of a new water plant, those rates were increased. The present rate is 16-25 cents per thousand imperial gallons up to 200,000,000 gallons, and 12-5 cents per thousand imperial gallons for water in excess of that amount. This basis of payment is lower than that charged to private commercial users of water in the city. The water rate on any commercial property is determined on the assessed value of the property, with a meter rate for the excess. That commercial rate is ten and a half cents per thousand cubic feet, which amounts to 16-82 cents per thousand imperial gallons. The only year for which I have figures in connection with water supplied to government buildings is 1939. In that year the amount paid by the dominion government for water was 845.808.77. Had the government paid for this water on the same basis as a commercial user in the city, it would have had to pay $123,213.75, or perhaps a little more if there should be any excess in some buildings.
I think it is clear, therefore, that in addition to the water being supplied free under the agreement, to the value of something over $30,000, the water used in the buildings is paid for at a rate which would appear to be below the actual cost, and if paid for at the ordinary rate the difference would amount to more than the entire grant of $100,000. In other words, if the city sold the water to the dominion government at the rate it charges private commercial users, the government would have to pay for the water alone $100,000 more than it now pays.


Grote Stirling: Is the total quantity greatly in excess of the 200,000.000 gallons which carry the 16-25 cents rate?


George James McIlraith: I have not the precise figure, but the average rate for 1939 was
15-5044 cents per thousand gallons. I believe the amount used was almost twice the basic figure.
There are, of course, certain compensating factors which have been mentioned and I think the residents of Ottawa are duly mindful of them. We do not attempt to overlook them or in any way pass them by, but at the same time I think the few figures I have given indicate the complete inadequacy of this amount, and moreover they tend to show the impossibility of dealing with this matter in an ordinary bill each year. Last year, when this measure came up for discussion, I took the position that while the amount was very much too small, because of the war situation and the urgent need of money for war purposes I was willing to acquiesce and let the bill pass. That is still my position, but I think it only fair that a committee should be set up to put this whole matter on some proper basis, so that the city may receive proper compensation and private taxpayers may not be required to carry an unfair burden. I would ask that the government take steps to have this done at the very first opportunity.


George Russell Boucher: I am very glad of the opportunity to say a few words on the principle of this bill, and to add to what has been said by the acting leader of the opposition as to the gigantic problems that have to be faced in connection with the services rendered by the city. There are, of course, corresponding advantages to Ottawa in having the capital of Canada located here. I am sure the people of Ottawa take second place to none in civic pride and I do not think any hon. member of this house, or anyone outside the house, would express anything but pride in the location, the efficient operation and the careful maintenance of this capital city. May I point out some of the advantages to Canada in having its capital in other than an industrial centre, located as nearly as possible in the centre of the dominion, in a particularly scenic portion of the country.


Mr. REID:: The hon. member would not say it was very central, would he?


George Russell Boucher: The hon. member for New Westminster doubts the generally central location of our city, but possibly when he gets beyond the mountains he loses to some extent his sense of direction, so that I shall excuse him. Having the capital in the city of Ottawa is, of course, a great advantage to the people of Ottawa. There are here all the members of parliament; it is the seat of government and its departments, and there is a large number of civil servants, of whom we in this city are very proud.
City oj Ottawa Agreement


Mr. POTTIER:: The mayor doesn't seem to be.


George Russell Boucher: I might also mention that we have a mayor who is honoured and respected not only by the citizens but by all hon. members of the house.
Speaking for a small portion of the city I would express on behalf of my people our appreciation of having the capital here. I might personally extend appreciation to several members of the cabinet who, seeking the finest portion of Ottawa in which to maintain their homes, have located in the riding of Carleton. Apart from its advantages as the capital city, the location of Ottawa is such that it is suitable for a very fine industrial city. We have probably the cheapest power in the world, certainly the cheapest on the north American continent.


Thomas Miller Bell: Except Winnipeg.


George Russell Boucher: We cannot except even Winnipeg or Rosetown-Biggar. We are convenient to great supplies of pulpwood. Our attractions as a tourist centre provide a valuable source of income to the dominion. Our water power, our railway connections and other facilities provide the basis of a very desirable industrial centre.
I would ask hon. members, in considering what compensation should be made, not to Ottawa, but to the people in Ottawa, seriously to reflect whether the accommodation provided and the services rendered are adequately compensated by a mere hundred thousand dollars. As pointed out by the last speaker (Mr. Mcllraith), if the dominion government, and the federal district commission controlled by the federal government, were charged water rates and were assessed on a similar basis to the residents of Ottawa, they would pay over $155,000 a year, one and a half times the actual grant.
As long ago as 1899 there was a grant of $60,000, which has now reached $100,000, and I do not think that it should continue at this inadequate figure even in war time. To illustrate how important the matter is to the people of Ottawa, let me put on Hansard a statement of the value of appropriated properties removed from taxation by the municipality within the last five years:
Assessed values of properties removed
Year	from taxation or
revenue production
1937		 $349,450
1938		 870,228
1939		 651,750
1940		 376,125
1941		 848,900


Thomas Miller Bell: What is the mill rate, so that we may get some idea of the loss of taxes?


George Russell Boucher: The mill rate would be governed accordingly. I might answer my hon. friend's question by a definite illustration.


Thomas Miller Bell: The mill rate, I understand, is 37 mills.


George Russell Boucher: About 37 mills.


Thomas Reid: It was about 37 mills in 1940. It is down one mill, I think, this year.


George Russell Boucher: Between the years 1921 and 1941 the dominion government and the federal district commission have taken over property in Ottawa of a total assessed value of $6,431,530, not including the two properties mentioned by the previous speaker, namely the old city hall and the Knox church property. It is estimated that further property assessed at $1,370,000 will be exempt in the present year. The assessed value of government-owned land to-day is almost five times as great as it was in 1909, when the grant was $75,000.
True enough, it would be foolish for one to contend that loss of taxation on appropriated property, loss of revenue, or even increased services, should be the deciding factor. But here are we in this house, more than 240 members, dealing with the affairs of the nation, living in the capital city, benefiting by services rendered to properties which produce no revenue, without having had placed before us a true picture of the circumstances with which we are dealing in this bill.


Thomas Reid: What about the pleasure of spending our money?


George Russell Boucher: The hon. Scotsman
from New Westminster speaks very loudly of the pleasure of spending his money. We might even take that into consideration, though when I see some hon. members walking across the river to our neighbouring town, I sometimes wonder whether all their money is spent in the city of Ottawa.
The previous speaker placed on Hansard some interesting facts relating to assessment. May I, by way of further reply to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, cite a few more figures relating to tax levies. Were the dominion government to pay taxes on its property to the city of Ottawa, in 1937 they would have paid into the city treasury $1,698,385 in general tax, $409,177.35 in busi-

City oj Ottawa Agreement
ness tax, about $125,000 in water rates, plus $30,000 in water rates for the federal district commission. In 1939 payments to the city treasury would have been $2,052,404 general tax, and $470,902 business tax. In 1941 the income to the city of Ottawa from dominion-owned property would have been $2,117,727; the business tax, if levied against the government as it is against the ordinary taxpayer of Ottawa, would have been $492,362; the water rates, about $155,000, or a total of around two and three quarter million dollars. In dollars and cents the problem becomes a very serious one. I suggest therefore that it would be only fair to the country at large and to the city of Ottawa particularly if this whole matter were referred to a committee, giving to the city of Ottawa power to make representations through its mayor, board of control and civic officials, and power to the members of this house to estimate as nearly as they can the services we get. We need not dwell upon what those services are. Anyone must know that the water service itself is something gigantic and has been increased tremendously by virtue of the temporary buildings erected in Ottawa. Police protection has increased, snow removal has increased, the work of keeping the streets in orderly condition has increased. The very existence of Confederation square, a beauty spot to Canadians, necessitates many extra policemen in every busy hour of, the day. Surely the member's of this house should take these things into consideration and realize that in dealing with a bill of this kind, even though these are extreme days, a great deal more consideration should be given than merely repeating what has been done for the past twelve years or so. I suggest therefore to the Acting Minister of Public Works that he take the matter into consideration and if he cannot see fit to do it this year, at any rate he should be prepared to give the whole subject much more attention than it has received.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) made about the best case it was possible to make for the grant contained in this bill for the city of Ottawa. The member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Boucher) added to those representations. As I have sat here and listened, I have wondered if a big philanthropic institution was looking after us all and making life a pleasurable experience for us. I agree that Ottawa is probably one of the most beautiful cities in the world; I know of nothing finer anywhere. But we must not overlook the fact that Ottawa is
beautiful because the people of Canada chose Bytown as the capital, and the people of Canada have expended vast sums of money in public buildings, in the planting of trees, in the upkeep of a fine driveway around the city, and so on. I did suggest to the hon. member for Ottawa West that since he wishes to study the figures placed on the record we might study them six months hence. Of course, I was not quite serious in that suggestion, but I suggest that the citizens of Ottawa do not all quite appreciate what the parliament of Canada means to this city. For I have a very vivid recollection of the chief citizen of this city, the present mayor, saying that the members of parliament for all they did here might just as well go home. I thought when I saw this bill on the order paper that we might go home, perhaps, before passing the bill this year, as a sort of protest against the insult cast on the members of the House of Commons.
I am not going to oppose the bill, because there is much merit in the suggestion advanced by the two members who have spoken, that the whole matter be referred to a committee, where the rights of the city of Ottawa and the rights of the whole dominion might, so to speak, be put one against the other and a proper decision arrived at. I agree that this is no way to do the business of the country in relation to the city of Ottawa, simply by making a grant, because none of us know exactly on what grounds the grant is made. I know there has been loss of revenue on account of the pulling down of buildings, but I know also cities in this dominion where I should like to pull down half the buildings. I can look across the river from this beautiful parliament building, over to the city of Hull, and I should dearly love to have the opportunity of tearing down about half those buildings and putting up a set of buildings there that would more nearly approximate the city here, instead of looking upon it, my good friend the member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) notwithstanding, as an eyesore.


Mr. FOURNIER (Hull):: We would accept a grant of $100,000 over there.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am sure the hon. member would, but so far the city of Hull has shown no indication that they would appreciate it in the way I should like them to. They should begin to clean up their doorstep, and it might be considered. Seriously, however, the matter now under discussion ought to be, as the member for Ottawa West suggested, the subject of inquiry by a parliamentary committee, or a committee of some sort, where representations could be heard and a proper

City oj Ottawa Agreement

disposition of the question made. As I have said, I am not going to oppose the bill, but I hope that sooner or later we may have, instead of the city of Ottawa coming to us as a suppliant for funds, or instead of our making grants to the city of Ottawa, on any grounds, compassionate or otherwise, a capital which the Dominion of Canada can call its own in a federal district of its own.


Mr. J. A. PINARD (Ottawa East):: I do not intend to add very much to the excellent speech made by my colleague (Mr. Mcllraith), which I believe was the best case for Ottawa ever presented to this house. Some years ago I did present the case, not as brilliantly as he has done, because I was not privileged, as he and the member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) have been, to get as much information on the subject from the mayor of the city-the present incumbent was in office at that time. Nevertheless I did the best I could. I was in the council for twenty years; I knew a good deal about the federal district commission and other matters affecting the city and its interests, and from such knowledge as I had I presented the case as forcibly as I could, with the result that I had the support of a few members of the opposition-I am speaking of the Tory opposition. My friend here is the one most entitled to represent the city of Ottawa because he had the pleasure of receiving the largest number of votes cast for any member of this house. That being so, the "Washington of the north", as Sir Wilfrid Laurier was known to have called this city, is well represented, and the people of the city have shown their representatives that we intend to make Ottawa the Washington of the north.
As to what the mayor said in regard to what we do in this house, I must say that until not long ago I had quite a lot of patronage, but it has been cut off from me. Nevertheless I am doing my duty as much as the mayor is, and when he makes in public such utterances as these I can say that he speaks for himself alone and not for the citizens of Ottawa.
I offer my thanks to the hon. member for Carleton. I do not know whether the farmers of his county will be pleased by his action this afternoon, because, like the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), they are all Scotch. I am afraid that it will be hard for the hon. member to get reelected next time. I hope this vote will be carried this afternoon. I am glad of the suggestion made that a special committee of this house should be named by the government to hear the representations not only of the city council

but of the government and hon. members of the house and other citizens who are much interested in the welfare of Ottawa.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The hon. gentleman has just made a political speech; that is all it was. He said we are making Ottawa the Washington of the north. I think that is an absolutely wrong attitude to take.


Joseph Albert Pinard: At any rate it is not politics.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Ottawa is Canadian and we should keep it so.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I have always felt that the vote to Ottawa is too small. I hope that when this bill goes to the committee the committee will view the necessities of Ottawa more generously than they have been viewed in the past.
For some reason big business is not located in Ottawa. Perhaps on account of the government buildings being here, large factories are not encouraged to come. It is true that Ottawa is a very beautiful city, and the municipal authorities perhaps wish to protect it from the smoke that is associated with large factories. Therefore the city's opportunity to obtain revenue is not comparable with that of cities like Toronto or Montreal, or even Hamilton, Brantford, London and other manufacturing cities.


Thomas Reid: But they have a larger constant payroll than any other city.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am well aware of that. On the other hand large industrial cities have many people with much larger salaries than are paid in Ottawa. Outside of a few heads of the main departments of government, salaries generally in Ottawa are not nearly as high as in the large cities. That is another reason why the tax revenues are lower than they otherwise would be for a city of the same size with big industries.
Did I gather that the acting leader of the opposition recommended that a committee be set up to consider the question?


Grote Stirling: The banking and commerce committee.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And that that committee be invited to consider increasing the vote. In the meantime I will support the bill, and if the banking and commerce committee propose a larger grant I will support that.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Since it has become my lot to sponsor this bill, which in recent years has become a hardy perennial in this house, I think it well that I should give to hon. mem-

City of Ottawa Agreement
bers a few facts by way of information in order that they may properly understand the relations of the dominion government to and with the city of Ottawa.
I admit that a very good case has been built up by hon. members representing the city and citizens of Ottawa and those closely associated with the city, and by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher). They have built a very good -case for imposing upon the dominion government recognition of an obligation towards the city of Ottawa to pay taxes or compensation in lieu of taxes. But one must not forget that no government has ever recognized any obligation to pay to the city of Ottawa any compensation for taxes on property owned, purchased or expropriated within the city limits, and I doubt whether foi a long time to come any government would admit the principle. It will be realized that were the government to admit such a principle, any city, town or muncipal corporation which has within its limits any property owned by the dominion government would be just as much entitled, as the city of Ottawa, to ask for some allowance by way of compensation for loss of taxes, and on the same basis and in the same proportion. The principle that His Majesty the King cannot be taxed applies to the property owned by his majesty in the city of Ottawa as well as to property owned by his majesty in any other city or municipality in Canada.
Ever since Ottawa was selected as the capital of Canada no government has ever recognized any obligation to the city or to any municipality for payment for loss of taxes or in lieu of taxes or compensation for the right to own property in the municipality. Up to 1899 the dominion government did not pay anything to the city of Ottawa for the buildings that the government owned in the city limits and for the services that were rendered by the city for the care and protection of government property, much less for loss of taxes, or taxes on property owned. It is of course a good argument to present the value of property owned in the capital of the country and say that if that property were taxed on the same basis as any other property such and such an amount of money would be owing by the government to the city. But the principle is false and cannot be admitted, and I am sure no one will admit it.
The argument is that the city treasury is placed in a difficult position by the fact that from year to year the government erects costly new buildings within the city, and expropriates property which previously had been assessed and on which taxes had been paid; and that if that continues the taxpayers
in the city will have to shoulder an additional burden. It is possible that that may happen. But things may also work the other way. For example I am told that last year, notwithstanding the fact that the government took over property valued at close to a million dollars and that amount of property has been removed from the tax roll of the city, the tax roll has been increased by 52,000,000 and the tax rate in the city has been lowered. Of course this is quite understandable. The more the government expropriates real estate in this city, and erects office buildings, the more people have to be brought into the city to be housed in those buildings. Those people are put on the payrolls, and spend most of their earnings in the city. Those who possess com-merical properties see the value of their commercial establishments increased, and the city assessment lists increase in the same proportion.
However, argument could be adduced to support the claim with respect to the payment of taxes, once it is admitted that his majesty is liable to the payment of taxes either in this capital city or in any other place. That principle is not admitted.
In 1899 the public-spirited citizens of Ottawa decided to make Ottawa a beautiful city. At that time Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a citizen of this city. In that year the Ottawa improvement commission was formed, and a grant was demanded to support the operations of that commission. As a result, by chapter 10 of the statutes of 1899, a grant of $60,000 a year was voted by parliament. Section 15 of the statute sets out the reasons why the government of the day agreed to pay that amount of money to Ottawa, and to make that concession. The section states:
The annual grant payable under this act shall be in full payment, satisfaction and discharge of all claims and demands by or on the part of the corporation on the government of the Dominion of Canada in respect of water supplied, including charges for street sprinkling by the corporation for use in and on all buildings, lands and premises in the said city of Ottawa.
This first grant of $60,000 a year was made to pay for the water supplied and the sprinkling system used in all buildings and on all lands. That principle has been maintained throughout the various enactments, and even ini the agreement of 1920.
The agreement we are now asked to ratify was signed on May 11, 1920, and has been modified very little since that time. The principle remains the same. The amount of S100.000 paid annually to Ottawa is still being paid in discharge of all claims and demands by the corporation of the city on
City of Ottawa Agreement

the federal government with respect to water supplied for street sprinkling and for use in the parks and driveways under the control of the federal district commission, as well as for fire protection in the various government buildings. It is understood of course that the sprinkling is to be restricted to hours named by the city. Since 1899 the amount has been increased to $100,000 a year; and since 1919 it has been paid direct to the city of Ottawa.
The main clauses of the agreement provided (1) annual payment of $150,000 to the Ottawa city improvement commission for ten years from July 1, 1919; (2) annual payment of $75,000 to the city of Ottawa, for five years from July 1, 1919; (3) payment for water supplied by meter; (4) cancellation of the exemption of civil servants from income tax and, in addition to this, (5) the government assumed the repair and maintenance of sidewalks on the north side of Wellington and Bank streets as far as the Perley home.
These were the five conditions which formed the basis of the contract of 1920. Since then the principle has not been changed, but the amounts payable under the various clauses have been increased. For example, the amount to the Ottawa improvement commission, which was to be $150,000 a year, is now in this year $333,500, or about a third of a million dollars. That amount was for the beautification of driveways and the improvement of the general appearance of the city. The annual payment of $75,000 to the city proper has been increased to $100,000. Naturally that is done because the amount of water used has increased since the signing of the contract in 1920. Then, payment for the water used and metered in the buildings has been increased, and so has the rate. For example, in 1941, the government consumed 371,498,840 gallons of water, for which it paid $53,937.37. Besides that, the government paid a meter rental at the rate of ten per cent of the purchase price of the meter, amounting to $1,459.34. So it would appear that last year the government paid to the city of Ottawa for the water used and metered in buildings the sum of $55,396.71.
This is by virtue of the agreement with the city of Ottawa whereby the water is being bought at 13 cents a thousand gallons for any quantity up to 200 million gallons, and an increase of 25 per cent for any quantity over and above the basic quantity. Negotiations are now under way between the city and the government further to increase the rate on the water being metered, because of the increased costs in pumping water to the buildings. I understand that negotiations are now in progress to ascertain a proper increased rate to be agreed upon by the parties.

In addition to the third of a million dollars paid by the government to the Ottawa improvement commission, the $100,000 paid to the city for the water used in the sprinkling system and on the ground, and the amount I have just mentioned for water used in the buildings, the government has paid taxes on property occupied by different foreign legations. Last year that item amounted to $39,321.44. The amount of income tax which the government was authorized to collect from civil servants and from which the civil servants were exempt before the agreement was amended in 1919, amounted to $57,175. Last year the government paid the sum of $60,512.90 as taxes on properties which had been expropriated during the year and which had been previously assessed but for which taxes had not been paid for the current year.
Those are the payments which the dominion government makes to the city of Ottawa without recognizing any obligation to pay any taxes on real estate or property owned or purchased, either by contract or by expropriation, in the city of Ottawa. I believe the only thing that might be adjusted by a committee or another body to which the matter might be referred would be the amount the government should pay because of increased consumption of water in the buildings or outside the buildings to take care of the grounds, and also for fire protection. It is admitted that there has been an increased fire risk in certain districts of the city because of the erection by the government of temporary wooden buildings. However, these buildings are equipped with fire protection facilities in the form of automatic sprinkler systems and by having janitox-s or fire guardians on the premises to protect the properties from fire. It is possible that this agreement, which dates from May, 1920, should be revised, but I think this is a most improper time to attempt to arrive at any definite agreement. The future of some of the properties which we have in the city is most uncertain, and I submit that for the time being the city of Ottawa should be satisfied to accept this amount and then continue negotiations with the government with a view to coming to an understanding as to the real obligation of the government on account of increased consumption of water and increased cost of fire protection of government buildings during war time. I think this is a matter which can be adjusted by the officials of the government and the officials of the city. As soon as the war is over it may be possible to come to a more definite understanding as to what should be the relations between the city and the government in the future.

Canada Evidence Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Ross (Calgary East) in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement with city of Ottawa extended for one year.
Grote Stirling: I realize that the suggestion I made that this matter could properly be referred to a committee-I suggested the banking and commerce committee-has received the support of several hon. members, but two or three of them have supported it because it might result in an increased grant to the city of Ottawa. I do not find myself in that position because the basis of my suggestion was that I did not know. If the matter goes before a committee a great deal of relevant information could be given, some of which the minister gave us in the statement he has just made. It may be possible there to endeavour to turn into dollars and cents the very considerable benefits that the inhabitants of Ottawa receive from the existence of the capital city here, and from the civil servants, whose total powers of expenditure are considerable. In reciting the five bases of the agreement the minister referred to the exemption of civil servants from the payment of income tax. That alone is a considerable contribution which the dominion government forgoes and which the citizens of Ottawa receive.


Joseph Albert Pinard: That does not exist now.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Ontario collects it and pays it to the city.


Grote Stirling: I was going to ask permission to interrupt the minister toward the end of his remarks to ask him if that was the case, but he reiterated that that exemption still lived. That is one of the factors which is obviously not within the knowledge of several of hon. members here to-day and which could be brought out in a committee which could easily assess the pros and cons before arriving at a decision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 66, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Ross (Calgary East) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Mr. ST. LAURENT:	Since the bill was
introduced applications have been received from utility companies and from insurance companies that the provisions of this bill be extended to them. I would ask one of my colleagues to move these amendments. In section 1, lines 9 to 12, the definition is to be that of a corporation, instead of that of a bank. The new definition reads:
(a)	"corporation" means the Bank of Canada, every bank to which the Bank Act applies or to which the Quebec Savings Banks Act applies, and each and every of the following carrying on business in Canada, namely, every railway, express, telegraph and telephone company (except a street railway and tramway company), insurance company or society, trust company and loan company (except a company subject to the provisions of part 2 of the Small Loans Act, 1939).
Then comes the definition of the word "government" as follows:
(b)	"government" means the government of Canada or of any province of Canada and includes any department, commission, board or branch of any such government.
This would require subparagraph (b) to become subparagraph (c). Then in section 1, line 17, the word "bank" will be struck out and the words "government or corporation" substituted. Then it is suggested that in the same section, line 21, the word "original" might very well be omitted, where it appears before the word "instrument". It is felt that the inclusion of the word "original" might give rise to some difficulty in interpretation. Without the word I think it is obvious that it will be the document itself, while if the word "original" is retained, some difficulty might arise as to what is meant by an original instrument.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: It might
prevent photographing a duplicate, for instance.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. Then also in line 21, the word "bank" is to be replaced by the words "any government or corporation". Similarly in line 25 the words after "any" to the end of line 27 are to be struck out and the words "government or corporation" substituted therefor. That comes about because "government" has been defined in subparagraph (b). Then on page 2, in lines 4 and 5, the words "bank, department, commission, board or branch" are struck out and the words "government or corporation" substituted. In lines 9 and 10 also the words "bank, department, commission, board or branch" are struck out and the words "government or corporation" substituted therefor. The same change is made in line 14. "Government or
2694	COMMONS
Canada Evidence Act
corporation" both having been defined in the first paragraph, this substitution merely follows, if the first suggestion is adopted.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I understood the minister correctly, "corporation" is defined as including express companies, railway companies-
Mr. ST. LAURENT: "Corporation" would include banks under the Bank Act or the Quebec Savings Banks Act, and would include also railway, express, telegraph and telephone companies, except a street railway or tramway company, and an insurance company or society, trust company and loan company, except a company subject to the provisions of part 2 of the Small Loans Act of 1939. These are all companies which, having seen the bill after it was introduced into this house, have written to ask whether its provisions might not be extended to them. As the hon. member realizes, the bill is for the purpose of supplementing legislation along the same lines being adopted by the provinces, because the evidence requirements are governed both by federal and by provincial legislation, the purpose being to permit the destruction of original records and to retain photographic records. Unless both federal and provincial legislation permit the use of the photographic records, a company could not take the risk of destroying the original voluminous records.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The reason for not including private corporations and companies is that they would be covered by provincial legislation?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Well, I am not sure
that in every instance they would be covered by provincial legislation. Our evidence act applies to evidence in criminal cases and also to evidence in civil cases governed by the statutes of Canada. The ordinary litigation before the provincial courts is governed as to evidence by the provincial dispositions. But if a company wishes to destroy original records and retain only photographic copies, it takes a risk in doing so unless both the federal act and the act of the province in which it is located permit a photographic record to be used as evidence. If there is only a provincial act allowing a photographic record to be used as evidence, a case might arise which would be governed by the Canada Evidence Act, and as a result the company having destroyed the original would be embarrassed, because there might be nothing in the federal act allowing the photographic record to be used. [DOT]


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then why is this not extended to deal with private cor-

porations and companies? Is it that they have not asked for it, or is it that their records would not extend over as long a period of time?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It has not been asked for. This matter was considered by the government departments. Then a formal application to the committee on uniformity of legislation that sits in conjunction with the . Canadian Bar association was submitted by the bankers' association. They pointed out that under the Bank Act the statute of limitations did not apply to them, and in consequence they have to be ready at all times, no matter how many years may have elapsed, to prove what they may have done with moneys deposited with them. They represented that on a microfilm two hundred feet in length they could conserve copies of 2,700 letter-sized sheets, that this could be done very quickly and I understand at a cost of about $7 per film, that it would reduce very considerably the storage space required to conserve these records, and that whenever one is necessary it can either be thrown on a screen in enlargement, or an enlarged print can be made from the microfilm and submitted as evidence.
The bill having been introduced in its original form dealing with government records or bank records, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway, both for railway purposes and for telegraph and express purposes, wrote in asking if there seemed to be any objection to extending the same principle to them. They felt they could also bring about a saving in storage space if the principle were extended to them. That was followed by an application from the Bell Telephone company. Then came an application from the life insurance companies, and the amendment submitted would include trust companies, utility companies, and insurance companies. They will not, merely by virtue of the adoption of this federal statute, take the risk of destroying their old records. They will have to get also concurrent provincial legislation before they will feel safe in destroying their old records. But there has been no application from private companies, and I do not know that even in the United States where the system is used it has been extended to any but these public or semi-public corporations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not being extended also to include the government itself?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Oh, yes; it includes the government-the federal government or any provincial government.

Canada Evidence Act


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That was not in the original bill?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was in the original bill. That was in the original recommendation. If the hon. member will look at the bill he will see that, at lines 24 and following, the government records were also included:
(c)	any record, document, plan, book or paper belonging to or deposited with any department, commission, board or branch of the government of Canada or of any province of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Now the
minister is putting it in the definitions.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Now we are putting it in the definitions, so that the application may be general.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the minister satisfied himself that the photographic records are perfectly accurate? Most people are familiar with trick photography and what has been done by people who are clever with films. Are they considered by the Department of Justice to be a very satisfactory method of keeping accurate records?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The Department of Justice consider that the precautions provided for here would make it reasonably safe that authentic copies only would be preserved. The bill provides that when a copy is made and when the original is to be destroyed, an affidavit will be made by the person making the photograph and attending to the destruction of the original, verifying the correctness of the photographic record.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The affidavits will have to be kept, then?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The affidavit will have to be kept; and the bill provides that if the person who made the photographic record is not available to give evidence when the copy is to be used, a copy of the affidavit may be supplied with the photographic record to complete the evidence.	*


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the affidavit be photographed, too?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No. The affidavit will be taken in the ordinary form.


George Russell Boucher: Notarized.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Notarized, and will be preserved in that form.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There will be one affidavit for the entire film?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is to be complimented on accepting the recommendation of the uniformity committee of the
Canadian bar association, of which he was for a term its distinguished president. But the amendment he suggests to-day goes a long way farther than was ever recommended by the Canadian bar association, and for that reason certain questions come to one's mind. One is this: in the United States are the photographic records of railway and express corporations accepted?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am unable to inform the hon. member to what extent they have extended their act to the conservation of business records.


John George Diefenbaker: I understood the minister to say that the same principles were being used in the United States.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That was the representation made to us by the railway companies, but I have not myself verified it.


John George Diefenbaker: I notice that another change has been made. In the recommendation that was made to the Canadian Bar association in connection with this matter, and which appears in the 1939 proceedings of the association, at page 308, it is stated as follows:
The photographic record in such case would be prima facie evidence only, however, and could be rebutted by positive evidence to the contrary.
That was in the brief submitted by the Canadian Bankers' association to the Canadian Bar association, and to that was appended a suggested amendment of the Canada Evidence Act-the amendment which is now before the committee, except in one particular, that in the suggested amendment of the commissioners on uniformity of legislation the probative value of the entries in any book or record which had been filmed was to be received as prima facie evidence only. There has been an alteration in the amendment now before the committee. It-
-shall be admissible in evidence in all cases in which and for all purposes for which the object photographed would have been received upon proof. . . .
I would like the minister to explain why, though in general the amendment suggested by the Canadian Bar association is accepted, the change was made altering the probative value as prima facie evidence only and making photographs admissible in evidence. Why the alteration in that regard? I would also like the minister to explain why it is that in the definition of "bank", restriction is made to the Quebec savings banks. Are there any other savings banks?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: These are the two banks which require to have their charters
Canada Evidence Act

renewed by this parliament every ten years like the ordinary chartered banks:	the
Montreal City and District Savings Bank and the Caisse d'Economie de Notre Dame de Quebec. Those are the only two, and for all other purposes they are on a par with the chartered banks.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has said that he wants to bring about uniformity in the evidence acts of the dominion and all the provinces. Have the provinces accepted the suggested amendments which he spread before the committee to-day? If they have not, then you are going to have a situation which will make proof more confounding than ever before.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I think the answer to the hon. member is this. Five of the provinces so far have accepted the recommendation of the committee on uniformity of legislation. This bill includes everything that is in the recommendation, and, at the request of the insurance companies, the trust companies and the utility companies, goes beyond that. But before these companies will take the risk of relying upon this statute they will have to get concurring legislation from the provinces. If they do not get the two, they may find themselves in the position where they will have destroyed an original and will not have any justification for attempting to use something else.
This bill, of course, will apply only to cases to which the Canada Evidence Act applies; in all other cases they will have to rely upon provincial legislation. We may be taking one step in advance of what these five provinces have already done, and if they do not follow, the companies not now included in the provincial legislation will probably not take the risk of destroying their old records.


John George Diefenbaker: That just shows
the ambiguous position in which the law of evidence will be should the amendment suggested to-day be accepted by this committee. As originally submitted to the house there could be no possible objection to the suggested amendment: it covered matters under federal jurisdiction-the Bank of Canada and any bank to which the Bank Act applies and to which the Quebec Savings Banks Act applies. If we pass this bill, instead of bringing about uniformity of legislation in Canada as desired by the Canadian Bar association, it will have the opposite effect so far as the evidence act is concerned. You will have an act of the dominion allowing certain matters to be proven in a certain way and you will have provincial acts not permitting that. I suggest that the amendments moved to-day by the

Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) go rather too far, because they may create a situation that will place this parliament in the position of passing legislation in amendments that will give rise to any amount of litigation and will not result in any improvement in administration.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am not convinced by the argument of the hon. member. When concurrent legislation is required, it cannot be secured absolutely simultaneously from all the bodies concerned. In this case, in order to have uniformity, it will be necessary to have an enactment by this parliament and enactments by nine legislatures and probably a regulation' under the Northwest Territories Act. It takes considerable time, as the hon. member knows from his experience, paralleling mine with the Canadian Bar association, to get any of these bits of uniform legislation completed. Someone has to be the first. Five of the provinces have got ahead of the federal parliament in carrying out the suggestion of the uniform legislation committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Only in so far as the original recommendation is concerned.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: In so far as the original recommendation went. There are still four provinces that have not adopted a uniform statute. If this parliament adopted the bill in its original form it would be possible for banks and for the governments of those five provinces to avail themselves of the new provision without incurring any risks. They could destroy records and they would have to make evidence only in federal courts or in the courts of their respective provinces. The dominion government would not be able to avail itself of the provision because it might have to comply with the evidence act of some of the other four provinces in litigation. The banks would not be able to avail themselves of it because there would still be four provinces where they might have suits, where evidence would be regulated by provincial legislation, and where they could not avail themselves of these provisions. It will be some considerable time before the nine or ten or eleven legislative bodies have all acted. It has been represented to the department that the amendments suggested would serve as an invitation to the other legislatures to extend to these insurance companies and public utility companies the same principle that the bill embodies. I do not think it will create any confusion whatsoever. This will cover a wider field than has been covered yet by any provincial legislation, and the amendments will not be operative until

Canada Evidence Act
legislation of a similar nature is adopted by the provinces wherever any of these companies may feel that at any time they will have to go into courts or see applied to them the provisions of a provincial statute.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister explain why there is the change in the words from "prima facie proof" to "admissible in evidence"? I regard that as significant.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It seemed to us that if there were a photographic record, made under proper control, it could not be other than the exact reproduction of the document, and the provision suggested here is that the copy will make the same kind of evidence that the original would have made. In very many of these cases the original merely makes prima facie evidence, but you would have had, with the suggestion, this duplication, that the photograph would be prima facie evidence of the original, and the original would be prima facie evidence of the fact. It seemed that if the photograph were to be made under the conditions the bill provides for, the purpose would not be served unless the photograph could stand in lieu of the original, whenever there was occasion to call for the document. The real purpose is to facilitate the destruction of old records and save storage space, and it was felt that if the photographic record were not going to be in the same position in court as the original would have been in, the real purpose would not be achieved.


John George Diefenbaker: There is not the same reason for the keeping of the records, on the part of these other corporations, that there is on the part of the government of Canada or on the part of the bank.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Then why did they want this method of proof? These other corporations do not have to keep their documents, and there is no reason for them to keep them. Why then do they want provision made by parliament to photograph documents which they are at liberty to destroy?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: They are not required to keep them for all time. They do have to keep them for such a period as will enable them to go into court and say, "Our practice is to destroy these records after so many years", and have the court recognize that as a proper business practice. The volume of the documents, especially in the case of insurance companies, which these concerns do keep is large, and the department admitted the usefulness of these amendments.
The bill as orginally introduced was one that had been recommended by the committee on uniformity of legislation. It was introduced in that form because I would 'have felt it desirable to bring in a bill in a form in which it could be passed without having to ask hon. members in committee to make changes in it. It was after the bill was introduced that these others came along and suggested that they might be able to get the legislatures also to extend the legislation, and the officers in the department, after discussing the matter with the Department of Transport, as concerning the railway companies, and with the superintendent of insurance, as concerning the insurance companies and the trust companies, saw no good reason for refusing to submit their request to have the bill extended to them.


Mr. HAZEN:: There is nothing in the bill to provide that proof must be given that the photographic film had been compared with the original document and found to be a true photograph of the document before the print could be put in evidence.
I do not know whether any consideration was given to that point. But I am not speaking of photographs of documents now;
I am speaking of photographs I have seen at times, made with the intention of having them put in evidence, and I know that sometimes those photographs do not give a correct picture of what they are supposed to represent. It seems to me it might be advisable to have a provision in this bill that the affidavit which is made must state that the photographic film was compared with the original document and found to be a true photograph of the document. Has consideration been given to that?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was considered that the requirement contained here would be a sufficient guarantee that it was a photograph properly made of the original record. Subparagraph (i) provides that the copy may be used upon proof that:
(i)	while such hook, record, bill of exchange, promissory note, cheque, receipt, original instrument or document, plan, book or paper was in the custody or control of the bank, department, commission, board or branch, the photographic film was taken thereof in order to keep a permanent record thereof; and
(ii)	the object photographed was subsequently destroyed by or in the presence of one or more of the employees of the bank, department, commission, board or branch or was lost or was delivered to a customer.


Douglas King Hazen: Yes; it says it was taken, but there is nothing that says they compared it.

269S
Canada Evidence Act

Mr. ST. LAURENT: It was not considered necessary to go beyond that. They are the employees who are making these copies for the purpose of keeping a record of a thing to be destroyed; and it was thought that if they made an affidavit that they had taken the photograph for the purpose of keeping a record of the thing to be destroyed, and that it had been destroyed, that sufficiently established that they were not making a trick photograph.


Douglas King Hazen: Should it not say when it was taken? Should the date not be given to show that it was taken in the ordinary course of business? An unscrupulous person could take a fake photograph and then destroy the document when some trouble developed.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That may be possible, but it was not considered that that was something that needed to be guarded against in enabling government departments or institutions to make microfilms of their records. One could conceive of a record being falsified. But this is for the purpose of enabling the compression of records into a smaller space.


Mr. BENCE:: I am not very favourably impressed with the method of furnishing proof by means of photographs. It seems to me that the legislation went as far as it should when it was confined to the original draft, and I think it is a dangerous precedent to set to extend that. There is a possibility, as suggested by some hon. members, that a document might, for example, have had an erasure or mutilation which was cleverly covered up, and a photograph probably would not show that erasure or mutilation.
In addition, it provides that any employee of the company may give evidence of the fact that it was a photograph of the particular document. An office boy in any one of these companies could give that evidence. It is conceivable that some minor employees of a company might collaborate in endeavouring to deceive the courts in connection with such a thing. Furthermore there is no question that the old method of cross-examination which has been the backbone of our judicial system for so many ages would be completely done away with, and in addition there is no provision- although I thought the minister suggested it- that an affidavit would be taken at the time and filed with the film in order that proof might be adduced at a later date. Take an instance where proof might be required five or ten or fifteen years after the photograph was taken; what person could give evidence of the taking of the film? Suppose all the employees had left the institution by that time. Certainly the provisions of subsections 3 and 4

could be materially strengthened to provide that an affidavit should be furnished and filed with each film at the time it was taken, and then a notarial copy of the affidavit could be used if wanted ten or fifteen years afterwards.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: It must be realized that whoever destroys his original record is taking some risk. If he destroys a record and thinks he may at any time in the future be called upon to make evidence of it he is going to have this affidavit made at the time the original record is destroyed. That is the way it will work in practice. Those who are destroying records, in making their microfilms will file with the microfilm an affidavit of which a notarial copy can at any time in the future be produced to verify the correctness of the microfilm and enable them to make proof of it.


Alfred Henry Bence: A notarial copy by whom?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: A notarial copy of the original affidavit that will necessarily be made at the time the record is destroyed.


Alfred Henry Bence: The bill does not so provide.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: If the hon. member were the manager of a company that was going to rely upon this film and authorized the destruction of an original record, he would certainly want to have, contemporaneous with the destruction of the record, the thing that would be evidence at any time under the terms of the measure, and he would require those who were proceeding with the destruction of the record to make the affidavit at once. He would not take the risk even of waiting until the next day to have the affidavit made.


George Russell Boucher: On the other hand here we are extending to a person who wants to destroy an original document the privilege of substituting a form of proof in its place. We are not merely saying the substituted form of proof shall be prima facie evidence; we are saying it shall be admissible as evidence.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: As evidence of the thing it replaces, not as evidence of the facts.


George Russell Boucher: But we are giving them the privilege of having that as evidence of the thing it replaces without any way of checking as to whether a comparison was made of the photograph with the original document, or when the affidavit was made. My opinion is that in this day and age we are getting rather loose with affidavits. With the present custom of requiring affidavits and declarations almost to the filling of your

Questions
individual teeth, the affidavit is becoming, I fear, a very common and rather sloppy method of proof. We are leaving the door open. We are not saying that the court may, in adjudicating on a matter, say, "I have some doubt on this, it not having been proven that a comparison was made with the original document and that the affidavit was made at the time that comparison was made".
We leave much to the vagaries of mortal man. In the case of the banks particularly, if a lawyer is filing a proof of probate he makes a notarial certificate that he has compared this document with the original one. He puts his notarial seal on it. The banks almost invariably insist upon getting the original probate as well as the notarized copy and comparing them before they will even accept the notarial certificate. So that if we were to deal with the request of those who ask for this legislation on the basis of the policy they themselves adopt, we would see at once the danger involved in granting their request. I submit we should proceed with extreme caution, and should at least require the filing of the affidavit almost immediately after the document has been compared with the original. Before it could be admitted as evidence, or even as prima facie evidence, such circumstances should be proven to the court.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre) the house adjourned at 6.03 pun.
Monday, May, 25, 1942