1952-05-07

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to lay on the table a summary of orders in council passed during the period April 1 to April 30, 1952. The last such summary for the period March 1 to March 31 was tabled on April 7.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: I had
a question on the order paper, which was answered during my absence by the Prime Minister, in regard to whether or not there were any orders in council concerning which there is no statutory provision that they must be published or tabled. Have there been any in that category, in addition to those the Prime Minister has tabled from time to time?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There are orders in council awarding contracts, and they are not published. They are administrative acts. After tenders have been called the tenders come before a committee of council, and an order in council is made awarding the contract to the lowest tenderer. But there is no distinction between orders in council concerning trade and commerce and those concerning defence production, and orders in council that come from other departments.



RESULTS OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN UNITED


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to make a short statement on armistice negotiations in Korea. Members of the house will have seen that the communist negotiators at Panmunjom have turned down the proposal of General Ridgway, the United Nations commander in Korea, to solve the outstanding points of dispute in the Korean armistice negotiations. The proposal was, first, to exchange approximately 70,000 Korean and Chinese prisoners for the 12,000 Korean and United Nations personnel whom the communists state they are now holding as prisoners; secondly, to accept communist nominations of Poland and Czechoslovakia for membership on the neutral nations supervisory
commission in exchange for communist acceptance of the United Nations nominations of Sweden and Switzerland, and thirdly, to omit from the provisions of the armistice any reference to the reconstruction and rehabilitation of airfields. This offer was put forward as representing the utmost limits to which the United Nations command could go in making concessions and was intended to be considered as a whole rather than to be the subject of piecemeal bargaining.
Careful and individual examination of the approximately 132,000 prisoners held by the United Nations command has revealed that about 70,000 would accept repatriation. Sixty-two thousand have indicated that they would forcibly resist any United Nations effort to repatriate them.
I am sure hon. members will agree with me when I say that in the circumstances it is unthinkable that the United Nations forces in Korea should undertake the invidious task of forcing these men to return to communist rule. The United Nations command can obviously make no concession on this point other than to allow the communists to have the 62,000 men interviewed either by a neutral body or by joint Red Cross teams from both sides in order to satisfy themselves that these individuals have made their decisions of their own free will and not under compulsion. This the United Nations command has offered to allow, and in doing so has given a convincing demonstration of its good faith in the matter.
In nominating Sweden and Switzerland and accepting the communist nominations of Poland and Czechoslovakia for the neutral nations supervisory commission, the United Nations command has been scrupulously fair to the communists. What the United Nations command would not do was to accept the communist nomination of the Soviet union itself -to a body which is described as the neutral nations supervisory commission.
The United Nations command has also agreed that the armistice provisions will not make any reference to the reconstruction or rehabilitation of airfields but this was done only after considerable heart-searching. I think so important a concession is another proof ^positive of the genuineness of the desire for an armistice on the United Nations side.
I am sure that all members of this house will regret profoundly the communist refusal

Questions
of this offer that could have brought an end to the fighting in Korea on terms that would have been fair and would not have betrayed the principles of the United Nations charter which governed the original intervention. We must hope that the communists may even now reconsider their refusal. We must also hope that, notwithstanding this refusal, there will be no need for a resumption of full-scale hostilities. If such resumption should take place, with all its unforeseen consequences, the communists would have to accept full responsibility.


Mr. Graydon:: May I ask the minister two questions arising out of 'this statement? First, does it mean that the present negotiations are definitely broken off for the time being? Second, out of the 62,000 prisoners who have indicated that they do not want to go back behind the iron curtain, how many are Chinese and how many are North Koreans?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In answer to the first question of my hon. friend, as I understand it no action has been taken on the United Nations part to break off negotiations notwithstanding the refusal of the communists to accept this offer. I am sure we all hope that no such action will be taken or will be required.
In answer to the second question, I have not the figures at my command at the moment but I believe-this is subject to correction- that the great majority of the 62,000 are North Koreans.


Gordon Graydon: That would seem to indicate that the iron curtain countries are not the paradise that some people here and elsewhere would have us believe.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is rather convincing
evidence.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What is the price of fuel oil and gasoline in Brandon. Winnipeg and Regina?
2.	Is there any discrepancy in price of these products as between these cities?
3.	If so, for what reason?


Mr. Howe:: 1. Retail prices per gallon, April 1, 1952:
	Gasoline		Fuel oil
Grade 1	Grade	2$	$	$Winnipeg	.407	.384	.171Regina	.393	.376	.151Brandon	(1)	(1)	(1)
(1) Not available.

2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	As far as is known, price differences between cities are normal market differences.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-PROFESSIONAL GROUPS
Mr. Murray (Oxford):: 1.	How many registered pharmacists in the province of Ontario have received benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, during the years (a) 1949; (b) 1950; (c) 1951?
2.	How much money was paid out in benefits to registered pharmacists in the province of Ontario during the years 1949, 1950, 1951?
3.	What professional groups other than registered pharmacists pay into unemployment insurance in the province of Ontario?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	The unemployment insurance commission does not make an analysis of the occupational characteristics of applicants for unemployment insurance benefits.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	All members of professional groups employed under a contract of service, excepting (a) those in receipt of more than $4,800 a year; (b) private duty nurses; (c) teachers; (d) those employed by hospitals (not operated for gain) or toy charitable organizations, or in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fishing, and hunting and trapping; (e) those employed toy municipal and federal governments and certified by those governments as permanent employees; (f) those employed by the provincial government of Ontario whom the province has not insured (provincial concurrence is required); (g) members of the armed forces, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or any other police force.
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON MANPOWER Mr. Thatcher:
1.	How many times has the national advisory council on manpower met since its inception?
2.	What has been the total cost of the council to date?


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	The national advisory council on manpower has met four times since its inception.
2.	$5,687.72.
GIFTS OF FLOUR TO GREECE Mr. Riley:
1.	Has the Canadian government, either alone or jointly with the Canadian Red Cross Society, made any recent gifts of flour to the people of Greece?
2.	If so, was such a gift shipment of flour sent to Greece aboard a ship called Ocean Navigator, on or about the eighth day of April, 1952?
3.	Was it shipped through the port of Portland in the state of Maine?


Mr. Lesage:: 1. Yes. The government made a gift of
500,000 bushels of wheat to the Canadian Red

Cross Society as a contribution to famine relief in Greece. The Canadian Red Cross Society arranged for the milling of the wheat in Canada and the transportation of the flour to an ocean port. The Greek war relief fund of Canada arranged through the Greek War Relief Association Inc., U.S.A., to have carriage charges from a United States port to Greek ports defrayed by the government of the United States under the Mutual Security Act.
2.	203,250 bags of the gift flour were carried aboard the Ocean Navigator which sailed on April 11, 1952. The remainder of the shipment, 3,059 bags, were loaded on the Linden-wood. Victory which is reported to have sailed on April 19.
3.	The Ocean Navigator sailed from Portland, Maine and the Lindenwood Victory from the port of New York.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fair:: 1.	During the crop year 1950-51, what quantity of the following grades of wheat were purchased by each elevator company: No. 1 Northern, No. 2 Northern, No. 3 Northern, No. 4 Northern, No. 5, No. 6 feed; No. 1 Northern tough, No. 2 Northern tough, No. 3 Northern tough, No. 4 Northern tough. No. 5 tough, No. 6 tough, feed tough; No. 1 Northern damp, No. 2 Northern damp, No. 3 Northern damp, No. 4 Northern damp, No. 5 damp, No. 6 damp, feed damp?
2.	What quantity of each of the above grades was in possession of each company concerned at August 1, 1950?
3.	What quantity of each of the above grades was sold and delivered by each company, during the crop year 1950-51?
4.	What quantity of each grade remained in the elevators or in possession of each company at the 31st July, 1951?


Mr. Howe:: Return tabled.


CAMPBELLTON, N.B.-CROSS POINT, QUE., FERRY
Mr. Dube:: 1.	Was a contract awarded for the operation of a ferry between Campbellton, New Brunswick and Cross Point, Quebec?
2.	If so (a) on what date; (b) to whom; (c) how many tenders were received and from whom; (d) what were the specifications of the ferry boat; (e) what is type of construction; (f) what are the rates and schedule; (g) what is the amount of subsidy; (h) on whose recommendation was the contract awarded?
3.	Is wharf construction or dredging necessary with the type of ferry specified in contract?
4.	If so, what is the estimated cost in this connection?
5.	Was a recommendation made to the cabinet regarding the awarding of this contract? If so, by whom?
6.	At what date does contract call for ferry to be in operation?
Orders for Returns


LEGAL SERVICES-MANITOBA LAWYERS
Mr. Bryce:: 1.	What moneys have Manitoba lawyers received from the dominion government for legal fees, expenses, etc., during the years 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950 and 1951?
2.	What are the names of the lawyers and the amounts received?


FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTROL BOARD EMPLOYEES
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	How many employees were working for the foreign exchange control board as at June 30, 1951?
2.	On what date was the board discontinued?
3.	How many employees were dismissed when the board discontinued operations?
4.	How many were absorbed into other departments, and of these, what are their names, salaries, and present occupations?



GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF OVERALLS

[Stage Direction]
Mr Fraser:
1.	How many pairs of overalls were bought by the different departments of the government or agencies of the government during the years (a) 1950; (b) 1951; (c) the first four months of 1952?
2.	From what firms or individuals were these overalls bought?
3.	What quantity was bought from each firm or individual?
4.	What was the cost of overalls purchased from each firm or individual?

Mr. Viau:: 1.	Is there a radio station CJNT in the city of Quebec?
2.	If so, is it privately owned or affiliated with the C.B.C.?
3.	What are the names of its directors?
4.	If affiliated with the C.B.C., under what class?
5.	Was it added to any network of the C.B.C. for commercial programs in 1950 and 1951 upon request of any sponsor?
6.	If so, how much did it receive from the C.B.C. in 1950 and 1951 for commercial network service on the basis of a network card rate?
7.	What other revenue did it receive from the C.B.C. in 1950 and 1951?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all the evidence taken on an investigation on alleged misconduct of F. D. Miller of Edmonton, Alberta, formerly of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and a copy of all correspondence since the 1st of September, 1950, to date, that passed between the department and the said Miller and counsel on his behalf, asking for rehearing and readjudication.


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, there is a precedent for the refusal to produce evidence such as that covered by the motion of my hon. friend. This is reported on page 1669, volume II, of Hansard of the session 1939.

Motions for Papers
There is no precedent for the production of such evidence. It is not in the public interest to establish such a precedent by tabling a copy of the evidence as requested by the hon. member.
The right of the commissioner, acting under the authority given to him by the act and under the general supervision of the minister, to engage and discharge personnel at his discretion has over the years proved to be one of the principal factors in maintaining a high level of discipline and efficiency within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Any suggestion that that authority may be questioned would weaken the whole fabric of discipline and control. Likewise, to set a precedent which would allow the examination in a public way of the proceedings of the trial of disciplinary offences would be detrimental to the best interests of the force and the general membership of the force.
Most members of the force are frequent witnesses in criminal cases, as well as being required to make arrests and to exercise such other authority as is given to them by law. To publish infractions of discipline, most of which are of a technical or service nature, would affect adversely the position of the member as a peace officer and leave him open to innuendos and attacks which are out of all proportion to the offence for which he may have at one time been found guilty and punished.
The strict, even severe, standards of discipline insisted upon by the force are well known and are accepted by recruits when they are engaged as well as by older members each time they re-engage. The reputation the force enjoys and is striving successfully to maintain in the face of recent substantial expansion is based very largely on adherence to these standards.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I add a word to what the minister has said? Certainly no one would want to prejudice the discipline of the force; on the other hand, as I see it, precedent must give way to the possibility of injustice. Above everything else, in the preservation of the liberty of the subject it should never be possible for officers to place themselves in a position where injustice may be done to an individual.
Your Honour is aware of the famous English case of Archer-Shee. In that instance the navy department took a similar stand, and it was many years before Sir Edward Carson was able to secure justice for that man. In order to secure justice this man is prepared to allow the record to be produced regardless of any innuendo that it may contain, and if the minister will not alter

his stand and allow the matter to be reconsidered, I must ask for a vote of the house. If a department of the government can deny a review by parliament to an individual who says that there has been gross injustice, then a serious situation is indicated.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Before any vote is taken I should like to cover one of the points raised by my hon. friend. He rather left the implication that if these documents were not produced an injustice would be done to the gentleman named in his motion. I might say for the information of the house that in this particular case there was a charge preferred against the member of the force under the act and he was convicted.


John George Diefenbaker: Before a member of the force.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. The act provides that, where a member of the force has been guilty of misconduct as a member of the force, a superior officer has the authority to try any charge of that kind. In this case the charge was tried and the member involved was convicted. He appealed to the commissioner of the force, and his appeal was disallowed, but the penalty was reduced. Exercising his discretion the commissioner then dismissed the member from the force, following which representations were made to the minister for reinstatement. The record was examined by the minister-myself-in the exercise of his general supervisory powers with respect to the management of the force. The minister supported the commissioner's decision, and communicated that fact to counsel for the member who had been dismissed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Dyde of Edmonton.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right, Mr. Dyde of the Milner, Steer firm of Edmonton.


Mr. Coldwell:: Since a vote is to be taken on this motion, may I say a word? You have allowed a discussion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member's remarks will be brief, because the motion is not debatable.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall only be a minute. I believe we are getting to the point in the House of Commons where the liberty of the subject is endangered because of these secret reports and documents. I am going to support the hon. member for Lake Centre because of my feeling that information the house should have to protect the liberty of the subject is being denied in this particular instance and has been at other times.



HALIFAX, N.S., CUSTOMS BUILDING  REFACING

John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters and correspondence since the first day of July, 1951, together with any reports or contractors' recommendations, in connection with the refacing of the customs building at Halifax, Nova Scotia.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: So there will be no misunderstanding between the hon, member and myself I wish to state that I have no objection to producing the documents on this file, with the following reservation: if there are any privileged or confidential letters, reports or recommendations, they will not be produced. That may avoid further discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.



GENOCIDE


Lester Bowles Pearson: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament approve the ratification by Canada of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide as signed by Canada on November 28, 1949, and that this house do approve the same.

Inquiries of the Ministry He said: Mr. Speaker, I would move, with the consent of the house, that this resolution be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house unanimously approve of this resolution being referred to the standing committee on external affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the supplementary extradition convention between the United States of America and Canada, signed at Ottawa on October 26, 1951, amending the supplementary extradition convention between the United States of America and Her Britannic Majesty, signed at Washington on December 13. 1900, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: I beg leave, with the consent of the house, to move that this resolution be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: .Does the house agree that this resolution be referred to the standing committee on external affairs? It must be agreed unanimously.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Yale):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I have given notice. In view of newspaper reports indicating the disappearance of public property from Gordon Head army camp, near Victoria, British Columbia, will the minister inform the house what steps, if any, have been taken to investigate this situation and apprehend the guilty parties?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I
received a report that a regular inspection of the ordnance stores at Gordon Head disclosed a shortage of something under $5,000 in extent over the period from January, 1951, to March, 1952. Because of the nature of the articles short, the matter was referred to the R.C.M.P. and city police by the local officers in order to ascertain if any offence 
had been committed. There is no evidence as yet that any offence has been committed, but the matter is being looked into.



FURLOUGH FACILITIES FOR CANADIAN TROOPS IN TOKYO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence? My reasons for asking it are set out in the notice which I sent to him. Has any representation been made to the minister by service personnel or welfare organizations with regard to providing better furlough facilities for Canadian troops on leave in Tokyo?	.


Brooke Claxton: 

IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: 1
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with regard to a United States citizen, Walter Harris. Has there been any investigation into the allegedly long imprisonment that he suffered? Has there been any suggestion of incompetence on the part of any officials of the department? Why was the department so long in setting up a board of inquiry? These are some of the questions I should like the minister to answer, having regard to the statement that has recently been made.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The hon. member was kind enough to telephone me a few minutes before three saying that he was going to ask these questions. In answer to the first question, there has been an investigation made by myself as to the procedure that was adopted on this occasion. In answer to the second question, there has been no incompetence shown that I have been able to ascertain. In answer to the third question, concerning the length of time this gentleman was incarcerated, I might point out that the Immigration Act requires certain procedure to be adopted to deport an alien who is in jail in Canada. This procedure was followed precisely throughout the whole of the proceedings.
In answer to the final question, whether there had been an unduly long period in convoking the board of inquiry, I should say there was not, for this reason. We were notified on March 12 that this gentleman was in jail. A search of our records was made on March 13, and it was ascertained that he had not been landed. An order was made on the 14th for the holding of a board of inquiry. This order was dispatched by mail on Friday the 14th from Ottawa, was received in Hamilton on Monday morning the 17th, and the board of inquiry was convoked on the 18th.



DOMINION DRAMA FESTIVAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Is
Inquiries of the Ministry the government considering any action to prevent the substitution of a distillers' trophy for the Bessborough trophy as the top award in the dominion drama festival inaugurated in 1933 by the Earl of Bessborough, a former governor general of Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. gentleman sent me notice of his intention to ask this question, and the answer is as follows:
The question of awards and financial administration for the dominion drama festival is of course a matter which comes under the full control of the authorities of the festival.
In the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences there were recommendations dealing with cultural activities such as those of the dominion drama festival, the implementation of which will require legislative action. This special matter is related to a good many other similar activities, and it is not possible to deal with them all at once. The government is continuing to give consideration to the recommendations of the report of the Massey commission, and, when decisions as to the appropriate action to be recommended to parliament are made, they will be announced in the usual way.



CHEESE INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph William Noseworthy: Will
the Minister of Agriculture tell the house what provision the government has made or is about to make to avert the pending crisis in the Cheddar cheese industry?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: This morning I discussed the whole question with Hon. Thomas Kennedy in Toronto.



CIVILIAN WAR PENSIONS


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 191, to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.
1960	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 192, an act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Terrace to Kitimat, in the province of British Columbia.
He said: Yesterday during the resolution stage of this measure I dealt with a number of questions, but I think the house will expect me to say something on the bill which is now before the house.
As I indicated on the resolution, the bill has to do first with the authority to construct the line; next, with the authority to issue securities and also to make temporary loans. By this bill the governor in council is authorized to provide for the construction and completion by the Canadian National Railways before November 1, 1954, of a line of railway approximately 46 miles in length from Terrace to Kitimat in the province of British Columbia. The cost of the line is estimated at $10 million which will be financed by the government.
The financial provisions of the bill authorize the railway company to issue securities not exceeding $10 million which may be guaranteed by the government. Provision is also made for temporary loans not exceeding $10 million to be made by the Minister of Finance to the railway company to enable the construction to proceed without the delay attending the borrowing of the necessary funds from other sources.
Clause 8 of the bill authorizes, and in fact requires, the Minister of Transport to make a report to parliament annually in the same manner as reports are made under the other legislation concerning branch lines passed previously by parliament.
The Canadian National Railway Company has entered into an agreement with the Aluminum Company of Canada under which the Canadian National Railway agrees, subject to the provisions of enabling legislation, to complete the railway, and the Aluminum company is to provide traffic amounting to $1 million a year for a period of ten years or, in the alternative, make payments to the railway company of one-third of any deficiency below the $1 million. If the Aluminum company is required to make any payments to the railway company, refunds will be made to the Aluminum company on the basis of one-third of any excess of gross revenue earned by the railway company over the $1 million in any year. This refunding provision may be extended for a further period


of ten years, but in any case the amount refunded by the railway company to the Aluminum company shall not exceed the total payments made by the Aluminum company to the railway.
The Aluminum company has also agreed to make available a substantial amount of electric power to other industries locating in that region.
I should like to mention that in addition to the rail traffic to be secured in connection with the Aluminum company project, Kitimat valley has about 2J billion feet of accessible timber estimated to be capable of yielding 22,500 tons of rail traffic annually with gross earnings in the second five years of operation of the line of over $342,000 per year. There is also an expected fisheries development in the processing of chilled and frozen fish which would yield about 650 tons of freight per year, or an annual revenue of about $32,000.
The estimates of rail traffic indicate that average annual gross revenue for the first five years will amount to $1,854,800, and average annual operating expenses will be $1,503,700, resulting in average annual net operating revenue of $351,100. Interest on cost of construction is estimated at $350,000, leaving a net revenue for the first five years of $1,100.


Mr. Green:: Is that per year, or for the five-year period?


Lionel Chevrier: That is for the five-year period. This is computed on a basis of five years at $1,100.
For the second five-year period, average annual gross revenue is estimated at $2,828,200 and operating expenses at $2,155,000, resulting in average annual net operating revenue of $673,200. After deduction of $350,000 for interest the net annual revenue for the second five-year period of operation is estimated at $323,200.
Owing to the difficult terrain over which the line must be constructed, the cost of construction will be heavy, but the building of the line is so plainly in the national interest that this bill should commend itself to aV members of this house.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, last night and this afternoon I listened with interest to the minister in his explanation of the purposes of this bill, and I also listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) who, I am sure, is pleased to see this additional development in his constituency.

We in this group support this bill, first of all because we recognize that it is the result of increased development and production in British Columbia. We are pleased to see this further extension of the Canadian National Railway system. We hope that this production and development in British Columbia and in Canada will make it easier still for this government to provide improved social welfare services to the people of Canada.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to say something on the resolution stage yesterday, but it was impossible for me to get into the discussion. I have only just a minute or two before I have to attend a meeting of the external affairs committee but I think I should indicate the position which my group takes toward this bill.
We think that it is a fortunate thing for any part of Canada to see the development that is taking place in the area of Kitimat in the constituency of my friend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite). We are glad to see that development. It augurs well for the future of Canada; it will doubtless make for a stronger and better Canada.
When a railway is to be built from Terrace to Kitimat, we think it is only natural that we should look to the Canadian National Railways to build it. I think that is a proper procedure. I just want the minister to know that we support the bill and approve the help which the government is giving by way of assistance in financing, making advances on loan, and so forth.
There is one thing I do not intend to say much about; when I think of the building of this line of railway by the Canadian National Railways it makes me think that some consideration ought to be given to the extension of the Canadian National from the Peace river country to the coast, to link up perhaps with this very road. Were that done I am quite sure that we would see much greater development than is possible by the construction of these piecemeal lines.
I just wanted the minister to know that we are happy to see this line being built, in view of the development that will result from it in the Kitimat area.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the bill as presented to the house is in practically the same terms as the bill which was passed last year to authorize the construction of a railway from Sherridon to Lynn Lake in the province of Manitoba. I notice that there are one or two differences, but they are not of great 55704-124
Canadian National Railways importance. I presume that this is a standard type of bill authorizing the construction of a branch line.
I was pleased to hear the minister say today that the Aluminum company have undertaken some obligation in connection with this construction. He did not make that fact so clear last night, but it appears from his remarks today that they are undertaking some financial obligation, as was done by Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited in the case of the Lynn Lake line.
However in the course of his remarks today the minister did not deal with my query of last night as to why the Department of Defence Production are not assisting in this construction, as they did in connection with the Lynn Lake line. The figures given today for the cost of operating the line do not indicate that there is likely to be very much profit. Some pretty close budgeting has been done-some pretty close figuring-on a scheme of this kind, which has not yet commenced. The minister has announced that during the first five years after the railway is built there will be a profit of $1,100 for the five-year period. I hope he is right. But it probably will not be any more, or he would have said so. Then, even for the second five years the net operating revenue is estimated at only $323,000.
I submit those figures show that the Canadian National Railways should have assistance from the Department of Defence Production in this construction. If a certain amount of assistance were given it would be possible for the railway to operate at a profit. Surely this great production of aluminum is of value in our defence preparations. That other department paid last year almost $5 million, or nearly one-third of the total cost of the construction of the Lynn Lake line.
In addition, I notice from the annual report of the Department of Defence Production, which we received today, that they are helping with other developments, none of which is more important than this Alcan development. For example we find at page 32 of the report, under the non-ferrous metals division-and I presume this would be the division under which aluminum would come -the following paragraph:
The division also kept informed of, and assisted industry in, the development of Canada's natural resources, in so far as non-ferrous metals, iron ore, and some non-metallic minerals, such as asbestos and quartz crystals, are concerned. In addition to arranging for priority assistance in this field, the division took an active part in several projects undertaken with a view to increasing production of certain strategic materials.

Canadian National Railways Aluminum, of course, is a strategic material. The report continues:
Among these was the reactivation of the Emerald tungsten mine in British Columbia ensuring adequate supplies to meet Canada's defence needs. To stimulate the production of cobalt, an incentive buying price schedule for northern Ontario ores was instituted by the government early in 1951 and guaranteed for three years.
In fairness to the Canadian National Railways I do hope that consideration will be given to having the Department of Defence Production pay some of the cost of the construction of this line.
Incidentally, the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) is also very interesting; and it would be helpful if the minister could tell the house what thought has been given to extending the railway in the Peace river area down to Prince George in British Columbia. This would complete the picture of railway transportation in that part of British Columbia. This development has been much too long delayed, and I hope there are some plans in contemplation for this other construction.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker,
I heartily agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) who has suggested that assistance should be given by the Department of Defence Production.
This discussion brings to mind an historic moment in the history of Canada. In 1874 discussions took place in the House of Commons as to the final plan or route for the Canadian Pacific Railway. After everybody had had his say, Sir John A. Macdonald, the great leader of the party so well represented by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, rose in his place to speak. At that time Sir John was in opposition. His speech, as mine will be on this occasion, was brief: I have at least that in common with the great first prime minister of Canada.
After consultation with certain people he said, "There is no doubt that the road should go along the line discovered by Alexander Mackenzie, and that it should pass down through the Peace river area, through the Nechako country, and so on." He put his finger on the map, where Fort George was located, and said, "That is the centre; that is where the rivers meet; that is where the trails cross. That some day will be a great city." Fort George is today Prince George; and of course it is an outstanding centre in the Cariboo electoral district which I have the honour to represent. I mention it in this connection because the Cariboo country is the 
hinterland to Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Vancouver and the other great coastal ports on the Pacific.
I am supporting this measure because u brings to fruition the dream that, no doubt, that great pioneer statesman had of the development of the interior of British Columbia. I refer not so much to the development that has taken place along the 49th parallel in the southwest corner of British Columbia, but rather to the heart of the country where most of the wealth is located, where we see the great plains and the great timber areas, where we find the waterpower and the minerals.
That is where we should have a metropolis, the place where Sir John placed his finger, at the confluence of the Nechako and the Fraser, the site of the present city of Prince George.
The building of this industry at Kitimat is probably the greatest event in northern British Columbia since the building of the first railway. I commend the minister upon his having appreciated quickly the need for rail extensions there, and the building of this Kitimat cut-off. I would hope that later he might see his way clear to have the Canadian National Railways build a branch into the Peace river country. I know that Premier Johnson of British Columbia has that in mind. The people of British Columbia are united in their desire to see a railway in the Peace river country, the great agricultural area in which few people live, but a place where all kinds of grains and fodder can be grown. Indeed, that area can produce most of the products grown here in Ontario, with the possible exception of tree fruits.
That area remains to be tapped by rail. If a town is built at Kitimat, and if this branch railway is to be as profitable as indicated, then there must be back of it and back of Kitimat an extensive farming industry. There must be dairy and other products to supply a big industrial population. Recently we had a discovery of oil and large quantities of natural gas in the Peace river country. I believe that today consideration is being given to running branches from the proposed pipe line to Vancouver to serve Prince Rupert, Kitimat and other places on the northern Pacific coast.
I think also of the great development which has taken place in the interior of British Columbia north of the 60th parallel within the confines of the riding represented by the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). During the last year or so there have been vast developments in all kinds of

minerals, particularly uranium, oil and natural gas. That country has no rail connection with the Pacific coast and I visualize the construction of a line, possibly down through Grimshaw in Alberta, the continuation of the Northern Alberta railway over into the Peace river bloc in British Columbia, with a further extension from there by Canadian National Railways to Pacific tidewater.
These great smelters and refineries will just naturally be located around Prince Rupert, Kitimat and other points on the Pacific coast. I think it would be wrong to think otherwise. The construction of railroads in Canada is a matter of great national importance today, just as it was in 1874. We are entering a new era of discovery, mechanical devices, invention and general development.
Last night we had as a guest in this House of Commons the president of the Canadian Pacific Air Lines Limited. In the early thirties when so many young men were having to go into the unemployment camps wondering what they were going to do, Grant McCon-achie thought that it would be a good idea to become an aviator. He had been firing a locomotive on the Canadian Northern railroad. He learned to fly an aeroplane and went up into the north country where he flew out furs, fish and everything that offered. He carried these commodities down to Prince George, Edmonton and other rail centres.
From that small beginning he developed a great business. I am very happy that I had some little part in getting him launched out of Ashcroft with the first air mail service out of the Cariboo. From that small beginning he built up a great air fleet which now spans the Pacific to Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand as well as points in South America. Great wealth has been brought to this country through the operation of that air service as part of our transportation picture now being worked out in the northwest and toward the completion of which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) is making such a great contribution.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member was asking why a differentiation was being made between this branch line and the Sherridon-Lynn Lake line where a contribution of $5 million or some such amount was made by the Department of Defence Production. In answer may I say that Canadian National Railways do not deal with branch lines on a set pattern. They are considered in accordance with the circumstances that arise and each case is decided separately.
There are reasons why in this case there should not be a contribution by defence production. First, no request was made by
55704-124J
Canadian National Railways Canadian National Railways to the government and therefore no opportunity arose. Next, I think there is all the difference in the world-I say this with deference to my hon. friend-between this and the other line.
There was a great shortage of nickel-copper production such as was discovered in the northern part of Manitoba, certainly on this continent. The situation was such that it was felt that defence production should contribute that amount, not only for that reason but also because of the length of the line which is several times the length of this line.
There is not the same shortage of aluminum. We have the development at Shipshaw and there are a number of developments in the United States. There was not the same urgency for this development as there was in the other case. Even if there was a contribution I cannot see that it would make much difference because it would be made out of the revolving fund of defence production.


Howard Charles Green: The position of the railroad would be bettered, would it not?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think it would. The estimated traffic operations for the first five-year period indicates that there will be a small profit.


Howard Charles Green: Does that include interest on the loan from the government?


Lionel Chevrier: The position of the Sherridon-Lynn Lake line was not the same.


Howard Charles Green: What about the Peace river outlet?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think that I should be asked to deal with a matter of that kind under this legislation. This is specific legislation dealing with a branch line from Kitimat to Terrace. When the government determines as to whether it will construct a line into the Peace river country it will announce its policy in the usual way. I suppose that when my estimates are up I shall be asked certain questions and I shall be glad to deal with the matter at that time.


Howard Charles Green: Why not tell us now?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think this is an opportune time to deal with it. This is legislation for a specific branch line and I think it should be treated accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
1964	HOUSE OF
New Westminster Harbour Commission HARBOUR COMMISSIONS


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners, to extend the boundaries of the harbour, and to provide for a loan of one million, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the harbour commissioners for the purpose of constructing additional dockage facilities in the harbour.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this resolution. The first relates to the extension of the boundaries of the harbour of New Westminster.
The New Westminster harbour commissioners were incorporated by chapter 158 of the statutes of 1913, and were given jurisdiction over the harbour of New Westminster from the eastern end of Douglas island to the Sandheads. In 1938 the harbour was extended to include a small area lying between the harbour of New Westminster and the North Fraser harbour. The present boundaries are set out in chapter 37 of the statutes of 1938.
Certain waterlot properties in the Fraser river and the Pitt river which were formerly administered by the Department of Resources and Development as part of the railway belt lands were transferred to the administration of the Department of Transport in 1951. It is now proposed to extend the boundaries of the harbour to include these waterlots which will be placed under the jurisdiction of the harbour commissioners and will be used for industrial sites in connection with waterborne transportation. The boundaries of the harbour would be extended eastward in the Fraser river to Kanaka creek and northeastward in the Pitt river as far as Pitt lake.
The second part of the resolution seeks authority for a loan of $1,250,000 to the harbour commissioners to enable the commissioners to construct additional dockage facilities in the harbour. With respect to the proposed loan, the harbour commissioners represent that there is not sufficient dockage at the port of New Westminster to handle present traffic, and there is no publicly-owned wharf terminal. Five private berths are owned and operated by Pacific Coast Terminals Limited. Two city-owned wharves are operated under lease by private operators. On the south side of the harbour across the Fraser river there are two berths owned by Fraser Mills and three berths at the grain elevator leased to private interests. A number (Mr. Chevrier.]

of shipping agencies have made representations to the commissioners pointing out the insufficiency of dock facilities for present and future traffic requirements.
In 1946 the city was surveyed by Harland Bartholemes for a future town planning scheme including the waterfront. This survey envisaged a frontage as now proposed extending eastward from the present city dock frontage to Pattullo bridge. On the basis of this report, the city wishes in time to release all interest in its waterfront property and with this objective in mind has approached the harbour commissioners to take over the most easterly portion of its docks. The city is also prepared to convey to the crown the adjacent waterfront property lying eastward for a distance of 1,500 feet for the development of additional dock frontage. The commissioners propose to construct dockage facilities on this property and have asked for the loan of $1,250,000 for this purpose.
The port of New Westminster has made substantial progress in recent years which is reflected in the increase of traffic moving in and out of this port. In 1951 there were 394 deep sea arrivals in port with a deep sea freight tonnage in and out of 936,320 tons. In addition there were 1,924 coastal arrivals with a coastal freight tonnage in and out of 2,120,000 tons. This represents an increase in tonnage over 1950.
United States defence authorities consider that this port would be a logical operating point for defence shipments in view of its rail connections to United States points via Great Northern, Northern Pacific and other American railroads.
With the major industrial development now proceeding in British Columbia and the adjoining province of Alberta it is essential that adequate deep sea dock facilities be constructed to take care of traffic moving in and out of the port of New Westminster.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition are very happy to support any development of the port of New Westminster. As a matter of fact it was under a Conservative prime minister, the late Sir Robert Borden, that the New Westminster harbour commission was set up in the year 1913. The statement just made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) seems to make out a very good case for the proposed legislation. I wonder whether the government is going to give any assistance in the erection or installation of these docks. I took it from his statement that the New Westminster harbour commissioners would have to find all the money and that there would be no assistance from the government.

This is one of the great harbours of Canada; furthermore it is a fresh water harbour and has that advantage over salt water harbours. The manner in which it has been developed reflects great credit on the different harbour commissioners and on the citizens of New Westminster. In British Columbia we believe that the city of New Westminster is more or less in a class by itself. Mind you, I am not leaving out of comparison my own city of Vancouver. However, from the start the city of New Westminster has been blessed with citizens possessed of the highest civic spirit. Hon. members will have heard of their different athletic teams such as the Salmon-belly lacrosse teams. Every boy in New Westminster is supposed to be born with a lacrosse stick in his hand. Down through the years there has been this wonderful spirit and one of the results has been the New Westminster harbour development. Therefore we are very glad to be able to say a few words in support of the proposal.
After the bill has had second reading I presume it will be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I think that is wise because that is the best way for members of the house to become acquainted with the various financial and other details which cannot be adequately studied in the house. I hope the minister will move to refer the bill to the standing committee.


Mr.  W. M. Moii@New Westminster: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in support of this measure. As the sitting member for New Westminster, known throughout the whole world as the port of New Westminster, I appreciate very much, as will the citizens of New Westminster, the kind remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). No doubt in his younger days he has faced New Westminster lacrosse teams on many occasions years ago when they were known throughout the whole world and won championships throughout the world.


Mr. Knowles:: He is not that old.


Mr. Mott:: He is old enough to have played lacrosse and they are still playing it. I should like to mention something else that goes back a little farther in the history of the port of New Westminster. Around the year that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned, 1913, the population of New Westminster was approximately 10,000 people. Nevertheless they did look to the future. They could see what that great river meant and the great development that could take place from the point of view of being one of the leading harbours of the world. The council submitted a bylaw to the people involving an
New Westminster Harbour Commission expenditure of $500,000 to start building docks. The first two docks built at New Westminster were constructed then, and from that time onward even sailing ships have come up the river to take on cargoes such as timber and lumber which they carried to all corners of the world.
The harbour has grown since that time until last year there were 394 deep sea ships in port. That represented sixty ships more than in 1950. The latest report I have for the year 1952 shows that from January 1 to March 31 there have been 104 deep sea ships in port compared with ninety-six for the same period last year. The traffic on the river is still increasing. The harbour is about twenty miles from the mouth of the river, and there is a space of about twenty miles on each side of the river that could and probably will be one of the greatest industrial empires on the Pacific coast. It ties in with four railways, the Canadian National, Canadian Pacific, Great Northern and Milwaukee. The two United States railways come into New Westminster before they go to Vancouver, the same as the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. It is really the first port of entry from the United States, and it has grown very quickly during the last twenty years.
I support the extension of the harbour limits already mentioned by the minister, and which no doubt will be explained in the bill. There has been difficulty in the upper reaches of the river owing to the fact that no one has control. Some two years ago I had a letter from one of the large industries in that area. There was ice on the river; they were frozen in, and the employees were laid off for about ten days. I believe they also lost a tug trying to break the ice around their booming grounds, and altogether it cost them about $35,000. At that time there was no one to go to. The dredging is looked after by the Department of Public Works with headquarters at New Westminster, but when it comes to difficulties in regard to navigation on the river they all look to the New Westminster harbour commission. With that idea in mind I support the extension of the harbour in order that there might be proper policing, and so that in winter if it is necessary to go beyond the present boundaries of the harbour in order to break the ice and keep the river open, that may be done by the New Westminster harbour board. We have not been able to do that in the past, so I think this extension of the boundaries is a move in the right direction.
I am very glad to support this bill. I appreciate very much the kind remarks that have been made. I will have more to say
1966	HOUSE OF
New Westminster Harbour Commission when this matter goes to committee, since I am a member of that committee; and for the information of hon. members, especially those of the opposition, I may say that I understand the chairman of the harbour commission will be coming here to attend the meetings of that committee, when I am sure any questions we may have in mind can be asked and answered at that time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a
member of this group, Mr. Speaker, and a member from British Columbia, I want to make some brief remarks on this bill. I listened with interest to the minister, to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), and to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mott). Before proceeding with my remarks I must say I endorse and support everything said in connection with this development by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.
Not only have I heard of this development in this house this afternoon. On occasions when I have visited New Westminster I have had an opportunity to see the docks and watch the loading and unloading of ships. I have been told of the enterprise of the early residents of that city and of the council of 1913, which placed before the residents a bylaw calling for the expenditure of $500,000, which was a large sum of money for a city with a population of about 10,000 to raise. I think the developments in New Westminster, particularly the harbour developments, are a credit to the first and succeeding councils who have dealt with these matters. In fairness to the hon. member for New Westminster I should say that I have heard even his political opponents pay tribute to the work he did while mayor of New Westminster in promoting harbour improvements.
This bill appeals to this group, because it has to do with a development which resulted from co-operative community action, by the people themselves. Certainly these developments should receive the endorsation of all across this country, and the financial support that will be provided by this legislation. The port of New Westminster is of particular interest to the southeastern portion of British Columbia, because that is the port through which flow many of the products of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, fruit from the orchards of the interior of British Columbia and other commodities produced in that area. They flow through that port because of the improved facilities provided through the enterprise of succeeding councils of that city. Therefore this group wholeheartedly supports and endorses this bill.


George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, I remember being in New Westminster in 1913. At that time there was very little navigation on the Fraser river, just the odd Indian canoe or a lumber barge going up to Fraser Mills. That great, broad, beautiful river was developed through the imagination and energy of the citizens of New Westminster. When this harbour board was first established the commissioners served without salary. It was a work of love on their part. The project had to succeed, and I am not surprised to learn the great number of deep sea ships that now anchor in the Fraser river. In my opinion there is no other harbour in the world with greater possibilities. Now that harbour is being extended many miles inland. It will now take in the Pitt river which flows into the Fraser. At the confluence of the Pitt and Fraser there is a natural site for a metropolis. The Pitt begins up in Pitt lake, and is a great fresh water flood. So I believe this bill is going to contribute greatly to the industrial development of British Columbia.
In this connection I would like to mention the work that has been done in the development of the Fraser river by the Daily Columbian of New Westminster, formerly owned and edited by a gentleman who was a very distinguished member of this house, the late Hon. J. D. Taylor, and now edited by Miss Dorothy Taylor. It was under the direction of Mr. Taylor that the incorporation of the harbour board was brought about, during the regime of Sir Robert Borden. Mr. Taylor was a native son of the Ottawa valley, one of those young Canadians with lots of courage who went west and made himself a fortune, also gaining great fame as a national speaker. This was one of the projects very dear to the heart of the late Mr. Taylor and his managing editor, the late J. W. Cunningham, who in those early days was drawing up blueprints and plans and publishing advertisements, trying to get new industries to locate in this little community. I think also of the late Mayor Keary and also of Hon. A. Wells Gray, who was mayor of the city and provincial minister of lands, who practically gave his life in community service to the royal city of New Westminster. So it gives me great pleasure to be able to offer a word of support for this resolution.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister answer my question concerning any government contribution to the cost of erecting these docks?


Lionel Chevrier: The government is making a loan of $1,250,000 for that very purpose. It is the desire and intention of the harbour commissioners of New Westminster to build dockage facilities upon land which they will get from the city; and this amount is for that purpose.


Howard Charles Green: There is not to be an outright contribution from the government?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there is not.


Howard Charles Green: I am wondering about that,
because in many cases the government actually builds docks. I wonder why in this case there is no contribution by the government.


Lionel Chevrier: This is an entirely different case. The government builds docks in its national harbours-


Howard Charles Green: And in other harbours as well.


Lionel Chevrier: No, the government does
not build docks in other harbours, except through the Department of Public Works. I am talking now of the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. The harbours that are under our jurisdiction have been built in part, and I would think for the most part- I think now of Toronto, for instance-by the funds and revenues obtained from the commission itself. This is certainly the case here. The government has been of great assistance to the harbour of New Westminster from the point of view of public works and other facilities with which I am not fully familiar at this time. I do not think that the government has neglected this harbour in any sense of the word.


Howard Charles Green: What about the extension of the boundaries? I understood the minister to say that the boundary would be extended right up the Pitt river to Pitt lake. As I read the act which is now in force, the jurisdiction only goes to the mouth of the Pitt river. I may be wrong in that.


Lionel Chevrier: At the moment the jurisdiction goes to the east end of Douglas island, which is at the mouth of the Pitt river, and it is proposed under this bill to extend the jurisdiction northeastward along the Pitt river to Grant Narrows, and eastward along the Fraser to a point that I mentioned earlier which is in the vicinity of Fort Langley.


Howard Charles Green: What are the respective
distances?


Lionel Chevrier: I would have to guess at that from looking at the map. This is not a scale map, but I would think the jurisdiction is about half of that which the harbour already has.
New Westminster Harbour Commission


Howard Charles Green: Have there been any representations made by municipal councils in this area to which the jurisdiction is being extended?


Lionel Chevrier: No, there have not.


Mr. Pearkes:: One may expect a reasonable development and expansion of the port as a result of this jurisdiction, but one of the limiting factors in the expansion of not only the port of New Westminster but other ports in British Columbia has been the lack of suitable dredges to keep the channels and the approaches to the ports open. Is any provision being made for an increase in the number of dredges that can be made available in British Columbia?


Lionel Chevrier: Not under this legislation, but as my hon. friend knows that is a matter for the Minister of Public Works and I understand that provision is being made in his estimates for certain dredges.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 193, respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a second time.


Lionel Chevrier: I was wondering if the house would consent to the second reading of the bill now, and I shall give my reason for that request. If there is any objection, I shall withdraw it. The reason is that the railway bill has been referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. This bill will also be referred to that committee, and I understand that it is the intention of the chairman of the New Westminster harbour commission and one other member to be here next week. As the house knows, Thursday and Friday have been set aside for the budget resolutions, so it will be impossible to consider this measure on those days. It is a simple bill that can be broken down into two parts, one having to do with the extension of the boundaries and the other concerning the loan of $1,250,000. There will be an opportunity for discussion when the measure comes back from the committee. If the house were willing to give it second reading and refer it to the committee, I think it would be very helpful.


Howard Charles Green: I am very sorry, but we have a duty here at least to look at these bills before they are passed. We have not got the bill, and there has been no opportunity to study it. We cannot agree to give any bill second reading without seeing it. This bill can be brought on for second reading on Monday.

Aeronautics Act
I do not think there will be any difficulty in getting it passed in short order, so that there will be no inconvenience whatever to the chairman of the New Westminster harbour commission.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house.



AERONAUTICS ACT


Lionel Chevrier: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act to provide that the governor in council may make regulations for the zoning of airports and also to provide for the payment of compensation in respect of any property injuriously affected by the application of the said regulations.
He said: There are two parts to this resolution, Mr. Speaker, which is concerned with a measure to amend the Aeronautics Act. The first part relates to the making of regulations to provide for the zoning of airports. The second part deals with the payment of compensation in respect of any property injuriously affected by the application of the proposed regulations.
Dealing with the first part of the resolution, it must be apparent to all that airport approaches should be protected. At the present time there are no regulations restricting the use of lands in the vicinity of airports or limiting the height of buildings or other structures which are hazards to the landing or taking off of aircraft. During the last war the airport zoning regulations, 1939, were made under the War Measures Act. These regulations applied to military airports and definitely restricted the height of structures and use of land adjacent to these airports. These wartime regulations afforded necessary protection to aircraft using the airports but are no longer in force. The only means of zoning airports at the present time is given by the Expropriation Act which authorizes the taking of land or any interest therein for public purposes. This method is not considered adequate to meet present-day requirements of airports.
By airport zoning is meant the division of certain land adjacent to or surrounding an airport into definite areas in which the height of buildings or other structures, and objects of natural growth, is limited and the use of the land is restricted according to definite plans so that the airport approaches are protected from dangerous obstructions. The need for protection of both the aircraft and the

public from dangerous obstructions in the vicinity of airports is obvious. The building of houses and other structures on locations from which later on they may have to be removed should be discouraged.
In most instances, airports have been located in sparsely settled surroundings, but the growing importance of air travel and the expansion of cities have caused a movement to locate various buildings adjacent to airports in recent years. If the height of these new structures is reasonably regulated so as to prevent them from interfering with the use of the approaches to the airport, the public interest in the airport will be protected, and the owners of property adjacent to the airport can make the best use of their land by adapting it to purposes which conform to this public interest. The recent casualties in populated areas where aircraft have landed out of control causing loss of life and extensive damage indicate that great care should be taken not only in the location of suitable airport sites but also in regulating the erection of buildings in the vicinity of an airport.
Turning now to the second part of the resolution which is complementary to the first, it is intended to make provision for the payment of compensation to persons whose property is injuriously affected by the application of the zoning restrictions. The introduction of airport zoning will permit the orderly development of land in the vicinity of an airport without danger to air navigation. Generally, this will be beneficial to property owners in the area but it is recognized that in some cases hardships may occur to property owners who have acquired land or have planned developments on property immediately adjacent to airports for purposes which no longer would be feasible under the restrictions imposed by zoning regulations. It is intended to take care of these cases by providing for compensation.	This will apply
in regard to future structures which are dangerous to aircraft. The removal of obstructions now on the land will be dealt with under the normal procedures of expropriation for which compensation is provided under the Expropriation Act.	It is not
the intention of the measure which I propose to introduce to have a retroactive application but to prevent the creation of future hazards. The zoning regulations, therefore, would be merely preventive as regards future action.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we have two suggestions to make with regard to this measure. The first is that the bill, when it has been introduced, should be allowed to stand on the order paper for a reasonable length of time in order that

the municipalities concerned may study it and may be in a position to make representations. This measure will affect a great many municipalities and we think it will affect quite a large number of people. We would urge that time be given for the terms to be studied by people across the country who are interested. We also think that, when the bill gets second reading, it should be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for careful study.
I presume that the bill will be somewhat similar to Bill No. 197 which was given first reading in this house on April 12 of last year. That bill of course dealt only with the zoning. There was no provision for the payment of compensation. I would ask the minister to explain, when the house goes into committee on the resolution, the type of airports which will be covered. Will the measure apply only to those airports where there is instrument landing or will it cover all of the airports in the country, large and small? It should also be possible for the minister to give us the approximate number of airports which will toe affected.
What consideration has been given to the legislative jurisdiction of the dominion? Here we have a measure which will interfere with property and civil rights. A man may own property adjacent to an airport. He may have bought that property for the purpose of erecting a factory or some other type of building, and is suddenly met with these regulations which prevent him from carrying out his intention. In a measure of this type there would seem to be a conflict with the jurisdiction of the provinces. We should like to know what consideration has been given to that particular side of the matter.
We would also ask the minister to explain in more detail how he proposes to compensate these owners. As he has mentioned, the present system has been to expropriate the land that is required. That procedure raises many difficulties. The owners usually think they are not getting the right amount for their property. I expect there will be even greater difficulty in working out a system of compensation for damage arising as a result of these zoning regulations.
Many of these airports are owned by the municipalities. Will the compensation be paid by the government in full, or will there be some responsibility on the municipalities to contribute to that compensation?
These are some of the questions which come to mind in connection with the resolution. When the house goes into committee I hope the minister will give answers to those various questions.
Aeronautics Act


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the minister for bringing in this resolution at this time. I think it would be an excellent thing to standardize the regulations concerning airports in place of leaving them to the various municipalities, as has been the practice so far.
I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to make a suggestion. In the Aeronautics Act, as it is now, there, are provisions that enable the department to make certain grants to help in the construction of airports in certain municipalities which cannot afford to build them themselves. These provisions of the law do not provide for help being granted in the acquisition of land on which to build an airport, but only for a grant to help in the transformation of the land into an airport afterwards.
In my county a situation has arisen lately where one municipality had a great deal of difficulty in raising enough money to buy the land. I think the department would have been disposed to help, but unfortunately the act did not give it the necessary power to do so. I should like to suggest to the minister that he might consider amending the act to include these powers to help not only in the construction of the airport itself but also in the acquisition of the land.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of us in Canada are justly proud of the wonderful safety record that has been established by our various Canadian air lines. Other hon. members are probably in the same position that I am in when I say that I have almost been able to persuade the members of my own family that it is now safer to fly in this country than it is to travel by any other means. Because this bill seems to have as its purpose the desire to take measures to assure that that safety record will be maintained and even improved, it certainly meets with our approval. There are a number of questions that occur to one, but most of them can be asked when we get into committee.
From what the minister says, I take it that one of the reasons which have prompted the government to bring in the bill at this time is concern for safety aroused by some of the tragic accidents that have occurred in the United States, particularly where planes have been taking off or landing at airports in thickly populated centres. That being the case, it seems to be highly desirable that favourable consideration should be given to this measure. When we get into committee I shall be interested in learning from the

Aeronautics Act
minister whether, since the War Measures Act became inoperative and the zoning regulations under that act therefore lapsed, there have been any cases where structures have been built which would have contravened those regulations. If so, I would be interested in knowing whether the regulations to be made under this act will be retroactive to the extent that any structures that have been built since the suspension of the War Measures Act will have to be removed or altered in conformity with this bill.
I think, too, we are interested in the other side of the picture. Perhaps today the minister might deal with this phase of the matter. For example, are there any provisions in the bill that impose restrictions upon air traffic, as well? From time to time complaints are made by people in some areas as to the route that planes follow. Some folks who try to sleep at night feel that the night planes always come in just over their homes.
I realize the problem involved here. For example, in my own city of Winnipeg we are proud of the fact that our airport is so accessible to the downtown area. We know of course that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have the airport close to town and not have the aircraft fly overhead. However I have received a number of complaints from patients in Deer Lodge hospital, wondering if something could not be done to reduce to some extent the disturbance the patients in that hospital feel they are called upon to endure.
All told, the bill would seem to be a commendable one. I am sure the minister will see the reasonableness of the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that the bill stay on the order paper for a while, so that those who are interested may have time to look into it. But we are glad to give the measure our support.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should answer at this time some of the questions put to me.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra made two suggestions, the first of which was that the measure should be allowed to stand over. I would have no objection to that, but I would remind him and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who also made the suggestion, that the bill stood over for more than a year. Bill 197-


Howard Charles Green: That was only part of the present bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Bill 197 stood over because it broke new ground. In other words, it provided for the zoning of airports in a certain area. Because it was stood over we received a large number of representations from municipalities. And from those representations-and they came not only from municipalities, but from other interested persons- evolved this bill. However, I would repeat that I am not making any commitments that that will be the case. Personally, however, I would have no serious objection to it.
The next question was, to what type of airports will this apply? It is difficult to give the number of airports to which these restrictions would apply, but it is not difficult to say the kind to which they would apply. As I see it, all the transcontinental airports would be subject to them, as well as many of the airports that lie on the north-south routes which are considered as major airports.


Howard Charles Green: What does the minister mean by the north-south routes?


Lionel Chevrier: I mean the routes which go from north to south. For instance, Goose and Gander lie to the north of Halifax and Sydney-likewise on the west coast, and likewise in certain parts of central Canada. Then, unquestionably, there are military airports, perhaps a large number of them, to which regulations of this kind would apply. Offhand I can think of some 20 or 25 to which unquestionably the restrictions would apply.
I think consideration would have to be given to the closeness of a field to an urban area, and there would be other considerations as well.


Howard Charles Green: Each airport would be considered on its own merits?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right. Special consideration will be given to each airport. For instance, in the compilation of these restrictions special studies were made of the conditions at Dorval and Malton.
In order to answer some of the other questions raised it would be necessary to give the restrictions. I hesitate to give them at this time. They will be given and explained during consideration of the bill. Generally speaking, however, they can be divided into three classes: Restrictions which would apply horizontally from the centre of an airport to about 13,000 feet outside the centre; restrictions which would apply to the approaches on a sloping plane; and restrictions which would also apply to the sides of the approaches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are restrictions as to height?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This would of course be much more stringent in respect of a plane which would go up and down than in respect of a horizontal plane.
I could go into more detail, but I do not think I should at this stage. A question was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre concerning retroactivity. I do not think anyone will be affected in so far as retroactivity is concerned-certainly not at the two airports to which we have given consideration. I know that in the first group of restrictions no buildings will have to be taken down, nor will any buildings contravene the restrictions as we intend to put them into effect. Buildings however may contravene the other two groups to which I have made reference, and I think it will be adequately covered by the terms of the bill. I was asked what consideration was given to the jurisdiction of the federal government. I believe the jurisdiction of the federal government has been pretty clearly established by two cases-first, in re the aeronautics case, which was a decision of the privy council, and which established the jurisdiction of the federal government in respect of aerial navigation under section 132 of the British North America Act.
Then, again, that jurisdiction was more than amply confirmed under the peace-order-and-good-government clause of the British North America Act in the Johanesson case. This case came from the Winnipeg courts, and went I believe to the appellate division of the Manitoba courts, and finally to the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe it is a unanimous decision, and indicates clearly that, with reference to this question, we have jurisdiction.
In the case of Johanesson et al. v. Rural Municipality of West St. Paul et al.-this case is reported at (1951) D L.R., volume 4, page 609-the headnote states:
Aeronautics or aerial navigation is a matter falling within the exclusive legislative authority of the dominion parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada and it includes within its scope the power to license, regulate and locate aerodromes. Consequently, provincial authorizing legislation, and a municipal by-law passed thereunder, dealing with licensing and prohibiting of aerodromes are ultra vires. Moreover, the field has been occupied by the Aeronautics Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 3.
How do we propose to compensate those injuriously affected by these regulations? If we proceed under the Exchequer Court Act, as we intend to, the compensation rules are clearly set out. I do not think I am required to deal with that at this stage.
The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine raised a point which I know is vital to him and to others in that area or in other areas 55704-125J
Aeronautics Act
where the population is more isolated and segregated than in the central parts of Canada. I am not in position to say what the decision would be under legislation of this character. I can tell him that his and similar cases will be considered on their merits.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say whether this would apply to structures built since the regulations under the War Measures Act were suspended and which would have been contrary to those regulations had they still been in effect?


Lionel Chevrier: I thought I answered that a moment ago in the negative. I speak from memory, but I do not think that structures built since the zoning regulations under the War Measures Act lapsed would be affected. I am referring only to Malton and Dorval where I do not think any building will contravene the regulations in the first group. The regulations under the second and third groups are far more stringent and I am not prepared to deal with them now.


George Randolph Pearkes: May I ask for a little more detail regarding the type of airport concerned. The minister has referred to transcontinental airports and airports on the north and south routes. But there are also feeder services coming into those transcontinental airports. Would an airport served only by a non-scheduled service be included?


Lionel Chevrier: This will apply to construction whether the airport is used by non-scheduled or scheduled lines. It will depend upon the proximity of the airport to an urban centre. Dealing more specifically with the first part of my hon. friend's question, I could give the names of the airports that would be affected.


George Randolph Pearkes: That would give us some indication.


Lionel Chevrier: Dorval, Malton, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Quebec, Goose, Gander, Moncton, Sydney.


Howard Charles Green: Lethbridge?


Lionel Chevrier: I think that Lethbridge would be affected.


George Randolph Pearkes: Patricia Bay?


Lionel Chevrier: Patricia Bay, Dartmouth, the lakehead. Those are some fifteen or so airports that come to my mind. Then there are a number of military airports where jets will be operated which will also be affected. We have not given consideration to those at the moment, but we have given consideration to Uplands. There will not be any

Aeronautics Act
difficulty about zoning there because that is some distance from the city.


Mr. Jeffery:: Will the London airport be affected? I ask that because I recently attended a meeting of various bodies which were considering possible restrictions.


Lionel Chevrier: It would be.


Mr. Kellyer:: Would the airport at Downs-view be affected?


Lionel Chevrier: I think it would.


Howard Charles Green: Many of these airports are owned by municipalities.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, that is right.


Howard Charles Green: What will be the responsibility of the municipality in connection with the payment of compensation?


Lionel Chevrier: I think that is a matter which might be considered when we are dealing with the bill. I would rather not get into that discussion on the resolution stage. There will be two divisions to the bill, one dealing with restrictions and the other dealing with compensation and I think that would be an opportune time to deal with this.


Howard Charles Green: Is there to be some responsibility on the municipality for the payment of compensation?


Lionel Chevrier: I would think so.


Howard Charles Green: The government is not paying all the compensation?


Lionel Chevrier: I hesitate to answer that at this time. I think that is really a matter which should be considered when the bill is before us.


Mr. McLure:: Will this affect the airport at Charlottetown?


Lionel Chevrier: As I envisage the regulations at the moment I do not think they would affect any buildings within the restricted area at Charlottetown.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this bill in any sense a two-way street? The minister made it clear that it will impose restrictions upon property around airports but will it also impose restrictions upon aircraft flying over the area around an airport?


Lionel Chevrier: It does.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister sure about that? Does this bill impose restrictions on aircraft?


Lionel Chevrier: I misunderstood my hon. friend. This bill does not affect aircraft.


Howard Charles Green: Has any study been given to the situation at the Vancouver airport?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, there has.


Howard Charles Green: Will it affect any structures which are already up?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not able to say.


Howard Charles Green: Is that airport being taken over by the dominion government?


Lionel Chevrier: The status quo remains. My hon. friend is familiar with the position. I have not received any further representations from the city which knows the position of the department.


Howard Charles Green: What is that position?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think this is the place to discuss it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Chevrier thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 194, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. J. J. McCann (for ihe Minisier of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.


Howard Charles Green: I believe this bill is in exactly the same phraseology as bills which have been passed in preceding years. If there is no change, we have no objection.


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to ihe Minister of Transport):: I thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). There is no change and the remuneration has been consistent for a few years. I think members of the house are pretty familiar with the measures that are involved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary assistant and the ministers present know, it has been our view in this group for some time that it would be preferable to have the audit of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways done by the Auditor General of Canada. That is not to suggest that there is anything inadequate about the work done by the firm of George A. Touche and Company which the government has nominated for this job from time to time for quite a few years now, but we feel it would be more appropriate to have this work done by the person, together with his staff, who is the direct appointee and direct servant of the parliament of Canada.

I recognize that it would require additions to the staff of the Auditor General for him to take on this heavy work, but there is no doubt that that could be done. We are conscious of the fact that the reports which the Auditor General makes to parliament on the public accounts of the country are set up in a little different form from auditors' reports prepared by private firms such as George A. Touche and Company, either for Canadian National Railways or for any other business which they may be auditing. That seems to follow from the very nature of the case. We would expect that the only interest such a firm of auditors has is in determining whether the accounts are correct. I think the parliamentary assistant will bear me out that the printed report emanating from this firm of accountants which is laid before parliament is merely a statement that they have examined the accounts of Canadian National Railways and the various subsidiaries and have found that everything is in order. We have no doubt of that, but on the other hand I would point out that when the Auditor General reports to parliament on the public accounts he seems to go at matters in a slightly different way. I confess I am not a professional accountant, and there may be points that can be raised in connection with this matter, but it seems to me it would be more useful to parliament to have, so far as the Canadian National Railways is concerned, statements such as those that are given to us by the Auditor General with respect to the public accounts.
As the house knows, this suggestion has been made to the government on quite a number of occasions. If I may say so I think the best and most exhaustive speech in support of this proposal, the one revealing the greatest amount of research on the matter, was made some years ago by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) who is now parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. He urged most strongly in a very exhaustive speech some years ago that this change should be made. We have proposed it in the form of an amendment to the second reading of similar bills on a number of occasions. In view of the large number of members who are out of the house today attending important committees, the suggestion of moving an amendment at this stage would of course hardly seem appropriate. However, I again make the suggestion that the government should give further consideration to the idea of having the auditing of the accounts of Canadian National Railways done not by an outside private firm nominated by the government but by the
Canadian National Railways-Auditors Auditor General of Canada who is appointed by and is a servant of the parliament of this country.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Auditors.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to tell us whether any further consideration has been given by the government to the suggestion that I have just repeated?


William Moore Benidickson: The suggestion that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has made is one that is under constant consideration. However, I am informed that the chief competitive railway organization in this country maintains an audit by the same accounting organization. I am informed that is the consistent practice among United States railways south of the border. We have heard the suggestion that the hon. member has made in other sessions. The affairs of a railway of this size are very intricate. There are, as you know, a number of subordinate corporations and the audit involves an audit of inter-corporate associations. With all deference to what the hon. member has said, we have felt that there is more to be said for a continuous audit by a firm familiar with all the relationships of the organization rather than to change at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Alphonse Fournier: Now.


Mr. Abbott (for Mr. Chevrier) moved: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, to extend the provision for the payment of compensation contained in section 8 of the act.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a statement on the resolution?

Government Employees Compensation Act


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to make a short statement now. This amendment of the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, will not affect a very great number, but of course to those whom it will affect it is just as important as if thousands were involved. The Government Employees Compensation Act provides for compensation to federal government employees or their dependents where disablement or death comes as a result of industrial disease due to the nature of the employment. The right to compensation and the amount of it in each case are decided by the provincial workmen's compensation board under the statute of the province concerned. Under our federal act the term "industrial disease" is defined as follows:
Any disease in respect of which compensation is payable under the workmen's compensation act of the province in which the disease was contracted.
This amendment is needed because the categories of diseases now included under the definition of industrial disease in the provincial workmen's compensation acts are not exactly the same in all the provinces. Thus a few diseases which are listed as industrial diseases under some provincial acts may not be recognized as such under some other provincial acts.
Because of this situation parliament included in the federal act of 1947 a provision giving authority to make regulations to provide for compensation for federal employees employed in tuberculosis sanatoria and also for nurses in the field who may get pulmonary tuberculosis owing to the nature of their employment, regardless of the province in which the disease was contracted. The present amendment is designed to cover other cases; for instance, where a federal employee may be disabled or his death caused by a disease which is due to the nature of his employment and peculiar to his occupation, but not included in the statute of the province where the disease was contracted. We feel that all such cases should receive the same treatment no matter in which of the ten provinces the employee happens to be employed at the time.
This amendment is designed in particular to cover employees in federal government laboratories, particularly .animal disease laboratories and in animal disease field inspection work, where they may be exposed to virus infections in the course of their work. These diseases are not recognized as industrial diseases in the five provinces between here and ,the Atlantic: Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. Presumably workers in industrial establishments in those

five provinces are not exposed to the diseases in the ordinary course of their employment. Consequently there apparently has been no occasion in the past for those provinces to extend their acts to cover these cases. Federal employees so exposed will now be protected.
The proposed amendment is put forward after consultation with the provincial workmen's compensation boards and the health officers of the federal Department of National Health and Welfare as to the best way of handling these cases.


Clarence Gillis: I listened carefully to what the minister had to say in regard to what the proposed amendment means. I would judge that these are steps in the right direction and that the amendment is desirable and necessary. But there are other features about this federal compensation act on which I would like to say just a few words.
I have had the experience of handling a couple of cases under this act. One case was settled very expeditiously and satisfactorily. It had to do with a seaman, and was handled through the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). But in another case on which I was consulted here in Ottawa, concerning an employee who was entitled to compensation under this act, the result was not so satisfactory. What I am getting at is that the federal compensation act as such has no machinery of adjudication, and the average employee who may be entitled to compensation under it knows very little about the act. The adjudicator, the person who processes the claim, is a provincial government employee here in Ottawa. I am thinking particularly of the city of Ottawa at this time because most of the federal government employees are located here.
In my opinion the adjudication and processing of the claims of federal employees works all right in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia or Manitoba. The natural thing for such employees is to contact the nearest official. Here in Ottawa, however, the average employee knows very little about this act. Many of them do not know where to go if they have an accident or contract some disease. Finally they are sent to the provincial government representative in Ottawa and then to a doctor in this city. Then that claim has to go to Toronto for adjudication.
I am not casting any reflections upon the efficiency of those in Ontario, Nova Scotia or elsewhere who have to handle their own claims. They are familiar with their own industrial set-up; they know exactly how

the regulations apply as between industry and industry. But I think it is wrong, with the great bulk of federal employees located in this city, to have the provincial adjudicators deal with claims arising here. In view of the large number of employees in this city I believe the minister would be well advised to set up somewhere within his own department a small board that would look after the adjudication of the claims of federal employees in this city. He should also make that fact known. Then the people affected would know to whom they should apply, from whom they could get advice, and where they must go to have their claims adjudicated. That would be done by someone who understood the circumstances existing in this city, instead of being sent to Toronto for processing and adjudication. The evidence is not properly assembled; it must be done by correspondence, and all that kind of stuff. In addition I believe the federal government should have a doctor somewhere in this city to whom federal employees might report in the event of an accident or illness, in order to protect themselves under this act, so their claims would be handled from a medical standpoint by somebody in this city, someone having to do with the federal compensation act.
I am not quarrelling with the amendment. I am not quarrelling with the act. It is a good thing. I am quarrelling with the mechanics in connection with the adjudication and processing of claims on the part of federal employees. The average member who has been taking a look at this during the years he has been here will realize that quite a few people did not get the kind of deal they would have got if there had been machinery here in Ottawa to administer this act instead of having the whole thing handled by the provincial authorities. I do not think there is any similarity between the kind of problems the provincial boards have to handle and the problems that arise when federal employees suffer accidents or contract what may be construed as industrial diseases. In making his statement I think the minister himself pointed up the fact that the definition of industrial diseases in the different acts across the country is not the same, and does not always cover the kind of industrial diseases that may be covered by this act. For that reason I believe some processing and adjudication machinery should be set up here in Ottawa, together with a medical consultant, so the federal employees located in this city might be properly looked after. I say that because we have such a great number of them here, perhaps more than are employed in the average industry, and I think a request that this kind of machinery be set up is logical
Government Employees Compensation Act and reasonable. I wonder if the minister would give some consideration to it.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


Clarence Gillis: Has the minister anything to
say on my suggestion?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As the hon. member knows, the administration of this act was transferred from the Department of Transport to the Department of Labour just two years ago. The objective, of course, in asking the various provincial workmen's compensation boards to act as adjudicators under this act was for the purpose of economy, and the fact that very effective boards are set up in the various provinces. I think that applies particularly to the province of Ontario.
For the year from April 2, 1951, to April 29, 1952, in the whole of the province of Ontario there was a total of 4,054 claims. I could get a breakdown of those as to how many were in the city of Ottawa, but the hon. member is probably able to make an accurate guess. Of those claims, 7 received pensions; 7 received compensation; 7 received full salary and 2,930 received medical aid; 16 were rejected and 4 were fatal. Other than what the hon. member has said today, it has not been brought to my attention that there were any delays in dealing with these claims, but after the representations made here I shall be glad to look into it to ascertain whether any cause for grievance in that regard does exist.


Howard Charles Green: Will the proposed amendment be wide enough to cover the case of a rehabilitation officer of the Department of Veterans Affairs who develops tuberculosis through contact with patients, say in one of the military hospitals? As I read section 8 of the present statute, such an employee would not be covered. It does seem that there should be some change made so that cases of that kind could be dealt with. There would probably be similar cases in the Indian affairs branch, in which some government official would come in contact with tuberculosis but would not be eligible for assistance under the act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, there was a special item inserted to take care of those dealing with tubercular cases, and it is my understanding that they were covered. Consequently, those in the veterans affairs department and Indian affairs branch would be covered prior to this amendment. This amendment only applies to those industrial diseases in the five eastern provinces that are mainly related to laboratories. I shall be glad to

Canadian Forces Act
check and make sure I am right on that, and refer to the matter when the bill is before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: As I read it, the act only refers to nurses and would not be wide enough to cover such a case.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall check on that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say whether this bill involves any changes in the rates of compensation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the rates of compensation in respect of the new diseases being defined in this amendment will be the same as the rates already in the main act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 195, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, though I did not announce further business for today, I think it would be a pity if we were not to employ all our time. I would suggest that we take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence. I understand that there would be no objection to that resolution being considered this afternoon.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT


Brooke Claxton: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend the National Defence Act to effect certain changes respecting the discipline and administration of the forces and to provide that persons who commit grave breaches of the Geneva conventions of 1949 may be tried out of Canada by court martial: to amend the Defence Services Pension Act to provide that the total emolument, by way of salary and pension, payable to a pensioner who is employed as a civil servant may be adjusted in accordance with current rates of pay and allowances of the forces and to provide that members of the forces who are otherwise eligible for pension may be permitted to count periods of full-time reserve service of a continuous duration of six months or more for the purpose of determining the amount of pension; to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act to enable a person who served overseas with the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war otherwise than at sea to count such service for the purpose of the Civil Service Superannuation Act notwithstanding that the time for election to count such service has expired; and
(Mr. Gregg.]
to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act to make the provision respecting the eligibility of servicemen to sit as members of the House of Commons consistent with the provisions of the Canada Elections Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that at two previous sessions bills were submitted to the house bearing the titles the Canadian Forces Act, 1950, and Canadian Forces Act, 1951. Those measures contained a number of miscellaneous provisions respecting defence. The bill which would be introduced if this resolution carried will be entitled the Canadian Forces Act, 1952, and it would follow the precedents set by the previous measures.
This bill would involve a number of amendments to the National Defence Act, Civil Service Superannuation Act, the Defence Services Pension Act and the Senate and House of Commons Act. The amendments to the National Defence Act, with one exception, are concerned with technical changes, and perhaps at this stage I do not need to go into them in any detail as hon. members can better appreciate what they are when the bill is before them. The only matter of substance proposed by way of amendment to the National Defence Act is to enable Canada to carry out obligations that we may assume under the Geneva conventions of August 12, 1949. These conventions relate to the treatment to be accorded members of the armed forces who in time of war are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, taken prisoner of war, and the protection of civilians. Under these conventions the countries signatory to them agree to provide penal sanctions and to bring alleged offenders, regardless of their nationality, before their courts. This proposed provision would enable us to do that.
The bill contains a proposed amendment to the Civil Service Superannuation Act to correct an anomalous situation wherein certain former members of the navy with service ashore overseas in the second world war may not at present allocate the amounts of their period of active service on the same basis as their army and air force counterparts. In other words, a member of the army or air force is permitted to count his service overseas for certain purposes under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, but a member of the navy who had similar service overseas is not at present allowed to count that service for the purpose of civil service superannuation.
Other clauses in the bill would amend the Defence Services Pension Act in two respects. The first amendment deals with the situation of retired officers who are on pension and who have taken up employment in the civil

service. At present these officers may receive by way of service pensions only an amount which, when added to their civil service salary, does not bring their total emoluments above the level of their pay and allowances upon their retirement from the forces. The proposed amendment would enable these retired officers, now in the civil service, to r ceive the difference between their civil service pay and the pay of their rank as it then is, which would enable them to secure the advantage of any increases in pay subsequent to their retirement. This would be achieved by providing that such civil servants could receive by way of service pension an amount that, when added to their civil service salary, does not bring their total emoluments above the current pay and allowances of the rank in which they were retired. In other words, a new ceiling would be created, namely the pay and allowances of the forces in effect from time to time as an alternative to the pay and allowances in effect upon retirement.
Perhaps I can give an illustration; it sounds quite complicated but it is not. In the department we have a retired rear admiral working as special adviser to the minister. His civil service pay was fixed at $10,000. His service pension was approximately $6,000. Hence for a full year's work, full time, he actually received $4,000 over and above what he would have received1 without working. The pay and allowance of a rear admiral are now increased* to about $11,000. This amendment would enable this rear admiral to secure $5,000 net for his services instead of the $4,000 that he now gets.


Mr. Brooks:: What would happen in case an officer were demoted?


Brooke Claxton: The person we are considering has been retired and he would not be subject to demotion. In the case of officers who retire from the armed forces, particularly those having technical qualifications, we are sometimes finding it highly desirable to continue their services as civilians after they have reached the retirement age; but there is not much inducement in their working full time and assuming the responsibilities of a heavy job unless some change is made.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is this provision limited to officers only?


Brooke Claxton: I have not looked the matter up for some years, but it is my recollection that the restriction does not apply to men today. I will look it up and give an answer when we get into committee.
The second amendment to the Defence Services Pension Act would enable contributors who have had long periods of full-time
Canadian Forces Act reserve service to count that service as full time for the purpose of computing the amount of their pension but only if such contributors would have sufficient service to make them eligible for pension without this amendment.
There is in the bill a proposed amendment to the Senate and House of Commons Act to modernize or to bring up to date the terminology of the provisions in that act respecting the eligibility of members of the forces to sit as members of the House of Commons. At present the act refers to the non-permanent active militia and other terms which have been replaced. This would bring that terminology into line with an amendment made to the Canada Elections Act at the second session of 1951. The provision would be identical.
There are only six clauses in the bill. They are all of a technical nature except that with regard to the Geneva conventions, and I hope the house will adopt them.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, this is rather an omnibus resolution inasmuch as it is a bill to deal with amendments to four separate acts. On hearing the resolution my first thought was this. Would it not have been better to bring in four resolutions and to have four bills, each to amend one of these various acts? To put them all together seems to me to be a rather confusing and complicated way of dealing with this particular matter. These amendments deal with subjects which range all the way from courts-martial in connection with crimes which may have been committed in connection with the Geneva conventions of 1949 down to changes in the Civil Service Superannuation Act and in the Defence Services Pension Act. Of course the matter of many retired service personnel finding employment when they have left the service and of government departments utilizing the special knowledge that service personnel have acquired through their service-as, for instance, in the example given by the minister-has always been a problem.
I see that you are looking at the clock, Mr. Speaker. As I have one or two further comments I wish to make, I would move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Pearkes the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will go into committee of ways and means and take up the budget resolutions, I am told, in the following order: excise tax, customs tariffs, income tax and succession duty.


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

Thursday, May 8, 1952