1953-12-04

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 12, for the relief of Catherine Hiller Mary Harris Dawson Coutts.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 13, for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Hunter Daykin.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 14, for the relief of Martha Anne Sutherland Clarke.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Phyllis Best Childs.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 16, for the relief of Marilyn Clerk Merlin Clarke.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 17, for the relief of Kenneth Urban Lunny.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 18, for the relief of Florence Bella Davis Baines.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 19, for the relief of Claude Arlington Root.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Lizzy Weiss Nomberg.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Mildred Elizabeth Sears Leighton.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Margot Land-wirth Steinbach.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of Pauline Noel Lapointe.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Joseph Philippe Marc Andre Fortier.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Nancy Rachel Bonnar Barclay.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Marusia Zozula Hempseed.-Mr. Croll.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of fhe
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to give to the house information, which has already been made available to a press conference, in regard to announcements that have been made about pipe lines?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is customary to give press conferences in the house but-


Mr. Drew:: No. So that there shall not be any misunderstanding, what I am asking is
whether it is the intention of the government to give to the house the information which has already been given to a press conference in regard to this matter.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I doubt whether any new information was given. I was asked to comment on the statement of Mr. Manning. If it appears after I have read the newspapers that there is any statement that should be given to the house I shall be very glad to give it. I assure you it is not my intention to keep any information from the house.
I do not think I have any information other than the information I gained from reading Mr. Manning's statement.



ELECTION MATERIAL


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 5, respecting use of election material for by-elections and Northwest Territories elections.


Mr. Fulton:: Is the minister going to tell us what this is all about?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think there is very little I can really add to what I said by way of explanation when the bill was given first reading, but perhaps it would be useful to put the matter in its proper context.
Shortly after the general election, the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, were brought into effect as from September 15. I was advised, as the minister to whom the chief electoral officer reports, that on the coming into force of the Revised Statutes of Canada all the printed material used for the holding of elections, both general elections and by-elections, would no longer be usable, because, although there was no difference in the substance of the law, most of the sections in the revised statutes were numbered differently from those in the act of 1938 and all the references in the printed matter were to the old act and not to the new one.
This was obviously a technical point that no one had thought of, but it had very important practical consequences because the chief electoral officer advised me that to print the

Election Material
necessary papers to hold by-elections, if any by-elections should be necessary, would take approximately six months, particularly as they would have to be printed for an election in any possible place, and there might be occasions when it would be desirable to have by-elections within six months.
I pointed out to him that surely if that occasion arose and parliament was in session we could pass a special act to validate the use of the old papers. The chief electoral officer came back with a suggestion that commended itself to me, and also to my colleagues in the government, to the effect that it would be a great economy to validate papers for all by-elections, so long as the elections act remained the same, as there was plenty of material printed to hold any number of by-elections that were likely to arise during the life of this parliament. I felt that all hon. members, and the taxpayers who support us, would feel that this was the kind of economy that we ought to support and that, in addition, it would overcome this delay which might have been unfortunate and embarrassing.
There is another reason, of course, why it would not be desirable to print the material based on the new act. The chief electoral officer has already made certain suggestions for possible amendments to the election law and he advises me that he will have a good many more to make when he has studied the circumstances of the last election, and if there are amendments of any consequence made in the law it might be necessary to have a second reprinting of all this material. I am sure no one would want that kind of unnecessary expenditure.
The consequences of the passing of this bill, if it is passed, will be that the present material will be used and that it will be possible at any time when a by-election becomes necessary, or when an election becomes necessary in the Northwest Territories, to proceed with it without any delay of the kind I have referred to. I imagine this measure will be entirely non-controversial and that all hon. members will be anxious to co-operate in what is really a saving to the taxpayers.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that the chief electoral officer is not the only person to whom it has occurred that the consequences of the last election indicate that changes should be made. I think I can also assure the minister that with respect to the effect and purpose of the bill now before us there will certainly be general agreement that it is a measure designed to bring about economies

or to prevent unnecessary further expense, and to that extent it should be generally approved. But I think there are one or two considerations that are relevant and that should be put forward here.
The minister has referred to the suggestion made by the chief electoral officer that changes are generally suggested by committees reviewing the elections act and that he himself would suggest some changes. I think that suggestion immediately raises the question whether this committee should not be set up at this time. I would not go so far as [DOT] to suggest that this bill itself, which is after all quite simple in its scope and purpose, should be referred to that committee but rather that this proposal along with other proposals should be considered by a committee to review the elections act. In fact, the setting up of such a committee is recommended by the chief electoral officer in his report made to the minister on November 13 wherein he points out as follows:
After general elections held in the past a special committee of members of the House of Commons was set up to study the Canada Elections Act and to consider the several suggestions and representations made for amendments to the said act received from the public, candidates, and election officers. As several such suggestions have again been received, it is respectfully suggested that a similar committee be set up to consider the suggestions and representations made during and since the last general election . . .
It is our suggestion that that committee should be appointed immediately and that, if that were done, this bill along with other suggestions might be considered by that committee.
There are one or two things which occur to mind immediately in connection with the matter. One is that the whole question particularly of advance polls needs study and needs broadening.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon.
member is getting away from the bill which is under discussion at the moment. I let him make his suggestion about the setting up of a committee but he should not at this time indicate to the house what he would like that committee to deal with. Let us consider these amendments. Then if a committee is set up later, on the motion to set it up hon. members may indicate what improvements can be made in the act or in our electoral system generally. At this time, however, I should like to remind hon. members that we have before us an amending bill. What is before the house is not the general act but merely an amending bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point you have made. As I think was said

by my friend the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), the manner in which you suggest to us that the rules should be observed is so pleasant and, if I might say so, so obviously to the point that I have no course but to admit that your instruction is sound. Therefore I will not at this stage attempt to indicate the reasons why I think the committee should be set up. Those reasons will occur to all hon. members, probably with different force to those on the other side of the house from that to which they will occur to those on this side. However, I think that the nature of the improvements will be in the minds of all hon. members.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I think probably there is nothing further that need be said at this time except to say again that, as a suggestion for economy, we hope the pattern set in this bill will be repeated in all the other legislation introduced at this session.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre!: Mr. Speaker, the desirability of our agreeing to the passing of this bill is, I think, obvious and we have no desire to delay it at all. I find myself somewhat in the same position as that of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I do not wish to invite even a pleasant reprimand from Your Honour, and that means that some of the things I might have said will have to go unsaid at least for the present.
However, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that you would permit me to comment on one or two things the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) has said and also to indicate our endorsation of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kamloops. Perhaps I might just underline that endorsation first. We feel strongly that a committee on the elections act should be set up at the earliest possible time in this new parliament so the elections act might be reviewed while experiences arising out of the election are fresh in our minds as they are fresh in the mind of the chief electoral officer.
From what the Secretary of State said and from what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said some days ago in response to a question of mine on the orders of the day, I note that it seems to be the pattern around here to act, so far as changing the elections act is concerned, only when suggestions are received from the chief electoral officer himself. All those who know the present chief electoral officer, like those of us who knew his father and predecessor, have great confidence in the ability of this devoted and hard-working public servant. I think it is only fair to say, though, that this matter 83276-40
Election Material
should be a two-way street. Not only should consideration be given by the government to suggestions made by the chief electoral officer but suggestions should be presented by the government or, more properly, by parliament to the chief electoral officer for him to consider.
There are various ways to do that. Some time ago I took the liberty of writing him myself and making certain suggestions which I realize I cannot now make. I see that pleasant reprimand coming, Mr. Speaker, if I do. But that is not the only way. Perhaps a more appropriate manner for members of parliament to make suggestions along this line is for a committee of this house on the elections act to be established. I hope that such a committee will be set up at an early date so that we can go into matters the hon. member for Kamloops wanted to raise, matters that I should like to raise, matters which were proposed to the government the other day by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and so on.
May I also point out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill now before us arises from the consideration the chief electoral officer has given to the various papers and documents which he has in hand. When the question arose as to whether or not the printed material in hand should be used or whether it should be reprinted, I would hope that some of those forms might have been reviewed and I hope they will yet be reviewed. I presume that the wording of the bill now before us includes a reference to the expense forms which must be filed by candidates or their agents. It seems to me that the nature of those forms and the amount of information they require, or the information they do not require, should be reviewed. Perhaps that is stretching a bit the ambit of the bill before us at the moment, but at least it is related to the question of the papers that are on hand.
We commend the Secretary of State for bringing in this measure to save a bit of money, as he has pointed out; but we think that the most important aspect of the electoral process is that it be on as sound and universal a basis as possible. We believe that all of us have suggestions that arise out of our experience, and that at the earliest possible date there should be an opportunity for those suggestions to be made through the medium of a committee of the house. We strongly support the suggestion that such a committee be set up at an early date.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, we are satisfied with the reasons given by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) for introducing this bill. We think that every saving that can be made for the benefit

Election Material
of the taxpayers and the Canadian people generally should be made. Consequently we support the second reading of the bill. We should also like to indicate that it does appear wise to us that a committee of the house should be set up to review the elections act and to recommend changes in keeping with our recent experiences.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the minister
would be kind enough to take advantage of the opportunity which is afforded to him on this clause to say a word on the question of the setting up of this committee, and when he thinks that might be proceeded with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think it would be desirable to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Kamloops that this bill should be held over for a committee. I have no knowledge as to when it may be necessary to hold by-elections but we do know that these things have to be held from time to time, and it would be quite impossible physically to have a byelection in a reasonable time without the passage of this or somewhat similar legislation. It would be quite impossible even to call one for a period of approximately six months because we would not want to put ourselves in the ridiculous position of calling a byelection and being unable to hold it because of lack of the necessary materials to do so.
On the general question of having a committee, I anticipated, in view of the report made by the chief electoral officer, that this question would be raised in the house and I conferred with him before coming here. He expressed a very strong personal preference for having such a committee postponed until the session subsequent to this one. He said that he was very far indeed from having formulated his own ideas on the changes that should be made. He said that his office was still very busy with work consequent upon the holding of the last election and that he felt he could put himself much more completely at the disposal of such a committee without other public business suffering if it were held during the next session rather than in this one.
It occurred to me, as I am a very new member of the house with extraordinarily little experience of the election law, that if I were to have anything to do with such a committee I would prefer to have a little more time to study the matter myself and to formulate my own views because I quite agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg

North Centre, who said that he thought we should not simply take suggestions from the chief electoral officer. May I say, sir, that it is only modesty that prevents me from pointing out that it was not the chief electoral officer but I who suggested this bill.


An hon. Member:: Commendable modesty.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I should have
anticipated this subject coming up, but I am very inexperienced and I have not had an opportunity to consult my colleagues about the question of a committee. However, I venture to say that all of them would agree that we should have a committee, that there are changes in the elections act which it would be desirable to make and others which it would certainly be desirable to consider even if on further consideration we decided not to make them. Without being held to have given any definite undertaking, I would say that I feel quite sure that the government would consider the suggestion favourably, but preferably at another session.


Edmund Davie Fulton: At the next session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the next session.


Mr. Knowles:: I should like the Secretary
of State to keep in mind the suggestion that when the terms of reference for such a committee are drawn they be wide enough to include the possibility of the Secretary of State himself making further suggestions and also the possibility of other members of that committee making other suggestions so that, as he said a moment ago, we may consider ideas that arise from the experience of the chief electoral officer and also from the experiences of members of parliament.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be quite pleased to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



PIPE LINES ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Pipe Lines Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in 1949 parliament asserted its jurisdiction over interprovincial and international pipe lines by enacting the

Pipe Lines Act as a general act applying to companies having authority under a special act of parliament to construct or operate oil or gas pipe lines. The act gives general powers to pipe line companies, including powers of expropriation which supplement the powers given by the special act. The administration of the Pipe Lines Act is given to the board of transport commissioners which exercises control over the location, construction and operation of the pipe lines.
When the Pipe Lines Act was passed in 1949 it was considered that, in order to have the benefits of the act, including the power of expropriating and holding land, companies intending to construct pipe lines crossing provincial or international boundaries would seek incorporation by a special act of parliament and thereby come under the control of the board of transport commissioners. In other words, the intention at that time was that the Pipe Lines Act should be enabling legislation which, read together with the special act applied for before parliament by the applicant, would give that company the power to construct the pipe line in question. Consequently parliament did not specifically provide in the act that pipe line companies under federal jurisdiction were required to come under the Pipe Lines Act and to obtain the approval of the board before constructing or operating a pipe line connecting two or more provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province.
In the result it appears that a company may lay a pipe line across a provincial or international boundary without obtaining a special act of parliament or coming under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners if the company is able to obtain the necessary rights from private land owners and the required approval under the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the case of navigable waters. I am sure the intention of parliament as expressed in the Pipe Lines Act was to control the construction and operation of interprovincial and international pipe lines for the transportation of oil and gas by placing these agencies under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners.
It is now proposed to amend the act to give the board jurisdiction over all companies authorized to construct or operate oil or gas pipe lines connecting two or more provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province. Under this amendment a company wishing to construct or operate such a pipe line would first be required to obtain authorization by a special act of parliament.
Up to 1949 there was not much activity in the construction of pipe lines. Since that time great strides have been taken in this field 83276-401
Pipe Lines Act
of transportation which will do for the prairie oil and gas what the transcontinental railways did for western wheat. The pipe lines will bring oil and gas to markets in eastern and western Canada by a cheaper means of transportation. It is essential, therefore, that parliament and the board of transport commissioners be given undoubted control over the location, construction and operation of all pipe lines coming within the jurisdiction of parliament. For that reason the Pipe Lines Act should be amended to this effect.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: This seems to be a very simple bill, merely making one amendment to the Pipe Lines Act. In view of that fact I am afraid we shall not be able to entertain you, Mr. Speaker, with a pipe lines debate, which is to be greatly regretted. However, there may be an opportunity for that at a later date.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) has said when the original Pipe Lines Act was passed it did not make provision to deal with those pipe lines coming over the border. If that is so, he did not give us the right story when he opened the debate in 1949. In the debate on second reading of that bill, which is found on page 2509 of Hansard for April 8, 1949, the minister said:
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the control of interprovincial and international oil or gas pipe lines. There is, I believe, no doubt about the jurisdiction of parliament over international and interprovincial pipe lines. The British North America Act, in so far as both sections 91 and 92 are concerned, covers such a case, and the bill has the approval of the Department of Justice.
Then, on the next page he had this to say:
I expect that these projected pipe lines will cross both provincial and international boundaries. The regulation of such pipe lines is undoubtedly within the jurisdiction of parliament, and the time is opportune for the enactment of a general act to regulate interprovincial and international oil and gas pipe lines.


Lionel Chevrier: I think in fairness it should be said that later on it is explained that it is enabling legislation which, taken together with the special act, gives jurisdiction over interprovincial and international pipe lines.


Howard Charles Green: I merely point that out because we were of the opinion that all the powers necessary to deal with extra-provincial pipe lines, including pipe lines which crossed the international boundary, were contained in the act. However, if that is not the case we can see no objection to plugging this gap. There seems to be no reason why a company building and operating a pipe line across an international border should not be placed under the same controls as a company operating or constructing a pipe line across interprovincial borders. For that reason, we are in favour of

Pipe Lines Act
the amendment. We shall have some questions to ask when the bill comes before the committee of the whole.
I would suggest to the minister that he give consideration to having this bill sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. This committee dealt with the original Pipe Lines Act, and has dealt with every special act brought into the house pursuant to the requirements of the Pipe Lines Act. I think it would be desirable to have this bill referred to that same committee. I am sure the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) will agree with me when I say that is the best committee in the house.


Mr. Mclvor:: Yes, we are on it.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, we are on it. In order to keep the committee informed of the steps that are taken from time to time with regard to pipe lines, all of these bills, including not * only the government bill amending the Pipe Lines Act but also the special bills granting pipe lines charters, should be referred to the committee. I would ask the minister to have the bill referred to that standing committee.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: We
in this group are pleased, Mr. Speaker, to support this bill because from our point of view it appears to extend the jurisdiction and control of the board of transport commissioners over the construction and operation of pipe lines on an interprovincial basis. We presume that it is also an amendment that will support the announced government policy in favour of all-Canadian pipe lines extending either east or west of the source of supply. We support also the suggestion made by the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that the bill should be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. As the member has said, that committee has done a lot of good work throughout the years. I think a reading of the records of the committee will show that, regardless of our political connections, we have been able to unite to the general advantage of the Canadian people.
Like the member for Vancouver-Quadra, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the right attitude is for this debate, but the quiescent atmosphere in connection with this amendment contrasts with some of the notable evenings we spent on private pipe lines bills. Some four years ago a few of us took a certain stand in connection with an allCanadian route, and at first there was little interest in it. In fact, some people thought we were a bit "dippy". Then interest grew

in the house and public interest was aroused because of the continuation of the debate. We all know that some of us spoke for hours and hours on repeated private members' evenings, much to the annoyance of some members. I am sure that the very small band of members in this group, supported by the member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the former member for Fraser Valley and the former member for Comox-Alberni, did have an effect upon public thinking and upon government policy out of all proportion to its numbers. I am interested to note that things which we suggested at that time, and which were somewhat snickered at, are now of interest to the Canadian people as a whole and are receiving the support of this government.
I presume, Mr. Speaker, this bill rather tends to strengthen the government's hand with respect to its announced policy on a Canadian route. Reading the bill carefully I noticed also that it does not exclude the possibility of the principle of public ownership of such a route. We in this group-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Are you referring to me, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: To be more precise, I must say yes. I thought that by merely saying "order" the hon. member would immediately refrain from going into the policy of his party. This is not the time to propound the various policies of the various groups in this house. I think if the hon. member continues in the same manner as he commenced his discussion of the bill, he will be doing quite well.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I bow to your ruling. I really thought I was discussing only a principle in the bill which had been omitted by the government. After hours and hours of discussion in the house we were pleased to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) rise in his place and announce one evening last session what the government policy was to be with respect to the piping of natural gas in Canada. I suppose the only arguments that have been brought against the all-Canadian route have been arguments on economic grounds.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now is not the time to discuss routes. I know the hon. member means well but I must repeat that now is not the time. If that is the course he proposes to pursue, then I am sorry to have to change it-but it will have to be changed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you credit me with good intentions, anyway. However, if the rules of the house prevent my discussing the valid reasons we have advanced for the building of an all-Canadian route, and valid reasons for the public ownership of such a route, then I am afraid I must conclude my remarks at this point by saying that I am very glad to see this amendment to the general Pipe Lines Act and I hope to have an opportunity at a later date to expound my views more fully.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any need for extending the discussion of this bill. It appears to me that this amendment to the Pipe Lines Act is a necessary one, if the government is to have any regulation whatever of pipe lines. We support the amendment set out in the bill.
I would not have any objection to accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that the bill be sent to a committee, although I do not see any particular reason for doing so. Therefore we shall not press that it be sent to the committee.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, we in Fort William welcome this bill because we think the gas pipe line should come through the lakehead.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the time to discuss various pipe line routes.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: As I understand it, unless the bill is passed no oil can come into Canada; is that not right?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to ask questions of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier), perhaps he would do so in committee.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: We appreciate this bill very much because it gives us hope. Whether or not it is sent to the committee, I do believe it would be handled efficiently by that body. In the past it has not stuck closely to party lines-except once in a while. Those of us at the lakehead will support the bill because of the hope it contains for the future in the matter of bringing gas to eastern Ontario, and keeping gas from other places out of that area.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lionel Chevrier: My only purpose in rising at this stage is to deal with the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) that the bill be sent to the standing
Pipe Lines Act
committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I would prefer adopting the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), and ask that the committee of the whole house deal with it, because there is some urgency in the matter. My understanding is that it would not be possible to set up the standing committee before some time late next week. In the first place, I understand that the names are not all at this point in the hands of the whips. Then, notice would have to be given before the committee could be established and a further notice before it could meet.
Since the bill is a very simple one, in the sense that it includes only two amendments and is to deal with a situation which I outlined in my earlier remarks, it seems to me that under the circumstances the committee of the whole house would be the appropriate place to deal with it, and I wquld hope that my hon. friend would be prepared to accept that suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On section 1-Extra-provincial pipe line.
Howard Charles Green: In the last paragraph of section 1 in the bill there is reference to parts II, III and IV of the Pipe Lines Act, in reference to the expression "company pipe line" or "line". It is indicated that these expressions to which I have referred, as they appear in those parts, are to be considered to include an extraprovincial pipe line.
Why is part I not also mentioned? That part refers to "oil or gas lines", and in certain places throughout part I we find reference to the word "line". I do not understand why part I is not included in this subsection of the amending bill.


Lionel Chevrier: As I understand it, part I deals with oil or gas lines, and has to do with the general definition of a company as set out in 2 (1) (b) of the Pipe Lines Act. Parts II, III and IV are now extended to cover the extra-provincial pipe lines as defined in the amendment.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean that his department considers part I does cover extra-provincial lines, so that there is no need for a change?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I would not say that. As I understand this amendment, it is still necessary for extra-provincial or iinterprovincial pipe lines to seek authority from this parliament by way of a special charter in order to apply to the board of transport commissioners for its location.

Pipe Lines Act


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Operation of extra-provincial pipe line.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What is the meaning of the expression "extra-provincial pipe lines"? I notice that in the first section it says:
"Extra-provincial pipe line" means a pipe line for the transportation of oil or gas connecting a province-
-and so on. And then it says:
-property real and personal and works connected therewith.
How would section 2 of the bill apply in these circumstances? Let us suppose that we have a pipe line constructed at the present time by a company, we will say, in British Columbia, but which actually has an office only in Alberta or in Saskatchewan, such office being considered as real property. Under this amendment would this company be considered to have a pipe line in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba because it has real property in those provinces, but no pipe dine?


Lionel Chevrier: No. Then, Mr. Chairman, I should like to suggest an amendment to section 10A, for which I shall explain the reason. The last part of section 10A reads as follows:
No person, other than a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate pipe lines for the transportation of oil or gas, shall construct or operate an extra-provincial pipe line, but nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or prevent any person from operating a pipe line constructed before the 1st day of October, 1953.
I should like to suggest that after the words "from operating" in the twenty-ninth line there be added the words "or improving"; so that the section would read:
. . . but nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or prevent any person from operating or improving a pipe line constructed before the 1st day of October, 1953.
The object of that is that it has been brought to our attention there are in western Canada certain companies, provincial and also dominion in their nature, that might well be connected, some of them now having proper authority to operate in a province, others having authority to operate interprovincially, and that all those lines might be connected together. If that is the case, then they would be affected by this amendment, because they are already in operation, and it is not the intention of this amendment to affect the operation of any company that has been operating prior to the first day of October, 1953.
I understand that in the case of one company at least the intention is to improve and enlarge their lines, and it certainly is not the intention of this amendment to require

them once again to come before parliament to obtain a special charter if they already have that right.


Howard Charles Green: What would be the situation in the case of a company which has a pipe line in Alberta and has not been incorporated under a special charter, if it wished to improve that pipe line by extending it over the border into Saskatchewan or into British Columbia, if the amendment the minister suggests goes through? If it goes through, then that company could cross a provincial boundary and would not have a charter as required by the Pipe Lines Act.


Lionel Chevrier: May I deal with the first part of the question first? I do not think the position is affected at all under this amendment. But it appears that there might be some doubt in the use of the words "operating a pipe line" unless the words "or improving" were added. After our people discussed it with the Department of Justice it was felt that if the words "or improving" were added it might meet or probably would meet the position as outlined in my early remarks.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently, then, improving a pipe line includes extending that pipe line. My question is: Suppose that pipe line is extended over an interprovincial border. Surely it is not the intention that it should be that wide.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Howard Charles Green: Without their obtaining a
special charter.


Lionel Chevrier: No, nor does it cover that case.


Mr. Garson:: To carry out the suggestion of my colleague, the Minister of Transport, I should like to move, seconded by my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
That clause 2 of Bill No. 10 to amend the Pipe Lines Act be amended by inserting the words "or improving" after the word "operating" in line 30.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry; I do not quite understand the effect of what the minister said last. Did I understand the Minister of Transport to say that it is not the desire that a company which now operates in one province and which wishes to extend its line over the border into another province should come under this act? It is not the desire that it should come under this legislation, is it?


Lionel Chevrier: I will explain the position once again. Under the original act the intention was that the enabling legislation of 1949 would apply to the special charter, in which special charter would be set out the location of the line, which unquestionably

would be an interprovincial one, because it was not the intention of the government to enter into the provincial field in the case of a company which was authorized to operate purely within a province.


Howard Charles Green: No.


Lionel Chevrier: So if the operation is a provincial one, there can be no question but that operation is not affected by this amendment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But it becomes important to know whether, if such an operation already in effect, already being carried on, is extended into another province, it is affected. Surely the desirable thing would be that that company should then come to parliament for a charter. In the light of what the minister said, and particularly by the adding of the words "or improving", I am wondering whether it makes it possible for that company to improve its lines by extending them into another province without coming before parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not think it does. If it is already a provincial operation it would not require to come to parliament; but if it is an interprovincial operation it would have to come to this parliament by virtue of the general act and more particularly by virtue of this amendment. But if it is an interprovincial operation that requires to be enlarged or improved and has authority under the act of 1949, it should not be required to come before parliament, and the object of this amendment is simply to protect that company that is operating lawfully. Perhaps I did not make the original explanation clear.
I do not think the house would want anyone who is already authorized to operate and who decided to extend, improve or strengthen the pipe line, to come back simply because of this amendment.


Howard Charles Green: You mean if he crosses a boundary of a province?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
Idr. Green: Surely, if he crosses a boundary of a province he should come under the act.


Lionel Chevrier: He does come under the act of 1949 with the charter.


Howard Charles Green: You except him by this new section?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not except him; I except the person who already operates within the meaning of the act of 1949.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I put the case to the minister in this way? You have a company which has a provincial charter and is connected only with the distribution of oil or
Pipe Lines Act
gas in Alberta. It has not had to come before parliament; that is quite right. If it wants to extend its line in Alberta, it still does not have to come here. That is still quite right. But the moment it wishes to cross the border into Saskatchewan or British Columbia, then it would become, I would say, an interprovincial pipe line and should come down here.


Lionel Chevrier: And would have to come down here.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Wait a minute. Now see what the minister does. He has added to section 10A, or will add when this amendment is carried, the words:
nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or prevent any person from operating or improving-
These are the words:
-or improving a pipe line constructed before the 1st day of October, 1953.
The minister has said, I think, it was not desired to prevent a person already operating a line from extending it. In other words, extension would be covered in the words "or improving". Where do you draw the line? Is he going to be allowed to improve it over the border? If that is the interpretation of these words, a person with a provincial charter can extend or improve his line across a provincial border and yet not have to come down to parliament for a charter. Surely that would not be the intention.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: It occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, that if there is a difficulty here, and I am rather doubtful if there is as is suggested by the hon. member for Kamloops, it could be overcome by the repetition of the words "extra-provincial" before the words "pipe line" in the last line of section 10A, because the reference to extra-provincial pipe line in the proposed section 10A seems to me to clearly limit the provision of that act to extra-provincial pipe line. If it is necessary to reinforce it I would suggest that the words "extra-provincial" be added again before the words "pipe line" in the last line of section 10A.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I could give some thought to that, but the word "operate" or "improve" certainly does not include extending, and that is the meaning my hon. friend has given to it. That is a meaning that could not, I think, be given to the words, but if the hon. member could give that meaning to them then perhaps there is some validity in his point. Would my hon. friend repeat again his suggestion about extra-provincial?

Pipe Lines Act


Colin Cameron: My suggestion
was that the latter part of the proposed section 10A should be amended to read as follows:
No person, other than a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate pipe lines for the transportation of oil or gas, shall construct or operate an extra-provincial pipe line, but nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or prevent any person from operating or improving an extra-provincial pipe line constructed before the 1st day of October, 1953.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That would be covered by what we have in mind.


Lionel Chevrier: I think that would be quite agreeable to me if it meets the point made by my hon. friend.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would just like to point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that my concern was aroused, as was the concern of the member for Nanaimo, by the fact that it was the minister who suggested that "improve" might include "expansion". I would not think that is so, but it did occur to me that it might be possible that a company might argue strongly that this expansion is only an improvement within the meaning of the proviso. However, I think the word suggested by the member for Nanaimo would take care of the case.


Mr. Regier:: I am assuming that this is the time when I may express regret, as this is the last of the subsections of Bill No. 10, that a number of other amendments have not been added. I hope as a new member I am in order in raising that point. I must express regret that no amendment is being introduced under section-


The Chairman:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that we are discussing clause 2 of Bill No. 10 and that his remarks must be confined to the clause under discussion.


Erhart Regier: Then may I have a ruling as to when I may express regrets that other amendments have not been added.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member must confine himself to the clause now under discussion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, in order to carry out suggestions made just a moment ago I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg):
That clause 2 10A of the bill be amended by adding the words "extra-provincial" before the words "pipe line" in line 30 thereof.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And also change "a" to "an".


Howard Charles Green: The effect of that amendment then would be that this exemption only applies in the case of a company which is now an extra-provincial company.
[Mr. Chevrier.3


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: The exemption would not
apply in the case of say an Alberta company building into British Columbia or Saskatchewan.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: And what is the position of the pipe line company which pipes oil from Portland, Maine, to Montreal? That pipe line was built during the war or perhaps before, and I presume it does not come under the Pipe Lines Act. Could the minister say a word on that situation?


Mr, Chevrier:: The position is that that pipe line was constructed, I understand, by charter under the Companies Act and it is an extraprovincial pipe line in the sense that it operates beyond the limits of a province, and the amendment referred to in this case would, if it was thought to improve that pipe line, exempt it from the operation of this section.


Howard Charles Green: At the present time that pipe line is not subject to the Pipe Lines Act at all. Is that correct? Similarly, a company piping oil or gas into Sarnia from the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: I would think not. The Minister of Justice tells me it would be covered by clause 1 (c) of the present amendment.


Howard Charles Green: But would the new 10A exempt that Montreal-Portland company from the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act?


Lionel Chevrier: That is my understanding.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would like to ask the minister just one more question. Does the term "improve" mean that if the owners of pipe lines doubled the capacity of a pipe line that would be considered to be an improvement?


Lionel Chevrier: I would think it would have that meaning.


Mr. Macdonnell:: In the illustration the minister gave, it so happened he referred to construction from one Canadian province to another. Do I understand the construction from say Alberta to the United States comes under the same ruling?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Mr. Zapliiny:: With reference to the word "construct" how would that be interpreted? It appears that this section is to be construed so as not to prohibit or prevent any person operating a pipe line constructed before the first day of October. There might be some difficulty in interpreting that word, and I wonder whether the word "completed" would not be more specific, since there might be

some doubt as to what stage the construction of a line was on the first day of October. It may not have been fully completed, and how would the department determine what the word "constructed" means?


Lionel Chevrier: I would take "constructed" as expressed in this section to mean fuljy completed by the first day of October, 1953.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Garson moves that clause 2 of Bill No. 10 of the act to amend the Pipe Lines Act be amended by inserting the words "or improving" after the word "operating" in line thirty. Is this amendment agreed to?


Mr. Goode:: I would like the minister to clarify one point. I made a speech last session on the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company. They have a charter from this house to operate one or more pipe lines from Sumas to the international border. Would the minister consider an improvement to be an extra number of pipe lines, or under this act could the Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company increase the size of this pipe line?


Lionel Chevrier: It could do both, I would think.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the amendment agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Garson further moves:
That the word "a" be changed to the word "an" in line thirty, and the words "extra-provincial" be added after the word "an" and before the words "pipe line".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Next sitting of the house.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 9, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to
the Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, may I leave the customary statement until we reach the committee stage, if that procedure is agreeable to hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, could we have the hon. member make the statement at this stage while Mr. Speaker is in the chair?
Canadian National Railways-Auditors


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, if it is the wish of the house I will make a brief statement now. I believe that all hon. members are familiar with this bill, which is the annual one to provide for the appointment of auditors for the Canadian National Railways. This bill is in the same form as its predecessor and its purpose is to provide for the appointment of George A. Touche and Company of Montreal and Toronto. This firm has been doing the auditing for Canadian National Railways for a number of years dating back to 1923, with the exception of only one year, namely 1935, when some other firm was appointed for that purpose. This appointment is made in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act of 1933 as amended in 1936. I must add that we are proposing by this bill to appoint a firm which enjoys a very good reputation. It is a firm specialized in this kind of accounting.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on this appointment. I am assuming that there may be questions raised about it by hon. members from farther left. I might be more sensible in a way if I waited and held my fire until after they have spoken. However, I think I shall go ahead now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will not disappoint you.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would draw attention first of all to the fact that even in these times when we deal lightly with tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars, the Canadian National operation is an extremely large one and one of great importance to us. The annual revenue runs well over $600 million. I therefore think the audit becomes of considerable importance. Audits can be of two kinds. There is a kind of auditor who comes in, just adds up figures within certain prescribed regulations, and certifies that the figures are correct. To my way of thinking that is not the kind of audit I want to see at all. Of course one question that arises- and I am sure it will arise again this afternoon-is why we do not make use of the Auditor General, in whom we have great confidence, to do this job. That is a question which faces us fairly and squarely and which has to be answered.
As a matter of fact, the strongest argument for this procedure that I have been able to discover was made by the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) when in 1947 he made a speech, at considerable length and showing great research, in which he argued strongly that it should be done by the Auditor General. He went back over a hundred years. He
626	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways-Auditors perhaps was led away a little bit by party patriotism when he quoted William Lyon Mackenzie. I do not mean William Lyon Mackenzie King; I mean William Lyon Mackenzie. As I say, in his researches he went back a long distance and he made quite a strong argument. I assume that other arguments or, perhaps I should say, other reasons have caused him since to change his mind; but so far as I know, he has never said so in this house.
I admit quite frankly if one is to be in favour of appointing outside auditors one has to face that question, and I have tried to face it for myself. I feel that we have able men in Mr. Gordon and other men at the head of this great operation. I also feel that the abler men are, the more anxious they are to have the comments of fresh minds coming in from outside and helping them in the prosecution of their duties.
The question may be asked: What is there more "outside" in getting a firm of practising accountants than there is in having the Auditor General? My answer to that question is this. I feel that a firm that is engaged in auditing the books of all kinds of commercial corporations, carrying on business in the ordinary way, does bring to this matter something new and something of value, or should do so. If it is not doing so, then I suggest to the department that they should get a firm of auditors that will do so.
In his speech of five or six years ago the present Minister of Fisheries at one stage of his speech contrasts the report which he thinks we might get from the Auditor General with the report we received from the firm of accountants. He suggests that the firm of accountants have merely done the work in a routine way, making no comments on questions of principle, whereas the Auditor General has done exactly the opposite. To the extent that that statement is correct,
I feel that it is a valid criticism of external accountants and to the extent that it is correct I would concede that it is an argument against what I am saying. On the other hand, in the same speech the present Minister of Fisheries points out that in another year -namely in the year 1935-George A. Touche and Company did make critical comments. It is true that the reason he assigns for that fact is rather a political reason. He seems to think that it may have had to do with the fact that they were relieved of their duties the following year. Of course I am going to take no stock in that suggestion. I could say more, but there is no need of my labouring that point at length, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

There is just one other point I wish to make. Although on one certain occasion I suggested that there had been political interference with management, nevertheless I feel that a great effort has been made from the outset to keep politics out of the Canadian National; and I think to a considerable extent the effort has been successful. I suggest that having the Auditor General as the auditor for the road fails, to some extent, to give the impression that the road is taken right out of politics and is left free to operate its affairs. Those reasons seem to me to be valid but they lead me to say this. I think it can be said that some of the reports we have had have been of a rather mechanical nature.
I think we have never been given the full figure of the auditors' remuneration. I see no reason why we should not, because if we knew the figure for both the railway and subsidiary companies we would know better whether the auditors were being paid to do what I call a mechanical job or whether they were being paid to do what I regard as a job which a firm of auditors coming in with their knowledge of accounting based not merely on technical knowledge but on the whole course of business can contribute. Finally, I feel that if the department will see to it that when they get a firm of outside auditors they get what a firm of auditors should bring, it will be of value.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) is not here this afternoon to support the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the rest of us.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Fie is overseas.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, I realize that. As the hon. member for Greenwood mentioned, on the 31st of March, 1947, the Minister of Fisheries made an excellent speech in the house advancing reasons. He enumerated three. His first point was that the Auditor General should do this job; his second was that the Auditor General could do it; and the third point he developed was that the Auditor General could do a much more valuable job than is being done by George A. Touche and Company. I want to endorse what the hon. member for Greenwood and the Minister of Fisheries have said, in expressing every confidence in the integrity and ability of this particular firm of accountants.
However, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Greenwood, who dismissed so lightly the view that was expressed by the Minister of Fisheries when he indicated that this firm did lose the contract because of

certain criticisms they made of the government of the day. The Minister of Fisheries referred to the speech that was made by the then minister of transport in 1934 with respect to this company. It was pointed out that this company had been doing the auditing for quite a number of years and this is what Dr. Manion is reported as having said on February 22, 1934, as found at page 845 of Hansard:
It has been decided, alter a good deal of consideration, that the auditors who have been doing the work for a good many years-I do not know exactly how long, but eight or ten years at any rate-are so well trained in the work and are so capable that it would be wise to appoint them at least for this year. I am informed by the railway people themselves that it would take quite a long time for any group of auditors to learn the method of auditing such an immense system of books and accounts as are contained in this vast business. For example, I am told that there are no other chartered accountants in Canada who are familiar with the interstate commerce commission's type of accounting, and the accounting of the Canadian National Railways is carried on under the same rules as those of the interstate commerce commission for the railways of the United States.
But it is significant that just a year later, on February 22, 1935, the government was criticized for the debt financing of the Canadian National Railways, and the Toronto Star carried this story, as quoted at page 1092 of Hansard for that date:
Far from welcoming the proposal of the auditors that the grossly inflated debt of the Canadian National Railways be pared down the Bennett government is demanding that the auditors be dismissed. The explanation that will be given for the proposed dismissal of the auditors no doubt will be that the Arm has its headquarters in England, but so it had a year ago when Mr. Bennett and Dr. Manion were loud in praise of its work.
The auditors did have some critical remarks in that particular year, but it is significant that since this company was reappointed, and it has been reappointed year after year as far as I have been able to discover, there have never been any critical comments regarding the problems of the railway. I find that when I spoke on this question in 1947 following the Minister of Fisheries I had in mind the discussion we had had in the committee with the representative of George A. Touche and Company, and we also had at that time the advice of our colleague, the then member for Rosedale, who had a good deal of experience in such matters.
The railway company apparently had made a proposal regarding the balance sheet for the West Indies Steamships division of Canadian National Railways. It was pointed out that they had gone into the West Indies
Canadian National Railways-Auditors service some years before with the understanding that there would be certain subsidies paid for shipping in that part of the world. But apparently there was a change of government about that time and the subsidies were not continued. As a result, Canadian National Railways had a balance sheet that placed them in an unfavourable light, and there was some discussion in the committee as to whether or not the recommendation of the management might not be considered. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) made a motion which I had the pleasure of seconding, but of course it was not carried by the committee.	*
But it was significant that the representative of George A. Touche and Company at that particular time seemed particularly anxious not to be in the position of being critical of the administration. In my opinion some of the comments made by the Auditor General are most helpful to parliament. The Minister of Fisheries pointed out that year after year there are matters of special interest to members that are brought to their attention and that if the Auditor General were likely to be fired as a result of making these comments he would not dare make them. The Minister of Fisheries made mention of the fact that a certain commander had had a change made in his rate of pay so that his pension would be raised $500 a year. I had before me that particular night another critical comment of the Auditor General regarding a government employee fifty years of age who was quitting the government service, and who was granted a pension for life of nearly $100 a month.
I think if you had a firm like George A. Touche and Company doing the auditing they would not have commented on these matters that were of public interest. In 1934 it might have been argued that the Auditor General's staff did not have the personnel to audit the books of a company doing the business that the Canadian National Railways does; but that is a long time ago and with the government spending $4 billion a year I think that the annual budget of the Canadian National Railways is quite a small amount compared with the total expenditure.
While the government is not involved in some of these crown corporations at the moment, the night that this matter was discussed in 1947 the Minister of Fisheries gave a list of some of the large crown corporations that were being investigated by the Auditor General. I will just mention a few of them to give an idea of the length of the list. They are: Aero Timber Products Limited; Allied War Supplies Corporation; board of grain
628	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways-Auditors commissioners; Canadian Arsenals Limited; Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; Canadian Wool Board Limited; Citadel Merchandising Limited; Commodity Prices Stabilization Limited; Eldorado Mining and Refining (1944) Limited; Export Credits Insurance Corporation.
You will notice that I am only down to the E's. I will not trouble the house with the whole list. But these corporations I have mentioned do suggest that the Auditor General has the staff and the know-how to investigate the operations of a great many corporations, and I see no reason why this other crown corporation, Canadian National Railways, should not be audited by the Auditor General. To give the government an opportunity to review the question, I should like to move as follows:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor: this bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should give consideration to the making of provision for the auditing of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways to be done by the Auditor General of Canada.
In moving this amendment I should like to refer to the opinion of that well known authority on procedure, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who advised us in 1947 that, according to Beau-chesne, third edition, page 228, citation 657, this sort of amendment was in order.


Tom Goode: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the main motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.



CHILDREN OF WAR DEAD


Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act to extend the benefits of the act with respect to certain children presently excluded.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Brooks:: May we have an explanation from the minister?


Mr. C. E. Benneit (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. DECEMBER 4, 1953
Chairman, it is proposed to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act to make eligible certain children presently ineligible.
Under present provisions, training may be given only to a child receiving pension under the Pension Act, or to a child who received such pension until reaching the age of 21 years.
Ineligible to enjoy the privileges of the act, therefore, were children who were cut off from such pension after the age of 16, if a boy, or 17, if a girl, by reason of failure to apply for continuance of pension because of economic circumstances or otherwise; children ineligible for continuance of pension because of the means test, which was not removed until June 30, 1951; and children who had been unable to continue studies because of illness and consequent discontinuance of pension. It is proposed to make all such children eligible.
It is also proposed to make eligible children of air raid precaution workers and members of the voluntary aid detachment, whose parents' deaths were attributed to war service.
It is not expected that the number of eligible children would exceed 25, and it is estimated that the cost for the first year would not exceed $12,000, with a sharp decline in cost thereafter.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think there is very
much to be said at the present time regarding this resolution. We shall have a bill later on. As I understand it, it is just to block some loopholes that were found in the act that we put through last year.
As I recall it, this act had general approval from all members and was generally approved by the veterans. The explanation given by the parliamentary assistant, as I understand it, is that those between 21 and 25 who continue their studies would be eligible for this assistance, and also those who had to leave school after 16 or 17 and later on continued their studies would become eligible under the contemplated amendment. I do not think there will be any objection to this.


Colin Emerson Bennett: That is correct, except that
under the present act, if a pension were discontinued for a child at the age of 21, that child is eligible now; but if for some reason he stopped receiving a pension at say 20, and we will say he is now 22, he is not eligible, but will become so under this amendment.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: How closely do the terms of the act correspond with the representations made by the Canadian Legion in this matter?
Children of War Dead


Colin Emerson Bennett: I think the act which was
passed last year was pretty much in accord with at least some of the representations made by the Canadian Legion; and as the hon. member opposite pointed out, this is just an amendment to help approximately 25 children whom the act overlooked last year.


Mr. Gillis:: Of course we do not know
very much about the subject matter of the resolution, and will not until such time as we get a look at the bill. Can the parliamentary assistant advise us whether the amendments being made to this act cover the recipients of war veterans allowances? What I have in mind is this. As I understand it, the present bill is applicable only to veterans of the last war who are in receipt of a pension. There are quite a few young men and women in Canada who are the sons or daughters of veterans of the first war, who went into the second war and came out, but never qualified for pension because of service disability. They came under war veterans allowance. I have had some correspondence on the matter myself with the department and I had hoped that when amendments were made to the act they might include young men and women, sons and daughters of veterans of the first war, who were in receipt of war veterans allowances. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us whether any consideration has been given to them?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Matters such as that are always under consideration but this proposed amendment does not broaden the scope of the act in that regard.


Mr. Pearkes:: I understand the parliamentary assistant said that this act would be extended so as to cover the children of air raid personnel who lost their lives. I wonder whether consideration is being given to extending it to include the children of the merchant marine men who lost their lives on service.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Again, Mr. Chairman, that matter has of course been considered very carefully and is under consideration by the government, but this amendment does not go that far.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the parliamentary assistant to say that only 25 children would benefit by this amendment. Is that correct?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes, approximately.


Howard Charles Green: When the Minister of Veterans Affairs spoke on the legislation last year he pointed out that whereas there were 12,000 children who lost their fathers, only about 10 per cent benefited under the legislation, approximately 1,200. Has it been decided that

Children of War Dead
no assistance will be given to the other children? The group covered by this amendment today is very small. For example, I understand that these young people cannot get vocational training. If the father had lived he could have got university training or vocational training. I believe the act restricts the benefits to those who are going to take university training. What consideration has been given to making some provision for vocational training? As the parliamentary assistant knows, there will be a far larger group of those young people who could take advantage of vocational training than there would be going to university.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I am not too sure that the hon. member who has just spoken is in order. This bill is conceived to give educational assistance on a university level to children of deceased veterans, and the hon. member is asking about an extension of that to cover vocational training. However, I can say to the hon. member that that matter is also always under serious consideration by the department. Of course, vocational training is provided by the provinces on an extensive scale, and for that reason does not come in the same category as university training. As I have said, this amendment is to cover approximately 25 cases that were overlooked by the act that was passed last year.


Mr. Winch:: I know that this amendment affects very few, but does it cover educational assistance for children of those who were killed whilst they were members of the reserve army of Canada? I know there are a few of them, but I know there were some who were accidentally killed whilst on duty in the reserve army. It comes to mind because whilst I was serving in Vancouver a training officer in Victoria was accidentally killed. He was married and had children. Would his children be covered by this amendment?


Colin Emerson Bennett: As you know, the original act and the amendment apply to all those who receive a pension pursuant to section 13 of the present Pension Act, subsection (1) (b), which reads:
Pensions shall be awarded in accordance with the rates set out in schedule B in respect of members of the forces who have died when the injury or disease or aggravation thereof resulting in death in respect of which the application for pension is made was attributable to or was incurred during such military service.


Harold Edward Winch: I take it the parliamentary assistant's interpretation is that the child of one who died while serving in the reserve army is covered already.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I would not want to give an offhand opinion of section 13 (1) (b) of the Pension Act. If the hon. member has any particular case I would be very glad to look into it and try to give him an answer.


Mr. Viau:: Before this resolution is adopted I would like to bring to the attention of this committee a situation which exists in Manitoba. I am referring to a case in which one single child has been refused benefits under this act, and it is due primarily to a situation that exists within the province between the University of Manitoba and the affiliated colleges. I think probably the same problem exists in other provinces throughout Canada.
In Manitoba we have three colleges affiliated with the University of Manitoba. They are St. John's, St. Paul's, St. Boniface and I think there is a fourth. At any rate, this child is now attending St. Boniface and has started a four-year course for a degree of bachelor of arts. The provincial department of education have what is known as grade 12, recognized as first year arts by the University of Manitoba; but as this child is taking grade 12 he is denied the benefits of the act even though registration has been made and the fees paid to the University of Manitoba. Arrangements are made between the university and the affiliated colleges whereby students taking tuition in the private institutions are refunded a certain portion of their registration fee to cover the cost of teaching, but due to this technicality this one child in the province of Manitoba is denied the benefit of the act.
I hope the department will look into this matter and note this technicality before presenting the bill to the house.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before we proceed with the next item I wonder if I might ask the leader of the house what other business the government has in mind for today? We seem now to be dealing with items that were not announced last night.


Walter Edward Harris: If this resolution is passed,

and if the Prime Minister returns from interviewing the delegation that is with him at the moment, we will then call the bill having to do with the change in name of the department of northern affairs and national resources. If that is passed, we hope to adjourn.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Resources and Development) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Parks Act to empower the governor in council to authorize the minister to enter into agreements for the development, operation and maintenance in a park of public utility services, and for a supply of water for domestic purposes; also to provide for rights of way for telephone, telegraph and electrical transmission lines; and also to clarify the authority to establish and survey townsites, subdivisions and cemeteries; and further to clarify and expand the power to issue leases and licences of park lands and to authorize the issue of certificates for plots in park cemeteries; and finally to authorize the governor in council to make regulations for use of park lands as camp grounds.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the administration of the national parks of Canada is governed by the National Parks Act, which is chapter 189 of the Revised Statutes of 1952, and by regulations which are authorized under the terms of the act by governor in council.
Because of the increasing popularity of the parks and because of changing conditions it has been necessary from time to time to ask parliament to consider amendments to the act. The last amendment was passed in 1948, and since then it has become apparent that the administration of the parks could be carried out in a more efficient manner if certain additional amendments were made.
The resolution before the committee does, I believe, give a true picture of the items which the proposed measure will contain. The changes proposed would make possible a better administration of the parks and would help achieve an improvement in conditions for those who visit the national parks and those who live within their boundaries. I really do not think I can add much more at the present time. This series of different amendments are very clear and will not require much explanation when the bill is distributed.
National Parks Act


Mr. Adamson:: As one who has spent some considerable time in most of our national parks and who regards mountain climbing as his principal hobby, I welcome this resolution. There are, however, certain things that I think should be said about the general administration of the parks, and this resolution provides me with the opportunity.
As the minister has just said, there are changing conditions in the parks which require consideration, particularly in the major mountain parks and the parks in the prairie provinces. These changing conditions make the original concept of our national parks somewhat out of date. That original concept was that the national parks should be preserved for our people as a wilderness, as a part of North America which would remain as nearly as possible in the condition in which it was before the white man came to America.
That was, I think, an admirable idea many years ago; but owing to the impact of civilization, and particularly the machine, it is not perhaps quite as modern a concept as regards the development of the national parks as we should like to see. What is in danger of happening is that with the motor car and the main highways through the parks we will get 500 or perhaps 1,000 yard strips along the road which will become tourist attractions in a rather, I am afraid, commercialized way, in some cases, and the real park is not available to the man of average means.
In the old days when pack trains were available to the average tourist and horses could be rented for a comparatively small sum, access into the hinterland was, I will not say comparatively easy but a great deal easier for a man of moderate means than it is today. What is happening now is that the parks are being restricted to national organizations such as the alpine club, the trail riders, and the various ski associations, or to people who can afford to outfit large groups, almost expeditions, to go into that part of the park which is not accessible from the road, from the motor car and from the train.
As this resolution deals with setting up facilities within the parks, I want to make this suggestion to the minister. I suggest that he include the setting up of airstrips throughout the parks. The only practical way for a man of moderate means to get into the real park-and I am speaking of Banff, Jasper and the parks in British Columbia-is by aeroplane. The building of airstrips throughout the parks would make

National Parks Act
it possible to see that part of our great heritage which has not been, up to the present time, commercialized. If we have merely highways and railways and open up the parks only to people who never have to get out of their motor cars to see the national parks, we are really not developing our heritage. That is one of the things I think should be done.
Another thing which I think must be done is with respect to the setting up of new town .sites. While improvements are being made in Banff and, to a smaller degree, in Jasper, nevertheless these town sites originally grew like Topsy; and instead of becoming the well-planned mountain towns they should have become, they became western towns with false-fronted houses and architecture that was certainly not in keeping with the grandeur of the scenery. While that situation is being improved-I think particularly in Banff- nevertheless for many years to come, instead of having the major seat of administration of the park a thing of beauty and a joy forever, we still have the remnants of the unplanned early development which, I may say, in many cases is simply hideous. The same can be said about the town site of Jasper but, because it is smaller, in rather a smaller degree. For that reason I welcome this resolution.
While this resolution does not quite cover it, I should also like to see the administration of the national parks undertake the construction of tourist huts for skiers. In the Alps the ordinary skier can travel literally for hundreds of miles going from one ski hut to another, and he does not have to take with him the enormous amounts of food and clothing which he is obliged to take with him in our own national parks. I think the development of camp sites should go hand in hand with the development of ski huts so the great skiing terrain which we have in the Rocky mountains could be properly developed, not only for the man who merely goes and rides the ski-tow at mount Norquay or the man who goes up to mount Sunshine or even to mount Templeton, but for the man who wishes really to see the beauty of the Canadian rockies at their glorious best.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, that is an almost impossible undertaking unless you are a member of the alpine club and go on one of their ski tours or stop at one of their ski camps. It is practically impossible to get into the huge snow fields of the Canadian rockies unless one is prepared to set out as an expedition; and this is something which is, of course, as I have already said, extremely expensive.

Along with the setting up of camp sites and the enlargement of places for camping, I would earnestly hope that the administration of the park would take into consideration the importance of the man who goes into the parks on his own two feet. The man who goes into the parks in a motor car is extremely valuable; he produces revenue. But the man who goes into the park on his two feet, once encouraged, is likely to produce a great deal more revenue. I mention this one fact in support of that argument. In Switzerland, prior to the dislocation caused by exchange and currency troubles, the revenue received in the winter from skiers actually exceeded the revenue from summer tourists. I do not say this is something that is merely for that growing band of people who engage in skiing, which is becoming the No. 1 Canadian national sport. In addition to that, it is thoroughly good business as well.
I merely wanted to mention those two points on this resolution. Open up your parks so the man of average means can get into the hinterland. He will not cause fires. In any event, by opening up your airstrips you increase the mobility of your fire-fighting officers and of your wardens. You increase their mobility tremendously by getting them into the hinterland of the parks. Let the man of average means get into the interior of the parks and really see the mountains. Let him not just see them from the dining cars of the Canadian National Railways or the observation cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but let him really get into them and see them. That is something he cannot do now unless he is prepared to spend a considerable amount of money. In addition, open up the country for skiers. I say without any fear of contradiction that the finest skiing terrain in the world is to be found in the Canadian rockies. All it needs is proper development.


Mr. Blackmore:: Before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words concerning it. I favour it heartily. I believe there is much virtue in what has been said by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) who has just taken his seat. The observations the hon. gentleman has made all apply with particular force to the Waterton Lakes national park, which is located in the southwest corner of Alberta, in my riding. I gave some attention to the needs for expansion of that park last night. However, there was not adequate time to say some things I had meant to say without being called to order for going beyond my

time. I should like to say a few more of those things today concerning Waterton Lakes national park.
In the first place it has to be borne in mind that Waterton Lakes national park is one of the show windows of Canada. It is right on the Montana border. It is close to the great population centres of California, Washington, Utah, Idaho and other western states whose people will be naturally inclined to come north to enjoy the parks of Canada and who, if they encounter anything that is a bit unpleasant to them in the first park they enter, will be inclined to return to the United States for their holiday.
We must see to it that we do not fall behind in the matter of a good reputation. If a tourist comes into an area and finds that the roads are not good, the climate is not good, the meals are not good and the park is not good, he will go back and scare thousands from coming to that area, whereas if he comes there and finds a set of circumstances which delight him he will go back and bring a thousand tourists in the course of a few years. We are right at the stage where we can get either good publicity or bad publicity, and we in Alberta are very anxious, and I am sure people in other provinces are, that we shall get a good report from the tourists who come. As the hon. member who has just spoken said, they are even coming in aeroplanes now. We cannot afford to miss this great opportunity of winning favourable publicity for our tourist facilities by neglecting to spend a little money.
Waterton Lakes national park, as I indicated last night, was neglected for reasons which I do not believe it would be quite fair for me to go into. It practically marked time for something like twenty years. When I became the member of parliament for the area, for example, there was no winter water. All the water facilities were laid on top of the ground, if you can imagine a thing like that, so that just as soon as freeze-up came people could not get water. There were no sewage facilities whatsoever. The result was that it was impossible for any considerable number of people to go there in the wintertime and enjoy themselves at all.
During the last two years the park has been under the management of Mr. J. H. Atkinson, a most excellent park superintendent, probably the very best in Canada. If there are others just as good I would be happy to hear about them, but I do not think Mr. Atkinson can be surpassed in Canada. He has been there two years now and has achieved marvels with the money that has come into
National Parks Act
his hands. I think he has got about $2 of development for every $1 he has had available to spend. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who was minister of resources and development last year, will bear me out. He has been there on the ground and has seen what has been going on since Mr. Atkinson went there. Since he took charge water facilities have been installed as they should have been, so we can have water all winter without any trouble. We can have baths and swimming pools all winter. We can have skiing contests there and many other fine winter entertainments because we have all the water we need. There is also an excellent sewage system which makes it a highly suitable place for winter tourists to come and sojourn.
We in southern Alberta are particularly anxious to have the winter playground aspect of the park developed. It is going to take quite a lot of money to make a few important changes, the first of which must be suitable swimming pools for both winter and summer. If the present minister should happen to go to treasury board and ask for a rather liberal allowance of money this year I hope treasury board will give him a most attentive and sympathetic hearing, because he is going to be supporting a proposition which I believe is good business. If the government spends a few hundred thousand dollars building a swimming pool which will be the delight of everybody who comes there and sees it, and which will be talked about by those who go away, then it will not be very long before it will recover its money because just as soon as a tourist comes into Canada he begins to give us American dollars, one thing we do need. I should like to say that in a general way about the park.
As I said a minute ago, the park has not been developed for about twenty years. It just remained in its original state. The idea of the men in charge was that they wanted the park to remain in its "natural loveliness". I reasoned with them quite earnestly two or three times when I was first elected. I asked them how the park could be kept in its natural loveliness when 10,000 cars came there every year. I pointed out they were going to wear out the roads and that it might just as well construct good standard surfaced highways and good sidewalks and build bridle paths on which people could walk so they would not break through the bush and all that kind of thing. I pointed out that a good job should be done so the park would be proof against the wear and tear of tourists, and that it should be done before tourists did lasting damage to the park, which it is

National Parks Act
very easy for them to do, by marring the grass and foliage, picking flowers and so on. I pointed out that such improvements would also add much to the attractiveness of the park.
There is no difficulty with those in charge of the park now. I think they all realize that the park has to grow up, that this age has grown up, that Alberta has grown up and that we must develop with the times or we are going to fall behind. This is a consideration that should weigh rather heavily with treasury board.
There is another matter with respect to the Waterton Lakes national park. I am sure everybody in the house has heard a good deal about the Chinook winds of Alberta. Waterton Lakes park is right in the centre of the chinook belt. The result is that on many days in winter there is lovely weather in that park that would be quite appropriate for Bermuda. Of course there will be off days when the weatherman will be in a bad mood, but even those times will soon pass because a chinook will come along.
There used to be some difficulty because of snow in the wintertime before we had developed machinery with which to clean away a reasonably deep snowdrift without too much effort. Now we have that machinery. We can clear away the snow and thus can accommodate a large body of tourists in the wintertime. We have the name of sunny Alberta and that name is not misapplied. Waterton Lakes national park is one of the sunniest spots in Alberta. I wish that to be borne in mind, and it must be borne in mind by the treasury board if they are to realize that we really have to spend a little extra money here, a little more than it may appear that we should spend. I trust they will give special study to this park, because it is a front window of Canada and because of these other considerations I have mentioned.
There are two or three other matters concerning the park which I think ought to be brought up.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It being five o'clock, the house must proceed with the consideration of public and private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: There being no business for the hour provided for public and private bills, the house will resume consideration of the business with which it was dealing at five o'clock.



NATIONAL PARKS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Lesage-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Parks Act to empower the governor in council to authorize the minister to enter into agreements for the development, operation and maintenance in a park of public utility services, and for a supply of water for domestic purposes; also to provide for rights of way for telephone, telegraph and electrical transmission lines; and also to clarify the authority to establish and survey townsites, subdivisions and cemeteries; and further to clarify and expand the power to issue leases and licences of park lands and to authorize the issue of certificates for plots in park cemeteries; and Anally to authorize the governor in council to make regulations for use of park lands as camp grounds.
John Horne Blackmore: As I was saying, I should like to give some more facts concerning this park so the people across Canada will know there is a reason why an additional amount of money should be spent this year. One of the reasons is that a large number of tourists have already come into the park. Waterton Lakes park stood fourth among all the parks of Canada in respect of the number of Canadians visiting those parks in 1952. The figures for the various parks in respect of the number of Canadians who entered were as follows:	Banff, 512,732; Riding Mountain,
372,957; Point Pelee, 163,641; Waterton Lakes, 136,755; Elk Island, 133,332; Kootenay, 131,225. In so far as the number of foreign visitors who went into Canadian parks was concerned, Waterton Lakes park stood third among all the parks of Canada in 1952. The parks ranged in order as follows: Point Pelee, 156,140; Banff, 69,702; Waterton Lakes, 58,807; Kootenay, 41,990; Riding Mountain, 16,206; Elk Island, 1,978.
From those figures it is easy for hon. members to see that we can very rapidly obtain a good reputation, or we can rapidly obtain a bad one. I think that has an extremely cogent bearing upon the matter we are considering at the moment. I would not be surprised if the minister, being alert and anxious to do a good job, will press for a considerable sum of money. If he should, I hope treasury board will grant him this money because they would likely get it back in a short time. If they do not spend the money, they are likely to lose all the money they would ordinarily get.
There is another aspect of this park which is worth mentioning. It has a tremendous potentiality for development. There is a large area east of the town site to provide additional town site room which at the present
TMr. Blackmcre.]

moment has not any special attractiveness, but which is capable of development to such an extent that it will become a wonderland of beauty, something people will come back to from thousands of miles away. I shall not go into the details, but I hope hon. members will take my word for it that there is a tremendous potentiality for development.
In this area of southern Alberta there are a number of reservoirs which have been made in connection with the development of the St. Mary and Milk rivers project. The St. Mary dam itself is most impressive, and controls an impressive body of water about 17 miles long. This body of water is rapidly becoming full of fish. But it is only one of the reservoirs in that area. There is the Pothole reservoir, the Ridge reservoir, the Raymond reservoir and the Chin reservoir, as well as others I could name.
In addition to that, just north in the constituency of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) there are some lakes about which the hon. member will probably tell you. I think he is going to say something about this park, too, because it borders on his territory and is almost as dear to his heart as it is to mine. When he tells you about the attractiveness of the points of interest in his constituency, and you realize that those points can be organized with points in my constituency and those down east in the Medicine Hat constituency to form a group of attractions which will be capable of entertaining tourists for four or five days-when you realize that, you will see visions. If you are going to have a genuinely sound approach to this park and the region adjoining it you will take into account all these possibilities and on that basis decide how much money we can afford to spend in connection with the development of the Waterton Lakes park within the next year or two.
There is another important aspect of the Waterton Lakes park. It is this. The town site is not very big. It is a beautiful area, and is nestled in among the mountains and against the Waterton lakes. It is just the spot to go into and stay, but it is limited in size. Last year I noticed that quite frequently during the busy tourist season the people would be jostling each other. Tourists do not enjoy being in a park where they are likely to jostle each other. Most people like to be off by themselves, where they can have some measure of privacy. For people to enjoy that kind of pleasure, we have to expand the town site facilities of the park beyond the present town site.
As soon as you get east of the present town site there is an extensive area that
National Parks Act
could be developed, but it would require considerable effort to bring it up to a standard which people would enjoy. Perhaps I had better go into some detail in that respect. There is a creek which runs down from the north and across in front of the eastern part of the town site. This creek is known as Pass creek. In the spring of the year it becomes tumultuous with water and brings down a great deal of gravel. When the water is high, as it was last spring, the creek overflows its banks and spreads the gravel over a considerable area.
This has been going on for centuries, no doubt. In order to make this reach of country really beautiful it would be necessary to contain the creek and remove the gravel which has been deposited. It would be necessary to put in new soil and regrass the whole area. If that were done the area would be just as good as the present town site and park for entertaining tourists. This should be done before very long, otherwise people will begin to dislike going to the park when the town site is overcrowded. With the number of tourists we have had in the park up to the present time, the park is just adequate to give them all the enjoyment for which they could ask.
There is an additional consideration. That is that the United States are just as alert to the importance of tourist traffic as we are. In fact they may be more alert. They have spent a lot of money on their side of the border in developing fine facilities. If we are to attract tourists into our area we must have facilities just as fine as, or perhaps a little bit better than, the facilities in the United States. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and others who have been out there know what I am talking about and will appreciate the force of all I am saying.
I believe the considerations I have mentioned are the ones we must bear in mind. We must see that the facilities we build, such as swimming pools and the like, are of high quality so they will be up to date for at least 25 years. It requires a certain amount of money to do that.
If the minister is not supplied with the money for which he asks he is going to be hampered in his efforts to develop the park. He will want to develop the park. He is young and full of energy. We want Canada to get the benefit of all his energy. I shall not give way, so the hon. member for Macleod can say something about this park from his particular viewpoint.


Mr. Knight:: I should like to say a word
or two for the first time in this new session. I suppose it will have to be about parks,

National Parks Act
because that is what we are discussing now. The minister has been getting a great deal of advice, so perhaps I might give him some more. There are a few things I wish to state very briefly. I hope it will not take more than five minutes, and I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will not get here until I have completed my remarks, for the reasons stated by the house leader a few minutes ago.
The first thing I would like to say about parks is that they should not be urbanized. It seems to me that when we go to national parks now there is a tendency to find too much of a replica of the sort of thing we left in the cities. I see in this resolution much- and I know it is necessary-about things like electrification and subdivision, the process of dividing these places into streets, and all that sort of thing. It makes me think of cities and towns rather than of the open, wild country. I know there are parks in which one might almost feel that he was in a city, parks in which there are subdivisions, streets, beer stores, juke boxes, dance halls and all the rest of it. Perhaps it is a sign that I am getting old, but I object to those things. They do not represent the kind of holiday in which I am interested.
That is my first point. Let us not urbanize our parks. The second point is that we should see to it that the people of Canada, who own these parks, derive equal enjoyment from them. My meaning is that there should be no class distinction in respect of the occupation of park sites and that sort of thing. We had at lake Waskesiu an unfortunate situation. This happened seven or eight years ago, and I remember protesting about it at the time. There was at that point a group of people known as shack tenants. These people brought semi-permanent tents which they took down when their holidays had been completed. Those tents were removed to their homes, and brought back to be set up in the following spring. This meant there had to be a place in which to locate these tents.


Jean Lesage: They still have that site.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Just a moment, and I will
tell you what happened a few years ago. For about 20 years these people had occupied very fine sites along the lake front for the erection of these temporary dwellings. Then they were told that they could no longer have the sites because the land was being proportioned off into a subdivision, and only cottages worth two or three thousand dollars were to be erected there.
Those people had to move over into the bush, and the subdivision lots were sold to others who could afford them. There was a

great demand for this property by people who had money. Numbers were drawn out of a hat, and the lots were assigned in that way. Meantime these others had to move back into the woods. As the minister has hinted, to a great extent this situation was remedied by a provision which was made some time later but, may I add, somewhat too late so far as the people about whom I am speaking were concerned.
So we have at that point a situation where those people who can afford that particular type of accommodation have succeeded in obtaining the best sites, while others who did not have as much wealth had to take what was left. That is my second point; that there should be equality in the distribution of these sites among the people of Canada who, after all, own the parks.
So, may I say, without any bitterness or prejudice, that these people in the small income group, people who have no cars and those having low incomes, should always be kept in mind when it comes to the use of our parks. Those who have cars can enjoy any holiday they may choose. I have no doubt that most of us in this chamber would be in that class. But the people in whom I am interested, the people who should have holidays at a lake so they may fish and engage in those other pleasant pastimes, are those in the lower income groups who are living in our cities and who, generally speaking, cannot afford that type of holiday unless they can have it in a national park. That is my second point.
My third point is that the department should avoid trying to give people who are on holidays the type of thing they have at home. I have travelled through the country many times and have seen American flags flying. I might walk in to have a cup of coffee, and would say, "What are you celebrating today? Is this the fourth of July?" The reply would be, "Well, many Americans come through this way, and we want to make them feel at home".
I suggest that is the very thing we do not want them to feel, at home. They do not come to Canada to be made to feel they are at home. They come to Canada in somewhat the same frame of mind as that famous rabbit about which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, was talking, the one who was running away from home. The tourists want to get away from home conditions when they are visiting this country. We do not have to create conditions here that are different, let us leave conditions as they are. That is my third point. Particularly having in mind our beautiful scenery and the abundance of our

wild life, we should not create conditions for tourists which are the same as those to which they are accustomed at home.
The hon. member for Lethbridge has perhaps set a precedent by talking about a particular park. I shall not talk about a park, but rather about a forestry farm. The minister may bear with me because I am pleased to congratulate him upon the condition I am about to describe, although it may be that he has not had anything to do with it personally. Let me congratulate him, however, upon the forestry farm outside the city of Saskatoon. This farm was originated for the purpose of producing small trees to be distributed throughout the prairie provinces. The farm has been allowed to develop into something approximating a national park, and what is recognized by us as a town park.
Let me pay tribute to the superintendent in charge. I do not know how any man or group of men could keep the lawns and flower beds in such beautiful condition, in the light of the fact that Sunday after Sunday, thousands upon thousands of people from the city tramp over them. The place has become a Sunday resort to which the working people of Saskatoon can go by bus. They come with their children and have little picnics. The superintendent has collected animals from here and there and, to the delight of the children, he now has a small animal park.
Usually a speech of this kind concludes by asking for something. I am going to suggest to the minister that since it is virtually impossible to keep that place in a beautiful condition if the area is not extended, the department should provide money for the purpose of extending these lawns to double their area, and carry out the work. In this way twice as many people could be accommodated. The ground is available, because there is not now the great demand for trees that there was at one time. There has been a great deal 'of afforestation throughout Saskatchewan, and a smaller amount of new land is being broken up. In fact, people in Saskatchewan are not living on farms any more, anyway. So there is plenty of land available for an extension sufficient to create the same beautiful condition over a greater area.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I shall certainly draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the compliments paid him this afternoon by a colleague from Saskatchewan. I say that because he is responsible for the forestry park near Saskatoon.
National Parks Act


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There are times when I can say good things even about the Minister of Agriculture.


George Alexander Drew: It is the Christmas season.


Mr. Hanssll:: Mr. Chairman, I realize the committee would like to complete its work before six o'clock, and I shall be brief in what I have to say. I should like, however, to congratulate the minister upon his appointment to his portfolio. I watched him in various committees, and I have seen what he has done as a parliamentary assistant. I am certain all hon. members are pleased that he has received this appointment, and that all will co-operate with him by helping in the administration of his department.
I support the hon. member for Lethbridge in what he said about Waterton national park. I have a personal interest in it because part of my constituency borders on the park.
I rise to support the hon. member for Lethbridge, not to amplify particularly what he said; I do not think I can do that. He has covered the ground very well. I would point out one matter, however. One of the principal north-south United States highways leading through their own Glacier park comes up to the Waterton national park, and a good many United States tourists visiting their own Glacier park come over into Canada through the Waterton national park.
I agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge when he says that first impressions are very important. We do know that our United States visitors do things in a big way, and some of their parks are excellent. Perhaps they have a little more money to spend on them than we do. Perhaps their buildings and highways and so on are a little better than ours, I do not know-Alberta is excluded from that remark. But they do things in a big way, and if they come up from their own national parks, or from their own states that do things in a big way, into one of our parks that is not on a level with their own, as the hon. member for Lethbridge has said, they can go back and register some criticism. Since one of the main highways through one of their glorious national parks leads into and borders our own Waterton park, I do urge the minister to put all that he possibly can into the Waterton national park.
I rise particularly to ask the minister a couple of questions. I feel that he can answer one of them, and if he does not have the figures to answer the other I should be glad to put it on the order paper. It is not particularly necessary to have it answered today. I do believe there is some reason to expand the tourist cabin facilities in some of our

National Parks Act
national parks. I realize that the tourist trade is somewhat seasonal. I recognize that there may be periods when there is a congestion of tourist traffic in our parks, and sometimes it is very difficult for our tourists-and when I say "tourists" I do not necessarily mean tourists from our neighbouring country, but also our own-people who are holiday making, to find accommodation. We bring in laws having to do with holidays. We have now a law concerning holidays with pay. Our own citizens like to go somewhere; they like to go through our own parks. There are times when there is a congestion of tourist traffic in our parks and it is difficult for them to find overnight accommodation.
I wrote the minister some time ago in respect to one little matter, and I am not raising that now; but I should like to know from the minister his department's procedure in respect to opening up suitable areas and leasing them to individuals in order to build approved cabin accommodation. I do know from experience and from inquiries that some people are anxious to invest money in approved tourist accommodation in our national parks. There is a need for it. It does not involve any risk to the government. These individuals are willing to put money into it, and I should like to know what the procedure is.
I understand that in many of our national parks-I have in mind Banff national park- there does not appear to be at the moment very much land that the department has seen fit to open up and lease to individuals desirous of embarking on ventures of this kind. I should like to know, if the minister can answer the question readily, whether it is expected that the government will open up other areas. I have reference to the Banff park now. What is the procedure when such tracts of land are opened? Is it advertised? For what period of time is it advertised? Is it brought to the attention of the people? What is the procedure in respect to making application for such parcels of land, and on what basis are the tenders accepted? Those things are important. Are the tenders sealed? Is there a particular day set when they are opened, and what governs the acceptability of those tenders? If the minister can answer that question today I should like him to do so. Perhaps he would rather defer it to some future time. I do not know that it is particularly of a rush nature.
I have one other question. How much money did the government put in the following three parks, Banff, Jasper and Waterton, during the last year or the last year for which total figures are available?

I shall now resume my seat, but before doing so may I compliment the work of Mr. Dolan, the head of the travel bureau. I think he comes under the minister. I should like to compliment him on his work. He is doing a good job in that department. The more we can make our tourist attractions known to other peoples and other countries the more friendly we shall become, and incidentally we shall gain an advantage in other ways.


Jean Lesage: I am sure the hon. member for Macleod will understand if I suggest that when we are on second reading of the bill or when we are in committee after second reading I shall be in a much better position to give complete answers to his two questions, and I am sure he will accept that.


Ernest George Hansell: That is agreeable.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I should like to say a word or two about this resolution before it passes. I did not expect that it would be dealt with today or I would have brought other material with me. However, there are a few general remarks I should like to make in regard to the national parks. It seems to me that the national parks business is big business today, and it is something that should be viewed in that light. The money we get from the tourist trade alone, if my memory serves me right, is somewhere around $300 million a year. That is a lot of money.
We have been encouraging tourists to come to Canada over the past few years, and in doing so we tell them we have some of the finest parks on this continent. I do not think that is an exaggeration. I think we have. In fact I visited quite a few of the national parks in the United States, including Yellowstone park, and none of the parks I visited compare with some of our national parks. When I say that I have in mind Banff national park, which is one of the finest national parks on the North American continent.
However, there are quite a few things that are being neglected in that park. It seems to me that when we are dealing with parks we should try to make them available not only to the tourists who come to this country, particularly the American tourists who have lots of money to spend, but we should make them available to our own people. Anyone who has visited our national parks will agree that by far the greatest percentage of cars that enter these parks are owned by Canadians, and we should do nothing that would interfere with the Canadian people's enjoyment of these great scenic spots, particularly in the case of those Canadians who like to travel and may not have large financial resources at their command.

There is another point I want to mention. Last summer I visited Banff national park, and I made a special trip out to lake Louise. If the new minister has not been there I suggest he go there.


Jean Lesage: I have.


Charles Edward Johnston: Good. But
you cannot get in unless you have a gatling gun.


Jean Lesage: I did not try. It was in
March.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, you have
not been there recently. Before you can get in there you must pass the policemen who surround Lake Louise hotel.


Jean Lesage: I do not look like a suspicious character. I have never had any trouble with the police.


Charles Edward Johnston: I was not able
to get beyond the gate. I must have been one of those suspicious characters. When I went there I was stopped by a policeman, and I asked him what the idea was of having police stationed all around. Of course I looked just like one of those ordinary tourists who did not have very much money, so I did not pass through. I am sure I did not look like one of those wealthy American tourists who go up to Banff Springs and Lake Louise hotel and park on the sunporch overlooking lake Louise. I was just one of those ordinary people, and so he stopped me. The reason he stopped me was that this is now a very secluded place. They have built a cow fence all around it, and every so often they have guardhouses with policemen stationed there. The policeman informed me the reason they did so was that there were so many ordinary people running over the hotel grounds, and some of them ate their lunch there and scattered papers about, and they did not want their property-that is the C.P.R. property-to become a place where tourists could do that sort of thing and spoil the place for the more well-to-do tourists.
It is a bad thing to have such a barrier there. There have been a great many articles in the Calgary Herald, the Albertan and other newspapers concerning this. Some might say that these policemen stationed in these guardhouses around the property do not stop people entering the grounds, but they certainly do stop people, and I stood there to see how it worked. I do not suppose I would have been stopped if I had gone up to this man and used my elbows and pushed him to one side, but the very fact that you have a fence surrounding a national park-


Jean Lesage: Not surrounding the park.
National Parks Act


Charles Edward Johnston: Not surrounding the park, but surrounding this scenic spot.


Jean Lesage: It is C.P.R. property.


Charles Edward Johnston: That leads me to another question that I wish to bring to the attention of the committee. The very fact that you have this fence around this area and these guardhouses with uniformed policemen stationed there to prevent people from going through means that very few visit lake Louise. I was there in the middle of summer, just after the election, and there were very few people walking around the grounds.


An hon. Member:: They had good reasons for stopping you.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not saying this for election purposes, because I won handily. I simply want to point out that people are not going into these grounds, and will not go in, when you have fences, barriers and guardhouses all around the property. The whole thing appeared to me to be something in the nature of a social barrier. In effect it says to the tourists who go there to view the scenic beauties of lake Louise-


Ernest George Hansell: Keep off.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes; as the hon. member for Macleod has just interjected, it says in effect, "Keep off", and it has that effect, too. There is a definite social barrier. The view for the ordinary people who go there has definitely been spoiled, and they are compelled to walk along between the fence and the water's edge. The view is certainly not what it was.
I have visited lake Louise on many occasions in years gone by, and I want the minister to know that I have never seen tourists destroy C.P.R. property. At that time you could walk around the buildings and walk up by the hotel and look across lake Louise to the glacier. It was a wonderfully unobstructed view, and you could look across the lake and the flower gardens and up the mountainside. You cannot do that now. The only thing you see now is a great throng of people walking between the fence and the water's edge, and it is most unsightly.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that our national parks should be for the Canadian people, and such a condition as I have described should never be allowed to exist in Banff or any other national park. How on earth the C.P.R. ever got permission to build this fence is more than I can understand, because normally it takes a long time to get anything done by the national parks branch.

National Parks Act.
There seems to be more red tape attached to that department than any other. I see the former minister smiling. I must admit that as far as he is concerned he has always given me splendid co-operation. I cannot say, though, that we had such good results with some of the departmental officials. That is another matter, though, which we will discuss at another time.
I cannot see how the C.P.R. ever obtained the permit so readily to stick up that old cow fence around there. Apparently it did not take any time at all until they had permission from the park officials to go ahead and put the fence up. I am going to say this. Some of the park officials in Banff national park are not too pleased with it; they are not any too pleased about the construction of that fence because of the social effect it has, particularly upon our own Canadian people.
It may be all right for the C.P.R. to fence off this area and say in effect, if not actually, "We are building this property up for the very well-to-do American citizens who come to visit us, those American citizens who can afford to pay $25, $50 or $100 a day for room accommodation". That might be all right from their financial point of view, but do not let it be misunderstood; that park belongs to the people of Canada. The C.P.R. or no one else should put up a fence that becomes a barrier and an eyesore in one of the scenic spots of this country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is free enterprise.


Charles Edward Johnston: No; that borders on socialism, where you have policemen surrounding the whole place. I hope, Mr. Chairman, the minister himself will do something about the matter. It is an eyesore, a social barrier and something which should not be permitted.
There are a few other things I should like to mention to hon. members and to the minister, through the chairman. We want to encourage the tourist business because it is worth while. We get a great many American dollars that way. Not only do we get a great many American dollars spent in this park itself and in other national parks, but the American tourists leave a great deal of money throughout the country as well. We should therefore do everything possible to encourage tourists to come to our national parks. We cannot very well expect tourists to come here and then have them disappointed after they arrive. There is nothing that travels so fast as news of the tourist who has been poorly accommodated in our national parks.


Mr. Byrne:: How about lake Louise?


Charles Edward Johnston: If you have money, as my hon. friend may have, I am sure you will get the best of accommodation at lake Louise. But if you are a poor fellow you had better stay home or you will be stopped by a policeman. Of course my friend over there on the other side of the chamber has a few troubles in his own constituency. He wants to look after them. I visited that place last year.
I say that advisedly, Mr. Chairman, because we have difficulties in Banff national park. I am sure all the other parks have the same difficulty. I refer to the difficulty of accommodating the tourists when they get here. The former minister and I have talked this matter over. I quite agree with him that we should not do anything which is going to make our park a shack-town, or create slum areas in the town itself or in the park. I agree with that statement one hundred per cent. But one of the greatest difficulties we have is in accommodating tourists when they arrive, particularly at Banff. When they come there, they cannot find a place to stay. In the last while the minister has issued permits to build cabin camps at Banff particularly. But even at that-I think only one or two have been issued-there is not enough accommodation to take care of the great numbers of people who come there in search of it. We shall have to do something more besides that.
In Banff there are a large number of cabins. I hope the minister will give this matter consideration. There are a large number of cabins there that were built originally according to specifications or according to park requirements. But as time has gone on the requirements of the park have risen, and naturally they should. But these people have good cabins on their properties and they want to modernize them so that they will come up to park regulations as they exist today. They cannot, however, get permission to do that. With little effort and little expense a large number of these places could be made to accommodate tourists. I am not suggesting that we should build a poor type of cabin on town property; but some of these would not be poor cabins.
Then, Mr. Chairman, there are in Banff places where people want to build modern cabins to accommodate the tourist trade, but they cannot get permits to do so. It seems to me that is one of the things we should look into. I think we should see that permits are issued to build or repair these cabins to bring them up to the required specifications.

National Parks Act
In the paper the other day there appeared what I thought was a poor piece of advertising for our tourists. We are spending large amounts of money to attract these people to Canada. I cut this article out of the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, December 2, 1953. It is headed, "Bring Along a Tent, Live in Canada's National Parks, Urges Director" and it reads in part as follows:
J. A. Hutchison, director of the national parks branch of the resources department, made the suggestion Tuesday to the federal-provincial tourist conference. He had been asked by provincial delegates to permit more tourist resorts to be built in the parks.
Mr. Hutchison said the parks branch would not permit construction of "cheap" accommodation.
I agree in that respect, but we should permit construction of decent accommodation. The article continues:
There were only a few promoters able to finance acceptable accommodation.
The camping facilities in the national parks "exceed anything available in parks in the United States", he said. Yet nothing was being done to encourage tourists to live in the open.
Generally speaking that is all right, but you are not going to get tourists to come to this country when you say to them, "You had better stick a tent in the trunk of your car, because that is the only accommodation you will get here." That advice is all right in a general way, but I do not think it is the type of advice that should be given by officials. His intentions may have been the best in the world. I am not questioning that fact for a moment. What I say is that psychologically it is the wrong kind of advertising. We should be encouraging people to come here by telling them we have the facilities to accommodate them, and then we should see that we have the proper type of accommodation.
I want to say a word at this time about our new parks superintendent. I have had occasion to visit Mr. Strong, and I think he is a very fine fellow. Until we get to the point where we do not agree, I am going to keep that view of him. He seems to go out of his way to get our difficulties solved right there at the source. That is the thing I should like to do. It seems to me that some of the difficulties which come up are not so all-important that they need be sent all the way down here to Ottawa in order to have them solved. I think they could be solved right there on the spot. If that were done I think it would save a great deal of public anxiety. I want to say that up to the present at least Mr. Strong is doing everything he can to be co-operative, to try to get the park to look decent, and to encourage tourists. Up to the moment he is doing a very fine job.
I hope the minister will take under advisement some of the things which I have suggested and particularly, as this resolution proposes to make some changes in these things, from the point of view of relaxing the regulations so we can get some of these cabins fixed up to proper standards from the point of view of suitability for tourist accommodation.
I also think it is a disgrace to allow that fence to remain around lake Louise hotel. It definitely spoils the scenic effect, and I think the minister would be well advised to communicate with the C.P.R. officials, in a nice way at first-


Jean Lesage: I have no other way.


Charles Edward Johnston: -to see if they will not remove it. If he runs into any difficulty in removing it I think I can get him some assistance, because I believe the people generally would be very glad to assist the minister in removing that fence.


Mr. Decore:: I should like to make some reference to Elk Island park, which is situated within my constituency; but before doing so I should like to say that I am very much in agreement with what has been said by the hon. member for Bow River with respect to lake Louise.


Jean Lesage: Have you been stopped by the police?


John Decore: Yes. I was there this summer, and I have been there many other times. The more you go to lake Louise the more you want to go back, because it is one of the most beautiful spots in the world. But in my opinion this cow fence that has been referred to by the hon. member for Bow River certainly mars the beauty of the lake, and I would certainly urge strongly that if anything can be done to see that the fence is removed, it should be done. If the C.P.R. is not co-operative we have a few boys in Vegre-ville constituency who will go there and help to remove the fence if the minister will give them the green light.
With respect to Elk Island park, my information is that it had the third largest attendance of any such park in Canada in 1952. I may be wrong, but it seems to me I read that in the newspapers. It certainly had a larger attendance than Jasper. It is true that many people who go there are those who go with their families for a week end or on a Sunday for a picnic. However, the facilities in the park are far from adequate, considering the huge number of visitors to the park. I think I am correct when I say that it had the third largest attendance of all national parks.

National Parks Act


Jean Lesage: Sixth.


John Decore: Maybe I am wrong, but even if it is sixth the attendance is larger than at Jasper.


Jean Lesage: Yes, definitely.


John Decore: For that reason I think more attention should be paid to that park. More facilities should be provided. A program was outlined some years ago, but for some reason it has not been carried through. I am not going to go into that matter now, but I hope more adequate facilities such as utilities and so on will be provided.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I will only take a few minutes of the time of the house. There are two national parks in my riding, Yoho and Kootenay parks. It has been brought to the attention of the house this afternoon that Kootenay park had the third largest number of tourists in 1952. From what we have heard, other parks have had considerable difficulty with respect to accommodation, bathing pools and so on. I want to bring to the attention of the committee that at Radium in Kootenay park we have a hot water swimming pool which is in operation twelve months in the year. It is very good for people with arthritis and other diseases of that type.
The main point I want to make is that at Kootenay park we have such a large attendance of United States and Canadian tourists that we do not have sufficient other attractions to provide amusement for them. I believe the department should see to it that more sports accommodation is provided, perhaps facilities for golf and tennis and more bridle paths, trails and so on.
Certainly in Yoho park, which has not been publicized sufficiently, we have the most beautiful scenery anywhere in Canada or, for that matter, anywhere on the North American continent. There is one problem that is very important. It involves the barring of certain people from centres of industry because the park lies between where they live and such centres. For instance, there are the people living in the Columbia
valley. Since I have been here I have continually requested that farmers and industrialists who live in that area should be allowed to drive their trucks through to Calgary and Edmonton where their largest market lies. These cities are their closest market. There has been some relaxation during the off-season period. However, that is not sufficient. It was perhaps a correct attitude in the days when the highway was simply a very narrow trail, but now it is up to standard, and in my opinion we should not make second-class citizens out of people living in the Columbia valley by virtue of the fact that a national park lies between them and their natural market.


Mr. Quelch:: I have a few remarks that
I should like to make, but as it is six o'clock I will leave them for another occasion.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lesage thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28, to amend the National Parks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I think we have
had quite a successful week from the standpoint of the order paper, and if it meets with the approval of hon. members I would move that we adjourn until Monday at 2.30.


George Alexander Drew: Just before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, will the leader of the house indicate what the order of business will be on Monday?


Walter Edward Harris: Monday is private members'
day, and I presume we will take divorce bills first, then any other private bills there may be, and then proceed with private members' notices of motions.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at six o'clock.

Monday, December 7, 1953