1954-06-14

Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: In view of the general interest in the matter, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement concerning the railway dispute. On behalf of my colleagues in the government I have asked the parties to the dispute affecting non-operating railway employees to resume negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on the issues involved by the process of collective bargaining.
The management of the railways and the representatives of the unions have agreed with the request and it is expected that the first meeting can be held in Montreal before the end of this week.
ILater:]



POSSIBLE BEARING ON STRIKE VOTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, arising out of his welcome announcement this morning. Does the fact that negotiations will be reopened between the two parties to the railway dispute have any bearing on the taking of a strike vote, arrangements for which have already been made, by the unions, under the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot answer that question officially. I can state, in reply to the hon. member, that it is hoped that if a meeting can be arranged before the end of this week, it may have some advantageous bearing on the matter.



PIPE LINES ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 477, to amend the Pipe Lines Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Lionel Chevrier: The Pipe Lines Act authorized a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate a pipe line. Some doubt has arisen as to whether the word "person" also includes the trustee of the bondholders, and the object of this act is to remove that doubt by an amendment to the act so that the trustee for the bondholders would be a person authorized to construct or operate a pipe line.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. W. E. Harris (for ihe Minister of Agriculture) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 476 (from the Senate), to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


NATIONAL DEFENCE BUILDINGS


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	What percentage of national defence buildings, on a space basis, are heated by fuel oil and by coal, respectively?
2.	How many tons of coal and how many gallons of oil were purchased for heating purposes in the last yearly period for which figures are available?
3.	How much oil is used per 1,000 feet of floor space where oil heating is employed, and how much coal is used per 1,000 feet of floor space where coal heating is employed?
4.	What has been the cost per gallon for fuel oil for the yearly period given in question No. 2, and what has been the cost per ton of coal for the yearly period given in question No. 2?


Mr. Campney:: I am answering parts 2 and 4 of this question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the undue amount of time and work required to get the answers to parts 1 and 3, I have discussed the matter with the hon. member who asked the question and he has agreed to drop those parts.


Mr. Speaker:: The Associate Minister of National Defence says that the hon. member who has put these questions on the order paper has agreed to have parts 1 and 3 dropped, but that he is prepared to answer parts 2 and 4. Therefore, I take it that the answers to parts 2 and 4 are filed, and that parts 1 and 3 are dropped?

Questions


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes. The answers are as follows:
2.	481,863 tons of coal and 36,450,810 gallons of oil were purchased for heating purposes during the fiscal year 1952-53.
4.	The average cost per gallon of fuel oil was 17-71 cents and the average cost per ton of coal was $11-77.



NATIONAL REVENUE-DECISIONS OF DEPUTY MINISTER

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Since January 1, 1953, how many decisions made by the deputy minister of national revenue (customs and excise) have been appealed to the tariff board?
2.	Since January 1, 1953, have there been any instances when the deputy minister of national revenue (customs and excise), having been asked for his decision so as to enable an appeal to be made to the tariff board, has directed a change in his departmental officers' tariff classifications or valuations? If so, how many of such instances have there been?
3.	Has the deputy minister of national revenue (customs and excise) any applications for his
decisions regarding his departmental officers' tariff classifications or valuations before him at the present time? If so, how many?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	36.
2.	4.
3.	35. The majority of these decisions cannot be made until such time as the department receives final rulings from the tariff board or the exchequer court.



PROVINCIAL TAX COLLECTIONS

Mr. Dufresne:: From 1945 to 1953 inclusive, what amount was collected in each of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, on account of (a) individual income taxes; (b) corporation income taxes; (c) succession duties?


Mr. McCann:: The amounts of tax collected by the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, in the provinces specified in this question for the fiscal years 1944-45 to 195253, inclusive, were as follows:
Province
(a)
Individual Income Tax
(b)
Corporation Income Tax
(c)
Succession
Duties
Nova Scotia	$ 160,248,970
New Brunswick	 115,953,669
Prince Edward Island	 12,477,382
Ontario	 3,312,998,903
Manitoba	 344,128,215
Saskatchewan	 228,543,819
Alberta	 380,090,384
British Columbia	 719,231,091
$	96,082,273
74,590,803 8,827,657 2,428,678,845 221,608,271 41,938,441 161,347,867 564,767,222



$ 7,171,162 7,122.956 564,725 130,583,803 11,488,331 4,987,695 10,574,285 26,813,085 TAX COLLECTIONS, NEWFOUNDLAND

J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: What amount was collected In the province of Newfoundland, from the entry of that province into confederation to 1953 inclusive, on account of (a) individual income taxes; (b) corporation income taxes; (e) succession duties?


James Joseph McCann: The amounts of tax collected by the Department of National Revenue, taxation division, in the province of Newfoundland from the entry of that province into confederation to the end of the fiscal year 1952-53, were as follows: (a) individual income taxes, $23,910,626;	(b) corporation income tax,
$32,818,424; (c) succession duties, $884,852.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE, SASKATCHEWAN

Mr. Shaw:: 1.	How many residents of Saskatchewan received (a) old age security payments; (b) old age assistance payments, during April, 1954?

2.	What was the total amount paid to Saskatchewan residents during April, 1954 as: (a) old age security payments; (b) old age assistance payments?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	(a) 42,923; (b) 4,636.
2.	(a) Gross payments, $1,748,680;	(b)
amount paid by the province including 50 per cent federal share, $175,348.



SEDITIOUS WORDS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many (a) charges; (b) convictions; (c) acquittals; (d) charges not proceeded with, have there been in Canada between January 1, 1919 and January 1, 1954, under section 134 of the Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, or its predecessor if the section number has been altered during that period?
2.	How many of the charges, convictions, acquittals and charges not proceeded with, as noted above, arose from (a) speaking seditious words; (b) publishing seditious libels; (c) being a party to a seditious conspiracy?
3.	What was the "style of cause" in each conviction noted in question 1 above?

4.	Have any charges been laid under the abovenoted section of the Criminal Code since January 1, 1954? If so, how many?


Mr. Dickey:: 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d). Information not available. While certain sections of the Criminal Code are, for statistical purposes, coded separately, in most cases the practice is to group certain sections of the code together under a number of general headings. Offences under section 134 of the Criminal Code are included in the general heading "Various other offences".


John Horace Dickey: 



STATEMENT SHOWING CANADIAN EXPORTS TO HOLLAND OF TOBACCO DURING THE YEARS.1945 TO 1953

[Stage Direction]
Year	Burley tobacco	Flue-cured tobacco	Cigar leaf tobacco	Dark air cured tobacco	All other tobacco	Lb.	Value	Lb.	Value	Lb.	Value	Lb.	Value	Lb.	Value1945	$	$	t	$	$1946	1947	1948	1949	17,277 865,796 519,551 294,459 252,479	2,677 165,754 95,957 102,907 66,205	1950	136,555	12,288	8,248	8241951	166,472	38,288	1952	3,895	304	1953	
Questions
2.	Information not available. See answer to No. 1.
3.	Information not available. See answer to No. 1.
4.	Information not available. See answer to No. 1.

Mr. Nesbitt:: What were Canadian exports to Holland of (a) burley tobacco; (b) flue-cured tobacco; (c) cigar leaf tobacco; (d) dark air cured tobacco; (e) all other Canadian tobacco, in quantities and in value, for each of the years 1945-1953 inclusive?



DIPLOMATIC SERVICE


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	In how many countries does Canada own buildings and property to house the diplomatic corps?
2.	What was the cost of each property and buildings?
3.	What was the cost of upkeep and salaries for such service in each country for the fiscal year 1953?
4.	Has the government purchased properties in any other countries since January 1, 1954?
5.	If so. in what countries and at what cost?
6.	In what other countries does the government contemplate inaugurating diplomatic service?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	As at December 31, 1953-16.
2.	Australia-residence for high commissioner, $42,189.52.
China-compound containing chancery and residence accommodation for staff, including cost of constructing buildings, $200,635.
Cuba-embassy residence, $84,750.
Denmark-legation residence, $136,728.73.
France-embassy residence, $239,499.32.
Property on which to erect an office building, $298,078.39.
Office building for Canadian delegation, and staff, to North Atlantic council, $115,466.40.
India-compound containing office buildings, official residence of the high commissioner and quarters for domestic help, $155,289.95.
Ireland-embassy residence, $32,292.
Italy-a building site, purchased with blocked funds, which may be sold later, or on which embassy buildings may be constructed, $186,391.65.
Japan-compound containing embassy office buildings and official residence, $200,000.

Questions
Additional property on which to erect staff residences and other buildings, $71,819.50.
Residence for an officer of the mission, $27,463.52.
The Netherlands-embassy residence and property on which staff residences could be constructed, $194,128.80.
Building site for a Canadian government office building, $41,751.75.
New Zealand-building site, $9,140.
Pakistan-a staff beach hut for hot weather use, $1,604.
South Africa-residence for high commissioner, $70,613.07.
United Kingdom-Canada House, $1,539,073.11.
Residence for high commissioner, $92,695.41.
United States-New York-residence for the consul general, $27,500.
Washington-office building, $477,754.35.
Embassy residence, $305,278.87.
3. Australia-upkeep,	$341.57; salaries, $944.08.
China-upkeep, $123.96; salaries, $2,577.62.
Cuba-upkeep, $3,988.09; salaries, $1,478.05.
Denmark-upkeep, $241.96; salaries, $987.62.
France-residence upkeep, $1,495.23; salaries, $2,776.53.
North Atlantic council, upkeep, $245.42; salaries, nil.
India-upkeep, $2,909.87; salaries, $506.97.
Ireland-upkeep, $301.69; salaries, $2,286.65.
Japan-upkeep, $390.49; salaries, $2,618.05.
The Netherlands-upkeep, $3,180.70; salaries, $902.30.
South Africa-upkeep, $1,232; salaries, $501.76.
United Kingdom-office upkeep, obtainable from Department of Public Works; salaries, $5,548.98; residence upkeep, $1,808.93; salaries, nil.
United States-New York-upkeep, $74.58; salaries, nil; Washington-office upkeep, $5,970.68; salaries, $9,152.86; residence upkeep, $2,367.91; salaries, nil.
4.	Yes.
5.	In Indonesia-an embassy residence, $53,439.74.
A residence for a foreign service officer, $32,383.50.
In New Zealand-a residence for the high commissioner, $56,000.
In Karachi-a duplex to serve as a staff residence, $84,615.64.

(N.B.-These figures are subject to slight revision when details are received.)
6.	I would refer the hon. member to my statement on Friday, May 28, when, as he will recall, I said that I was not yet in a position to give full details concerning the opening of new diplomatic missions. The proposed extension of the jurisdiction of Canadian ambassadors already serving in the region to allow them to represent Canada in the. Dominican Republic and the Republic of Haiti has already been announced. Negotiations are still continuing with certain other countries. The hon. member will understand that we are under obligation to the authorities of these latter countries to keep matters confidential until such times as may be mutually agreeable to the governments concerned.



GENERAL A. G. L. MCNAUGHTON

Mr. Diefenbaker:: How much has been paid to General A. G. L. McNaughton, year by year, from 1949 to 1953 inclusive, for (a) salaries; (b) living allowances and expenses?


Mr. Pinard:: (a)	Salary
1948-	49	$10,000
1949- 50	 7,500*
1950-	51	
15,0001951-	52	
15,0001952-	53	
15,0001953-	54	
15,000
* Supplemented by military pension.
(b)	Allowances Expenses
1948-	49	$14,392	$1,813.701949-	50	
-	2,338.941950-	51	
-	2,651.351951-	52	
-	2,363.641952-	53	
-[DOT]	2,182.591953-	54	
-	2,195.90



EXPORTS TO RUSSIA

Mr. Castleden:: 1.	What is the total quantity of articles exported from Canada to the U.S.S.R. in each of the export classification items, during the period February 1. 1934 to May 31, 1954 inclusive?
2.	What was the total value of the articles exported from Canada to the U.S.S.R. in each of those classification items in terms of Canadian dollars exclusive of freight, insurance, handling and other charges, for the same period?


John Horace Dickey: 1 and 2. The Canadian exports to U.S.S.R. during the period February 1 to April 30, 1954 (latest figures available) were gifts valued at $25.



NAVAL FUEL OIL, ESQUIMALT

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	To what company or companies has the contract been let for the supply of naval bunker and diesel fuel oil for the naval fuel depot at Esquimau, British Columbia, for the year 1954-55?
2.	Did the specifications for the tenders call for prices at a refinery, as well as for those delivered to H.M.C. dockyard, Esquimalt?
3.	Did the specifications require that the oil supplied should be Canadian oil obtained from Canadian firms?
4.	Is the fuel being delivered, produced from Canadian or foreign crude oils?
5.	Do the companies, or company, to whom the contract was awarded, operate permanent installations, or was the contract awarded to an oil brokerage firm?
6.	Is the fuel for the 1954-55 contract to be delivered at H.M.C. dockyard, Esquimalt, or is delivery to be taken at a refinery and conveyed to the naval fuel depot by Canadian naval tanker?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	Naval fuel oil (bunker)-White Petroleums, 900 Pacific St., Vancouver, B.C. Naval diesel fuel oil-British American Oil Company Ltd., Toronto, Ont.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	Foreign crude oils.
5.	White Petroleums-no permanent installations-B.C. distributor for Union Oil Company of California. British American Oil Company Ltd. operates permanent installations.
6.	Naval fuel oil (bunker) to be delivered by contractor's tanker to H.M.C. dockyard, Esquimalt. Naval diesel fuel oil to be delivered by contractor by pipe line at Vancouver and Esquimalt, and by contractor's tanker and/or tank wagon or in 45 gal. drums to H.M.C. dockyard, Esquimalt. Neither of these requirements will be delivered by Canadian naval tanker.



TREASON, ETC.  CHARGES UNDER CRIMINAL CODE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many (a) charges; (b) convictions; (c) acquittals; (d) charges not proceeded with, have there been in Canada under the Criminal Code from its adoption in 1892 up to January 1, 1954, under sections 74(2), 76, 78 and 79 of the Criminal Code, chapter 36 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, or their predecessors if the section numbers in question have been altered during that period?
2.	What was the "style of cause" in each conviction noted above?
3.	Have any charges been laid under the abovenoted sections of the Criminal Code since January 1, 1954? If so, how many?


Mr. Dickey:: 1. (a), (to), (c) and (d).
1 (a), Ob), (c) and (d). Information not available. While certain sections of the Criminal Code are, for statistical purposes,
Motions for Papers
coded separately, in most cases the practice is to group certain sections of the code together under a number of general headings. Offences under the sections stated above are included in the general heading ''Various other offences" which includes, as well, offences under several other sections of the Criminal Code.
2.	Information not available. See answer to No. 1.
3.	Information not available. See answer to No. 1.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Bell:: For a copy of the report of an economic study of the proposed St. Lawrence waterway, made in 1951 by the Department of Trade and Commerce, as referred to by the Minister of Transport at page 1666 of Hansard of December 6, 1951.
He said: I ask leave to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion dropped.



LAKE WINNIPEGOSIS

Mr. Zaplitny:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other communications, from August 1,	1953 to date,
exchanged between any department of the government and any person or persons with respect to the question of an additional dredge to be used on lake Winnipegosis in Manitoba.



ARMED FORCES


Mr. Dinsdale:: For a copy of the Laycock report on the subject of recreation and related services for Canada's armed forces.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I ask that the hon. member allow this motion to stand for today.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT LONDON CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). What arrangements have been made for the Canadian representation at the meeting of forty nations taking place this week in London to discuss the world wheat situation? Also I would ask the Prime Minister to give the house all the information he can as to the instructions the Canadian representatives have received.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps I may answer for the Prime Minister. Canada is to be represented at that meeting, as usual, by a member of the Canadian wheat board. The member of the board is instructed to make such representations as are in the interests of Canadian producers. No special instructions have been given by the government. It is a matter for the wheat marketing authorities of the exporting countries, and the marketing in Canada is the responsibility of the Canadian wheat board.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the situation which exists has not the government discussed this matter with the representatives of the wheat board and indicated to them some course they would suggest as being advisable, in view of the special situation in respect of the wheat surplus at this time?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I know of no special situation. Canada has a wheat surplus, as has every other producing country. Parliament, in its wisdom-and I think wisely -made the marketing of wheat as the responsibility of the Canadian wheat board; and the government assumes that the board is capable of carrying out that responsibility, without special instructions from the government.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote). Perhaps in his absence it could be answered by the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney). Twice within a month, and to the same person, mail was sent short of postage by the Department of National Defence. In my view a government department should be the last in the world to send out mail short of postage. If the minister wishes, I could give the name of the person who received it.


Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Parliamentary Assistant to the Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the question is deserving of serious consideration. Departmental officials will look into the matter and report at the first opportunity.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee on Bill No. 463, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.


Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Part I.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to make an extended statement about this bill because, as hon. members are aware, it was considered by the committee on banking and commerce. I was not present at the hearings of that committee but I understand the main subject matter discussed there was whether or not the bill should be dealt with at this time, or should be postponed. It is on that point I wish to say a word.
As I said in my speech on second reading, this is a bill which, in the view of the government, rounds out the superannuation act, an act which in my opinion is one of the best, if not the best, superannuation plans offered by any employer in Canada. Those of us who have had some legal experience-and that covers a good many of us-know that unfortunately a good many people do not make adequate provision for the liabilities they leave at death. We see a good many hard cases where provision of some additional liquid resources would prove greatly advantageous either to the dependents of the deceased or to those who are responsible for discharging the obligations.
This measure was given very careful consideration by the government before it was decided to introduce it. It is, of course, a compulsory plan. Any plan of this sort must be compulsory in order that the benefits of the low rate may be available. My understanding is that the superintendent of insurance gave evidence to that effect before the committee.
I think it is unlikely that there could be any substantial variation in the plan as presented. In other words, I think the plan must be taken as a whole. It is true that you could, for instance, exclude women from its operation. But I am one who does not believe that women should be discriminated against in matters of this kind. I can see no reason why they should be excluded. They would have to be excluded as a whole; you could not exclude unmarried women and include married women, and so on.
In the case of similar plans, I may say that they are compulsory and are made applicable to everybody. For instance, the plan in the Bank of Canada applies from the lowliest stenographer to the most senior executive. The same applies to the plan in force in Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It has been suggested that we ought to put this over for further consideration. Well, I am not one who believes that a plan of this kind, which has been carefully

considered by the actuaries and by the technical people who studied its soundness, would be benefited by a postponement. I think the committee should bear in mind that, as I am told, something over 400 civil servants die each year, and that if this plan is postponed for a year-as I understand has been suggested-it becomes quite clear that the dependents would lose the benefit of the provisions of this measure.
For the price of four or five packages of cigarettes a month a civil servant can provide a liquid amount of up to $5,000 to discharge the obligations he leaves behind him upon his death. So far as I am concerned, I think it is an excellent plan. As I have said elsewhere, I only wish I were eligible to participate in it.
For reasons, some of which I have indicated, the government can see no good reason for postponing this plan.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, the minister has really stated very clearly the chief differences between us. Speaking of the desire on the part of the civil servants for further consultation he says: "I am not one of those who believes that a plan which has been carefully considered by the government", and so on-I did not get the exact words-but in effect they were "needs further consideration."


Mr. Nicholson:: The hon. member usually says something worth hearing, but if he does not speak into the microphones we can hardly hear him down here. Will he speak a little louder and into the microphones?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am grateful for the implied compliment. One often wonders whether one is worth hearing. I was assured the other day that I very seldom am because I am always wrong. However, a man who is wrong can be useful in strengthening other people's views.
The minister has put his finger at once on one of the main points I want to emphasize. We have a situation here where more than 200,000 of our fellow civil servants, without anything approaching what may be called consultation, are being dragooned into a scheme which it is perfectly clear from the evidence already available, fragmentary as it is by reason of the short time, many of them are against. As a matter of fact, if on May 26, when this bill was introduced, anyone had predicted to me that the situation we find this morning could have arisen I could hardly have believed it.
What is the situation as we sit here this morning? On May 26 the bill was introduced. On May 27 the banking and commerce committee met, and the energetic and expeditious chairman told us that the various civil service
14. 1954
Public Service Superannuation Act organizations would be coming before us, and he gave us their names. He said that they were not prepared to make representations that morning. That was not a very surprising statement considering that they represent large groups-one represents something like 60,000 civil servants-from end to end of Canada, and they all have wide dispersion of their membership. But the chairman said, perhaps with a little unconscious humour-no, not unconscious, the chairman always has his sense of humour with him-"in order that they should be given ample opportunity we will call our next meeting on Wednesday afternoon." That was, I think, six days later. Ample opportunity to discuss with tens of thousands of members across Canada a complicated measure running into 30 or 40 clauses!
It is true the bill had been discussed after a fashion with what is called the national joint council. The minister seemed to think that the national joint council consultation had carried the matter a considerable distance; but from the evidence before us it would appear that there is very little to that point, and I shall come to it in a moment or two.
There are two points that I wish to emphasize. First of all there has been no proper discussion with those concerned. Second, there is an element of compulsion which was unanimously objected to by the representatives that came before us. We of the opposition discussed this in the committee at some length and moved that the bill be not reported on the ground that all civil servants' representatives asked for further opportunity to discuss it, and that it was a reasonable request. That motion was dealt with in less time than it takes to tell it. No answer was given to the arguments, such as they were. The chairman merely put it to a vote, and you will not be surprised, Mr. Chairman, to know what the result of the vote was.
This bill purports to benefit civil servants, and if we in the opposition thought it was calculated to do this with a maximum of justice or with even a minimum of injustice we would be wholeheartedly for it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It certainly does not benefit the government.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not know; it is very likely that it will not benefit the government. I am glad the minister is beginning to feel that way, and of course-


Douglas Charles Abbott: This is a bill purely for civil servants.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: If the minister will allow me to make my remarks I shall be happy. The bill was really prepared, one might
5908	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act fairly say, behind the backs of the civil servants. I will explain that. They were given no chance to consider it. It was discussed with the national joint council, and the minister referred to what he called the endorsation of the national joint council, but I shall be at some pains to point out that apparently the actual civil service organizations do not consider that the national joint council has any right to speak for them. Nor can I discover from the evidence that it purports to do so. It was a mere conduit pipe which received information. If it had been able to pass on the information it received then it would have been discharging a useful function; but it was bound over to secrecy, and since then there has been, as I shall point out later from briefs presented to the committee, widespread complaint which I shall go into more in detail.
The government is forcing the matter through, though they know there is widespread disapproval. They cannot know how widespread it is because there has been no time. For example, one of the organizations that came before us had 80 branches. Immediately the information was available to them they had communicated with the 80 branches, but they had had time to hear from only 5. Seventy-five have not yet been heard from. Incidentally, evidence was given to us that in one case a week was required; in other cases a good deal longer. In any event, of course they could have got the full report if there had been time. I shall quote later from the briefs to point out the extent of the disapproval.
Actually, when I saw those briefs I said: "Well, the party is over; the government will never go ahead immediately in the face of this; they will at least consult with these people." I could hardly believe my ears when this thing was rammed through the committee. As I say, they did not deign even to answer the arguments that were made. That was not flattering, but I think we knew the reason. The reason was that there was to be no opportunity for discussion. The word was that it was to be forced through; it had to go back by such and such a day. I think the chairman of the committee had precious little discretion in the matter.
I want to quote a little later on at some length from the briefs. I am not going to go into the details of the many recommendations made. I am going to dwell wholly on the two chief points, the points which I think should have moved the government to delay. The first of them is the universal feeling that there should have been further
[Mr. Macdonnell.l

consultation. The second was the universal feeling that the objections to compulsion were already strong, and evidence to indicate it was likely to be just as strong when the full reports were in.
In introducing the bill the minister said, as reported at page 5103 of Hansard:
-I can inform the house that the national joint council has endorsed the broad outlines of the plan as a whole.
Well, I have not found that impressive. It might have been impressive if in fact this national joint council had had any authority and still more if this national joint council had been able to pass on the information that it got, which indeed it got months ago. But in fact this national joint council, as I shall point out, has no authority and did not pretend to have. Mr. Johnston representing the civil service association of Ottawa says:
The national joint council . . . was not in a position to make any endorsation of the plan, as most of the staff side representatives were only able to express their views as individuals.
And again he says:
This proposal was presented to the council in a very unusual way, which involved the strictest secrecy on the part of all members of the council. The staff side were unable to deal with this subject in their normal way, by taking it back to their associations for guidance.
One would not only regard that as the normal way; one would regard it as a very reasonable way. Indeed it is the only way in which sensible people should deal with each other.
There were two courses open to the government. One was the natural, effective, normal, almost inevitable course for reasonable men, and that was to carry through effective consultation in the ordinary way, which they have often done before, with these civil service organizations which are serious representatives of the civil servants. Among them they represent, I should think, well over 62,000 out of the more than 100,000 civil servant involved.
Now, at the other extreme, there was another course no reasonable man would recommend but which might have been logical, namely, to have no consultation of any kind but just to ram it through and care nothing for what anyone said. As I said, that would have been to me wholly unreasonable. I suppose you can be logical and at the same time utterly unreasonable. But at any rate neither course was followed. A middle course, which had the worst of both elements in it, which was neither one thing nor the other, was followed. The government made a show of consultation by talking to the national joint council but it made this procedure wholly useless by imposing secrecy

on them. In other words, there was just a pretence or a show of consultation which meant not a thing in the world.
As I shall show later, when the bill became public most of the civil service organizations reported widespread disapproval of the vital details. Every organization wanted more time for consultation and every organization raised complaints about the compulsory feature of the bill. Now, we in the opposition are I suppose rather old-fashioned people, but we have the idea that consultation would be natural, particularly if you are placing burdens on people. After all, it is not as if the government was coming along with a Christmas present.
Even one week of consultation showed so much opposition that it seems to me it is utterly preposterous for the government to force this measure through. The only motto I can think of which motivates the government is, "treat them rough and tell them nothing". That, I believe, was a recipe once given for dealing with a man's wife but I do not think it should be extended to more human relationships.
Indeed, we argued these points and we asked for delay. We moved that the committee do not report the bill, but we were voted down. We are used to that, of course, but it would have been nice to have some reasons. Mr. Chairman, we would have felt that perhaps we were discharging our duty better if the government had felt it worth while even to give us some reason. As I say, they are placing burdens on these people and there is no reason why they should just shove it through. But the government pays no attention to the request of tens of thousands of civil servants who ask for a chance to be heard.
Well, Mr. Chairman, one wonders whether ordinary decent human relationships should not prevail in relation to civil servants. No one can deny that this bill works hardship on them. The minister will not deny that and his answer is that in order to be effective the bill has got to be compulsory.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does my hon. friend really think there is any hardship involved?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will try to establish that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would like my hon. friend to elaborate on that if he will.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I will deal with that point to the best of my ability. No one denies it will work hardship on many people. For example, I would like to know whether the minister knows what percentage of civil servants die after 70 and therefore can obtain
14, 1954	5909
Public Service Superannuation Act no benefit. I saw the figure the other day and it surprised me because it was so large and I do not like to quote it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: But in ordinary group insurance one must die before 65.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: A very large number die after reaching 70 and will obtain no benefit at all. There is widespread evidence and nothing to discount the evidence that the unmarried woman, and indeed other women, are very much opposed to this. Are they not entitled to be heard? As I say, one can only assume that the government is prepared to ram the bill through regardless of any injustice involved.
Now I come to the armed forces. There was an attempt made to consult the armed forces but some of us have been in the armed forces and we regard consultation within the armed forces much as would a man from Missouri. When we learned that consultation had been held and a few area commanders were able to report back that the majority of the soldiers were in favour of the scheme I argued quite strongly in committee that I just could not conceive that any man of 17 or 18 years of age, who enlisted for three years, would be in favour of this. He would probably know of his own knowledge that the average enlistment is about five years-out of the 25,000 annual enlistment there is an average wastage of 16,000. I argued that it was impossible to believe that if that young man had it made clear to him, first of all, that when he left the service, unless he elected to continue as a member of the plan and pay his subscription for the rest of his life, perhaps for 40 years, he would lose money, he would lose all benefit. It is impossible for me to conceive that such a man would be in favour of this thing. The answer was made, "Well, of course, he likes it because of the combat feature." But there is a Pension Act and I think that if that young man, as regards the combat feature, had been reminded of the rights of his dependents or relatives under the Pension Act it is just not conceivable that he would have been in favour of it. Yet, we are asked to believe that many were in favour.
Now, coming back to the question of consultation with the civil servants I want to read a word again from Mr. Johnston who spoke on behalf of the association:
The procedure followed by the government . . . was, in my opinion, an indication that the government lacked confidence in its employees and their associations to handle a subject of this nature.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, got lost. It should never have come here at all. It should have

Public Service Superannuation Act been used merely as a basis for discussion with those whom it was contemplated to benefit.
How does good legislation arise? Does it arise in this shotgun manner? Or does it arise by a much better and more judicious procedure? I will quote the minister against himself, and on this point I refer to the Bank Act. Was that brought before us in this shotgun manner? No! The minister took pains to give a hearing to those who would validly be asked to express their views. The minister attended some meetings, took the time to answer questions, and showed the greatest interest in the matter. After weeks, and indeed months, of careful discussion the committee report was brought down. Again when there was a complete revision of income tax some years ago I very well remember the trouble the minister took to communicate with all sorts of organizations.
Now, is this measure so unimportant? It involves 200,000 people. Was there no reason that this should have been discussed? Why should the civil servants and members of the armed forces be treated in this fashion? The only answer I can give when I look at the minister's action here and compare it in the other cases is that when a good man goes wrong he is most dangerous because he remembers the times when he was right and he becomes just as stubborn in the wrong as he previously was in the right. At any rate, though the minister had this consultation with the national joint council it really was utterly meaningless because he bound them over to secrecy, and there was no proper and adequate consultation with the representatives of those involved.
This bill puts a burden on civil servants in many cases while giving them no opportunity to be heard. Many will pay for years and receive no money back. If a private employer did things in this fashion there would be an outcry. Would it not have been fairer to assemble certain facts-for example to find out how many are carrying as much insurance as they think they can under the present Civil Service Insurance Act and otherwise; to find out how many women regard this procedure as a star chamber imposition, not for their benefit but for the benefit of others whom the government has selected as the objects of their benevolence. Would it not have been better to find out in a real way the attitude of the men in the forces? Let us take one small suggestion that came out. I do not propose to refer to it at length, but it struck me as common sense having regard to what the minister said when introducing the bill. He described it, in a manner of

speaking, as a kind of burial measure. I notice that one of the representatives suggested that if it was a burial measure, perhaps $1,000 would be enough with which to get buried.
As I listen to my own words, inadequate as they are-200,000 people being dragooned in this fashion; it sounds almost incredible to me that it should be so-I ask myself, am I unfair? To answer that question I shall quote from these briefs at some little length. I shall be as brief as I can, but I think it is essential that these things should be on the record.
First of all, as to the matter of consultation, I read from the brief of the Civil Service Federation of Canada:
The various staff associations affiliated with the Civil Service Federation of Canada protest strongly the fact that they were not given an opportunity to study the plan before the bill was introduced.
That is plain enough. Then I come to the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada. They say as follows:
However, in the matter of death benefits, and not to labour the point, no organization on the national joint council had authority to either consult national executives or membership until Wednesday, May 26th. On which day the second reading of the bill was given in the House of Commons. From that date to this being far too short a time to afford proper consultation.
I will say that it was too short a time. They continue:
Therefore, in consulting the national joint council some twenty individual views were obtained by the government. It being clearly understood that no staff-side representative could be considered as speaking for his or her organization.
I now come to the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada which says this:
The professional institute regrets that the public service was not asked beforehand for an expression of the opinion of a good cross section of all units on the radical departures involved in this plan as the armed forces were.
They were optimistic in thinking that the armed forces were asked. The brief continues:
In effect the preliminary negotiations for this scheme took the form of consultation with members of the national joint council and one of its subcommittees as individuals only, not as representatives of their organizations. Consequently, the view of the institute is that the public service was not given an opportunity to consider the proposed plan before Tuesday, 25 May 1954.
Then I come to the Civil Service Association of Ottawa which says this. They refer to what Mr. Taylor had said on Thursday last and state:
It is my understanding that the national joint council, as an employer-employee council, was not in a position to make any endorsation of the plan, as most of the staff side representatives were only able to express their views as individuals. This

proposal was presented to the council in a very unusual way, which involved the strictest secrecy on the part of all members of the council. The staff side were unable to deal with this subject in their normal way, by taking it back to their associations for guidance. The staff side cannot function as part of the council unless the association representatives can speak on behalf of their associations. And unless the staff side is allowed to proceed in this way, the council itself cannot function as an employer-employee body.
The procedure followed by the government in only allowing the members of the council to make personal suggestions on the plan presented to them was, in my opinion, an indication that the government lacked confidence in its employees and their associations to handle a subject of this nature.
Last I come to the comment of the Department of Veterans Affairs organization which says this:
We feel strongly that any bill concerning the entire body of civil servants should be brought to the attention of that body before such legislation is introduced in the House of Commons.
They feel that strongly, and any sensible person should feel it strongly. I come now to the compulsion side and I read from the brief of the Civil Service Federation:
It is recommended that civil servants be given the option as to whether they contribute in accordance with the amount of their salary or up to $3,000, say, to a grade 4 level; and on the amount of their salary or $5,000 above that level.
And again at page 2:
It is recommended that the compulsory feature of the act in regard to employees having reached age 60 be changed to give them the right to elect for participation;-
Then I read from the brief of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada:
I am in no position today to support the bill in all its aspects. From a sampling of opinion received to date, however, it appears that the principle of the bill is widely acceptable. On the other hand, opposition is developing to the compulsory feature. In evidence of this I would cite a telegram received from our Vancouver local council, a council with a membership of close to one thousand.
"Vancouver local council agree in principle to life insurance (death benefits) scheme but protest compulsory clauses-"
Again at page 2 of the brief of the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada:
I would, therefore, on behalf of my organization very strongly and heartily support the principle of the bill, and in this also express to the government our appreciation. On the other hand, I must just as strongly oppose the compulsory features of the bill, and request the same be amended so as to provide that the plan become elective.
Then the professional institute at page 3 of their brief say:
The compulsory nature of the proposed scheme is objected to by a number of individual public servants. It is felt that they have certain rights as individuals, irrespective of what the majority view might be. The large number of public servants who will benefit from the scheme are not entitled to enjoy unusually low premium rates if these rates are based on compulsion applied to individuals who would prefer not to be insured.
14, 1954
Public Service Superannuation Act
It is, therefore, felt that those already in the civil service should be given an opportunity to remain out of the scheme, thus staying under the Civil Service Act, section 56.
The Ottawa association at page 8 of their brief say this:
-and that further consideration be given to the universal, compulsory feature of the present bill.
In the light of these quotations, Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder that strong objection is taken to the compulsory nature of the bill by the veterans affairs organization? They comment on the compulsory feature as follows:
The majority of us are very gravely concerned with the arbitrariness of the legislation . . . Such disregard of the will of the people seems to bear the taint of authoritarian paternalism . . .
Yet the government goes on from one arbitrariness to another. I have already referred to the fact only a fraction of the civil service could be communicated with in the time available. I have pointed out the extraordinary unanimity and forcefulness of their objections on the two counts that I have stressed. Yet the government goes on. When there was some apparent delay last week I had hoped that it might be possible that the arguments put forward in the committee had had some weight. But if indeed there ever was any thought of adopting a reasonable course, it has evidently been put aside. I can only urge the government that even yet they adopt a course which, 1 submit, would be reasonable and natural and, indeed, with a good employer, inevitable.
I urge them to deal with their employees as responsible men and women. As I said earlier, why should the civil servants be singled out for this kind of treatment? Are they not responsible people? Are they not people whom we all respect? I said in the committee when I opposed the reporting of the bill that if it were reported in its then form it would be reported utterly regardless of the weight of evidence before the committee, and I can only hope that this committee will consider the weight of evidence and will not follow the course taken by the banking and commerce committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, we had a good deal to say about this measure when it was before the house at its previous stages, so my remarks on this occasion will be very brief. We indicated then that we supported the legislation and that is still our position. We think there is something to be said by way of criticizing the government for having failed to consult those concerned in advance. I need not go into that because that criticism has been made both in the banking and commerce committee and just now by the hon. member for Greenwood. That criticism
5912	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act has also been expressed by some of those speaking on behalf of certain civil service organizations. As I say, I think the government has that criticism coming to it.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we feel that the offer made to civil servants in this legislation is a beneficial and advantageous one. One of the reasons that I wish there might have been consultation in advance is so that our civil servants might have been sold more fully than has been the case on the advantages of the plan being introduced by this bill. There is a question I should like to put to the minister which perhaps puts the point across. I should like to ask him, on behalf of non-civil servants who have indicated to me they would like to take advantage of this plan, whether it will be extended to include those outside the civil service.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Whether what?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether it will be extended to make it available to people outside the civil service. The minister shakes his head, but my question makes the point, namely, that there are people who will not have the advantage of this plan who see it as a very good one. As I say, I wish there had been an attempt made before the legislation was brought in to sell the good points of the plan to the civil servants.
A good deal is being said about its compulsory feature. I notice that if you are opposed to the plan you call it a compulsory plan and if you are for it you call it a universal plan. The two words mean the same thing, in the end. But the minister this morning, and others who have spoken on the legislation previously, have pointed out that the only possibility of any scheme of insurance being provided at low rates arises when you have what we call universal coverage. Something more on that basic principle will be heard from us before the week is out, certainly before the session ends, with regard to the desirability of a national health insurance program.
I think too that an educational job might have been done and may well yet have to be done with regard to the nature of the protection that is afforded by the plan. People are confused about insurance. I do not think that insurance agents are to blame for all that confusion but they certainly help to create it by trying to sell people these policies under which they are supposed to win either way. People do not realize that in any kind of insurance that affords protection there is a certain part of the cost which is the cost of the protection, and if you do not die within the period in which you are protected that element which covered the


cost of protection is, to use a colloquial term, "down the drain". What people do not realize is that if you outlive the period for which the protection was provided and thereby do not get your money back, you have not lost, you have won. You have won in the sense that you are still alive.
As I say, I think a more useful job might have been done by way of educating civil servants as to the nature of the protection that is being afforded by this plan and as to the exceptionally low rates that the civil servants are getting. As I say, we wish there could have been consultation in advance, and we hope that even yet a greater job of educating civil servants as to the nature of the plan will be done. But even so that does not detract from the fact that this is a very beneficial and advantageous offer that is being made by the government to our civil servants.
A number of things came out in the committee that interested me. I think it is splendid the way in which the $5,000 ceiling applies even in the case of persons who might now get as much as $2,500 by way of the two months' death benefit if they are in a high bracket, whereas those a little lower down will get a greater advantage if they die while in service. I think too that the right afforded to a civil servant who has been in the service for five years to take the insurance with him and carry it for the rest of the allotted time, if he wishes to do so, is a good idea. In view of that, I do not think it is so terribly farfetched for me to ask my question whether a plan like this might be made available to the people of Canada generally. In closing I can sum up the way we feel about this measure by saying that I have run across a good many people who will not be able to qualify for this protection because they are not civil servants who wish that this plan could be made available to them.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps I might say one word here. Hindsight is always very informative, and I am more than prepared to agree with the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the explanation and public relations aspect of this measure and its presentation could have been improved on. Frankly, to me it seemed so beneficial, so desirable, that I was quite astonished at the opposition which developed in some quarters. I fully realized of course that in a universal plan of this kind you cannot please everybody, but I did feel that it would and should receive wide acceptance.
The ministry of finance is certainly not a portfolio in which one is trained in idealism,

but I did feel that the great body of civil servants would be ready to contribute to a plan from which a good many would never derive any direct monetary benefit in order to benefit those who would need it very badly. The difficulty of prior consultation can be appreciated by the committee. Once a plan of this sort is discussed generally the older civil servants particularly would say:	My
goodness, I hope that can be made applicable pretty quickly because it would be of great value to me if anything happened to me. Therefore the government felt, having studied it as carefully as it could, having consulted the national joint council which is representative of most, if not all, of the great civil service organizations, that it was justified in bringing in the measure, and I am convinced we were.
So far as the lack of prior explanation and public relations are concerned, I must take the greatest measure of responsibility for having failed to do that, but I am convinced it is a good measure and I am convinced it is a measure which should be adopted at this session.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister could well have delayed his remarks until he had heard the views of all the different groups in the house.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I only wanted to deal with the public relations part of it.


Solon Earl Low: I am going to have something to say about the public relations part of it too.
I think there is too much inclination to disregard certain points of view in this house, and I protest against it. At the same time, I must be very critical of the way this whole matter has been handled by the government. No matter how much the minister may protest that the government gave adequate consideration to this bill, the fact remains that the civil servants were not given an opportunity to give the bill that careful consideration they so much desired, and which should have been given. The government stands condemned today because of the fact they are attempting to ram something down the throats of people who do not want it. It may be said that there will eventually prove to be a vast majority of civil servants who are in favour of it; that may be. But we do not know it now. They have not been given the chance to register their views. Only a comparatively few were given an opportunity to register an opinion, and among those who did there was a very strong protest against the way this whole thing had been handled.
I am not arguing for one moment the good purpose of the bill. I think the purpose is 83276-374J
14, 1954	5913
Public Service Superannuation Act good. Certainly anyone who has taken the trouble to look at it can see the purpose is good, and the principle involved is sound. I am amazed at how lightly my hon. friends to the right are prepared to take this matter of the serious abridgement of the right of people to choose whether they shall come into a thing of this kind or stay out.


Mr. Fleming:: Hear, hear.


Solon Earl Low: I am amazed at it. It is so easy to argue that because a thing looks good to a certain number of people, it must be good for all the people. I am amazed at how easy it is for my hon. friends to say that the cheapest thing is the best thing. If you carried that argument to its logical conclusion, the only conclusion to which you could come would be that it would be wise for some central agency of this country to buy up all the food that is necessary for the people, sit them down to the same kind of table and the same kind of food all over the country because you can get it cheaper that way. It is ridiculous to argue that sort of thing. I maintain that the important principle at this time is the principle of compelling people to give up their right of choice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would you want education changed from a public to a private basis?


Solon Earl Low: Are you going to carry that argument to its logical conclusion, and take away all the rights of the people? I know the hon. member would because that is the principle by which he lives.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nonsense.


Solon Earl Low: That is the principle of socialism; that is the thing to which we object, and object strongly. As I said, I believe the government did a very poor job of selling this business to the civil servants. Certainly the government gave the measure consideration, but they did not give the civil servants an opportunity to learn, to study and to come in voluntarily.
Now, this is the position that we take. We do not object for one moment to surrendering some of our freedoms in the way that we want to surrender them, but we do object to people coming along and taking them away from us when we do not want to surrender those freedoms. The hon. member for Greenwood hinted at something that I have said on numerous occasions, when a man marries a wife or takes a job with an employer, he does give up some of his freedom to his wife or to his employer as the case may be. He does it in a way that he wants to, and that makes a difference.

Public Service Superannuation Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Solon Earl Low: Yes.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Does he believe that contributions to a superannuation fund for pensions and so on should be on an optional basis?


Solon Earl Low: I believe as a matter of fact that in many cases-the minister knows this as well as I-if you give people a chance to study the matter and come to a conclusion of their own, they may elect to come into the scheme. However, they are certainly going to set their feet against being forced into it without consultation. I shall say this, too. No majority, I do not care how big it is, has a right to expect benefits at the expense of the minority without the minority giving their consent; that is what we call government by consent. It is the very basis of democracy, and the rights of the minority have to be respected.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It could be called government by veto, too.


Solon Earl Low: We have government by veto, too, but there are ways by which the government can overcome any opposition to this measure. They could have gone into it with a view to informing those who are going to be considered, giving them all the information which they needed, so that they could make up their own minds. Of course, that is a selling job.
I just ask the minister how far he would get in a move like this amongst a group of farmers in western Canada, or any other part of Canada, who may be thinking in terms of some sort of compulsory marketing legislation. I wonder whether he would get the view of their counsel, talk to them for a while and get their consent and then try to go ahead on the basis of compulsory marketing being forced on all the farmers in the country? He would find himself in a hornets' nest right away.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is being done now with wheat.


Solon Earl Low: Yes, but that came after consultation; the people in the field gave their consent, the farmers organizations and the farmers themselves. People, as I say, do not mind surrendering some of their right of choice, provided they have an opportunity of giving their consent. I say that in this case they were not consulted and they were not given a chance to give their consent; that is the important thing against which I am speaking today. As a matter of fact, I go along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I think it might have been

possible, had the government been prepared to take a little more time, to bring in the majority of the civil servants into the scheme.
I am not convinced, even then, that it would not have been possible to provide a form of cheap insurance for all who wanted to take part in the scheme, even if there were small groups who wanted to contract out. I have not been convinced of that because I do not believe the investigations were carried far enough along that line.
Even if it costs the vast majority of civil servants a little more it would have been justified by the fact you would have given certain groups who are now strongly opposed to being forced in a chance to contract out; that is an important principle. People should be given an opportunity of contracting out of something in which they do not want to participate, particularly if the difference is not too great. I do not argue for one minute that we do not have to surrender some of our right of choice in the common good; the extent of it is the important thing about which I am arguing. I do not v/ant this principle to be carried too far forward or we will some day find ourselves without any freedoms. I value those freedoms, and I am prepared to fight for them.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Because of a rather long association with legislation pertaining to the superannuation of the public service of Canada I was particularly interested in this bill now before the committee. Since the legislation was dealt with by the house a great many protests have been heard about what is stated to be the compulsory feature of this bill. Quite frankly, because of those protests I was very much concerned. They were obviously put forward by people who were quite sincere.
Being concerned with the representations made I took the opportunity of trying to find out if there was any way of meeting the wishes of those persons or meeting the difficulty about which they spoke. I came to the conclusion that there was no way of meeting their wishes. I came to the conclusion also that some of them misunderstood the bill, and after a few weeks of discussion it became apparent, as I found out more about the whole measure and about possible alternatives, that there was some real lack of appreciation of the actual content of the bill. I became very much concerned also with the possibility of delaying this measure until the next session of parliament.
I must, I think, tell you quite frankly that I came to the conclusion that I for one could not take the responsibility of asking for delay of this measure until the next session of

parliament, because the measure was too beneficial and involved serious consequences to too many people for me to take the responsibility of taking such a position. For that reason, here today in committee of the whole and well aware of the opposition to the bill, I am hoping that it will proceed through all stages in the ordinary way.
There are one or two other matters which have arisen in discussion that concern me. The hon. member for Greenwood referring to the national joint council, and the evidence before the committee on banking and commerce, stated that some witnesses representing the council-and I do not have the names before me-took the position that persons who are members of the national joint council considered this measure but that they considered it only as individuals. He went on to say that they had had no opportunity to consult with civil service bodies at large, or with civil servants generally.
I would point out to the hon. member that the persons on the national joint council, the two sides of it, were chosen either by the employee organizations or the government presumably because of their representative capacity and their knowledge of all matters affecting the particular group of civil servants whom they were supposed to represent. So that it is scarcely a complete answer for any of them to say that they could consider the matter only as individuals. It seems to me that is overstating their position. And if they seek to continue to represent that body-and by the way it does excellent work, and is a splendid body-they must take a position that involves them in accepting wider responsibility, when they have no opportunity of pre-consultation.
That brings me to another point in the discussion today that is quite alarming, and that is that members of parliament do not assume the responsibility for the legislation but rather they ask that the persons affected by the legislation have a right to pre-consultation. Well the whole kick some years ago was that public legislation was announced out of the house, that it was not announced in the House of Commons.
This legislation was introduced where it should properly be introduced, namely, in the House of Commons. I was quite concerned to hear the so-called question of principle being debated back and forth. I hope the hon. member for Peace River will not misunderstand me, but I took from his argument a virtual request for a referendum. That is the very principle of parliamentary government we have not adopted in this country. It is directly and fundamentally opposed to our system of government. I believe that.
Public Service Superannuation Act however difficult it may be for us, no matter how unpleasant it may be, we have to assume the responsibility as members of parliament for the legislation. And I do not think we can go back and say, "Well, this group of employees, this association representing the public service, did not have a chance to consult its body of civil servants before giving an opinion."


Solon Earl Low: On a question of privilege, I should like to straighten out my hon. friend on one point. I did not suggest a general referendum, at all. I did suggest consultation with those who are concerned in this whole matter, because it is not a general principle that can be applicable to the whole of Canada.


George James McIlraith: I am glad to have my hon. friend's explanation; but I hope that explanation makes it very clear that it is consultation after it is introduced in the House of Commons, not before it is brought to this parliament.


Solon Earl Low: I was referring to consultation before the bill was brought in; and that is where it should have been.


George James McIlraith: I must make it clear that I cannot accede to any proposition that involves consultation as to the contents of a bill of this sort before the measure is brought to parliament. I quite agree it is unfortunate that in this case we were not able to have as much consultation after it was brought in as might have been desirable. But I cannot accede to any proposition that-


Mr. Lennard:: The Legion does it in connection with veterans affairs.


George James McIlraith: I still take the position that I cannot accede to that proposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was also advance consultation with respect to the members of parliament pension plan and also on the old age security and old age assistance plans.


George James McIlraith: That was a different thing. The old age assistance plan was worked out by a committee of parliament, and the proposed legislation was not submitted first to the group benefiting immediately from it. In any event, if my remarks do imply criticism of any legislation-and I cannot think of any at the moment-they will have to stand as they are.
It seems to me that when the benefits of this legislation are fully understood they are of a nature that will make the legislation wholly agreeable to the majority of those now opposing it. In dealing with them I found in case after case, when they came down to a discussion of the personal situation

Public Service Superannuation Act of a civil servant who was opposed, in discussing estate matters with him, or matters affecting dependents or potential dependents, in a surprising number of cases it turned out that the very person protesting against the legislation came to appreciate it, and did appreciate it, when it was understood.


Solon Earl Low: Would it not have been better to have that appreciation before the bill is rammed through parliament?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There are 200,000 of them.


George James McIlraith: It would be better to have that consultation first. But the bill is not being rammed through parliament at all. And if anyone wishes to get into that discussion, I will discuss it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can you give that assurance in writing?


George James McIlraith: Yes, I am putting it on the record in Hansard right now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is, that it will not be rammed through.


George James McIlraith: It is not being rammed through; that is a misuse of the English language.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I will change it to "jammed".


George James McIlraith: No, it is not being jammed through either. Under our system of parliament we give members of the opposition the opportunity-and properly so-to debate matters on a motion to go into supply and to debate the throne speech-


Stanley Howard Knowles: How kind of you!


George James McIlraith: And that does involve government measures being delayed until private bills, and other matters, are disposed of. A great deal of the time of parliament is taken up with such measures. Mind you, I support that system, but I do not think we should try to confuse the public as to what the consequence of that system is. The consequence is that public measures like this are held back until just about the end of the session, because parliament did not give an opportunity for them to go forward.


Frank Exton Lennard: Why did you not bring it in earlier?


George James McIlraith: I admit the difficulties in the situation. I think our present parliamentary procedure is a very good one; but let no one misunderstand what holds back government legislation from appearing on the order paper earlier in the session.


Frank Exton Lennard: Because you do not have it ready, that is the reason.


George James McIlraith: Perhaps I am out of order in discussing this; but I know something about that, too. I have sat here many weeks with pieces of legislation ready to go forward, which could not go forward because private members' legislation, and other matters which are properly discussed by parliament, were under discussion.
In any event, reverting to the measure before us, I wish to make it perfectly clear-


Lewis Elston Cardiff: You were not in favour of it.


George James McIlraith: I recognize the existence of the opposition to the bill, but I did come to the conclusion that I at least was unable to find any workable solution that would meet that opposition and satisfy the ones opposed to the measure. I had also come to the conclusion that it would be indefensible- at least I would not take the responsibility of seeking to have this measure put over until the next session.


Donald Methuen Fleming: This measure before us is an exceedingly important bill. Since I sat on the banking and commerce committee and there heard the evidence tendered to that committee by representatives of five of the recognized associations of civil servants I say to this committee that the overwhelming weight of that evidence is against pressing this bill under the present circumstances as a compulsory measure without consultation. There is the weakest case, among all the cases put before the house at this session, for proceeding with this measure now without consultation, and I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that the only reason why this bill is being pressed on the house as a compulsory measure at this moment is that the government's petulant, stiff-necked attitude, of which we see a great deal in this house, will not admit of any delay or brook any such thing as loss of political face.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, there was a purpose in referring this measure to the banking and commerce committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member is never short of adjectives.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a committee of fifty members of this house. That committee heard the evidence. The evidence of that committee, Mr. Chairman, became available in printed form to this house just one hour ago. How many members of this house have read the evidence taken before the standing committee on banking and commerce, that very important evidence that the house sought in referring the measure to that committee? Has the Prime Minister read the evidence? Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs read the evidence? Has the

Minister of Transport read the evidence? Surely we can assume that the Minister of Finance has read the evidence over in the flimsy form, but I wonder how many of his colleagues have read the evidence taken before the banking and commerce committee, including as it did not only the briefs that were submitted by four of the five associations, the fifth putting its views forward in oral form, but also the questions put to and answers given by every one of those representatives. Let us know how many members of the government opposite have read the evidence.


An hon. Member:: Has the hon. member read the evidence?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Who said that? Stand up. Yes, I have read the evidence. I was present at the sittings of the committee and heard all the evidence. I have read the evidence twice since, and I hope that the hon. member who has just now contributed an interruption as the sum total of the value of his contribution in debate will take the trouble before the vote is taken on this measure to read the evidence, and read it all-and I tell him right now there are over one hundred pages of it.
I say this, no member of the government opposite has any right to ask this house in these closing stages of the session to be parties to ramming this measure through, a compulsory measure, without at least having done those who appeared before the committee the simple justice of reading their representations, reading their evidence in detail and then addressing their minds to the issues presented by that evidence.
Now, sir, it was interesting to hear the contribution from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this debate. He was not a member of the committee. I would have been interested to hear the views of the C.C.F. members who were members of the banking and commerce committee.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Give them a chance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Well I am looking forward to hearing them, because it would surpass my comprehension that they could urge this measure being jammed through after hearing the evidence they did from responsible representatives of the various civil servants' organizations; but it does not surprise me to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre urging the use of compulsion as in this measure. It is part and parcel of the regimentation that is inherent in the socialistic ideas of the C.C.F. A measure that is compulsory and that involves regimentation is quite acceptable to them in principle.
Public Service Superannuation Act
Let us examine the scheme. What does it involve, Mr. Chairman?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: With pleasure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member support universal education and universal taxation to pay for it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, I do, and I wish the hon. member had a little more of it; he would then be a wiser man.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Such regimentation; I am surprised!


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are several outstanding features of the scheme set out in this bill. The first outstanding feature of the scheme, what one witness described as a fundamental feature of this present scheme, is that it is compulsory. Willy-nilly, every member of the civil service, every member of the armed forces, whether he wants it or not, is to be subjected to these deductions from his pay or salary.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Just like his superannuation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Oh yes, but the superannuation is quite a different situation, because everyone going into the civil service today, and for years past, yes for a generation, has known that there was superannuation-


George James McIlraith: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and that there were deductions. A man who is in the civil service today has not any option in this matter of insurance at all. There is no suggestion in this bill, there has been no suggestion from the Minister of Finance of meeting the point raised in several of the briefs that if you are going to have a compulsory feature, at least you have no right to apply it to those in the civil service today; at the very least you should limit the compulsory feature to those who enter the civil service after today, so that persons entering that service have a knowledge that they are to be subjected to these deductions, and will know that that is the position in the service which they are entering. There has been no-


George James McIlraith: Will the hon. member permit a question just on that point? Applying that principle, then, all the superannuation legislation from 1944 on could not have been made applicable to the civil servants, because in each case it was made applicable on a compulsory basis to civil servants already employed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, that is no reason whatever for applying the insurance
5918	HOUSE OF
Public Service Superannuation Act scheme on a compulsory basis. If the hon. member is so wedded to the idea of compulsion, then I am quite sure the bill will find approval in his mind. I do not believe in applying it on a compulsory basis.


George James McIlraith: The point that I was seeking to make was that the principle, right or wrong, was the same in the superannuation legislation, It might be a wrong principle. The point I was seeking to make was that there was no differentiation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member is agreed that it is a wrong principle-


George James McIlraith: No, I am not agreeing to that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was speaking of the features of the bill. I said the first one was the compulsory feature. In the second place we are asked to apply it to all personnel of the service and all personnel of the forces.
The third feature is that the benefits are of a very limited nature. That is something that I think has escaped adequate appreciation in the way the government has put this before us or has discussed it at another time.
These are extremely limited benefits. There is nothing provided except a death benefit. It is the barest kind of insurance, the barest you can imagine. There is no secret about that, and we well know that when the civil servant passes the age of sixty and enters his declining years the benefits begin to undergo reduction as well, and by the time he has reached the age of seventy there is no insurance left, none whatever.
Let us recognize at once, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the ordinary kind of group term insurance with which many hon. members are familiar. Let us look a little further at the attempts that have been made to compare this scheme with existing schemes of group insurance. The fact of the matter is that there is no fair basis of comparison of this scheme with any existing scheme.
Now, we had some curious assertions on the part of Liberal members in that committee. The hon. member for Vancouver South unburdened himself of the authoritative assertion that this was the kind of insurance which if written through some private organization would cost 80 cents per thousand per month, or double the figure named in the bill. Well, I hope the hon. member has learned the error of his ways because the facts were put before the committee by Mr. MacGregor, superintendent of insurance. Mr. MacGregor disposed completely of nonsense of that kind. He drew attention in the first place to the fact that the largest group covered by any system of group insurance in Canada written


hitherto is 15,000. The group proposed by this measure numbers 230,000, more than 15 times the size of any existing group covered by a group insurance scheme in Canada and, as Mr. MacGregor pointed out, this is of a different order entirely. I would refer members to what he said at page 1736 of the evidence when, comparing this scheme with any other existing scheme, he said it was extremely difficult to make any valid comparison and, comparing this scheme with any other group insurance scheme in existence, he said it was of a different order entirely.
Mr. MacGregor pointed out as well that the cost of a scheme would be governed, broadly speaking, in inverse relationship to the size of the group. Here you have a group 15 times the size of the maximum group under any existing group insurance scheme in Canada today. If the cost moved down with the upward extension of the group involved it would appear, Mr. Chairman, that the proposed cost should be very low and we therefore ought not to accept the views of those who try to promote the idea that this is cheap insurance.
The hon. member for Vancouver South also heard Mr. MacGregor say in the course of his very impressive evidence that schemes of group insurance in Canada today run down in cost to 50 cents, 45 cents, and 42 cents per thousand per month. There are schemes of group insurance in existence in Canada today that are cheaper than this scheme. The cost of this scheme is not just 40 cents per thousand per month. The government is contributing the equivalent of eight cents per thousand per month. Mr. MacGregor stated that you could reckon the cost of this scheme at 48 cents per thousand per month, and there are in existence in Canada today group insurance schemes with smaller numbers involved than the 230,000 involved here on which the cost is less than 48 cents per thousand per month, as is provided in this bill.
Mr. MacGregor's evidence has torn to shreds and tatters this airy talk from the government about this being such a cheap scheme of group insurance. Has anyone else been asked to submit figures on cost so that we might at least test whether this is the lowest cost available? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is no. The life insurance companies offered their services but they were not asked even to quote any rates or make any studies. It was the government's decision that no one should be consulted as to any other rates, and consequently we have one rate put before us and no basis of comparison

on the part of anyone else who might have been willing to quote it. We know, according to the evidence, that this scheme carries a higher rate than is in existence in certain other schemes of group insurance in Canada today.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us recognize also that group insurance of the kind in existence in Canada today in many group schemes is quite unlike this scheme in that this one offers no benefit except the death benefit. There are many advantages which the normal system of group insurance has which are not offered by this scheme. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that ought to be taken into account in weighing whether this is a cheap, reasonable, or expensive scheme. If hon. members look at page 1738 of the evidence they will find that Mr. MacGregor gives a catalogue of the various benefits normally written into policies of group insurance and he indicates some of them which are very valuable.
He refers to the fact that there is often an opportunity given for increasing the total amount of death benefit, and that there is provision for converting to other types of life insurance when the individual ceases to be a member of the group for any reason. He points out, in addition, that these policies of group insurance very often include disability benefits and also-and this is very important-that in these insurance schemes involving a group of employees the employer normally pays a much larger relative proportion of the total cost than the one-sixth which the government is proposing to pay under this scheme.
The government, Mr. Chairman, has of course the advantage here with respect to this type of insurance because, as we weie told by Mr. Taylor and Mr. MacGregor, the government has all the superannuation records available today, and adding the insurance to the superannuation figures on the card or record of any employee means that there does not have to be the same duplication of work as would be required if the insurance were placed elsewhere. That may be the advantage that weighs with the government and it ought to show itself in a very cheap scheme.


Mr. Philpott:: It is a cheap scheme.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Cheap in terms of the benefits offered, but what justifies this great authority, the Secretary of State, with all his lack of experience, saying this is a cheap insurance scheme? I would like to tell him that if he knew a little more about the evidence given by those who are competent to give evidence on this matter then he would not talk so 83276-375
14. 1954
Public Service Superannuation Act glibly about cheap insurance because the evidence indicates that this insurance is not as cheap as it ought to be.


Mr. Pickersgill:: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Why do you not resume your seat when there is a point of order being raised?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I thought the hon. member wished to ask a question.


The Chairman:: Order. Is the Secretary of State rising on a point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member has mentioned the office I hold and attributed something to me. But I have not uttered one word today on this matter. However, since I am on my feet I might just say I wish this scheme had gone into force on June 1 last year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, may I give a word of explanation and tender an apology to the Secretary of State. I heard an interjection from that direction and it so happens that from where I sit the Secretary of State's seat is in direct line with that of the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Vancouver South has become a ventriloquist as well as a columnist.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I heard the interjection
coming from that direction and because most of the interjections, particularly the empty ones, in the House of Commons come from the Secretary of State I naturally assumed that this particular interjection came from the Secretary of State. However, I am told that is not so, and I extend an apology to the hon. gentleman and I direct my remarks to the hon. member from whom the interjection came. I am told that was the hon. member for Vancouver South.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I accept the hon. member's apology and if I may make another empty observation I might point out to the hon. member that a few moments ago he split an infinitive.
Mi. Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if I split an infinitive I can assure the hon. gentleman it was inadvertent because I abhor the practice, but perhaps there may be something less serious about splitting infinitives than splitting hairs about what constitutes cheap insurance, and I might inform the hon. member that all he has had to say so far has been splitting hairs, and that is borne out by the evidence which was placed before the banking and commerce committee.

Public Service Superannuation Act
I might also ask the hon. gentleman the same question I asked the Prime Minister, and those members of the government who were in the house at the time, whether he has read the evidence-the approximately 100 pages of it-taken before the banking and commerce committee. If he has not done so I say he has not the right to come before the House of Commons and to support this bill. In the face of the evidence that was given there on the part of representatives of responsible associations of civil servants, what right has he to disregard the views of the civil servants? What right has he to disregard the evidence given in the banking and commerce committee? It makes a farce out of parliamentary procedure. It makes a hollow, shrieking farce out of the reference of these matters to standing committees of the house for study.


John Whitney Pickersgill: "Mockery" is the word.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It makes a farce of it, as I said; and there is not anybody who contributes more to making a farce out of things than does the hon. member who has just interrupted me.
I now have a word to say on the compulsory features of this bill. The government has made light of the compulsory features of this bill. We had a most revealing statement from the Minister of Finance this morning.


Douglas Charles Abbott: As usual.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In his jocund, offhand
manner-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Thank you.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -he said, "I think it is an excellent bill and therefore the government thinks no good purpose would be served by delay". There you have it, Mr. Chairman. The minister thinks this is an excellent bill. It does not matter what other people think.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It does not matter what was the overwhelming weight of evidence given before the committee. It is enough that the minister who introduced this bill thinks that it is an excellent bill. Therefore no good purpose would be served by further deliberation, further study or further consultation on the part of those upon whom exactions are to be imposed under this bill.
No, Mr. Chairman, in the government's thinking there is no place for consultation. The minister thinks this is an excellent bill and that is enough; and apparently, as far as the House of Commons is concerned, that

is to be enough for the majority in the house that normally supports the government, because this bill is to be jammed through today without those hon. members being given an opportunity even to read the evidence that was taken before the banking and commerce committee.
There are 104 pages of that evidence. Every word of it ought to be read, weighed, carefully considered and digested by every member of this house before he commits himself on a bill involving serious compulsory features. Nobody in the House of Commons or outside of it knows where the preponderant feeling of those to be affected by this bill lies with respect to it. There is not any member of this house who has any right to say that he thinks it is desired by a majority of those to be affected, either in the civil service or in the armed forces, because nobody has that kind of information. On the contrary such limited information as is available with respect to the feeling within the civil service indicates that there is a strong feeling against it and that they want time to consider it.
Mr. Chairman, if this were an optional measure, there would then be a perfect reason for the government to say, "We are not forcing this on anybody; nobody who does not desire it is required to take it". There would then be a perfectly good reason for going ahead, if it were the best scheme available, after due consideration of the possibility of improving it without its being a compulsory scheme. But when you are making it a compulsory scheme surely the minimum obligation is to know the feeling on the part of those to be affected by it.
That leads me, Mr. Chairman, to make some observations on this matter of consultation. There was a curious confusion of principle on the part of the hon. member for Ottawa West in what he had to say on the subject of consultation. I know this was not intended on his part, but I think I must make the matter quite clear. What was proposed in this matter of consultation was not that the bill be submitted to some group outside of parliament for veto. It is rather that the scheme involved in the bill should be the matter of consultation between the government on the one hand and those who are to be directly affected by the scheme on the other. It was a scheme, not a bill, that was discussed by the government, principally through the deputy minister of finance with the national joint council. But let it be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that every member on that national joint council had his lips sealed by the government.

This matter was first mooted last November. Consultations with the national joint council were held, but the members of that national joint council were told at every stage that they were not to discuss this matter with anyone outside the national joint council. Not one of them was permitted to discuss this scheme even with the executive of his own organization. There was on the part of the government an attempt to place on a group, a score of individuals, the responsibility of attempting to speak for civil servants numbering over
110.000	persons. If you look at the evidence you will see that those who sat on that national joint council, whose lips were sealed by the government, and who were denied any opportunity of consultation with those they represented, whether at the executive level or at any other level, said that they were not prepared to take that responsibility. They rebelled at the idea of having imposed upon them by the government the responsibility for speaking on this matter for over
110.000	civil servants.
I ask hon. members of this committee to weigh that fact carefully. As the hon. member for Ottawa West has said, it is true that these members sat on that national joint council as representatives of important groups of civil servants. But let us consider their position. They sat as individuals with sealed lips. Then the chairman of the banking and commerce committee-and this was a curious development-produced some newspaper reports, one I think in February and one in April, indicating that there had apparently been a leak and that the details of the scheme had leaked out. The chairman of the committee asked these five representatives of important associations of civil servants if, in the light of the fact that the cat had escaped out of the bag through these newspaper reports, they did not think there had been a satisfactory substitute for consultation. The answer given by those representatives was clear and convincing. They said that the fact that in one newspaper report details of surprising accuracy leaked out sealed their lips more tightly than ever. How could they make any comment upon a newspaper report under those circumstances? How could it be a matter of discussion by them with those they represented? They made it abundantly clear that both before and after those two newspaper reports leaked out their lips were sealed and there was no consultation.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, all of those associations of civil servants, speaking through their representatives, appeared before the committee and said that to the extent to which they had had, in one week, and one week 83276-3751
Public Service Superannuation Act only, since the bill was introduced in the house, limited and scant opportunity to consult executives or to send wires to local branches with only the most meagre details of the scheme, they asked for delay; the request was unanimous. Every one of them said that this matter ought to have further study. Every one of them said that they had not had the opportunity they ought to have had to discuss the matter with their executive and their branches. They also uniformly said that to the extent to which the opinion of their members in various places in Canada has been expressed to them in the short few days that had been available to them-just one week-strong opposition had been registered to the compulsory feature of the bill.
I think it is fair to say, Mr. Chairman, that the idea of optional insurance appealed to them. They liked the idea in general, but not on the compulsory basis. Therefore they made a plea-and it was an urgent plea in every case; an extremely strong plea-that this matter should not be hustled through now but that they should be given the opportunity of consultation.
There is no derogation from the sovereign rights of parliament, Mr. Chairman, in a matter of this kind when those who are principally affected by the measure, those whose salaries and pay cheques are hereafter to suffer deductions willy-nilly whether or not they want the insurance, come before a parliamentary committee and, with reference to a measure that has been introduced in the House of Commons and sent to that parliamentary committee for study, ask that the measure be delayed and that they be given the opportunity that I conceive to be the right of any employee of any employer to sit down with his employer and talk to his employer before that employer begins to make deductions from his pay envelope. There is the simple gist of the situation. There is no derogation from the rights of parliament involved or suggested in the kind of consultation that is sought.
Surely the federal government of this country ought, in so far as it is an employer, to try to be an exemplary employer.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Surely, Mr. Chairman, with the acquiescence in that position of the Minister of Finance, when a scheme is brought forward that does involve a compulsory imposition on every employee the employees, through their responsible organizations, have a right to be heard by the employer, to put their case before the employer and to have that case carefully

Public Service Superannuation Act considered, not brushed off in a way that is denying today to 80 per cent of the members of this house any opportunity of so much as reading this evidence, let alone weighing it and giving to it that consideration that these employees of the federal government have the right to expect. If this measure has all the merits that the government claims for it, then why should the government doubt that these merits will become apparent to the civil service when the civil service has an opportunity to study the measure? Why should the government deny to the civil service the opportunity of studying the measure and making their views upon it known?
Then there is the matter of the armed forces. That was an afterthought after the original scheme began to take shape. There was some limited consultation there, very limited indeed, but at any rate it was a form of consultation that was denied in any respect and in any degree to the civilian employees of the government. A directive was sent out by the Department of National Defence concerning the measure and a yes or no answer was sought, an expression on the part of what was thought to be "a good cross-section". We know the extent of the consultation in the case of two of the military commands. Twenty per cent was the total of the forces under the western command whose opinion was sought. The only other command concerning which we know the percentage of those consulted was the Quebec command where we were told it was about 50 per cent. That is what we know about consultation with the army. The only question put to them was: Yes or no, are you or are you not in favour of this scheme?
They were given no opportunity to express themselves on the compulsory feature. Here is what Mr. Armstrong, the assistant deputy minister of national defence, had to say on that matter as found at page 1732 of the evidence:
Q. And the directive called for a sample of opinion?
A. The directive called for a good cross-section of opinion.
Q. It was left to the area commander in each case to determine what is a good cross-section?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not stipulate?
A. No, we did not stipulate how much.
Q. I think we can appreciate the limitations of a "yes" or "no" answer. You would not expect anyone to draw an inference, Mr. Armstrong, as to what could be drawn, by way of inference, from these results as to the feeling of those consulted, if they had been given the opportunity of choosing between a compulsory plan and a plan that was not compulsory.
A. It would be quite a different question.
Q. Quite.
A. We did not ask them that.

Q. And I think you will agree no one could draw any inference as to the feeling of the men as between two such schemes as to what was done here?
A. No, I would agree that you cannot draw that inference.
That is not consultation, Mr. Chairman. We do not know how the matter was put to the limited number of men in these commands before whom it was put. We have some information about percentages in certain cases from commands in the air force and some in the navy. The lowest percentage of those in favour was in the navy in the ranks below chief petty officer. But, Mr. Chairman, we do not know how this was put before the armed forces even to the limited extent to which they were consulted. Was it done orally on parade? Was anything put before them that would enable the men being asked for a yes or no answer in a case like that really to weigh the details of a scheme of this kind?
Now, sir, in conclusion I ask this question with reference to delay. All that is asked for by those who represent these valued civil servants of Canada is delay, an opportunity to consult with those whom they represent, an opportunity to study the measure and an opportunity then to put their views before the government. The existing insurance scheme is still in effect. Under it 13,000 policies are in effect and, as Mr. MacGregor says, the scheme is working quite satisfactorily. This is a measure of very high importance. It has been talked about for a long time. There is no desperate urgency about it. As long as the existing insurance scheme stands those who appeared before us indicated that they did want to have the opportunity of consultation, that they did not want to see this measure rushed through now.
We realize that if this had been brought in at an earlier stage of the session by the government, as a measure of this kind ought to have been, there could have been an opportunity for consultation. But here we are within a matter of a few days apparently before the end of the session and we are asked to deny to these representatives of the civil servants the opportunity they ask for consultation. Mr. Chairman, if this matter stands for that adequate opportunity the measure is not killed. It is not killed unless the government decides to kill it because the government can introduce this measure or, I would hope, a measure without the compulsory feature in it, at the next session after there has been an adequate opportunity for consultation. That is what we are asking.
Indeed, sir, the civil servants, those who are to be affected by it, are not even being given the opportunity to "take it or leave it".

The government does not even say to them as individuals: "Take it or leave it". The government is rather holding a club over their heads today and saying: Well, you had better take this holus-bolus, the whole thing, or we will withdraw the measure and we will not introduce it again. What an attitude for the government to take! What irresponsibility! Delay does not involve the death of a measure of this kind unless the government itself chooses to impose the death sentence on the measure.
I plead again with the government not to press this measure, not to deny the opportunity for consultation to those who are going to be affected by it. I plead with the government to put aside just for once the attitude that they show so often, this attitude that I can best sum up in these words: "We will show you who is boss around here." We have seen that in this house. Let the government not take that attitude toward the civil servants. We in the opposition grow accustomed to it, but on this occasion when the civil service is involved can the government not relax just a little bit? Cannot the government give a little time? Cannot the government be reasonable about this measure, and sit down and discuss it in an amicable way as between employer and employee, both representing responsibilities that they have to carry and yet both realizing that they have an important responsibility to each other and that this measure should, so far as is humanly possible, be the best measure that the combined wisdom of the government on the one hand and those who are going to be affected by it on the other hand can devise?
Even in the limited time available, these representative civils servants' associations have brought forward a large number of changes that they desire. Perhaps some of them could be incorporated with time, and some of them perhaps cannot. I do not know. But I do know that they are all entitled to serious consideration because they are put forward by people carrying some responsibility in this matter. They are simply asking for delay. What right have we to shut the door in their faces, and deny them that delay for the purpose of consultation?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the banking and commerce committee I, too, was somewhat disturbed to find that there was a considerable measure of opposition to this bill coming from the civil service. As a matter of fact I was undecided
14, 1954
Public Service Superannuation Act in my own mind as to just what was the right line to take with regard to this legislation, in view of that particular opposition. I took the advice of the hon. member for Eglinton before he gave it, and read the evidence given before the committee. I propose to read some of that evidence before I have finished this afternoon. I do this because there were some things that were not read this morning which strike me as being quite relevant to the matter.
I do think the government is due for quite severe criticism for the method in which this legislation was introduced. I am quite prepared to go along with the hon. member for Eglinton and others who have protested against the government's failure to consult the civil service, and also against the late date at which the measure was introduced in the house. I also think the minister himself perhaps is due for some criticism for the rather disingenuous way in which he introduced the legislation-that is to say, his determined effort to present it, not as a group insurance measure but as some other kind of measure. I can understand why he tried to do that; I can understand his reasons for doing it. Nevertheless I think it helped to add confusion to the picture.
The hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Peace River have based most of their objections to the legislation on its compulsory nature. I suppose from one point of view one might say that we have no right to force things down people's throats, no matter how good for them, if they do not want them. On the other hand, today we are demanding of our government a degree of responsibility for public servants that is perhaps quite new in our history. I think most of us will agree that we expect the government to treat public servants with justice, and perhaps with a fair measure of generosity. I suspect that the families of many civil servants have been treated with considerable generosity on an ad hoc basis. For that reason I think we are justified in suggesting that if we are going to accept the principle that as a community we are responsible for those who serve us, then we have the right to demand that they comply with the most efficient and economical method of discharging that responsibility toward them. So I think we can discount that particular aspect of the opposition to the bill.
It has been said-indeed it was so indicated by civil servants who spoke before the banking and commerce committee-that there are a number of civil servants who object to this measure. At first glance I can readily see that there would be quite a number who

Public Service Superannuation Act would have objection to it. Those who have no dependents, and do not expect to see their lives take such a turn that they will have dependents during their service in the public service, would naturally view this legislation with a certain amount ol misgiving. 1 refer of course to that large body of female civil servants many of whom, I presume-the younger ones-approach this matter as they do in so many other occupations, with the idea in mind that before long they are going to enter holy bonds and will no longer require the sort of coverage this legislation proffers to them. I think that is an understandable point of view on their part.
On the other hand we can counter that, I believe, by pointing out that very likely these young ladies will marry young men who are themselves in the public service, and the contributions they make to the scheme before marriage will have a direct bearing upon their own future, at some future date, should their husbands die. In fact, I think that if we examine most cases we will find that most people, no matter what their circumstances may be, have some relatives or semi-dependents who will be adversely affected both financially and otherwise by the death of that person. They might not always be conscious of it. Perhaps many young people do not realize that when a human being dies it is somebody's business to dispose of that human being. That in itself is quite a responsibility that falls on somebody else's shoulders.
We may not always be conscious of the fact-certainly a single person might not- that at some point such a person would present a problem to somebody else. This is a method of dealing with that problem. It has been suggested that one of the objectionable features in the legislation is that the contributors may contribute all their lives, right up to the time of retirement, and not receive a penny in return. That is quite true. But I believe that objection results from drawing a false analogy between this type of insurance and ordinary endowment life insurance. I believe a much more accurate analogy can be drawn between this sort of legislation and fire or accident insurance. And I am sure no one would suggest it is outrageous for us to have to pay fire insurance premiums on our houses and never have any fires. Because that, after all, is the basis of the objection to this legislation. The purpose of the measure is to protect relatives from the disastrous results of untimely death in the public service. And for that reason I do not think we can expect to have any
IMr. Cameron (Nanaimo) .1

features other than the very limited benefit to which the hon. member for Eglinton has objected.
This morning the hon. member quoted from the proceedings of the committee on banking and commerce, and suggested there was evidence to show that the scheme was much more expensive than need be, or than could be provided by private insurance companies. I do not read the evidence in that way, at all. In fact, I find quite different evidence given here. While it is true that Mr. MacGregor did mention a number of group insurance schemes on which the premium was much lower than indicated here, at a later point in his evidence he pointed out that in those instances there were always some features in those group insurance schemes which rendered it possible to have very low premiums. As a rule, of course, it was a group in a particularly low age group, such as one finds in department stores, places where there is a quick turnover of labour and where the middle-aged are very quickly weeded out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May we have the reference?


Colin Cameron: Yes, I have the reference here. It is to be found at page 1740. In answer to a question Mr. MacGregor had this to say:
Q. You mentioned before the supper hour, some companies, such as the aircraft companies, and chain store companies, had a low net premium which would compare with this 40 cents. Might not that be for younger employees?
A. In every case, doctor, there is an explanation. I could cite groups where the cost is relatively high as well as the ones which I have cited where costs are relatively low. In the last instance the explanation is usually that the average age is very low or that the maximum amount is very low for the higher ages.
On page 1747 Mr. MacGregor gave further evidence which I thought was very interesting. This was with regard to the necessity for keeping the premium low in this scheme, because young single men, according to Mr. MacGregor, could go to a company and get an individual one-year term policy for probably $7.50 or $7.20 a thousand per annum, which works out of course to sixty cents or a little over sixty cents per thousand. Therefore it was said in those schemes to which he was referring we had to keep it low down otherwise these young people would not participate in it. The point that occurs to me, Mr. Chairman, is that these young people eventually will become middle-aged people and finally they will become old people and will not be able to derive benefits from those schemes.

The principal objection as I see it, the factor that the hon. member for Eglinton finally got around to agreeing to this morning, was that the scheme was probably a fairly good one but that it was being forced down the throats of civil servants against their wills. He might be right in that. It is quite possible that there are a number of civil servants-in fact I know there are; I have had some of them speak to me-who make very strenuous objections to this legislation; but, on the other hand on balance we have to support it because in this day and age we do assume, as I say, a tremendous amount of responsibility for our public servants, and because we assume that responsibility we have the right to say on what terms we shall discharge that responsibility, and we demand co-operation of public servants who, after all, also demand that responsibility from us. We have the right that they should co-operate with us.
It has been suggested of course that the great shortcoming is the fact that people pay in and when they are old they draw nothing out of it. Well, I think we have to face this fact, Mr. Chairman, this very harsh and bitter fact. As an equity in a building gets lower and lower as that building gets older and older, so we have to accept the fact that when we get fairly well along we have very little but sentimental value for our relatives and that we should not expect to have a cash value at that time. This thing is designed to cover those who have a cash value for their relatives during that period when they have a cash value. When they get past that stage then those relatives presumably have reached the age where they can assume responsibility for them. Therefore while, as I say, I was disturbed by this objection on the part of the civil servants, in answering that, as I see the course I should follow, I have, after reading over the evidence and thinking over the matter very carefully, come to the conclusion we should support this measure, particularly as Mr. MacGregor in his evidence to the banking and commerce committee suggested that it will be necessary to review the rates from time to time to see that they carry out the purpose of this legislation.


Mr. Pearkes:: In addition to the civil
servants who are affected by this bill there are over 112,000 servicemen, men in the armed forces. If the civil servants had an opportunity of expressing their views on this proposed legislation, the same facilities for the expression of views did not exist in respect of the men in the armed services. Word was sent out in a coded message to the commanders in the various areas and it was
Public Service Superannuation Act marked "confidential". One can easily imagine what would be the action taken by an ordinary commanding officer who received a confidential message in code. He would express his opinion as to the effect of this legislation on the men under his command. But it would appear that some security was broken because early in April I received a wire from British Columbia, the essence of which was: We understand that the men of the armed services are being told that they are not to take out any more life insurance with private companies because there is going to be a compulsory life insurance scheme introduced by the government. They did not believe that they had any choice whatever in this matter. They believed that they were taking out a life insurance scheme in which they would be able to make payments which would accumulate over the years of their service and, eventually, when they died, there would be benefits coming to their estate. But when you come to read the provisions of this bill and the purpose for which it is brought in you sense that they are not going to get any life insurance in the usual understanding of that term which would be handed down to their estate, but that they are going to pay a yearly premium against the possibility that they will die during that year.
The purpose of the bill, as it was given to the committee, is that it is to cover the cost of the last illness and death and those expenses which are consequential upon it. I should like you to consider for a minute how it is going to apply to the servicemen. I say that it will apply only during the year in which they are making their contribution. They are in fact gambling that they will die this year. There are not many young men at the ages of 18 to 21 who want to bet that they are going to die in the next twelve months. Actually the government is betting on an odds-on favourite, and they protect themselves by saying that when the serviceman reaches approximately the age that he may expect to die, namely, seventy, he will not be able to get any of the benefits at all, and all the money that he has paid in during his service and afterwards, if he desires to go on contributing, will be lost. I say there are few yoting men of service age who would want to enter into a bet of that kind.
The average man who joins the service is between the ages of 18 and 25, and the normal term of enlistment is for from three years to five years. During that time, when he comes up for his enlistment first and his enrolment, or when he takes on again, he has to be subjected to a very thorough

Public Service Superannuation Act medical examination. He knows that he is fit. The very duties that he has to perform keep him fit. His chances of dying at an early age fortunately are very remote. But this is to provide for his last illness and burial expenses. One of the conditions upon which he enters the service is that he will receive free medical attention and, in addition, if he dies during his service the burial expenses will be paid on his behalf. Therefore, as far as the main purpose of this bill is concerned, the young soldier, sailor, or airman is not going to get anything in so far as the major benefits are concerned.
If upon the completion of his service he decides that he is going back into civilian life he may continue the payments plus an additional contribution. If he retires, as most of these young men do, before he is 30 years of age he has got to keep on making contributions for 30 or 40 years until he finally reaches the age of 70 when he will not be called upon to make any more contributions because he will not receive any benefits after that.
I would like the committee to consider what this is going to mean in so far as the cost of administration on the part of the government is concerned. Figures given in "Canada's Defence Program", the so-called white paper for 1954-55, give us some idea of the turnover in the armed services. The wastage in the navy, army and air force during the year 1951-52 amounted to 11,903; during the year 1952-53 the wastage was 16,658; and during the year 1953-54 it was 16,297. I think these figures demonstrate how these accounts are going to pyramid. Is the Department of National Defence going to send out monthly notices to the various men who have retired to the effect that their 40 cents is due and they are in arrears for the preceding month?


Douglas Charles Abbott: It will be the entire responsibility of the ex-soldier.


George Randolph Pearkes: I know it will be the responsibility of the man involved but they will still have to send him an account.


Douglas Charles Abbott: If he does not make his payments the insurance lapses.


George Randolph Pearkes: Yes, he loses it, but that man may be up in the north country and he may be away for one year and unable to pay the amount he has to contribute. This man cannot renew because once he is in arrears he has lost all the money he has paid into the scheme.
Some reference has been made to the war risk or combat clause, and I understand that if there is a war the men serving in the


theatre of operations will be covered by the contributions they make, and they will be contributing towards their last illness and their burial expenses while the war is going on. But this last illness and the war burial expenses are already provided for in peace as in war and, furthermore, if they are killed in action their widows receive a pension.
It may be that the Minister of Finance and Minister of Veterans Affairs got together and discussed this, and it may be they have decided that the pensions now being paid to the 19,700 widows of war veterans in Canada are not adequate, and that some form for increasing their pensions should be adopted. If that is the case then the simplest thing to do would be to bring in an increased scale of pension for the war widows. I do not believe there would be very much objection in this house if that were done. But this is a very roundabout way of making provision for an increased pension for the widows of the future.
Then, again, the man who is on active service has an opportunity of taking advantage of the veterans insurance scheme. I am not going to extend my remarks beyond that otherwise than to allow my memory to wander back some time to that period when I first joined the services close to 50 years ago. At that time the recruit, more or less as a matter of course, bought the beer for his corporal. Under this scheme it would seem that the private soldier is expected to contribute towards his colonel's coffin, and I do not think that will appeal very much to the average private soldier.
However, the main feature about this matter is that I am convinced that the public relations regarding this bill have been extremely bad, and that the men in the armed services have not understood the provisions of this scheme. I therefore think the minister would really be extremely well advised, in so far as the armed services are concerned, to allow them to have a second look at the bill and have the opinions of the majority of the men who are going to make a contribution towards this scheme thoroughly canvassed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Chairman, there is just one word I would like to say in regard to this if the hon. member will allow me. This proposal was not extended to the armed services on the initiative of myself as Minister of Finance or on the initiative of the government. It was sought by the armed services themselves, and perhaps it would be well for me to say that I was rather apprehensive of extending it to the armed services.
I asked my officials to make a very careful study of it because, as the hon. member has

stated, the great majority of our armed forces are young in years and from the very nature of their duties they may be called upon to lose their lives a bit earlier than some of us who stay at home. This measure, of course, would have to be made applicable to young men killed in action or in any other way. It is quite true, as my hon. friend suggested, that under the Pension Act their dependents would receive a pension and there are other provisions made for burial expenses, illness, and so on. But there is no relation between this provision in the Pension Act and the present scheme. It has not been my experience that the dependents of soldiers are reluctant to receive a lump sum payment, whether under the ordinary life insurance or any other, on the death of the breadwinner, and since those responsible today for the direction of the armed services indicated to me that it was desired to have this measure extended to the armed services that is what has been done.
Again, with some reluctance, I agreed that they should consult the various commands throughout the country, and that was done. After the consultation had taken place, and as my hon. friend indicated, pretty much the full details of the proposed plan appeared in the newspapers, and that, perhaps, may be a reflection on the security provisions in so far as this kind of thing is concerned. However, I would make it clear that I am making no serious criticism in that regard. I want the committee to appreciate that the provisions of this measure were extended to the armed forces at the request of those who have the responsibility for those services.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: Mr. Chairman, during this debate I could not but help feel somewhat surprised at the different attitudes adopted by those hon. members who spoke on this subject. I heard expressions which seemed to me to be very excited words on a subject which, after all, calls for investigation-as some have said, a little bit more investigation-rather than to call for intolerant and fancy language. I heard such expressions as "willy-nilly", "shotgun", "ramming", "jamming", "regimenting", "dragooning", "treat them rough", "tell them nothing" and finally "let the cat out of the bag". This is all very well, Mr. Chairman, but it would add little to the debate were it not for the fact that these same people who have said these things have apparently studied the problem and have given us the benefit of their knowledge.
I might say that it must strike every one of us that this act is not being put through without the knowledge and without the study required on the part of those who had an
14. 1954
Public Service Superannuation Act opportunity to look at the bill in committee and in other places. The fact that so many arguments are being presented at this time for or against this bill shows that there is not much more that could be learned by speaking to many other people. As a matter of fact, I am not so sure that the civil servants are not aware of the contents of this bill and of its benefits. As one who lives in a civil service city I am willing to say that the civil servants know what this bill is about, know the principle of it and are generally satisfied that it is a good step forward.
After all, Mr. Chairman, this is not an insurance bill. It is a bill to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is to add more benefits to those already available under that act. Since parliament must vote the moneys with respect to the superannuation act to cover the cost of these benefits, of course parliament is interested as well as are those who are benefiting. Since the superannuation act is universal in its application, so necessarily must be the provisions that are included under the benefits extended by this proposed bill.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I consider this bill to be a good one. By that I do not mean to say that in a few years it may not be a much better one. I am sure that as time goes on some other provisions may be added. The main objections that I received from civil servants were not to the effect that this was a costly scheme. Objection was not taken that they were not getting much larger benefits than they could ever obtain under any private scheme. Rather the objection was that they would like to have more, even if it should cost more. I sympathize and agree with anyone who would like to have more protection or more coverage of this type at the same rate. I do not agree with those who have been saying that someone might pay for 30 years $5 a year, and would have nothing for it. Thirty years at $5 a year works out at $150.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Five dollars a year?


Jean-Thomas Richard: For $1,000. My hon. friend knows much more about these things than I do, but I may tell him this. I took my first $1,000 insurance when I was 21, as I was graduating in law in Toronto, and the cost to me was $23 a year. At age 65 I will be paying some more. I will get nothing until I die. The death rate is no better in the civil service than it is anywhere else. I am sure that the civil servants, especially those who are in the lower classes, will appreciate the opportunity of having this estate for their children, their wives or

Public Service Superannuation Act their relatives, so that there may be no undue burden and also so that there may be some benefit for their estate.
As I stated before, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that-just as in the case of the superannuation act-some other features may be added to this bill. However, this is the basis. This is the principle which we are about to enact. I feel that the committee should agree that, as soon as possible, this measure should be passed. I would not take the responsibility-as was so well said by the hon. member for Ottawa West-of delaying the passage of any legislation which affords such benefits to our civil servants.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is a great deal that one need add to what has already been said, except that, in addition to the reasons that have been given for opposing it, there is another one that occurs to me. It appears to me that this is what might be called paternalism run rampant. From what I have heard of it and from the summaries I have had of what took place in the banking and commerce committee it appears to me that the government has said: We think it would be desirable if everybody had an insurance policy on his life; therefore we are going to see to it that, because we think it is a good thing, everybody we can force to have one will be forced to have it whether he wants it or not. It might be a good thing if everyone in the country had an insurance policy on his life, but I am surprised to find the government which, on occasion, asserts its belief in leaving to the individual, so far as it can be done, control over his own destiny, adopting the position that we are now going to tell the people what is best for them in a matter in which previously no government has ever arrogated to itself the power to compel them to accept a benevolent ruling and is going to put the legislation through whether or not the people concerned consent to it or want it. It is truly the worst form of paternalism rim rampant.
Benevolent paternalism is all very well or good intentions are all very well in their place; but when good intentions, the benefit of which is not the subject of agreement by those affected, is going to have the sanction of legislation and of dictate behind it, I think it then becomes the duty of those who believe in the individual being given the maximum control of his destiny consistent with the position that his own actions shall


not impinge upon or interfere with the exercise of his neighbour's freedom, to say: No; you shall not, whether out of any benevolent motives or not, exercise this form of dictatorship.
On the basis of that approach to the matter it seems to me that we have not much alternative but to oppose the present bill. I think it would have put us all in a great deal better position had there been given to the civil servants affected the time and opportunity for a greater study of the matter so that we would know whether or not, in fact, a majority of them approved it. If they want it and if it were to be clearly indicated that they want it, then I suppose it would be stepping beyond the bounds of our duty to say: No, you shall not have it.
However, as I understand the position, there has not been any clear-cut request of that sort for it. The government has simply come along and decided that this would be a good thing for the civil servants themselves. In the absence of their being able to bring to us clear proof that the people concerned actually want it, it is my opinion that, as we have the situation now, in the presence of a considerable volume of evidence from them that they do not want it, we have to say to the government: No; you shall not impose your idea of what is good on the people who themselves do not agree with your ideas.
I think also that when the government takes to itself the right to dictate to the armed forces, in addition to the civil service, on matters of this kind then, for the reasons so cogently put forward by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, we should say to them: Here, you have got to confine your activities within reasonable bounds; you can lay down conditions of service in so far as hours of work and times of work are concerned but you certainly cannot say to people that if they are going to work in the civil service or join the armed forces they have to join this compulsory insurance scheme. To me, that is carrying benevolence to the point of absurdity. As I have said, Mr. Chairman, there are other reasons which might be advanced against the measure but I think they have been more than adequately put forward by my colleagues who have already spoken against the bill. I am happy to associate myself with them and to indicate that I too will not support this proposal.


Mr. Croll:: I have only a few words to say. I am one of those who believes that this bill is heavy with benefits and light with obligations. After the hearing on June 3 when

representations were made by the various associations I was somewhat concerned with the views presented. Over the week end I took the opportunity to get in touch with some of the civil servants in the city of Toronto to find out what their attitude was towards the bill. The first one said "excellent"; the next one said "wonderful", and the third one said, "how soon will it come into effect, how soon does the government intend to proclaim it?" There was no doubt in my mind. I am as enthusiastic about the bill as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If it is possible to be more enthusiastic I would be.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What did the fourth say?


David Arnold Croll: I felt certain at that time that the bill had mass support. Something has been said about the lack of consultation with the civil servants. I think it is interesting to look at the record. I should like to refer to page 1660 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the banking and commerce committee. The hon. member for York South was questioning Mr. K. W. Taylor, the deputy minister of finance, and I find there the following:
Q. Have these suggestions been discussed with the civil service association employees?
The reference is to the bill.
A. Yes, sir. A general outline of the plan was presented in the form of a confidential memorandum to the national joint council of the public service of Canada. The national joint council appointed a subcommittee to go into it in more detail. I met with that subcommittee. Some of my officials met with them. A number of meetings were held and the national joint council sent a report or a memorandum back to the government which in general heartily endorsed and approved the scheme. They made a number of suggestions for betterment of certain aspects of the scheme as originally outlined. Most of those have been accepted and incorporated in the bill.
That seems to throw a little different light on the amount of consultation. Let me go on a bit further. There is a very interesting question at the bottom of page 1661 which reads as follows:
Q. Is there any objection to the compulsory feature of this scheme on the part of any particular group of civil servants?
This is the answer:
A. The views of the national joint council were that it ought to be compulsory and universal. Now, that does not mean that individuals representing particular groups on that committee may not have raised the question of the compulsory feature. I have seen in the press that certain groups of civil servants have objected. Individuals in my own department have come to me and expressed a very dim view on this. They are usually younger girls in the service who have at present no intention of making the public service a career. They do not find this particularly attractive or particularly interesting. There are others who have said, "Well,
Public Service Superannuation Act I am carrying my full quota of insurance now and I do not need any extra." Others have said to me, "This is fine; it is a very modest cost and we can always do with $5,000 more or $3,000 more in the estate."
I think it is also very interesting for members of the house who were not privileged to sit on the committee to find out what was the reaction of the armed forces. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich perhaps knows more about this phase of it than anyone else. To the armed forces this was a very attractive proposal in addition to their other benefits. Four dollars a month, a couple of packages of cigarettes, perhaps not even half a bottle of what my friend, the hon. member for-


Lionel Chevrier: Mackenzie.


David Arnold Croll: -Fort William would object to, will more than pay for this, and they are fully covered in times of action. Actually, in addition to all the other benefits they get while in action, they get the benefit of establishing an estate in the amount of $3,000 or $5,000, whatever it may be. It certainly cannot be said that the army attempted to speak for the personnel in the army because they took every precaution to the point where they did not even heed the request of the Minister of Finance to treat the matter confidentially. They got in touch with the troops in Korea and Germany and the air division in France. Mr. Armstrong of the Department of National Defence had this to say, as found at page 1724 of the proceedings:
Each of the commanders consulted the units in his command and we received from them an expression of opinion that the majority of the members of the forces were prepared to accept this plan on a compulsory basis. The nature of the replies varied. Some commands reported on a percentage basis. They varied in the air force from 75 per cent to 90 per cent in favour. In the navy, roughly 75 per cent in favour, of C.P.O.'s and above, and some 65 to 60 per cent below that rank. In the army most of the replies was on the basis that the majority were in favour. On that basis the Department of National Defence, through the minister, recommended that the members of the forces be included under this plan.
Now, it is true they did not consult all the members of the forces. They took a sampling of about 20 per cent in most commands and 50 per cent in the Quebec command. All in all it would seem that an attempt was made to reach the civil servants and the armed forces. It is interesting to note, and I do not think enough emphasis has been placed on it, that consultations began last November -and the hon. member for York South said in the committee that he knew about it at that time which was some time before I knew about it. On February 4 an article appeared in the Citizen containing all the

Public Service Superannuation Act details of the bill with the exception of the minister's name and the fact that he was going to introduce it.
Surely that could not have been lost upon the civil service in Ottawa where everyone, I presume, reads the Citizen. On April 4 the army knew all about it. If that was a secret that was kept by the army from the civilians it was the first time the army ever kept a secret of something that appeared in orders. The plan was generally understood. Everybody knew about it. When I got in touch with the people in Toronto nobody asked me what was in the bill. They proceeded to tell me what was in the bill. They knew as much, if not more, about it than I did.
I do not quite understand the opposition to the bill. I believe that people generally would like to have the same benefits made applicable to them as are being made applicable to the civil servants. The Minister of Finance has said that he would like to be covered by such a scheme. The Secretary of State said that he wished it had been made retroactive and applicable to him. Speaking for myself, I would more than welcome it if it should be introduced as one of the benefits for members of parliament.


Mr. Henderson:: Representing Kingston as I do, where there are offices of every branch of government as well as many thousands in the armed forces, I feel that I should say a few words about this bill. I was also a member of the committee that considered the bill. I received no complaints from anyone in the Kingston area objecting to the bill. I felt like the hon. member for Spadina, that since objections had been raised in certain quarters I should talk to some of the civil servants in my own area. I have had the opportunity of doing so, and received nothing but compliments on the measure. As a matter of fact, the feeling could be summed up in these words: It is a good thing, what is holding it up? Do you think you will get it through this session? I feel that we should not hold up this measure which is a benefit to so many in the civil service and so many in the armed forces. I feel like the member for Ottawa East that this is a basis for benefits to a great many people.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to make one or two comments.


David Arnold Croll: I cannot hear you.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I shall try to do better in the matter of speaking up because I want the hon. member for Spadina to hear me. I listened with interest to what he had to say. I am sorry he ran out of adjectives so soon; it is not like him to do that. He used several adjectives such as "excellent",

"wonderful", and "how soon". Those are all right as far as they go, but I suggest they should not be matched against the considered report of organizations that have made inquiries throughout the whole of the country and who then give a report on the basis of the representations made to them through their ordinary widespread channels.
It is quite true they did not get a full report, but they got a good cross-section of the people whose words they passed on to us. So far as the national joint council is concerned, not a word should be said against them. The point is that they were not able to pass on to other people; their mouths were shut. In so far as the armed forces were concerned the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Spadina, undertook to convey a different impression from that which had been conveyed by the hon. member for Eglinton and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I submit that the member for Eglinton quoted adequately from the evidence to support everything he said, whereas the member for Spadina just referred to it in most general terms. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has, I know, been close to this problem for considerable time, and his reports also were based on a wide variety of facts.
Clause agreed to on division.
On clause 2-References to act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have an amendment to clause 2. I shall say very little about it because the point has been fully covered. The amendment that I propose to move has to do with the question of the compulsory feature and that has been fully covered. I only wish to add that there is abundant evidence as to the widespread objections from civil servants concerning the compulsory feature. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin):
That section 39 (1) (e) be amended by inserting after the word "means" the following:
"one who has elected to make the contributions and accept the benefits under sections 42 and 43 respectively, and who is".


Douglas Charles Abbott: Like my hon. friend, I shall not take much time in discussing this amendment. I have already indicated that after studying this type of benefit the government came to the conclusion that it could only be introduced on a universal or compulsory basis; that was the only basis upon which the government would be prepared to recommend it to the house. I indicated that was the basis upon which analogous plans operate in such institutions as the Bank of Canada and the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It is the basis upon which analogous

group insurance plans operate in other large private concerns. Everyone must be a participant. Therefore the only basis upon which the government is prepared to recommend legislation of this kind is upon a universal or compulsory basis.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonnell) negatived: Yeas, 20; nays, 67.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3-Coming into force.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister if he would indicate when it is intended to have this act come into force?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As soon as possible; I cannot give a more precise indication than that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Douglas Charles Abbott: the third reading of the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin):
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be read this day six months hence.
I shall be very brief in my comments. I wish to remind the house that we are voting on this bill when the great majority of members have had no chance of reading the evidence, and I am quite sure have not read the evidence which was only available this morning. What we sought here was that the reasonable request of the civil servants that they should be given a chance to discuss the matter further should be granted. I was puzzled by the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) who referred in glowing terms to the civil servants. He said we valued them very highly, and then so far as I could understand suggested that that implied on their part a readiness merely to accept our judgment in the matter without the opportunity for further consultation. I would have thought that his argument would have led him to the opposite conclusion. I was also interested in all the evidence about the decreasing cash value of those whom he described as long in the tooth. I thought he got very near to describing them as carrion. He got near that point.
And I would like to point out that in one of the representations we had there was a rather convincing argument, I thought, pointing out that the needs of people in respect of burial did not grow any less as they grew older, but remained just about the same. I thought his argument was unconvincing.
I will not deal with the fact that probably tens of thousands who go into this will get
14, 1954
Public Service Superannuation Act no benefit out of it, that they are being forced against their will, that there was unanimous evidence from the representatives who came before the committee that further consultation was desirable. The possibility of delay was fully and frankly faced by them. Incidentally, they suggested that if the Civil Service Insurance Act were extended they were prepared to face delay, in the hope of having a chance to consult. Every consideration of good relations between employer and employee would dictate, in connection with this bill, that consultation should be had. Furthermore, I should like to put on record again the fact that there has been an entirely exaggerated idea put forward among civil servants that they are getting a very good thing, and getting it very cheap. The truth of the matter is that they are getting a cheap article, one which is limited in various ways, and may not turn out to have the benefits they expect.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Tustin):
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be read this day six months hence.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the motion that has been made is one which seeks to place on record the opinion of members of this house that this bill is not being dealt with properly, and that those who are directly affected by its provisions are not being given the ordinary opportunity to consider the matter and to make such representations as should be accorded in the case of any legislation of this kind.
The arguments presented by the minister who sponsors the bill, and by other members on the government side of the house, are not challenged in so far as they relate to the desirability of providing insurance for members of the civil service or of the armed forces. In so far as the general principle of insurance is concerned, I doubt very much if there is any substantial division of opinion within this house. But what has been asserted- and asserted with the use of some descriptive adjectives, which I believe are appropriate-is that a measure inadequately considered and without the ordinary opportunity for examination and consultation is now presented to us with a demand, in effect, that we support it because there is a desire to provide insurance for civil servants and members of the armed forces. Apart from the position I hold as Leader of the Opposition, I represent the constituency which has within its boundaries a very large number of civil servants.

Public Service Superannuation Act


Mr. Gingras:: They would not vote for you.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hearing may be better than that of the recorder of Hansard, and I therefore shall not repeat the very inappropriate remark that I heard from the other side of the house. I would simply point out, Mr. Speaker, that, apart from having that association with many of those men-I would point this out for the benefit of the interrupter whose remarks perhaps are not on Hansard-I have had some responsibility in dealing with the problems of civil servants in other jurisdictions. I believe in the right of the civil servant to be consulted; I believe in the right of the civil servant to express his opinion; I believe in the right of the civil servant to present to a committee of the house views that would guide members in forming their opinions on legislation of this kind.
We have had placed on Hansard quotations from the statements of representatives of the various civil service organizations expressing their own desire that this be further examined, their own hope that there be further consultation, and their own feeling about what have been described as the compulsory provisions of this measure.
We have had the statement of the minister that he is not prepared to consider an amendment which would make the inclusion of any members of the civil service voluntary. He has stated that if this is to come into effect it must embrace everyone. We have no statistical information before us to support his contention that this must be done if a measure of this kind is to be introduced. In fact, we have a minimum of information of any kind, other than the broad assertion that legislation of this kind is desirable. As opposed to that we have the contention of those whom the measure is intended to benefit that they, themselves, want a further opportunity to consider its effect. And it is in support of that very contention, made by representatives of the various civil service organizations, that this amendment is placed before the house. For these reasons I shall support the amendment.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this measure. In the first place, I would like to say that this bill, as could be said of all legislation, is not the final say in the matter. Legislation such as this is subject to review from time to time, and will come back to the house in the future for further examination. After some experience wih it, there may be possibilities of amendment, if that is considered desirable.
But I would like to say this, in regard to the argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), members of his group and members of the group to my left, that the whole objection, so far as they are concerned, is lack of consultation. The civil servants were not given the opportunity to present their case properly. I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) that there is only one way for the civil servants of this country to get proper and unrestricted representation, and that is by becoming part of the legitimate trade union movement of this country and by carrying on their negotiations in the way that they are carried on as between employer and employee. If the hon. member for Peace River and the Leader of the Opposition and the members of his group are prepared to go along with that kind of proposition, I am sure the members of this group will be glad to join with them.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask a question? In dealing with that particular subject, do I understand that the hon. member means that if there were agreement on the point he makes he would insist that they be consulted, but if that is not conceded then he thinks the measure should go through without consultation.


Clarence Gillis: That is not the point I made at all. There are too many ifs, ands and buts in the Leader of the Opposition's question. I merely stated a fact. The fact was that if there are restrictions on the way the civil servants make their representations to the employer, and if their lips are sealed, they are sealed because they are members of an association that places a restriction upon them. There is no other way for them to get proper consultation for the 230-odd thousand people they represent except in the way I have suggested, when they are free from any government restrictions in regard to civil servants, and when they can sit down with the government as an employer and make demands on the government and then compromise somewhere in between. In the meantime while these negotiations are going on and after they are finalized, they can consult the members of their association by referendum as is done by the legitimate trade union movement across the country. Therefore there is nothing in the argument that proper consultation had not taken place under present circumstances and with the kind of organization the civil servants have, because it cannot be done and there is no use our arguing it out in connection with this particular measure.
I should like to say that the same argument could be used in the matter of the old age security pension. The argument that

the taxpayers of Canada across this country were not consulted as to whether they were favourable to old age security pensions or otherwise could also be used. The same argument could be advanced in the matter of unemployment insurance. Unemployment insurance is in exactly the same category. When it was established first opposition was advanced right across the country by different sections of the public on the grounds that they would have to contribute to it and it would not mean very much to them. The fact of the matter is that unemployment insurance is not yet universal for the very same reason. Sections of employees across the country who, in my judgment, should be protected are still outside the confines of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
In my opinion this legislation is before the house as a government measure. Since I know the government and the way they work, I would say that this did not come about without a lot of consultation with the insurance companies. I am reasonably sure it is because of the fact that a very large percentage of civil servants were not carrying protective insurance that is sold by the old line companies that this legislation has been brought in. I cannot visualize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and other members on that side of the house at any time bringing in a measure that would be in direct competition with the old line insurance companies unless they had received the green light from those people that they were not carrying that kind of insurance anyway, so somebody had better provide it.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I do not like to interrupt my hon. friend, but I know he does not want to misrepresent. I am sure he would not do that in regard to any position I might take. I can assure him and assure members of the house there was no consultation whatsoever with the life insurance companies either before or after this measure was introduced.


Clarence Gillis: I have to accept the word of the Minister of Finance as far as he personally is concerned. But he has a lot of advisers behind the scenes who perhaps do not tell him the whole story. That is my opinion. In my opinion, a measure of this magnitude in the field of protective insurance would not have been introduced unless the field had been carefully canvassed.
The argument that we should wait and see, and so on, is an old one. Many of us who are getting older in this house have heard it advanced in everything that was ever attempted. If that argument had been listened to back a few hundred years ago we would still be weaving cloth by hand.
Public Service Superannuation Act With respect to every advance in every field there has been a small fringe who has opposed it on the grounds that they did not like it, and mainly because they did not understand it.
In my opinion this legislation has only one thing wrong with it that I can see at the present time. After the experience of a year or so, when we see what the possibilities are, we may find a lot of flaws in it. I hope this house will be flexible enough at that time to make the necessary adjustments. The only thing I see wrong with it at the present time is that when a civil servant reaches the retirement age of 65 he can carry on this insurance if he so desires. Then he has to make his own contribution and the government's contribution as well. After the date of retirement the amount of insurance payable decreases 10 per cent each year and by the time he reaches the age of 70 the policy has liquidated itself; no benefit is left. There should be some equity accrue to the person who elected to continue after retirement. There should be at least enough left to offset the funeral expenses. Instead of a policy running out completely there should be a residue of at least $1,000 for the person who has carried it on for the five years after retirement. That is all I have to say on the matter. I consider it good legislation. Knowing the industry in the community from which I come and several others I wish that this type of protective insurance could be established for the same price for every industrial worker across this country.
This legislation arises out of the high cost of dying. Anyone who has had any experience recently with funeral expenses must know it is quite a burden. We also know that human nature being what it is the average person in his health and strength takes the attitude: Well, I am not going to die for a long time, and even after I die, someone has to bury me anyway. They cannot just put me in cold storage, so why should I waste money? That is the general expression of opinion that you get from a lot of people. Well, someone has to pay the shot in the end. This is a very reasonable and a very inexpensive way of protecting those who are faced from time to time with the burden of funeral expenses and so forth. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am for it.
I hope that in the not far distant future the Leader of the Opposition will join with us here in establishing the type of organization for these civil servants that will free them from government control; that will enable them to take their places with the legitimate trade union movement of this country so that they can sit down year after

Public Service Superannuation Act year and present their legitimate demands to the government, argue them out, and then by the process of a democratic vote get an expression of opinion from their membership, because that is the only way it can be had.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is the main motion agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to call for the yeas and nays.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the main motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.



PIPE LINES ACT


Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 477, to amend the Pipe Lines Act.


Mr. Green:: Will the minister explain?
Pipe Lines Act
nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or prevent any person from operating a pipe line constructed before the first day of October, 1953.
The purpose of this new section was to require all pipe line companies to be authorized by special act of parliament before constructing or operating any new extraprovincial pipe line. All pipe line companies are now required to come under the Pipe Lines Act and to obtain the approval of the board of transport commissioners before constructing or operating a pipe line connecting two or more provinces or extending beyond the limits of a province. Since this amendment was made, a technical difficulty has arisen. The solicitors for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines have submitted that the new section 10A would prevent a trustee for the bondholders, a receiver or a manager appointed by the court from operating an extra-provincial pipe line constructed by a company which had defaulted on its bonds after being in operation.
The solicitors for this company consider that an amendment to section 10A is necessary if the company is not to be jeopardized in marketing its bonds to finance the construction of the trans-Canada pipe line. As there appears to be some doubt in the matter which would make it difficult for pipe line companies to finance construction, it has been considered advisable to amend the act in order to remove any difficulty that might exist about the right of a trustee for bondholders or a liquidator, receiver or manager of the property of a company to operate an extra-provincial pipe line for the benefit of creditors.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no objection to this provision. There are one or two questions I should like to raise when the bill goes into committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Position of liquidator, trustee, etc.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, the house will recall that in the early part of the present session the Pipe Lines Act was amended by Bill No. 10 which added a new section 10A reading 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


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there have been some dispatches in the press which sought to give the impression that this bill was being brought in as the forerunner for a government subsidy for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines. I can read no such meaning into the bill. I think these dispatches originated in some wishful thinking, but perhaps either the

Pipe Lines Act
Minister of Transport or the Minister of Trade and Commerce could make a statement on that particular question.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not aware of any intention on the part of the government to the effect mentioned by my hon. friend. I have not seen the press dispatches about which he speaks. Certainly there is no such intention in this bill. I cannot speak for what may happen at a future time, but certainly there is no intention of granting any subsidy.


Howard Charles Green: There has been no hitch in the plans to go ahead with this pipe line?


Lionel Chevrier: I know of none.


Howard Charles Green: Paragraph (a) of the new subsection 4 reads as follows:
(a) A liquidator, receiver or manager of the property of a company, appointed to carry on the business of the company.
Should that not be, "a liquidator or receiver and manager"? It seems to me that taking the word "manager" alone it carries no implication of bankruptcy or liquidation and would give an authorization much wider than is intended or was indicated in the minister's explanation.


Lionel Chevrier: I would put the answer to that this way. In the first place representations were made by the solicitors for Trans-Canada Pipe Lines to the effect that a liquidator, a receiver, a manager or a trustee should be covered by the word "person". Whether or not it is covered satisfactorily in the bill is, I think, a matter for the justice department to determine. I do not pretend to be competent in that respect. Their draftsmen have drafted the bill in this manner, and I think it meets the suggestions that were put forward by the solicitors for the bondholders.


Howard Charles Green: There is no limitation to a liquidator, receiver or manager appointed by the court. The clause simply reads, "A liquidator, receiver or manager of the property of a company, appointed to carry on the business of the company." Surely the intention was only to cover a person appointed by the court, not anyone who might be appointed by the company itself.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the intention is twofold. The intention is first to cover the position of a trustee-


Howard Charles Green: That is covered in the next paragraph.


Lionel Chevrier: -who normally is appointed by the court.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No.
1 Mr. Green.]


Lionel Chevrier: No, it is the other way around. I think the position was to cover, first, the trustee who is normally appointed by the bond instrument, and, next, the receiver or liquidator either of which may be appointed by the court.


Howard Charles Green: Should there not be that qualification written into the act because this new clause gives that person extremely wide powers. It reads in part:
*-shall be deemed to be a person having authority under a special act to construct or operate pipe lines for the transportation of oil or gas.
The result of that provision will be that you will have an individual with extremely wide powers. He can build or operate a pipe line. It does seem to me that power should be restricted to either the trustee for the bondholders or to someone appointed by the court. There is no restriction written into the clause, and I think the words "appointed by the court" should appear in paragraph (a), or in some other way it should be restricted to a court appointment.
An individual should not have the right to exercise these wide powers except under a court order. If that is not done, then the way this section reads Trans-Canada Pipe Lines could appoint John Jones as their manager, and then John Jones could construct or operate the pipe line. It was never the intention of parliament that such would be the case. I have no objection to the provision for a liquidator or receiver, duly appointed by the court; that is an entirely different matter. I can see that situation should be covered, but the way this clause reads it covers a very much wider field.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I should like to say a
v/ord in support of the point made by my colleague, the hon. member for V ancouver-Quadra.
It seems to me that for clarification, after the word "appointed" we should have these words inserted, "by a court of competent jurisdiction". Then the wording would be quite clear. The Minister of Transport has indicated what is contemplated by the word "appointed", and that is an appointment made by the courts. The reference in paragraph (b) is to a trustee who owes his quality as such to the trust deed. He is not a court appointment, but those persons referred to in paragraph (a) are obviously persons intended to be appointed by a court. For the sake of clarity, if for no other reason, in line with the suggestion by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, I believe that after the word "appointed" we should insert the words, "by a court of competent jurisdiction."

While I am on my feet, I should like to point out that the amendment makes no reference at all to the case of the trustee in bankruptcy. I gather it is not intended to bring the trustee in bankruptcy within the scope of the amendment?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer to the last part of your question is no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is there any objection to the suggested amendment for clarification of paragraph (a)?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I cannot see any objection. I do not know that it is necessary because if he were not appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction he would merely be an agent of the company. He would not require to have any statutory power if he were acting merely as agent of the company. I think it was clearly intended that there should be no suggestion that one who was merely an agent of the company should have a statutory franchise. It could only be required for someone regularly appointed by an authority having the right to do it. If he were merely appointed by the company, he would be acting as agent. I do not think it restricts the clause in any way to have the suggestion of the hon. member contained therein, because I do not see how anyone could be otherwise validly appointed. It must be something done by a court of competent jurisdiction.


Howard Charles Green: You see, Mr. Chairman, the right to operate or build a pipeline is restricted to a company incorporated by a special act of this parliament. For that reason it is a little different from the ordinary case, and I do suggest that these words "by a court of competent jurisdiction" be added after the word "appointed" in line 8 of the bill. I would so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall this bill, by leave, be read a third time now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Motor Vehicle Transport MOTOR VEHICLE TRANSPORT



PROVISION FOR REGULATION OF INTERPROVINCIAL AND INTERNATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORT

Lionel Chevrier: second reading of Bill No. 474, respecting extra-provincial motor vehicle transport.
He said: The house will recall that on February 23 last, following the decision of the privy council in the Winner case, I made a statement in this house with respect to interprovincial and international highway transport. I stated at that time that in our view it would not be in the public interest to have a divided jurisdiction with provincial boards controlling the traffic within the provinces and a federal board controlling the traffic moving between the provinces or between a province and the United States, and that for this amongst other reasons the government was reluctant to enter this field and thereby bring about divided jurisdiction.
I also stated that I proposed to call a conference of provincial ministers having jurisdiction over highways to discuss the problems arising herein and to endeavour to find a common ground on the best way to regulate and control highway transport, whether intraprovincial, interprovincial or international. A federal-provincial conference on the control and regulation of interprovincial and international highway transport was duly called and convened at Ottawa on April 26. The federal government and the governments of all the provinces except Newfoundland were represented at this conference. Newfoundland was not represented as the government of that province was not interested in this particular problem.
At the outset of the conference the representatives of the federal government indicated to the representatives of the provinces that the conference had been called to ascertain the views of the provinces in regard to assuming jurisdiction over interprovincial and international highway transport, and whether there was a disposition on the part of the provinces to assume such responsibility. The provincial delegates at the conference agreed on the broad proposition that it would be desirable for the provinces to assume jurisdiction over interprovincial and international highway transport, and various means of reaching this objective were discussed. Two principal methods were considered. First it was proposed by certain of the provinces that appropriate amendments be made to the British North America Act to ensure that

Motor Vehicle Transport jurisdiction over highway traffic and control is vested in the provinces. This proposal was not considered to be practicable at this time and was not acceptable to the federal government.
The second proposal placed before the conference was that legislation be enacted by the federal parliament to provide for the control and regulation of the transportation of passengers and goods by motor vehicle between a province and a point outside the province with the control to be exercised by a provincial authority in like manner as control is exercised under provincial law. Such a system of provincial control over extra-provincial transport would leave the situation in much the same condition as before the decision of the courts in the Winner case. A draft bill was submitted to the conference and certain revisions were made.
The bill which is now before the house is the result of the work of the conference and has been approved in principle by all of the provinces that were represented except the province of Quebec. The bill provides that each province will have control over that portion of the transport undertaking that is carried on in that province. The bill accordingly requires an extra-provincial transport undertaking operating into or through a province to hold an operating licence if provincial law requires an operating licence for a local undertaking. The provincial board is authorized to grant this licence, which is in the nature of a franchise, and in so doing the provincial board follows the rules applicable to local undertakings. In other words, the provincial board is authorized to license extra-provincial transport undertakings in the same manner as it licenses local undertakings. This method of conferring power on provincial boards to license extra-provincial undertakings is considered by the law officers of the crown to be within the competence of parliament.
The bill also makes provision for regulation of tariffs and tolls charged by federal carriers for the transport of goods and passengers. The same pattern is followed as in the case of the operating licence. If tariffs and tolls for local traffic are regulated by provincial law, then the tariffs and tolls for extraprovincial traffic are to be determined and regulated by the provincial board in the same way as tariffs and tolls are determined and regulated for local traffic.
In order to deal with unforeseen circumstances which may possibly arise in the future in connection with highway transport movements for natiqnal defence and also in respect
TMr. Chevrier.]
of international agreements and other extraordinary cases, it has been considered advisable to provide for exemption by the governor in council of the whole or any part of an extra-provincial undertaking from all or any of the provisions of the act. This is in the nature of a safety provision which will not be used unless there are cases of real difficulty in the operation of the act.
As this bill is one which concerns the provinces individually as well as collectively, and as it is not desired to transfer the responsibility for the regulation of extra-provincial transport to any province that is unwilling to accept this charge, the bill provides that the act shall come into force in any province only upon the issue of a proclamation of the governor in council.
Penalties are provided to ensure compliance with the act.
The bill is a short one and is readily understood. It is the government's answer to the difficult problem of how the provinces can be enabled to control and regulate highway transport crossing their boundaries and using their highways. The control of road traffic using provincial highways is essentially a matter for the provincial boards which are established and well qualified for this purpose. The solution proposed by this bill appears to be a satisfactory one within the framework of our constitution and I trust will commend itself to the house.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us is one that comes to the house at a stage in the session when there might be some suggestion that there would be difficulty in obtaining the information that ordinarily would be obtained without any question in connection with legislation of this kind. I am sure that if the legislation came before the house early in the session, immediately there would be a statement by the government that it was going to be referred to an appropriate committee which would hear evidence and, through the hearing of evidence, hon. members would be informed as to the effect of legislation of this kind in dealing with the extremely involved and difficult problem presented.
The statement made by the minister is a brief one and deals with what has taken place recently. The subject matter, however, is one that has been before the House of Commons, the parliament of Canada and the people of this country generally for some considerable time. As hon. members of the house are well aware, this problem is one which was the subject matter of consideration by a royal commission appointed by the

government. Members of the House of Commons are also aware of the fact that this matter was dealt with earlier by the Supreme Court of Canada, at the instance of the government of Canada. There was, in fact, a judgment of the supreme court rendered on October 22, 1951. That judgment, given almost three years ago, had the effect of declaring, with only minor limitations, that this was a subject which came fully under the authority of the federal government, through the provisions of section 92 (10) of the British North America Act. The applicable part of that section is as follows:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:-
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province;
In the interpretation of that section it has been found that this means of transportation, as an extra-provincial means of transportation, came substantially under the authority of the government of Canada. Not satisfied with such limitations as were contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, the provinces carried the appeal to the privy council. By judgment of February 22, 1954, as has been mentioned by the minister, it was declared that authority over extraprovincial or interprovincial transportation of this kind came under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada.
I would point out that substantially the position in which the matter is now before us was declared in October of 1951, and that this is not something that has suddenly come upon the government. It is something that has been under consideration for a considerable time. It is something that could have been discussed in conference with the provinces on earlier occasions. It is something that could have been discussed immediately after the judgment of the privy council.
We now have this bill before us on the 14th day of June, for second reading. It deals with highway transportation, which today is an extremely important part of the general system of transportation in Canada. Surely, when this subject is to be dealt with it would be appropriate that it be referred to a committee where representatives of those organizations engaging in transportation activities of this and other types would have an opportunity to present their arguments and hon. members thereby benefit from the information which would be placed before them.
The minister said that the conference sought to find common ground. Actually there is little evidence of common ground
Motor Vehicle Transport other than the fact that responsibility over extra-provincial and interprovincial highway transportation, as well as transportation within the provinces, is to be under the authority of boards set up in the provinces themselves. There certainly is no evidence of common ground as to procedure. There certainly is no evidence of common ground as to a method of supervising interprovincial or extra-provincial transportation; there certainly is no evidence of common ground as to rates or otherwise. We have before us a bill which produces an interesting result.
The government of Canada has been engaged now for several years in seeking to establish the position that it has full responsibility over extra-provincial and interprovincial transportation. Now that has been declared to be the law by the privy council. As soon as that is declared law, the government of Canada proposes to hand over to the provinces the responsibility for which the provinces have been fighting in the course of several years. It certainly seems a strange thing that large sums of public money would be spent to establish this position, and then once the position is established the authority for licensing and generally supervising this type of transportation should be placed right in the hands of boards appointed by the provinces under the provincial governments. That may be the best solution. That may be the solution which will work out most satisfactorily. I submit, Mr. Speaker, nothing has been placed before us to indicate why this is being done after all the legal activity which has been devoted to this subject for so many years, and after the inquiry which was conducted under the authority of this government when a royal commission investigated this extremely important subject.
The trucking services are giving very valuable services to our enterprises of so many kinds. Our railways are giving invaluable service; so are other means of transportation. Surely, in attempting to deal with this problem, we should have information before us such as we have obtained in similar cases, and the procedure should be followed which has been found to be satisfactory in those cases.
I recognize, as I am sure every hon. member does, that there are special problems in connection with highway transportation. There is first of all the fact that every province has responsibility for the construction of the highways within the province, and that the provincial authorities must of necessity gauge the relationship of that transportation to the capacity of those highways to carry services of those kinds. There is also the fact that we must recognize the vital part that this transportation plays now in the

Motor Vehicle Transport whole economy of Canada. What is done should recognize its place in our economy. That demands inquiry; that demands information. It demands an appropriate opportunity to question those who are experts in this field and to form judgments based on information of that kind.
I would point out there is another aspect to this problem. We are dealing not only with highway transportation made available by vehicles owned by Canadian companies and individuals; we are also considering transportation provided by vehicles owned by companies and individuals in the United States. It is of interest to find that as recently as June 7 this dispatch was carried from Washington by the United Press:
In a move admittedly aimed at Canadian truckers, the House of Representatives voted today to subject operators of foreign trucks using American highways to interstate commerce commission safety regulations.
The report then went on to deal with this question and to indicate that certain provisions were to apply to the truckers using the highways of the United States which had come there from Canada. Surely, this suggests to us the desirability of information from those with direct knowledge of this type of activity which will inform us as to what should be done here to deal with a similar situation within our own country.
I would point out further that there is one clause of this bill which produces a very striking result, namely clause 5, which reads as follows:
The governor in council may exempt any person or the whole or any part of an extra-provincial undertaking or any extra-provincial transport from all or any of the provisions of this act.
I understood from what the minister said that the bill was so designed that the government would be able to take appropriate steps to assure certain things being done. As I read this clause it is simply one which authorizes the governor in council, or in other words the government, to exempt any person or the whole or any part of an extra-provincial undertaking or any extra-provincial transport from any or all of the provisions of this legislation.
That, Mr. Speaker, is hardly something that provides for positive action. It is something which merely provides for negative action which would remove whatever advantages the government now submits can be obtained from the operation of this legislation. I think we should have a clearer explanation of the full import of clause 5, before we are called upon to deal with this bill. The truth is that under clause 5 the whole of this bill can be swept aside by order in council at any time. If it is important that this bill be


now put into effect, it is equally important that this legislation remain in effect until parliament has been consulted in regard to the matter, unless there are some reasons which have not been placed before us for the extremely wide power which would be conferred upon the government by the adopting of the measure as it stands.
This is an important subject, Mr. Speaker. This is a subject which is of interest to Canadians generally. In this tremendous country of ours, with its expanding development, transportation by rail, by highway, air or water is all part and parcel of that dramatic development which is now taking place.
Surely it is appropriate that we should assure the most effective type of legislation we can have when we are called upon to deal with any aspect of this great problem of transportation. If it was sufficiently important to appoint a royal commission to inquire into this subject, if it was sufficiently important to carry this argument through to the privy council, then it is sufficiently important that the subject matter of this bill be now referred to a standing committee of the house.
It is my intention to move that this bill be not now read a second time but that the subject matter be referred to a standing committee of the house. The committee to which I propose it should be referred is the committee on banking and commerce, because this is essentially a question of commerce within Canada and between Canada and the United States. I therefore believe it is appropriate that the committee on banking and commerce should deal with this as quickly as possible.
There is plenty of time to refer this immediately and call before that committee those who can speak with knowledge and experience in regard to the various aspects of this subject, and give us the information we should have before we pass a bill of this kind. In making this proposal I am certainly not reflecting on the judgment of those who represented the provinces in the conference which took place here. It would indeed be a very surprising thing if the representatives of the provinces did not welcome a bill which gave to them the full powers which they asserted before the courts should be theirs in any event. It would, in fact, be most unnatural if they should carry a legal battle into the courts and assert that they have this right of licensing and then, when the act is placed before them which confers that right by legislation passed by the parliament of Canada, that they should suggest they would not welcome it.

That is all that has happened in the bill now before us, except for the very sweeping and, in fact, complete reservation of power contained in clause 5 for reasons which have not yet been fully explained to us.
Having said that, may I also say I recognize that because of the delay in dealing with this subject a situation now exists which calls for attention. The fact is that because of the judgment of the privy council it is perfectly apparent that there is need of some kind of legislation which will make it possible to deal with some of the very irregular things that are happening at this time.
Whatever may be said of this legislation, the government must accept full responsibility for the legislation placed before us. If it is unsatisfactory, if it is limited in its effect, if it fails to carry out some of the purposes which the government on other occasions has stated it had in mind, then the responsibility for that must rest entirely with the government.
The government must also accept full responsibility for the delay. We could have had this simple measure before us weeks ago; we could have had this simple measure before us perhaps years ago if, after the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, consultations had taken place with the provinces such as have recently taken place. If, in fact, it was intended only to carry out a procedure of this kind which gives to the provinces the very kind of supervision for which they were fighting in the courts, then that could have been done at any time within the past few years.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Therefore, if there is any suggestion of haste at this particular moment, let it be recognized that all responsibility for delay is the responsibility of the government itself. Let us also recognize-


Lionel Chevrier: Pretty weak.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, perhaps the comment interjected by the hon. member is almost as weak as the position of the government itself on this occasion.


Lionel Chevrier: I was referring to the interjection made by the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming). His "hear, hear" was very weak.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member exhausted his voice this morning.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I will express my feelings in a louder voice: hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has indicated that his remark was attributed to an hon. member who spoke earlier in the
Motor Vehicle Transport house today, I might just say that this is the first time I have heard any suggestion that that particular hon. member's voice is weak at any time he makes a remark in this house.


Lionel Chevrier: His "hear, hear" was pretty weak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are some of his arguments.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am placing before the house in all earnestness the proposition that what has been done already by this government in carrying forward the legal proceedings which it has supported for some time, and the earlier action of this government in inquiring into this matter, fully justifies and in fact demands that this measure now go before a committee of the house. In fact, I can recall no single occasion in the time I have been here, and I recognize that period is comparatively short compared with the time many hon. members have been here, when a measure of this kind was not almost automatically referred to a committee of the house to obtain the kind of information which can properly be obtained by a committee of that nature whose expert knowledge is invaluable in reaching a considered judgment on an occasion of this kind.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell):
That Bill No. 474 be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in this legislation the government is feeling its way. I think perhaps the provinces are feeling their way. So we in the House of Commons are doing the same; we are feeling our way. When I first looked over the bill I was struck with the fact that it seems to contain a fair amount of confusion. After listening to the speeches that have been made thus far, I find that that confusion has been worse confounded.
I have always understood that it was not proper for the dominion and the provinces to delegate their powers to each other; but one of my learned counsel nearby informs me that there is a recent court decision that reverses that understanding. That seems to me to be involved in this bill, namely the delegation of powers. Up to a certain point it was understood that these matters were under provincial control. A court decision has been given which suggests that the matters covered by this bill are really under federal control. We now have a bill the purpose of which is to restore the status quo

Motor Vehicle Transport ante or to put that jurisdiction, for all practical purposes, back into the hands of the provinces.
The puzzling question that arises is whether or not this is a case of delegating federal authority to the provinces; and if it is, will it be covered by precedents that allow such delegation or will it be covered by precedents that disallow such delegation.
I daresay some hon. members are saying that if the picture was confused before I started, it is now even more confused.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, surely not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thank the Minister of Finance for agreeing with that suggestion.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said "surely not".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I shall have to withdraw my words of appreciation. I think that what I have said indicates the nature of this legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is a problem that has been presented both to the federal government and to the provincial governments as a result of the recent court decision with regard to extra-provincial transport, and a rather uncertain attempt to meet it is being made in this bill.
I share the view of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) that more light might well be shed on this matter. It seems to me that the proposition ought in some way to go to a committee of this house so that it might be examined and so that witnesses might be called. I am not sure that it is a good idea to oppose the second reading of the bill and then to send only the subject matter of the bill to the committee. If the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is not accepted by the government, I would hope that the government might consider referring the bill, after second reading, to some appropriate committee so that some of these angles might be ironed out.
The reason I am reluctant to support the proposal that the bill be not now read a second time but that only the subject matter thereof be referred to a committee is this. Difficult though the problem is, at least we know that nine of the provincial governments and the one federal government that we have,-


Edmund Davie Fulton: Such as it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -such as it is, seem satisfied that this is the best solution to the problem for the moment. I am glad that an attempt was not made to correct this problem by seeking an amendment to the British North America Act. There is a certain finality and irrevocability about amendments to that act which, as I say, make it desirable that that course should not be followed, and it was

not followed in connection with this matter. Rather a bill is being put forward. If, after a year or two, it is found that this is not the best solution to the problem, it is much easier to change it than it would be had we gone through the red tape required to have an amendment made to the British North America Act.
I hope that the federal government and the provincial governments will take that attitude toward the matter, namely that this is in effect a trial, an attempt to find a way in which to deal with this difficult problem. So it is that I hope the government will consider the suggestion I make as an alternative to the one proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, namely that after second reading the bill might be sent to a committee so that it could be gone into more thoroughly and so that we might get untangled some of these problems that it creates.
While I am on my feet dealing with the question of extra-provincial motor vehicle transport, I should like to say just a word with regard to a matter that is related thereto and about which we had some discussion earlier this session. I realize that the purpose and the effect of this bill is not to establish any uniformity as among the provinces with respect to travel on the highways; and that fact indeed adds to the confusion. Here we have a matter that has been declared by the courts to be one under federal jurisdiction. Yet we are delegating it back to the provinces and by this bill are according them a continuing autonomy in this field. Nevertheless this bill seems to provide what I shall call a meeting point among the provinces, with the federal government involved in that meeting, with regard to the question of travel on our highways. The fact that this common meeting point has been established-or has been forced on us, if you will, as a result of the court decision-I would hope might result in our various highway departments getting a little bit closer together on the matter of highway safety.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, we went into that matter at some length when we were debating the Criminal Code earlier this session, and I have no intention of reviving that debate. However, during the course of that debate it was brought out that some of the provinces have made some headway in curtailing accidents on the highway, with the loss of life and property that result therefrom. I think the provinces that have made headway have learned some lessons, and that they might well pass on to some of the other provinces what they have learned. I am particularly proud of the work that has been done in my own province of Manitoba in connection with this matter. I refer again to the excellent

work done by Mr. R. B. Baillie of Winnipeg. My hope is that the fact of the establishment of this meeting point among the provinces, with the federal government sitting in with them, might result in that question being discussed as well so that we might do something effective to cut down the mounting number of accidents that take place on the highways of this country from one end to the other.
After what I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to have cleared up a great deal so far as this bill is concerned. After all, it is handed to us as a hodgepodge of confusion. It is a makeshift that has been devised to meet a situation that arose out of a court decision. Since nine of the provincial governments and the federal government think that this is the way to try to solve the problem, I feel that we have no alternative but to accept it on a trial basis. As I say, I am glad it is being done in this way rather than by an amendment to the British North America Act. But having accepted it on a trial basis I also feel-and I press this on the government- that consideration should be given to sending the bill, after second reading, to some appropriate committee.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. I think the government has done a very wise thing in making the decision they did with respect to this matter. In days gone by I have opposed the government when I thought they were about to take over control of the truck transport industry and put it under federal jurisdiction. I never did think that would work out satisfactorily. Now that the decision has been made that this matter comes under the federal government they must accept that responsibility. I think the provinces have come to the conclusion that it is a federal responsibility, but they have also come to the conclusion that it will be an exceedingly difficult problem for the federal government to lay down rules and regulations regarding truck transport which will be satisfactory to the provinces.
In my judgment this is an entirely different problem from the railway problem. Truck transport has been under the control of the provinces for many years. Trucking is not a new industry in western or central Canada. It is something that the provinces have been dealing with for the last twenty-five or thirty years. Therefore it is not quite right to say that we are now throwing something into the laps of the provinces which they are not in any way prepared to handle. I think the provinces are going to be able to 83276-376
Motor Vehicle Transport work out the problem in a very satisfactory manner. It is an important problem too because in western Canada particularly trucking is about the only effective competition that the railways have. In central Canada water transportation is of course a most effective form of competition. Air transportation also has its place.
Now that the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway is about to take place, competition in central Canada will be even more keen. But we in western Canada do not have such effective competition. Therefore I think that the matter of truck transportation is something that the federal government must deal with as quickly as possible. I cannot see that anything will be gained by sending the bill to a committee. The matter was considered for months and months before the royal commission. I do not see how a committee of the house could begin to examine the problem as effectively as the royal commission did.
It should also be pointed out that this matter is not something entirely new to a committee of the house. It will be recalled that it was referred to a committee when the question of transcontinental rates was discussed and received a very thorough going over there. I doubt very much whether a committee of the house could deal as effectively with the subject matter of the bill as the provinces in conference could deal with it. A conference has already been held in Ottawa, and while it was in progress I kept in very close touch with the representatives of the province of Alberta. It is true that the bill does not go as far as they would like. They would have preferred to have an amendment of the British North America Act so that the matter would definitely be put under the control of the provinces. Personally that would have satisfied me too, but the government did not see fit to do so. Therefore the provinces have agreed that this is the next best way.
I have not heard any great disappointment expressed by the provinces with respect to the results achieved at the last conference in Ottawa a few weeks ago. I have kept in rather close contact with members of the transport organizations of Canada. They have no great objection to this measure. I am convinced that they would also prefer to have an amendment to the British North America Act so that the matter would be clearly defined as coming under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but again may I say that those to whom I have spoken have agreed that this is the next best way.
None of them has indicated to me that this is going to be a very complex problem. At

Motor Vehicle Transport the time I spoke to them the bill of course was not before the house, but I think it was fairly well understood from the discussions with the provinces what would be in the bill. I cannot imagine that the Minister of Transport would have allowed the representatives of the provinces to go home without giving them some idea of what was going to be in the bill when it came before the house. Certainly since the bill has been introduced I have not had any protests from the trucking organizations across Canada or any of the provinces, including Alberta. They seem to be quite agreeable to accepting this measure.
It is true that it will be a new type of legislation in that it is going to have some effect interprovincially and internationally, but the provinces have already had some dealing with the United States with respect to transportation problems between different states and provinces in the Dominion of Canada. In fact it has already been agreed in some instances that trucks from certain states in the United States should be allowed to use the roads in certain provinces without any extra charge provided our trucks are given the same consideration. The information I have from the minister of highways of the province of Alberta is that what dealings they have had with the governments of different states of the United States have been extremely satisfactory. Everything has been going along very well.
I cannot agree that we should delay this measure any longer by sending it to a committee of the house. If we were to do that I do not think we could deal with it at this session. If I thought for a moment that any good would come out of such a procedure or that we would learn anything that we have not already learned from other committees and the royal commission that have dealt with this subject in the past, I would go along with those who suggest that we should send the bill to a standing committee of the house. But I cannot see any good to be gained from such action. I think it would cause unnecessary delay. We would have to call before us witnesses who have already appeared before the royal commission. We would only get a repetition of their evidence and we would probably come to the same conclusion.
Therefore I know that this party will have to vote against the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and we shall give full support to the bill with one exception. I know it is not proper for us to discuss the sections of the bill at this time, but I am a little concerned about exactly

what section 5 means. However, may I say again that I have received no protests from the provinces or the trucking organizations, and I imagine this section has been discussed with them by the minister. We are confident that when we come to the section the minister will give a full explanation of it. If he does not do so at that time, then of course we will take appropriate action; but as matters stand now I think we have to agree with the government in getting the measure through as quickly as possible.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. I have been reading it with a great deal of interest. I have listened to all the speeches and followed very closely the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I cannot agree with the remarks of the previous speaker that it is not necessary to send the bill to a committee of the house. I find myself, Mr. Speaker, very confused about this bill, because my understanding is that this bill, as the result of a decision of the supreme court, is to outline the authority in the hands of the provinces and in the hands of the federal government.
In the interpretation section of the bill we find such definitions as "extra-provincial transport"; "extra-provincial undertaking"; "federal carrier"; "law of the province"; "local carrier"; "local transport"; "local undertaking"; and "provincial transport board". All those definitions are under the interpretation section of the bill. The powers start in clause 3 of the bill, and are contained in clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6. I cannot see where there is any line of demarcation or anything different from what transpired in the past. There is no actual power over interprovincial transport, as I read this bill, and I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon.
member to ask him not to anticipate the committee stage. If his argument on second reading with respect to principle revolves around one section and he refers to it, at this stage of the session one may be lenient; but he has already read one section and now he wants to read another. I know he will not mind my intervention at this point in order to ask him not to anticipate the committee stage. If he is making an analysis of each section on second reading, he will not have the pleasure of discussing them in committee of the whole because, I am sure, he would not wish to repeat his arguments.


Harold Edward Winch: The point I am trying to make is this. In analysis of the principle of this bill I can find no line of demarcation of power concerning interprovincial transport. It outlines in principle the powers of a province

and does give provincial jurisdiction, but does not outline any power or authorization on a logical basis to cover arrangements for interprovincial transport by motor vehicles. Perhaps I am wrong on that, but so far I just cannot see how this bill makes any arrangement to cover interprovincial transport.
In principle a bill does make an arrangement for the authority exercised by a province in connection with tolls and licences, but as to the relationship between the federal government and the provinces covering extra-provincial traffic, I cannot see that this bill covers the point. Personally, having some knowledge of this problem, I should like to see this subject referred to a committee. I do not know whether or not it should be the committee referred to in the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) or some other committee, but there are so many problems that need examination that the bill should be studied by a committee before it is passed by this house.


Lionel Chevrier: I should only like to address my remarks at this time to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). The amendment reads as follows:
That Bill No. 474 be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.
The house knows that the result of the adoption of such an amendment would mean the killing of the bill. There is no doubt that if this amendment were to carry, and the subject matter were referred to a standing committee such as referred to in the amendment, it would be studied there and it would be only the subject matter that could be reported upon. Therefore, practically a new bill would have to be drafted.
I raise that point because it is of the essence of the agreement or at least the understanding reached between the provinces and the federal government at the conference that this bill now before the house would become law during this session of parliament. There is another reason also why this amendment by the Leader of the Opposition should not be accepted. Because of the judgment of the privy council there is no legislation existing with reference to extra-provincial jurisdiction. There is, therefore, no legislation covering extra-provincial undertakings, undertakings that move from one province to another or from one province into the United States. It is of the utmost importance that this position be not allowed to remain for any length of time, because if 83276-3761
Motor Vehicle Transport it did there would be, as there is to some extent now, a chaotic condition in the field of highway transport.
I believe one of the main reasons which brought the provinces and the federal government together at the time was the uncertainty in that field of legislation, and the desirability of not allowing that uncertainty to remain for any lengthy period of time. I do not want to deal with the arguments of the Leader of the Opposition now, because I think this is not the time.


Harold Edward Winch: Where does this act change the situation?


Lionel Chevrier: Would my hon. friend allow me to deal with that position at a later stage in the debate? I am now dealing with the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and in effect say that if that amendment were carried it would simply kill the bill. There would be no legislation this session.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the minister because he is approaching this subject on a mild and conciliatory basis, but I do point out that I recognize there is a vacuum that must be filled. I pointed that out in presenting this amendment and said I was following the only device by which it is open to the opposition to propose that the subject go before a committee. I said I did that with the idea that the bill be not killed, but that the committee be convened while we are sitting, and their study and recommendation could be made available to us.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the hon. member for clarifying what he said, but in what he has just said there is no doubt the bill would be killed. My understanding of a motion of this nature is that it has the effect of killing the bill, and that it is impossible to bring the bill back in time to enact legislation.


George Alexander Drew: It is only killed if the government kills it.


Lionel Chevrier: Let my hon. friend realize this. There is more to this subject than he seems to realize. If this bill were to go to that committee, and the same reasons apply to any committee, even railways, canals and telegraph lines, for instance, the very principle that was established at the conference, namely the intention of the government to turn this field over to the control of the provinces, would be challenged by many groups who are opposed to the federal government doing what they are doing now, and who think the federal government should enact a federal motor carriers act. And if that were the case, does my hon. friend realize what length of time it would take? If he has any doubt about



S946 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Motor Vehicle Transport it, all he has to do is read the legislation that was brought down in this house in 1937 and 1939 and see what happened when the federal government attempted to take over the field at that time.
There is no doubt in my mind that if this amendment is adopted it will prejudice very strongly the position which was approved by the provinces and the federal government at the conference.
Harold Edward Winch: What are you afraid of, then?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the minister think the time will come when the representations from various people, to which he referred a moment ago, should be heard? If so, when, and in what circumstances?


Lionel Chevrier: I would like to deal with that question on the main motion. I hope the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) will bear with me, because I do not think at this stage I should deal with matters which he and other hon. members have brought forward. I would like to reserve those remarks for the discussion on the main motion.
At the moment all I am saying, on behalf of the government, is that I feel I must oppose the amendment offered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I feel that is necessary in the light of the undertaking reached at the federal-provincial conference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Would he comment on the suggestion I made? Obviously the reason I ask him to do it now is that the attitude of some members toward the amendment might be affected by the view the minister would take on the proposal that the bill be sent to a committee after second reading. Procedurally there is quite a difference.


Harold Edward Winch: On a question of privilege, I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am in favour of the principle that has been outlined by the minister. But, in my opinion, the bill does not carry out that principle. That is the reason I asked him the question.


Lionel Chevrier: There are two matters to consider, and I shall not confuse them. First, there is the motion that the subject matter of this bill be referred to a committee. That, alone, is the subject with which I am dealing now. And I am saying, on behalf of the government, that we oppose it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asks for the reasons for not referring it to a committee. My reply to that is this: we have not reached that stage and, if my hon. friend would allow me, I would rather deal with it when we have disposed of the amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The attitude of hon. members toward the amendment might be affected by the minister's reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. All those in favour of the amendment will say aye.


Some hon. Members:: Aye.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. 1 declare the amendment lost.


George Alexander Drew: On division.
Amendment negatived on division.


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


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I think I can repay the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) the same compliment he paid me a moment ago, by saying that he approached this very complex and difficult problem in a conciliatory manner. I commend him for it, because this problem has been discussed in the house on more than one occasion and not always in this manner.
I think the argument of the hon. member can be summarized in this way, that he feels there is not enough information before the house at the moment, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) seems to hold the same view. For that reason the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that some committee ought to give consideration to hearing evidence in the matter.
He also referred to delay and, as he expressed it-"Why could we not have had this bill weeks ago? Why could we not have had this bill years ago?" Well, I am glad to say that my hon. friend did not insist too much upon that argument, because I know he was on weak ground when he made it.
We could not have had this bill weeks ago, neither could we have had it years ago, and for a number of excellent reasons. May I give some of those reasons? In the first place, while it is true that the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in the Winner case in 1951, there was an appeal from that decision to the privy council. If the federal government had attempted to obtain the views of the provinces while the judgment was under appeal, I do not think the provinces would have welcomed a conference. I do not think they would have listened to the federal government; and, in

any event, most certainly it would have been in bad taste for the federal government to have sought the views of the provinces when the matter was still under litigation.
And what confirms that last opinion is this, that the judgment of the privy council in fact varied that of the Supreme Court of Canada. So a fortiori the position of the federal government would have been questionable had it attempted to obtain the views of the provinces while the matter was still pendente lite.
Then my hon. friend says that there were weeks of delay in bringing the matter before the house. Let us see what happened. I think it was the day after the judgment of the privy council was handed down that I made a statement in the house indicating what the government intended to do, and pointing out its reluctance to enter the extraprovincial field of transportation, and its desire to call a conference as quickly as possible.
That conference was called at the end of April. During the time of the conference, which lasted some three days, I believe a satisfactory conclusion was reached. However, the provincial representatives had to go back to their own governments to obtain the consent of those governments to the proposal found in the bill now before the house. All that took some time.
I say to hon. members that the bill was brought here just as fast as it could possibly be brought, having regard to the circumstances. Hence no time was lost. And when one thinks-


Harold Edward Winch: But it does not do what you want to do.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I will deal with that later on.
Then my hon. friend said that this matter should be referred to a committee, and he feels there should be an opportunity to discuss a matter of such grave importance before a committee. The reasons I gave earlier-and I shall add others-obtain now against referring the matter to a committee. I do not think it would be wise to refer the bill to the committee on banking and commerce, to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, or to any other committee. I may be mistaken, but I do not think it should be referred, and I will tell you why: Because there are groups and associations in this country who feel that this jurisdiction should be taken over by the federal government, and that the federal government should enact a federal motor carriers act.
Motor Vehicle Transport
Well, now, we have determined against that after very careful consideration, and we have invited the provinces, who are the ones responsible for this kind of traffic, to come here and discuss this matter, and we have asked them whether or not they felt like taking this over. They said, or at least one did, "Well, we would prefer to do it by amendment to the constitution". We said, "Well, we have no authority to deal with that, and in any event that is not practicable at the present time". They said, "Well, if it is not, then we shall go along with you in this kind of legislation". We sat down and we drafted, after quite a considerable length of time, a bill the principle of which is contained in this bill. In fact it is practically the same bill with a very small change.
What would be the effect of referring this to a committee?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the principle?


Lionel Chevrier: The effect of referring this to a committee would be to hear representations from those who are opposed to the manner in which we are doing this. If anyone has looked at the history of extra-provincial transport in this house since 1935 we will find that we will be here not for one week, two weeks or three weeks, we will be here for months discussing this very matter and hearing representations about the manner in which and the means whereby this should be done.
Why did we proceed to act in the way in which we have? For several reasons. We felt that we did not have the necessary experience nor the necessary staff or personnel to deal with this kind of traffic. After all, the provinces have been dealing with this traffic for years; it is their business; and all they will be doing by means of this enabling legislation will be to extend the powers which they possess under provincial legislation to cover extra-provincial undertakings. Then, we have not the staff; we have not a board. And what board would we establish, the board of transport commissioners? That is the logical board. Do you know what would happen if we were ever to do that? There would be a series of representations by the truckers, by the shippers, against the board. They would say: "That is a railway board; it is not a trucking board. Give us a trucking board. You are not fair to us". Anyone in this house knows that this is a very complex matter, and therefore, if we wanted to be fair to the trucking industry, which is a big industry, taking on more and more importance in Canada because of the development of highways, we would probably be doing them an injustice if we were

Motor Vehicle Transport not setting up a separate board independent of the board of transport commissioners. What does that mean? Extra costs, extra personnel, extra staff not only in Ottawa, but in every province in this country. Was it not a logical thing to do as we did, to invite the provinces here and to say to them: In view of all these things, in view particularly of the fact that when we did attempt to control it back in 1935 and 1937 you protested bitterly against it and you said, that is not the way to do it, is it not logical for you to take it over? The provinces on the whole felt that this was the thing to do. When I say "the provinces" I should make one exception. I meant that all the provinces with this one exception felt that this legislation would meet their position.
They did raise some question about clause 5, but that can be dealt with when we come to it in the committee of the whole. I say that those are two of the important reasons why it would not be proper, why it would unduly delay the matter if it were referred to a committee of the house.
A third reason is that we have an undertaking with those provinces. We told those provinces that if that draft was acceptable to them and to their governments we would submit it to the house at the earliest possible moment during this session. If the bill is sent to a committee and I am right in my assumption that many groups and associations will come here and challenge the principle of this bill-


Harold Edward Winch: Why should they not have the right?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend is quite right; certainly they should have the right. What I am pointing out is this. If they come here and challenge it, as they would have a perfect right to do, why should not the provinces come down and give the reasons why this bill should be adopted in principle? I repeat what I said earlier. I have some experience and I say what the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) said. We know what happened in connection with the Railway Act and the amendments having to do with the railway freight structure. We were here for weeks and weeks and then we were not able to bring about a measure which was entirely satisfactory. The point I am making to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) is that, of course, if it goes to a committee, then it should be thrown wide open, principle and all. If it is thrown wide open to the railways of Canada, because they will want to be heard, to the trucking associations, to the Canadian Manufacturers Association, to
f Mr. Chevrier.]
the industrial traffic league, and of course to the provinces, you cannot do that in less than months of study. That certainly is the experience that some of the officers who were here long before I was have had in this very difficult problem. Therefore we came to the conclusion-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister permit a question? Really it is one I have asked before. I am still not clear as to whether the minister thinks there is a problem which must one day be faced. If so, why and under what circumstances? He is painting the difficulties. His description of the difficulties is very clear, but it still leaves the question in my mind. If there is a problem that has to be dealt with, when are the difficulties going to become less?


Lionel Chevrier: The problem that has to be faced must be faced now, and we are facing it with this bill. It is the decision of the government to deal with these problems by authorizing, through this enabling legislation, the provinces to control extra-provincial highway transport; extra-provincial undertakings.


Harold Edward Winch: May I have an answer to the question I asked? In view of the statement of the minister, I asked him wherein, on the principle of this bill, with all its clauses, is the power for the provinces to deal with extra-provincial traffic.


Lionel Chevrier: Again we are getting out of order. Let me put it this way.


Harold Edward Winch: On the principle.


Lionel Chevrier: On the principle I will
answer him. There are two clauses dealing with the very point. Those are the three reasons which I give to the committee for the objection to referring the matter to the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister permit another question?


Harold Edward Winch: May I have an answer to my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. members are so anxious to ask questions we ought to let the Minister of Transport complete his remarks and then go into committee of the whole on the bill.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is not a question on detail. What I want to ask the minister is this. From certain expressions that he used I have thought that this was in the nature of stopgap legislation. But a moment or two ago he used what seemed to me entirely

different language and I thought he referred to it in effect as a final solution. Which is it?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend has been
coming back to that question on three occasions. This is not a stopgap solution. This legislation is brought about by the judgment of the privy council in the Winner case. It is urgent because of the reasons I gave earlier, and this is the manner in which the government proposes to deal with the problem before us at this time. If my hon. friend will look at clauses 3 and 4 of the bill he will, I think, find the answers to his questions.
There are a number of other matters which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) dealt with, and he made particular reference to the royal commission. But he did not say to which royal commission he was referring, whether it was the Rowell-Sirois royal commission or the Turgeon royal commission. If it is the latter, then there was certainly in the terms of reference no direct reference to this subject matter. There was a general reference which allowed the commissioner to bring in a recommendation on any matter affecting the railway structure, or railway or transportation problems, and the commissioner did bring in the recommendation which covered this point.
But there were other studies made by committees of this house and others who brought in recommendations which were exactly to the contrary. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that the legislation which is before the house is one which has been approved by the provinces and which has their concurrence, with the exception of the province of Quebec. As I said earlier in my remarks, the position of that province is being covered as well as that of any other province by the last clause of the bill. It also has the concurrence, I understand, of all the trucking associations, and it is important that the operation should not be delayed. For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the legislation should not be referred to a committee of this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot speak at this time because the minister has closed the debate.


Colin Cameron: But, Mr. Speaker, the minister was up and down so often that I could not be quite sure whether we were on formal second reading.
Motor Vehicle Transport


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member was not quite sure because questions were being asked and answers given, then perhaps he will now be anxious to reach the committee stage. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Donald Methuen Fleming: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time on division, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps this is the time to ask the minister to indicate what proposals, if any, he has for the submission of this admittedly difficult problem for further study. I think he will agree with me when I say I think it is a fair summary of the implication of his remarks that the government is not certain that this is a final and complete answer, that something more is necessary, and that this is the best thing that could be devised in the meantime. I would therefore ask the minister what proposals, if any, he has for submitting this bill for further study.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I did not state that this was a temporary measure. I think I answered the hon. member for Greenwood by saying that this was not stopgap legislation, but on the contrary it was the government's answer to the problem as we saw it today.
That does not mean to say that we are not going to be careful about the operation of this legislation. It may be that the provinces may have some difficulties in putting it into effect. It may be that we will have some difficulties, and the bill may have to be amended. If it has to be amended, then parliament sits every year, and I do not think there will be any more difficulty in having a conference of the provinces with the federal government on this subject than there was on other subjects. This year, in less than a month, we got together and within three days we had determined what we would do and clearly understood each other. I think also that it was clearly understood that we would give them the control and allow their provincial boards to deal with extraprovincial traffic, so far as licences and tariffs were concerned, in the same manner in which they are now dealing with provincial traffic. If difficulties arise I am quite sure they will be brought to our attention and we shall deal with them within the existing circumstances.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That being the case, Mr. Chairman, are we to take it that the government

Motor Vehicle Transport feels this is the proper course to follow? I would ask why it was that the Attorney General of Canada intervened in the case before the Supreme Court of Canada and on the appeal before the privy council against the decision of the New Brunswick court, which confirmed that the dominion had the right? Why did the Attorney General of Canada intervene and argue before these two courts that the dominion had the right?


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the hon. member's question. I am sure he must be familiar with the principle that where a constitutional case comes before the courts and in which the ambit of the jurisdiction of the federal authorities is challenged, as a matter of routine, in order that there will be an accurate judicial disposition of these questions, we take part in the case and recognize a responsibility for so doing in order to work towards a wise judgment of the court as to the division of jurisdiction between the federal government and the provincial governments. The fact that we have done so in the present case is no foundation at all, if I may say so, for the suggestion that once federal jurisdiction has been clearly established as in the Winner case, we should use that federal jurisdiction in one way or another as a matter of policy. Now that this question of jurisdiction has been cleared up by the decision of the privy council in the Winner case, the policy that the federal government proposes to follow in relationship to the exercise of that jurisdiction is to be found in the bill now before the house.


Harold Edward Winch: There is just one point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct to the attention of the Minister of Justice. There was a decision of the supreme court to the effect that jurisdiction as far as interprovincial vehicles were concerned was a federal matter, and as a result of that there was a conference between the federal government and the provinces and they came to an agreement-[DOT]


Mr, Garson:: If I may interrupt the hon. member, the conference to which he refers did not follow the decision of the supreme court. That decision was appealed to the privy council and it was not until the privy council had rendered the judgment in question that the conference between the federal government and the provinces took place for the reasons which have been very lucidly given by the Minister of Transport.
[Mr. Fulton. 1


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Harold Edward Winch: Only as a result-


William Alfred Robinson: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: Bill No. 474, clause 1; shall the clause carry?


Harold Edward Winch: At the time of the adjournment at six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the principle of the bill which is contained in clause 1. In view of the discussions in the previous hours and the statements made by the minister and the Minister of Justice, I have taken the opportunity to make a further study of this bill. In view of that study I should like to continue my remarks on the principle of it and perhaps, in my statements, to ask certain questions which I think are of importance.
I can say that in principle I agree with the intent of the minister on the introduction of this bill, namely to give to the provinces of Canada the power of control over extraprovincial motor vehicles. However, on reading the bill I have in my mind certain doubts which I should like to have clarified at this time, and I think perhaps there are doubts in the minds of others. As I understand the situation, the courts of the land have declared that the constitutional and jurisdictional control of extra-provincial motor vehicle transport is within the federal powers. In view of that decision-and I think it is accepted by all-the government has introduced an act authorizing the provinces to exercise a power of jurisdiction which under the constitution is declared to be strictly a federal power. My first question therefore is this: Will the Minister of Justice clarify the situation with regard to the jurisdictional power, when the highest courts have declared that the constitutional jurisdictional power is federal?
As I understand constitutional law, there are three ways in which the difficulty can be overcome. One is by an amendment to the British North America Act. The second is by the passage of an act requiring ancillary legislation by a province. The third is by the passage of an act which is of a permissive nature. In view of the fact that the constitutional jurisdiction in this matter has been declared by the courts to be strictly federal, I am going to presume that this legislation is of a permissive nature because

of a section of the act which says that it will come into force in a province only upon the issue of a proclamation of the governor in council declaring it to be in force in that province. I presume that it is by proclamation of an act of a permissive nature that the government is introducing an act giving power to the provinces, although the courts have declared that it is strictly a federal responsibility. I think that is the first question that should be clarified at this time.
Going on from that point, because I am certain that the Minister of Justice has taken note of it, I follow on to the general principle of the bill. As I have said before, I think the government has reached a right conclusion in believing that this should be a matter of provincial jurisdiction. But in principle, I cannot find where the government, under this act, is giving to the provinces extra-provincial powers with respect to motor vehicle transport. I have read carefully all the sections of the bill and I cannot find in any of them any power which is not now exercised by the provinces of Canada. In view of the recent court decision, perhaps they may have been operating illegally. Perhaps that is so. I do not know. But in the various sections of Bill No. 474 I cannot see where, in the matter of interprovincial responsibility, they are being given	one	more	power	than theyhave exercised	for	years	with	regard	tolicensing, tariffs	and	tolls.This is supposed to be an extra-provincial motor vehicle transport bill. There too I cannot find a section of this bill whereby there is any authority or set-up between the provinces by means of which we can get around all the' problems of the past in connection with extra-provincial transportation. Under this act the powers of the provinces are clear with respect to licensing, tolls and so forth. But	when the	trucker hits	the
border between British Columbia and Alberta, as I read the bill he then comes under the complete control or authority of Alberta; and the same situation prevails with respect to Alberta and Saskatchewan and with respect to Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Where is this new set-up-which to put the matter quite bluntly, I have been hoping for-of co-operation, collaboration, understanding and agreement between the provinces? I cannot find it in this bill. Perhaps I have missed it. If so, I know the minister will set me right. I know that I am not alone in missing it; a great many of us in this chamber have missed that set-up.
There is something else in the principle of this bill which I think is of the utmost 83276-377
Motor Vehicle Transport importance. I understand that at the recent conference the provinces did not all agree on this matter. If I am incorrect in my statement, I hope the minister will straighten me out immediately. I understand that the province on the Pacific coast and the provinces on the Atlantic coast agreed. One other province did not.
What is the position with respect to extraprovincial transport if you cannot get from a province in the middle of Canada to those on the east or west or vice versa because one province has not agreed to Bill No. 474? Does that mean that the province that has not entered into the agreement, or perhaps a province that might withdraw later, can cause a Balkan blockade of truck transport east and west from the Pacific to the Atlantic? I ask that question because of the principle involved. I cannot see anything in the bill whereby the federal government, in handing over this jurisdiction to the provinces, takes any authority itself with respect to licensing in order to protect the provinces that come into the agreement and provide for free access across Canada even if one province does not enter the agreement.
In other words, any one province can block the intent of the government and the minister to establish a free system of extraprovincial motor transport across Canada. I cannot see anything in the bill which gives the federal government any power whatsoever if any one province wants to block the other provinces of Canada so far as motor vehicle transport is concerned. That is a very important matter to me and I hope the minister will discuss it. As I said, first of all where does the power arise under this bill, which is of a permissive nature? In the second place, where is the extraprovincial arrangement? For, as I read the legislation, every province has always exercised every power contained in the bill? Where is the set-up to bring about correlation and co-operation so far as the arrangements are concerned? You are granting to the provinces what has been declared by law to be a federal power. I agree with that, but where does the legislation contain any power whereby the federal government will be able to see to it that no one province can interfere with the application, implementation and meaning of the legislation, the purpose of which is to ensure freer access across Canada and to avoid any stalemates so far as vehicular transport is concerned?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the questions which my hon. friend has raised, and if in the course of my

Motor Vehicle Transport remarks I do not cover all the points or there are still some legal difficulties I will ask my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to deal more fully with the legal points that are raised. My hon. friend seeks to inquire how, if by virtue of the judgment qf the courts the power to deal with this matter lies with the federal government, as it does, it is possible to give the provinces control such as we seek to do in this bill. He suggested that after studying the matter there were three methods by which it could be done. Perhaps I might say to him that there are two methods by which one could proceed.
First there is the method of enacting federal legislation and taking advantage of the powers that were determined to belong to the federal government under the British North America Act. We have decided against that. There is more than one method by which we might authorize the provinces to exercise this jurisdiction. It could be done by legislation by reference. That, I understand, is of doubtful legal validity. It could be done by delegation, and it could be done in this manner. The courts have held that this is a perfectly legal way in which to do it, namely, to give to provincial boards, not to provincial legislatures but to provincial boards, the same authority to deal with extra-provincial traffic as they have to deal with provincial traffic. Parliament has already conferred such authority on provincial boards as in the case of the Prince Edward Island potato marketing board and a number of others with which I need not deal.
That is a legal matter which was gone into carefully at the conference. Most of the attorneys general were present and all of us agreed that if it were to be done this was the best method by which to do it. Therefore I am accepting their view on it, and I do not think there is any doubt about the legality of this procedure.
The hon. member also stated that he could not find any place in this legislation where the government is giving the provinces any jurisdiction over extra-provincial transportation. That is contained in sections 3 and 4. I do not know whether I will be out of order in dealing with them at this time, but the powers the federal government has to control extra-provincial undertakings it gives to these provincial boards in the same way as these provincial boards control provincial undertakings. Again, it certainly was the view of the attorneys general who were present at the conference that this was the most practical way in which to do it.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a question? Can the minister tell me how what is provided for in section 3, to which he has referred, is any different from what goes on now?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not suggesting it is any different from what goes on now. Coupled with what I said in my earlier remarks on second reading of the bill, the effect of the statement I make now is that we want the provinces to continue to regulate and control extra-provincial transport undertakings in the same way as they are controlling provincial transportation at this time.


Harold Edward Winch: Can we agree on that?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend then says: What will happen when traffic moving out of British Columbia arrives at the border of Alberta? What will happen when traffic moving out of another province arrives at the border of the province which has not agreed to this arrangement? The answer is quite clear. The law will be exactly the same as it is now. As I stated earlier, there is one province that did not see fit to give its concurrence to this legislation. The province of Quebec in its wisdom submitted at the conference that it would prefer a constitutional amendment. I doubt if the constitutional amendment requested by that province was the same amendment in substance as that requested by the other provinces. Be that as it may, it did indicate that it was not satisfied with this act as it stood. If that province does not put this act into effect, as it has a right to do, there will be no law in that province in so far as extra-provincial undertakings are concerned, and that goes for any other province that does not want to take advantage of this enabling legislation.
But I cannot see that any harm will befall anyone. Supposing for instance, there is a trucking company that wants to move from Victoria to the Atlantic provinces, say from Vancouver to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and one province says it will not put this act into effect; the truck can still go through; it will not be operating illegally. It was agreed by all the provinces it would be a good thing to have clause 5 or a clause that would be in the nature of clause 5.
I must say that subject to one reservation, because I am sure the hon. member for Bow River will probably want to correct me. There were some misgivings on the part of Alberta, but they did come along and state they would be satisfied to accept that clause. They preferred another method, but rather than see the position of extra-provincial undertakings in the way it is now, they would much rather have this bill.

Well, I believe I have answered the four questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East, as I had them noted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question arising out of the statement he just made? He gave the example of a truck moving from Vancouver, British Columbia, to Halifax, Nova Scotia, and referred to the fact that it would be going through one province, namely, Quebec, in which this act would not be in effect. He said there would be no difference. The truck would go through that province, just as it would go through any other province. What is the advantage of a law of that kind, where it does not seem to make any difference whether or not it is in effect?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In order to convince my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party, Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be a good plan for me to quote my legal principles from a source they will not likely impeach. Therefore, I should like to establish some of these fundamental principles from the very excellent brief presented on behalf of the government of Saskatchewan. I want to make it clear that I do not agree with everything that was said in that brief, but I do agree with everything I shall now quote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What is unique about that?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The hon. member for Vancouver East said he was puzzled by the fact that under this bill it was proposed to clothe the provinces with powers from federal sources to do the very same thing that they had been doing up to date provincially.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, I did not put it that way at all. I said I was only puzzled as to why this act gave them power, but not extensive powers on extra-provincial traffic.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I understood my hon. friend to say that this is the same thing they had been doing all along.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I now quote briefly this statement from the Saskatchewan brief:
Until the S.M.T., (Eastern) Limited litigation-
That is the Winner case.
-began it seems to have been generally assumed that a motor vehicle, carrying freight or passengers was under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of that province in which the vehicle happened to be situated at any given moment. In other words, no legal concept was considered to be involved other than property and civil rights in the province.
As my hon. friend knows, that comes within provincial jurisdiction. Then, the brief says:
It followed, therefore, that the legislative jurisdiction of a province over highways within the 83276-377J
Motor Vehicle Transport boundaries of the province was complete in the matter of use thereof by interprovincial or international motor carriers.
Therefore the province, as this correctly states, up until that time had been dealing with intra-provincial transport, which was and still is wholly within that provincial jurisdiction, and had also been dealing with interprovincial transport between provinces, and also with the international transport, such as that involved in the Winner case which came from a location in Maine and went up through two Canadian provinces.


Harold Edward Winch: Until the privy council said it was illegal.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend is quite right -until the privy council said it was illegal. And perhaps if I read one or two short extracts from the privy council judgment, we might illuminate another point that has been giving my hon. friend difficulty. Their Lordships said this:
The province has indeed authority over its own roads but that authority is a limited one and does not entitle it to interfere with connecting undertakings-
A connecting undertaking such as the Winner movement.
It must be remembered that it is the undertaking, not the roads which comes within the jurisdiction of the dominion, but legislation which denies the use of provincial roads to such an undertaking or sterilizes the undertaking itself is an interference with the prerogative of the dominion.
Whatever provisions or regulations a province may prescribe with regard to its roads it must not prevent or restrict interprovincial traffic.
As Their Lordships have indicated, this does not in any way prevent what is, in essence, traffic regulations, but the provisions contained in the local statutes and regulations must be confined to such matters as traffic regulations.
Then, Their Lordships go on to say that whether the legislation in question in any case is, in pith and substance, traffic regulation or whether it is an interference with interprovincial traffic, must be decided on the facts of the case before the court. In the Winner case, they held it was an interference with or sterilization of interprovincial traffic.
Now, that being so, upon the privy council rendering its decision in the Winner case, the problem which arose was as to what was to be done with regard to that regulation of interprovincial traffic which up until that time had been provided by the province. They had the organization, the staff and everything else that the dominion did not have. The bill that is now before the house enunciates and provides for the bringing into effect of the principle that the officials in the provincial transport boards shall, in effect,



S9S4 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Motor Vehicle Transport continue to provide, under federal jurisdiction and authority, that control over interprovincial and international traffic, which up until the present time they had exercised, as it would appear from the Winner judgment perhaps wrongfully, under provincial authority. And that is the reason why this Bill 474 authorizes the provincial boards to carry along that control over interprovincial traffic which the hon. member for Vancouver East says is just the same as it is at the present time.
Now, so far as a province in which this act has not been proclaimed is concerned, any interprovincial traffic which flows through that province cannot be interfered with or sterilized; for the only way in which a province, after the Winner case was decided, can control, regulate or license interprovincial traffic, is under the federal authority given by this present bill, particularly sections 3 and 4.
If my hon. friend will examine the section before him he will see it says, simply, that a provincial motor transport board shall under its terms regulate, and shall have power to grant licences to interprovincial traffic. And the provincial boards will have that power by virtue of the action of this parliament exercising federal jurisdiction to clothe the provincial motor transport board's personnel with such powers.
My hon. friend asks how that can be done. Again I would refer him to this excellent Saskatchewan brief which says, as is obvious-
-that the only way in which this problem can be dealt with, whether as in this bill or even if the dominion government assumed control itself over interprovincial and international traffic, would be to correlate its efforts in this field with the efforts which the provinces at the same time would be putting forth to control intraprovincial traffic.
So no matter what legal alternative is adopted by this parliament, we still have to have the co-operative approach. And you cannot get a better example of the co-operative approach than the bill now before the house. The Saskatchewan brief puts it in this way:
The co-operative approach proposed depends upon the method of overcoming the constitutional division of legislative competence. It seems clear on constitutional grounds that the outright delegation of authority from the federal government to provincial governments or vice versa is out of the question.
That is to say, parliament cannot clothe a provincial legislature with the power to pass an act which the provincial legislature itself has not the power to pass, under the British North America Act. Then the brief goes on in these terms:
It seems equally clear however that-

As the Minister of Transport explained a moment ago, in line with this decision in the Prince Edward Island marketing board case- -a provincial board may receive the authority of the parliament of Canada to carry out certain functions within the jurisdiction of that parliament. This power is not impaired by the fact that it has also received the authority of a provincial legislature to carry out certain functions within the jurisdiction of that legislature.
In other words, when a provincial legislature has clothed the persons in a provincial board with power to deal with intra-provincial motor traffic, it is then quite within the power of this parliament to come along and pass this bill, and say to the members of that board, "You shall also have federal authority under this bill to control interprovincial traffic."
Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe what he is saying, and what was said earlier by his colleague the Minister of Transport, is that a provincial board in those circumstances has jurisdiction to accept a grant of jurisdiction from parliament, if provincial legislation has been passed also clothing it with the same power to accept that grant of jurisdiction from parliament. May I ask the minister how many provinces have already passed the necessary legislation to clothe their provincial transport boards with authority to accept the grant of jurisdiction from parliament with respect to international and interprovincial highway traffic?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: To begin with, that was not what I said. What I said was that this bill purported to clothe the provincial boards, which are now exercising jurisdiction under provincial statutes, with power to administer Bill No. 474, which we are now discussing. And the right of the provincial boards to receive power and exercise power under a federal statute is not impaired by the fact that the personnel of those boards is at the same time receiving and exercising power under provincial legislation.
From now on

and I think this is in answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East as well as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-these provincial boards, which heretofore had been exercising intra-provincial powers and also, although mistakenly, interprovincial powers-will from now on continue to exercise intra-provincial powers, and under the authority of this legislation will validly exercise interprovincial powers.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask a further question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Should not this discussion take place under clause 3?


William Alfred Robinson: I understand the hon member for Eglinton wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. The minister did not answer my question. Would he explain his view on this point-and I may have misapprehended the point of his argument as well as that of the Minister of Transport earlier. Does he say that any provincial legislation is required to enable the provincial transport boards to accept from parliament the gift of jurisdiction over international and interprovincial highway traffic? We know that under provincial legislation the provincial boards are clothed with authority to deal with intra-provincial traffic. I would like to know the minister's view as to whether any provincial legislation is required to enable a provincial transport board to accept this proposed gift of jurisdiction over international and interprovincial highway traffic.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not think that that matter is really a practical or relevant one, because at the conference, upon the proceedings of which this legislation is based, all of the provinces not only expressed approval of this co-operative method of dealing with the problem, but they expressed approval of the terms of the bill. That being so, the point my hon. friend from Eglinton now raises, as to there being a necessity for the provincial board in any given province, by reason of the manner in which it has been set up for provincial purposes, requiring to have a clause in the bill creating it or a later provincial bill authorizing it to receive authority from the federal, is without significance; for I am sure that that authority would be forthcoming without question from the province.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But that is not the point. I had hoped we might have from the Minister of Justice an expression of opinion on this point, because it is important and relevant. If such provincial legislation is necessary to vest authority in the provincial transport board, then I wish to know how many provinces have passed such enabling legislation, because if that is the case, this bill will not fill the present gap. It will still be necessary for the provincial legislatures in every case to meet and pass such enabling legislation. That may have the effect of extending the present jurisdictional gap until next February or March in many cases. Therefore the point is very important, and I think we should have an expression of opinion. I gathered from the statements of both the
Motor Vehicle Transport ministers that they were saying that enabling provincial legislation is necessary in such cases.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I misapprehended the minister's argument I would wish that it be cleared up for the record now, because the point is important.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In my last statement a few moments ago I thought I made the position as clear as I could make it, and that is, that the federal parliament can clothe any group of people that it chooses with powers to exercise authority under this legislation. It may be that with some eight or nine provinces coming under this arrangement and with the provincial legislation doubtless varying to some extent, from one province to another, by reason of the nature of the type of board created under a certain provincial statute, clarifying provincial legislation might be needed to make it clear that that precise board could accept authority granted to it by federal legislation. Apart from some difficulty of that sort that may occur in legislation that I have not even seen, I do not think there is any difficulty presented at all by this parliament clothing certain persons with authority which they may exercise under this bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: One further question:	I
understood the minister to say that this bill had been submitted to the dominion-provincial conference.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is right.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a form of consultation concerning a bill that would have been interesting if we had known about it this morning in a debate on another matter.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You made a good speech.


Harold Edward Winch: I have listened very carefully to the statements in the past few minutes which were made by the Minister of Justice, and to some of them I can say-what is the expression-"love that man", because, as I understood the statement of the minister, actually in view of the decision of the privy council, for many years the provinces have been acting illegally in their control of intraprovincial traffic, and that is one reason why I said-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: May I correct my hon. friend. I know he did not mean it, but he said "intra". They have always had authority over intra-provincial traffic.

Motor Vehicle Transport


Harold Edward Winch: Extra-provincial traffic; all
right. As 1 understand clauses 3 and 4, this legislation will completely legalize all their operations. Am I right there?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No. Clauses 3 and 4 will authorize them from this point on, that is the officials of these provincial boards from this time on, to carry on with their regulation of interprovincial traffic under federal authority.


Harold Edward Winch: That, Mr. Chairman, is exactly the way I understood it, except that I do not see where the interprovincial board comes in in those provinces. The minister has not made that clear. It is still within the borders of the province, because all the relations are confined strictly within the confines of a province. You can come in from Alberta to British Columbia or from British Columbia to Alberta, but where do you get the extra-provincial basis of organization which I think basically you will have, a co-ordinated system across Canada? Where in the legislation is that, or is it there at all?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think it is very simple. An interprovincial undertaking crosses provincial boundaries from time to time. When it crosses the interprovincial boundary between British Columbia and Alberta going west it comes into the province of British Columbia and its activities as an interprovincial undertaking in British Columbia will by virtue of this bill be under the control of the members of the provincial board acting under federal authority.


Harold Edward Winch: Where is that in the bill?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend will look at clause 3 he will see it says:
(1)	Where in any province a licence is by the law of the province required for the operation of a local undertaking, no person shall operate an extra-provincial undertaking in that province unless he holds a licence issued under the authority of this act.
(2)	The provincial transport board in each province may in its discretion issue a licence to a person to operate an extra-provincial undertaking into or through the province upon the like terms and conditions and in the like manner as if the extra-provincial undertaking operated in the province were a local undertaking.
I think it is very clear. As long as they are in that province their activities are under the control of that board acting under federal authority.
What I understand my hon. friend from Vancouver East is now driving at is this. In view of the fact that a provincial undertaking may extend through seven or eight provinces, how can a number of separate boards, each having authority to deal only within its own area, control this operation; that is, their
IMr. Garson.]

operations through seven or eight provinces. Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer to that is found in arrangements which have now been in existence in Canada for some considerable period of time under which, by reciprocal arrangements between those various provincial authorities, licensing is provided for the undertaking through all of those provinces for fees that will be perhaps 100 per cent in the home province of the undertaking and for less than 100 per cent in the other provinces and in some cases American states, in consideration of those provinces and states extending the same kind of an arrangement in respect of such interprovincial undertakings as are located in those other provinces as their home provinces. These reciprocal arrangements exist by virtue of the same kind of interprovincial co-operation as we are now trying to perpetuate by dominion-provincial co-operation. This is the way and the only way in a federal state in which it is possible to secure that over-all regulation of interprovincial motor traffic in all of the provinces concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I go back to my question of half an hour ago. We have had quite a long answer, but part of my question is still unanswered. In the case of the truck that started out from Vancouver, British Columbia, half an hour ago, on the way to Halifax, Nova Scotia, under whose jurisdiction, so far as this undertaking is concerned, is that truck when it is travelling through a province in which the federal government has no board which it has clothed with these powers?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I thought I had answered that question when I quoted rather extensively from the judgment of the privy council in the Winner case. It seems to me that the position there is this: Once the Winner case is decided in the way in which it was decided, no provincial board can regulate an interprovincial undertaking except under federal authority. Therefore, if this act be not proclaimed in a certain province there will not be in that province any board that can do anything more than provide traffic regulations, weights, and so on with respect to interprovincial undertakings and, as I understand it, there will be no board in that province which will have the power to prevent an interprovincial undertaking from going through that province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, during the time in which that truck is going through that province it is not under any jurisdiction?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It is under possible federal jurisdiction which is not in esse by reason of

the tact that the relevant federal statute has not been proclaimed to be in effect in that province.


Harold Edward Winch: Let us stop there. I do not quite understand. Let us speak in English.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: "In esse" means "in being".


Harold Edward Winch: I do not know what that term means.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: It means "in being".


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has put us on the track. If there is one province or more which does not come under this act when passed by the house and a truck passes through that province, then I take it that, in accordance with the decision of the privy council, it will then be the responsibility of the federal government and that they will convey that truck through on their regulations. Is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I presume my hon. friend's question is asked as being relevant to the bill which is now before us. Under the circumstances he names I do not think I can add anything to the answer I gave a moment ago to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If this bill becomes law and it is not proclaimed in a province, then an interprovincial undertaking can take its trucks through that province, and providing it complies with the rules of the road, traffic regulations, weights, and so on, it cannot be denied ingress or egress or passage through the province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill was to fill a vacuum which now exists, and even after the bill is passed if there are provinces which do not wish to have this bill proclaimed with respect to their area there will still be a vacuum to that extent.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend calls that a vacuum-


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, and I do not want to hold up the passage of this clause, but I wish to be quite clear about this. I do not think there is a vacuum. I understood the minister to say that if a province does not come in on this agreement after the act is passed then, regardless of this vacuum, if a truck complies with the rules of the road then that truck cannot be denied ingress or egress or passage through that province. Is that correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Mr. Quelch:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if the same thing applies to buses. For example, in the past buses coming from
Motor Vehicle Transport Alberta through Saskatchewan, particularly in the case of the Greyhound line buses from Calgary to Saskatoon, had to discharge their passengers as soon as they reached the Saskatchewan border, and the passengers had to board a different bus. Does that still apply?


Lionel Chevrier: Clause 2 (a) covers that point.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: What is the
answer?


Lionel Chevrier: I thought I answered that this is covered by clause 2 (a), which covers both passengers and goods.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Operating licence.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting for some time to deal with some of the points I wish to make, though I might add that some have been anticipated in the earlier discussion which, I thought, should have taken place under this clause. I would like to follow up in some detail the question of whether this scheme will in fact succeed, whether it is sound judicially, and whether if it is to succeed it does not require concurring provincial legislation.
As I understand it, the legal basis on which the department has proceeded in drafting this legislation is the Prince Edward Island potato marketing case in which it was held that while parliament has no authority to clothe a provincial legislature with any of its jurisdiction, it has nevertheless the authority to delegate to a board which may have been set up under provincial legislation the administrative power which the federal government would have had the right to confer on its own board, had it created such a board.
But I suggest that that case cannot be taken as deciding anything beyond what it decided on the basis of the facts on which it so decided. I suggest there is a fundamental difference between the facts in that case with respect to the marketing of potatoes, and the facts which would be present in a case of a highway or public utilities board seeking to exercise control over the operation of a truck outside its borders or, alternatively, one which had come into its borders from outside under a licence granted by an authority outside its borders.
In the Prince Edward Island potato case the marketing board itself which was given authority to exercise the federal parliament's administrative jurisdiction was not using the

Motor Vehicle Transport roads of another province. The only persons who would be using the roads of another province would be using them as individuals and therefore that province would naturally have complete and exclusive jurisdiction over them, whereas what the government is purporting to do under clause 3 is to allow one province to say how a person shall be allowed and who shall be allowed to use the road from another province. I submit there is a fundamental difference in the factual basis of the two situations so that the Prince Edward Island potato case can be of no application to this situation where you are trying to give one province the authority to exercise, with respect to the use of the road from another province, the authority which is vested only in the federal government.
I would like to hear from either minister as to how they feel the case of P.E.I. Marketing Board v. H. B. Willis Inc. is applicable as general authority for the present legislation.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In reply to my hon. friend's question, I would point out that if he will examine the bill he will see that clause 3 of the draft bill requires an operating certificate, if the provincial laws require an operating certificate for a local undertaking. Under subclause 2 the provincial board is authorized to issue such a certificate and in doing so the provincial board is required to follow provincial rules applicable to the issuing of a provincial certificate. Provincial legislation of this character applied to local undertakings would be constitutional.
Now, the reply to my hon. friend's question, I think, is this, that parliament can confer authority on provincial boards, as was decided in the case I quoted, namely the Prince Edward Island potato marketing case, and parliament can adopt provincial rules by reference. In the various statutes there are several examples of this, as my hon. friend knows. They are not confined to the Prince Edward Island case by any means. As I would point out, this practice differs from delegation. Parliament is not attempting to confer upon the legislature of any province jurisdiction to enact laws that the provinces themselves would not have the power to enact under the British North America Act. I see my hon. friend nodding his head in assent. That was the position that I took earlier. Parliament here is simply saying that the rules that a provincial legislature has validly enacted within the ambit of its powers in relation to a subject matter over which it has jurisdiction shall be rules applicable in relation to a subject matter


over which parliament has jurisdiction. Recognizing the point or the purported point of the remarks which my hon. friend made a moment ago, I am endeavouring to state the precise reason why this proposed bill is intra vires of parliament.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree with the proposition
the minister has put forward as to the scheme of this bill. But the point that I made-and which the minister has not dealt with-is that the judicial basis upon which the government says that this bill will stand up is the Prince Edward Island potato marketing case.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not exclusively.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On what other basis, then?
What other authority is there for it? That is the case which established clearly and beyond any doubt that the federal government had the authority to delegate to a board set up by a provincial authority the administrative authority which the federal government might otherwise have conferred upon its own board. That is my point. I am not questioning the decision. That case is obviously the final declaration of the law.
What I am pointing out is that that case cannot be taken as authority for any proposition which goes beyond the facts upon which that case was decided. What was done there was to give the Prince Edward Island potato marketing board authority to regulate the marketing of Prince Edward Island potatoes in areas where otherwise the Prince Edward Island board would not have had any authority. It was with respect to produce originating within that province and over which therefore, initially at any rate, that province had jurisdiction; the jurisdiction of that province over produce originating within it was extended outside the province by the delegation.
What you are doing here, however, is the exact reverse. The facts are completely inverted as between the two cases. Here this legislation seeks to delegate to a provincial board authority to make regulations with respect to an undertaking which originates outside the province and is seeking to go into the province. In other words, this bill seeks to give, say, to the Alberta board power to make regulations governing the passenger or freight-carrying activities of a British Columbia corporation.


John Horace Dickey: Within the province of Alberta.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Within the borders of Alberta.


John Horace Dickey: Why not?


Mr, Fullon:: This is the exact inverse of what was done in the Prince Edward Island potato marketing case where the authority of the Prince Edward Island board was in respect of potatoes originating in Prince Edward Island, and where they were allowed, as it were, to follow them outside of their borders. They were not given authority to take something coming from outside, under the order in council that was passed, and to make with respect to it provincial regulations which they would not otherwise have had authority to make. Therefore the facts of the two situations are completely different.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: With great respect may I say that I think my hon. friend, in the remarks he has just made, has overlooked the fact that all that this bill purports to do is to clothe the provincial board with federal powers in respect of those matters which are taking place within the province in which the board acts. That is all it purports to do. Because an undertaking is interprovincial and because it passes through British Columbia and Saskatchewan and Manitoba does not give the Alberta board power over it in respect of those things that take place in connection with it outside of Alberta. But, in relation to those things which took place in Alberta, this bill is simply saying that the rules that a provincial legislature has validly enacted in relation to a subject matter over which it has jurisdiction shall be the rules applicable in respect of a subject matter over which parliament has jurisdiction. The board is dealing in the one case with intraprovincial motor transport operations and in the other case with interprovincial operations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the minister and I just will not be able to come to a mutual understanding of the point I am trying to make, so I leave that one for the time being and come to another one.
The question has been raised already as to the necessity for the provincial legislatures' enacting concurrent legislation to authorize their boards to accept jurisdiction. So far I do not think we have had a clear answer on that point. But again, going back to the statement of principle which I do not think the minister could controvert-and I do not think he would want to do so-namely that the basis of this legislation is the Prince Edward Island potato marketing board case, again I say that that case cannot be taken as authority for a proposition with respect to facts which are entirely different. It is only authority for a proposition where the facts are similar. In that case the Prince Edward Island legislature had passed legislation authorizing their
Motor Vehicle Transport marketing board to accept jurisdiction and administrative authority which might be conferred upon it by the dominion government under its concurrent legislation. Chief Justice Rinfret, in his judgment, referred specifically to that feature of the case, as will be found at page 398 of the Supreme Court Reports of 1952. His judgment with respect to that portion of it, which held that the Prince Edward Island board was properly authorized to make regulations under the dominion statute, was in part most clearly based upon the fact that that board had been authorized by its own legislature to accept that jurisdiction. Any other proposition, of course, would lead to an absurd result which I am quite sure the government, if it gives it any consideration, would not seriously put forward, namely that a board set up by a province for one purpose and with no thought that it should step in for another purpose, might suddenly be told by the dominion government: We want you to act for us in this particular respect and capacity. That proposition, of course, would be perfectly absurd. I am sure that the government would not seriously put it forward for a moment.
I should therefore like to hear further from the minister as to what provinces have agreed to enact concurrent legislation and what happens if they do not enact it; and in the meantime, I should like to hear what answer he gives to the proposition already put forward by the hon. member for Eglin-ton, in the absence of that concurrent legislation. In many provinces it cannot possibly take place now until the session of the legislature next spring. What happens to the gap in the meantime to which reference has already been made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I have answered this same question three times already, I think, and I really despair-


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has talked all around it; he has not answered it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has not come to grips with the points that have already been made.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh, yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister agree that the Prince Edward Island case was decided on the basis that there was passed in that province legislation authorizing their board to accept jurisdiction conferred under the dominion statute?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, this is just playing with shadows. Does my hon. friend entertain such a low opinion of the provincial

Motor Vehicle Transport governments of Canada that he thinks they would send their representatives-in many cases their premiers and their attorneys general-down here for a two-day conference and then would be unwilling to take any steps that might be necessary to make effective this bill which they approved? Does he think that? And if he does not think that, what is the sense of these points which he has been raising?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not going to be put off by any ridiculous approach. I asked the minister a question which I assumed, perhaps wrongly, it was within his competence as Minister of Justice to answer. Will the minister answer the question?


Mr. Sinclair:: He has half a dozen times.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He has not answered it yet.


Mrs. Shipley:: He has.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister know? Has he read the Prince Edward Island potato marketing board case recently? Does he know? Has he got any information whether it was based on the fact that there existed enabling legislation within that province?


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, Mr. Chairman, not until the Minister of Justice shows the usual courtesy which is customarily expected from ministers, and answers a serious question in a serious manner.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I will leave it to members of the house whether I have exhibited the usual courtesy.


James Sinclair: Too much.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the Minister of Justice got any opinion on the matter?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have expressed it four or five times.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has not dealt with that question at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Now, Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, if I may say so, that remark of my hon. friend is completely inaccurate. I have answered this specific question two or three times already, and I think there is a limit to the number of times that one should have to answer the same question.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I challenge the minister to examine the record at any stage and find where he answered the question which I asked him, namely, whether he does not agree that the decision in the Prince Edward Island potato marketing case, on which this legislation is based-
[Mr. Garson.l


An hon. Member:: Partially.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -was based in large part on the ground that enabling legislation already existed in that province. I challenge the minister to show where he has answered that question at any time.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend has not been very attentive to the discussion this evening.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Wait a moment. I have the floor at the moment.


Lionel Chevrier: You asked for an answer and he is giving it to you.


An hon. Member:: Read it in Hansard.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Let him go on and talk as much as he likes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has, it is true, sought on a number of occasions to evade dealing directly with the question whether or not it will be necessary for the provinces to pass enabling legislation, but he has not answered the question as to the basis on which this case was decided and whether or not, therefore, it will be necessary for similar legislation to be enacted elsewhere.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I recall it, in my previous remarks at quite an early stage I referred to the Prince Edward Island potato marketing case as being authority for a rather elementary principle in constitutional law which I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops will not challenge, namely, that the federal parliament can confer federal authority and powers upon a board which is also exercising provincial powers. That is the only purpose for which I cited that case, and that is a sound statement of law for which that case is authority. I did not go into any of these details and technicalities my hon. friend is now bringing up. It may very well be that upon the facts involved in the potato marketing board case in Prince Edward Island it was necessary there, and that the provincial authorities did enact that that board should receive from the provincial legislature the authority to receive federal powers.
But I said in reply to the hon. member for Eglinton that, without having seen the relevant provincial legislation of any of the eight provinces involved with regard to motor transport, I could not commit myself offhand to an opinion, in respect of legislation that I have never seen, as to whether it would be necessary, in the light of that provincial legislation, for these provincial legislatures now to pass further provincial legislation authorizing the boards set up under their existing legislation to receive federal powers. My hon. friend himself is a lawyer. How much further could I spell out the answer

to a question of that sort? How does he expect me to give an opinion with regard to eight or nine provincial transport laws that, unfortunately, I have not seen? Would he do it?


James Sinclair: Oh, gladly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: And what would he charge his client for an opinion of that sort?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister has of course gone a great deal further in what he has said now than he did previously in answer to my question with respect to the effect of the Prince Edward Island potato marketing case. He has stated an opinion for which I personally would not pay anything because he has attributed to the case an authority which it does not contain in citing its finding, as he says, that the dominion government can empower any provincial board to exercise authority which would be otherwise reserved to the dominion parliament. I submit to him that case is no authority whatsoever for that proposition. It is on this point that I have been endeavouring to draw him into an intelligent discussion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a question of privilege, my hon. friend is again attributing to me remarks that I did not make, but I have no objection to that because Hansard will record what I said and it will record what he said that I said, which is a very different thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am trying to get to a basis of sensible understanding with the minister and I am not trying to say that he said things he did not say. I understood him to say, in explanation of the proposition he now puts forward, that the Prince Edward Island case established what he himself called an elemental constitutional proposition, namely, that the dominion parliament might clothe a provincial board with authority to exercise administrative functions within the purview of the dominion parliament. Is that not a fair summary of what the minister said? Does he now wish to challenge it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, so stated it is quite
correct.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is, as I recall it, what I said the minister said.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Oh no, it is not.


Edmund Davie Fulton: All right, we will proceed on the basis of what we have now got before us. I say that the minister in making that statement-


An hon. Member:: You are getting slower every day.


John Horace Dickey: Get down to some facts.
Motor Vehicle Transport


Edmund Davie Fulton: -has incorrectly interpreted this case because the Prince Edward Island case was decided on the basis of a set of facts which was that the Prince Edward Island legislature had previously conferred upon this board authority to accept delegated dominion administration. It is authority for no other proposition and it cannot, I submit, be cited as authority for the vague general proposition that the dominion government can run around the country giving provincial boards set up for one purpose authority to do things for which they were never set up. No court would of course agree with the interpretation of this decision which the Minister of Justice has just made, I submit, for the very reason that it obviously was not intended to lay down the proposition that boards set up for one purpose by the provinces could be clothed with authority for an entirely different purpose by the dominion unless the provinces themselves authorized the boards to accept that authority.


Lionel Chevrier: Eight attorneys general have already agreed on this point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have been trying to find that out, and the minister has sought to answer that question by indirection. He has said: Do you suppose that the attorneys general would come down here and agree to this proposed legislation if they did not intend to see to it that their boards had the authority to carry it out? No, I give the attorneys general credit for rather more intelligence than the Minister of Justice-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Edmund Davie Fulton: -does. What we are asking him, and I think we are entitled to an answer, is in how many provinces does there exist that enabling legislation? If the ministers do not know why do they not say so and save all this discussion?


Lionel Chevrier: May I try to clear up one point. I did not, during the course of the conference, discuss this subject matter with all of the attorneys general. It would not be accurate nor true were I to say that. But I discussed it with a number of them, and all agreed that this was the way in which to pass the legislation. I refer particularly to one attorney general whom I met out in the western provinces. He asked me how we were going to do this, weeks before the conference took place. I indicated to him how we proposed to do it. He said, that is the only way in which it can be done. He said he had given this very careful consideration and had come to the conclusion the only way in which the dominion could clothe the provinces with control was by virtue of a statute which

Motor Vehicle Transport would enable the provincial boards to do interprovincially what they were doing intra-provincially.
The draft bill which was circulated, and which was studied, is the result not of the Minister of Justice or of the Minister of Transport, but is the result of the conference of premiers in some cases and attorneys general in other cases, with their legal advisers who were there. They all came to the conclusion that this was the way in which to deal with it. Well, are we going to deal with this problem or are we not? If we are not going to deal with it-


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wish you would just answer the question, that is all.


Lionel Chevrier: I know, but if we are going to deal with it, this is the method by which to do it.
My hon. friend has asked several questions in an attempt to differentiate between the Prince Edward Island potato case and this case. It may be so that the Prince Edward Island potato case is not entirely on all fours with this case, but that does not derogate from the fact that this, in the opinion of all those perhaps some 20 lawyers who were there, is good law.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I agree that if it is going to be done by delegating authority to the provincial boards this is the only way to do it. I thought I had made it clear that the basis of this decision, and the subject of my inquiry, was that it appears that concurrent provincial legislation is also necessary. The very simple point I am asking is: Are the ministers in a position to tell us how many provinces have the necessary concurrent legislation; and, in the case of those that have not, what is to happen in the meantime about this apparent gap which will occur?


Lionel Chevrier: How many provinces have concurrent legislation? Perhaps I could reply in this way. At the conference the provincial ministers of highways were there, the attorneys general were there, and they must know whether or not they have concurrent legislation in the province. I would think, from what I know of the position, that the vast majority of the provinces have concurrent legislation. I know they have it in Ontario and Quebec. I think they have it in most of the maritime provinces. I believe they have it in Manitoba, but I have not got the statutes before me; I do not know.
I could say that had this particular problem been of the magnitude my hon. friend feels it is, rightly or wrongly, it would have been raised then because surely those provinces who consented to the principle of this draft bill must have known whether or not


they had concurrent legislation. Notwithstanding that, the attorneys general felt they could go along with this bill.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We in the federal parliament are concerned with the matter of interprovincial highway traffic control. I would have thought that the minister would feel he should be in a position to satisfy the federal parliament on the question: When this bill is passed, how many provinces will be in a position to apply it? That is what we want to know. Is this measure going to produce the desired results? I agree that this is the only approach if the solution is to give authority to the provinces, but what we want to know here, and I think are entitled to know, is when the measure is enacted how many provinces will be in a position to bring it into effect and have that control.


Lionel Chevrier: I think that is a fair question. How many provinces will be able to apply this provision? I believe all the provinces will be able to apply it. I feel that the provinces will put it into effect, save and except one. I speak now of the nine provinces. There was one province, Newfoundland, that was not represented at the conference, for obvious reasons, and that province will not need to put it into effect. From the conversations I have had with representatives of the provinces, from the correspondence that has come from each and every one of the provinces, save one, I feel this act will be put into effect as soon as it is passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would have been a lot simpler if the minister had answered first, instead of having his colleague confuse the situation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I turn to another point raised by section 3? Section 3 provides:
... no person shall operate an extra-provincial undertaking In that province unless he holds a licence issued under the authority of this act.
It further provides that:
The provincial transport board in each province may in its discretion issue a licence to a person to operate an extra-provincial undertaking-
We have not spelled out here anywhere in the act any detailed provisions about the licence. This is the sum total of the provisions of the statute in regard to the issuance of a licence. I am sure the minister is aware that in the provinces which have entered into the field of controlling intra-provincial highway transport traffic, there are many types of licences. There are licences pertaining to common carriers; there are licences pertaining to contract carriers, and there are various types of each of those depending upon the type of route over which the licensee is to operate.

This section speaks only of a licence. The form of the licence is not prescribed. There is nothing here to indicate whether there is to be only one type of licence applicable to all types of highway transport. We have the whole question raised as to whether the operators of buses are to receive the same licences as operators of trucks. What about class A operators on the highways? What about class B operators on the country roads? What about class C contract carriers?


Lionel Chevrier: There are hundreds in
Ontario, as my hon. friend knows.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe the classes now run up to H.


Lionel Chevrier: There are many types in Ontario.


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are many types for public commercial vehicles, and then we have passenger vehicles as well. It struck me as being very strange that this bill lacked provision to cover this point. It simply speaks about a licence. The form is not prescribed nor-and this is an equally important point-Mr. Chairman, does this section lay down the terms upon which a licence is to be granted. If you look at its provisions it simply says that the provincial transport board may, in its discretion, issue a licence. What is to be the meaning of that expression? What rules are to guide the provincial transport boards in the issuance of licences under the authority that is purported to be conferred upon them by this act?
The minister is aware that these provincial transport boards operate for the purpose of controlling the operations of public commercial vehicles and public passenger vehicles. They do so under the provisions of statutes which, in practically every case, direct that the licence be issued on proof of public convenience and necessity. There have been some interesting decisions, both in this country and the United States, upon what constitutes public convenience and necessity. There certainly has not been, on the part of provincial boards, any uniform interpretation of the meaning of those words, but at least they have some value in giving direction to the provincial transport board as to the grounds upon which they should proceed in dealing with applications. In the legislation now before us there is not one circumstance or rule to guide the provincial transport boards in dealing with applications for extra-provincial licences. This seems to me to be an extraordinary situation. It is left entirely to the discretion of the provincial transport board-an unfettered discretion. It
Motor Vehicle Transport seems to me that the house ought to give very careful consideration to language as broad in scope as this, conferring jurisdiction upon a provincial board without making the slightest attempt to lay down rules to guide that provincial board in dealing with such applications.
These are the questions which occur to me. What kind of licence is to be issued? What is to be the form of the licence? Who is to lay it down? Upon what rules are provincial transport boards to proceed in entertaining applications for licences for interprovincial operations?


Lionel Chevrier: I think the language set out in clauses 3 and 4 is meant to leave with the provincial boards the discretion, in so far as all the questions my hon. friend from Eglinton has raised, if I understand him correctly.
Let us take the province of Ontario as an example. My hon. friend is perhaps more familiar with that province, as I am. He knows that there are perhaps hundreds-I might be mistaken in that-but there are certainly-


Donald Methuen Fleming: They run from A to H, inclusive.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, far more than that. The attorney general in the province as well as the minister of highways said that there were countless numbers of licences granted by the Ontario railway municipal board to these various groups.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But there are not that many classes. The classes are set out in the regulations under the act. If my memory serves me correctly they run from A to H.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, there are several classes, and several classifications, too, in respect of any licence granted by the board under the general rule of public convenience and necessity.
The provincial boards have had a great deal of experience in dealing with these applications for franchises, licences, permits, or whatever you call them-because different provinces call them by different names. They have had a lot of experience. We felt we should not tie provincial boards down to any particular kind of licence, or class or classification, but that they should be authorized to deal with extra-provincial applications in the same way, in the same method and under the same rules and conditions as they were dealing with intra-provincial applications.
That is the way the provinces wanted it. I remember very well the discussion having to do with Ontario, and that is certainly the way the attorney general and the minister

Motor Vehicle Transport of highways in Ontario wanted it. They did not want it any other way, either. If this were to be amended the attorney general in Ontario would be the first to protest, and to protest vigorously. Clauses 3 and 4 covered the situation and suited Ontario best. There was some doubt about it at first; but after a full discussion we came to the conclusion that this was the method by which to authorize these provincial boards to deal with extraprovincial licences.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Do I understand the minister to say that the words "upon the like terms and conditions and in the like manner as if the extra-provincial undertaking operated in the province were a local undertaking" import the rules as to the jurisdiction in these cases that would apply under provincial legislation? In other words, are we to understand that these words have the effect of importing the rule that the applicant must make out a case of public convenience and necessity before he establishes the right to a licence under this act?


Lionel Chevrier: If that is the position in the province, I would think that that will be the position hereafter. Certainly, if I understand correctly the rules in Ontario, a carrier must prove public convenience and necessity before he can obtain a franchise. And if this bill goes through he would still have to prove it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am not at all satisfied that that is the result of this clause. I can understand the desire of the attorney general in Ontario to have applications of this kind dealt with in the same way as applications now coming before the Ontario municipal board for licences to operate intra-provincial highway transport. But I am not at all sure that that follows from the language used here. The words used are, "upon the like terms and conditions and in the like manner". It does not say, "subject to the same conditions or upon the same grounds".
This is an important question, because there is only one rule under the legislation of Ontario to guide the municipal board as to whether it should reject or allow an application. An application must prove public convenience and necessity. It is open to grave doubt whether any of these sections import that ground of jurisdiction or that condition of jurisdiction of the municipal board. I think it is open to grave doubt, because the words "like terms and conditions" apply, I should think, to the terms of the licences; and the words "in like manner" apply to the procedure before the board.
The minister knows that an application today is made to the department of highways.

The department of highways refers the application to the municipal board, and there are certain forms that are completed, and certain proofs filed. Then the municipal board directs that the application be put on the list for public hearing.
It seems to me that the incorporation of that proceeding exhausts the significance of the expression "in the like manner". Therefore I come back to the original point which, it seems to me, is one of substance, that even if this clause is passed, we have not said that the municipal board, as in the case of an application for an intra-provincial licence, must confine itself to a case where an applicant has established proof of public convenience and necessity.


Lionel Chevrier: I feel, and I still think, that these words mean exactly what they say. The words "upon the like terms and conditions and in the like manner as if the extraprovincial undertaking operated in the province were a local undertaking" mean exactly what they say, and would authorize the extra-provincial movement in the same manner as the board authorizes intraprovincial movement. It was difficult to use other language.
My hon. friend has said: Why not tie the language down to meet a particular position? Well, it is a fact that certain provinces do not require proof of public convenience and necessity. Other provinces deal with the carriers in a way different from Ontario. And it is because of those various reasons that this broad and general language was used.
All I can do is accept the language of the draftsmen. The draftsmen have been some time doing this-draftsmen from the eight or nine provinces who were present. And it was drafted on the advice of the Department of Justice. So I have to accept it as meaning exactly what it says.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it this will give to the provincial authorities power to do that which was the whole basis of the Winner case, in that a provincial board here would have the authority to refuse the operator of a bus or truck line the right to pick up and set down passengers within a province, even although the main operation of the truck or bus operator was across the province and between two other provinces. I take it from the wording of this clause that it is sufficiently wide open to permit a provincial board to make such a prohibition, if it desired to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Let me answer my hon. friend's question in this way. The provincial board can license an extra-provincial carrier

or refuse to license an extra-provincial carrier in the same manner as the provincial board is now licensing or refusing to license an interprovincial carrier.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Then that establishes it quite clearly. I agree with the minister in that interpretation, but I should like to have it clear that in the same way that the province of New Brunswick had the power to prevent a carrier in that case from picking up and putting down passengers within the province-that is, from picking up and putting down the same passenger within the province of New Brunswick on its way through-any board now would have the power to prohibit that from being done. I think that raises the question as to what steps are going to be taken by the federal authority to bring the provinces together to seek to bring about uniformity in matters of that kind to prevent the province that would have a natural inclination to do so from favouring their own commercial carriers, and thus to seek, by the refusal of licences to carriers from outside the province, to put traffic in the way of their own commercial undertakings that might lead to great difficulties in the development of trans-Canada trucking systems and bus systems. Admittedly this is a possibility I am speaking of, but I think it is a possibility that we in the federal parliament would have in mind. I should like to hear from the minister whether, after this act has been in operation for some time, any steps are in contemplation for working up a uniformity in truckers' regulations in respect to licensing.


Lionel Chevrier: As to the extra-provincial undertaking that exists now and that is operating from one end of the country to the other, if the provincial boards choose to give them a franchise and authorize them to go into each province, then those extra-provincial carriers can certainly pick up and set down-


Edmund Davie Fulton: If they get a licence.


Lionel Chevrier: As to those that are now already operating, then, I suppose it would be within the discretion of the province to say no. If the province of Ontario, for instance, feels that there are far too many, or that there are a sufficient number of extra-provincial carriers, it can turn the application down; and if it does, well, the extra-provincial carrier is just out of luck.
My hon. friend raises a good point when he asks, well, what procedure is in mind? If this legislation goes through we shall soon find out how it operates. The understanding at the conference was that if this did not
Motor Vehicle Transport operate satisfactorily there was no difficulty about amending the act or perhaps finding a better solution than this. This was certainly the best solution that could be found at the time. If it is not satisfactory, parliament sits for eight months of the year-parliament will sit I do not know when, but certainly within the next few months-and I think we shall have an opportunity of looking at this again. But the act should be given a chance to operate to see if it will not be successful. We think it will, and believe the provinces do also.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Tariffs and tolls.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a point on clause 4. The minister is no doubt aware that while some provinces have legislation clothing the lieutenant governor in council in some cases, or provincial boards in others, with the power to require the publication of tariffs and tolls and to enforce them, nevertheless in many cases that power has not been exercised, and there is no effective legislation in force on the point.
As long as that situation continues I presume there will be no room for the application of clause 4. But let us assume now that the situation changes and the provinces, or a sufficient number of them for the purpose of the discussion, do decide to require the publication of tariffs and tolls and adherence to them. Let us take the case of the trucker who starts off from, we shall say, Alberta, and passes through Saskatchewan and Manitoba and then swings down into the United States, enters Ontario, goes through Ontario and Quebec, crosses over into United States territory, goes through New Brunswick and ends up in Nova Scotia. Now, I presume that in those cases-we are dealing with through freight-any carrier is going to be quoting a toll on the through shipment from Alberta to Nova Scotia. Will the minister indicate how a clause like this is going to work out in a case of that kind where you have a toll established on a through movement that may go through, let us say, eight provinces and cross the international border four times. How are we going to deal with that? Are we going to have every one of the provincial boards in every one of those eight provinces passing on a through toll that has nothing to do with local shipments? This is a matter of toll on a through shipment from Alberta to Nova Scotia which is quoted as a single toll by the carrier to the shipper.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not anticipate any great difficulty there because the truckers are operating now from one end of the country

Motor Vehicle Transport to the other and they are operating by virtue of what are known as reciprocal agreements.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not followed my point. That may be all very well now when the provinces are not applying it because either in some cases they have not the legislation or in other cases they have not proclaimed the legislation that gives them the right to require the publication of and the adherence to the tariffs. But the case I am pointing out to the minister is where the provinces have exercised that power and the publication of tolls is required and the adherence thereto is enforced.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the publication of the toll is required in certain provinces. It is required in the province of Ontario, and is adhered to. My understanding is that it is. If I am wrong'-[DOT]


Donald Methuen Fleming: There is authority in the act, but the power given under the act has not been used.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I have been under the impression that it was. Certainly that was the impression that we got at the conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has been in the act for some years.


Lionel Chevrier: Again I repeat, I do not anticipate any difficulty there. It is being done now. Truckers are today quoting rates from one end of Canada to the other for movement of goods and all this does is to enable the provincial board to fix the rate. So far as the publication of the tariff and the toll is concerned, will that not be a matter for the provinces? And if the position is as I said earlier, that there are a number of interprovincial agreements or reciprocal agreements as to tariffs and as to tolls, then I cannot anticipate any difficulty. The provinces certainly did not anticipate any difficulty when they discussed it here at the conference.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I may not have made my point as clear to the minister as I should have. It may be natural for him to wish to simplify a situation of this kind, but I am putting to him a case which is rather different from the situation that exists today. I am wondering how a series of provincial boards, in the case I am putting, the provincial boards of eight provinces, are going to deal with the question of passing on a through toll on a through shipment from Alberta to Nova Scotia, going through eight provinces and crossing the international boundary four times. You are going to have eight provincial boards required to pass upon one toll on a through shipment that has to move from Alberta to Nova Scotia. It seems to me

an extraordinary requirement. You are going to have a toll of that kind approved by eight provincial boards when the toll is a through one and it cannot be broken down to divide it into a portion of movement that is performed in a particular province.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Exemption.
George Alexander Drew: I had assumed that we would hear some explanation of the real purpose of clause 5. Nothing more has been said that would explain what amounts to a complete withdrawal of this power at any time the government should choose to exercise that authority.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should perhaps have dealt with that when I spoke earlier. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to be of the opinion that this was taking terrific powers and, in fact, the expression he used was that we were taking "extremely wide powers" under clause 5 of this bill. I will explain as best I can why these powers are necessary.
They are necessary in order to protect the position of certain provinces. They are necessary, for instance, if the province of New Brunswick sought at one time or another to prohibit the through traffic of interprovincial transportation into Nova Scotia say, from the province of Quebec or Ontario. The province of Nova Scotia insisted that a clause such as this would be necessary in order to protect them. The province of Ontario at first took the view that that was not so. But after the Minister of Justice had explained the meaning of the clause the province of Ontario then felt not only that such a clause was necessary, but that without it the act would not be operative.
Then we are, as my hon. friend knows, committed by international undertaking to the movement of trucking across certain highways such goods as were agreed under GATT. I have not before me the agreement which was reached, but under GATT there is a very definite agreement with reference to the transportation of goods along Canadian highways, and it was thought necessary to bring that to the attention of the conference. When it was brought to the attention of the conference it was agreed that such a clause should be inserted therein, with the exception to which I referred earlier.
Then there is the question of defence movements. It was assumed that at some time or other it would be necessary to move defence trucks across the provinces into the Northwest Territories and so forth, and it was felt necessary that this clause should be inserted.

After an explanation had been given by the federal authorities the provinces felt that this clause was a reasonable one to insert in the bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, it is still not at all clear how this would be exercised. The power given here is the power to exempt any person or the whole or any part of any extra-provincial undertaking, or any extraprovincial transport, from all or any of the provisions of this act.
The effect of that, no matter what the intention may be, is to make it possible for government by order in council to exclude from all the provincial regulations any highway transport throughout the whole of Canada. The fact that the government may not intend that, in no way limits that possibility. I am simply pointing out that powers are given and the government retains the power to take the whole of it away.
Now, when the Minister of Transport says that conceivably the province of New Brunswick might introduce some licensing regulations that would interfere with the movement across that province, I realize that he is merely using that by way of illustration. But when he uses this illustration he says in so many words that the provinces can have these powers as long as they are good boys, but that at any point when they are not good boys, in the opinion of the government here, the application of these provincial regulations will be withdrawn in that area in relation to any transport that may be designated by the government here.
Surely that is a wide power. Surely it is an undesignated power. And surely it is a power that negatives the rule of authority apparently conferred by this bill. I submit this is not the kind of power that should be contained in a bill of this kind, and I also submit that it is an extraordinary clause.
The very illustration given by the minister of the example of New Brunswick indicates just how unsatisfactory a situation could result from legislation of this kind. Now, I would ask the minister to go a little further so we can understand the position, and, again using New Brunswick as an illustration, give us an exact illustration of the kind of specific situation where he thinks the government might be called upon to act, and the kind of order in council he has in mind which might be passed under this particular clause.


Lionel Chevrier: I would answer the last part of my hon. friend's comment by saying that I hope it will not be necessary for the federal government to use the powers conferred under clause 5, and I hope it will not be necessary to pass any orders in council
Motor Vehicle Transport under clause 5. I do not think it is a question of the provinces being good boys. I think it is a question of protecting a certain position that they have taken. Take, for instance, the question of GATT, to which my hon. friend did not refer at all. We are committed by international agreement to allowing the transportation of certain goods extra-pro-vincially under certain circumstances. If we were to give that power away and dispense with clause 5 where would we be? We would certainly be in an untenable position with reference to that international agreement. We would be in the same kind of position with reference to our defence forces. We have simply put this in with the object of using it if the occasion arises, but I think the provinces realize that we have no intention of making any unnecessary or undue use of this clause, and in any event it would cover extra-provincial traffic and would in no way affect the internal movement within the provinces.


George Alexander Drew: Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to labour this because I feel that, having regard to the responsibilities the government is assuming for introducing some legislation to fill a vacuum which has been created, and no matter how unsatisfactory it may be, it is just as well to deal with the legislation before us. I asked the minister to give us a specific illustration in relation to the province he mentioned, New Brunswick, and the answer he gave was that the government did not expect to use this power. That would be like the Minister of Justice saying, when asked under what circumstances capital punishment should be applied, that he could best answer that question by saying that the government hoped it would not be necessary to apply it. I do not think the Minister of Justice would do that, although he does give some rather circuitous answers on occasion.
The minister said that New Brunswick is an example of a situation where the government might have to act; but let us have a simple explanation of the kind of situation he means and what kind of order in council the government might have to pass.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of answering the last part of my hon. friend's question. I have already given him three reasons-


George Alexander Drew: Yes, GATT, the movement of transports to the Pacific, and extra-provincial traffic; but none of these have anything to do with the simple question of getting things across New Brunswick from Nova Scotia.


Lionel Chevrier: I dealt with that originally. That was the first example I used, namely

Motor Vehicle Transport the example of New Brunswick; but apparently I did not make myself clear because my hon. friend comes back and asks me to deal with it again. The province of Nova Scotia took the position that if New Brunswick wished to prohibit traffic moving from Ontario or Quebec into the maritime provinces it could do so. The province of Nova Scotia felt that that would not be a fair position for it to be placed in, and it said, "All right, we will go along with this bill but on condition that someone has the right to protect our position in case another province in between tries to stop the movement of such traffic." Clause 5 was devised as being that kind of method whereby that province or even the province of New Brunswick might be protected against another province. I used that only as an example. The brief which was filed by the province of Nova Scotia at the time indicated that that was its main interest. Recently, not later than after the bill was introduced into the house, I received a communication from the attorney general of the province of Nova Scotia approving of this clause as now placed in the bill. Those are the three reasons I can think of and I have expanded on reason No. 1. I do not know that I can go any further.


George Alexander Drew: Then may I ask the minister if this would be a correct interpretation of what he has just said. If the province of New Brunswick introduced regulations which, in the opinion of the government of Canada, had the effect of restricting the movement of highway transport from Nova Scotia across New Brunswick, the government would then, under section 5, pass an order in council exempting from the application of the provincial regulations in New Brunswick highway transport moving from Nova Scotia through the province of New Brunswick?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman; I said no such thing.


George Alexander Drew: Unless the minister means
exactly that, his statement means nothing. We have no information of any kind as to what the real purpose of this section is.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 5
carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, there is
another aspect of this matter-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Eglinton wishes to make some remarks?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think we are quite prepared to carry on.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister was asked to indicate the kind of order in council which would be passed under this section if occasion arose. May I point out to him that the effect of the section is to permit the governor in council to exempt any person from any provincial provision in that case. That leaves that person in this area of vacuum in the law. There is in this legislation nothing that permits the order in council to name the conditions under which he may operate. If he is exempted from the provisions of this act, he is operating in a vacuum and there are no rules, federal or provincial, that restrict his operations in any respect whatsoever. It seems to me that that is an extraordinary situation. Is there no provision to which resort is to be had under the bill if exemption is given by order in council under this section with respect to all types of provincial regulation and control? It seems to be an extraordinary omission in a bill of this kind.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 5 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does this clause not underline the fact that in reality the federal government is not giving these powers to the provinces but rather that the federal government is, of necessity, retaining powers which the courts have ruled are federal in character but is appointing these provincial boards as its agents to administer this authority in the various provinces? Having done that, by clause 5 of the bill the federal government is retaining this overriding authority in case any of these boards which are acting as its agents step out of line. Is that not the case?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 5
carry?


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Chairman. It is
perfectly obvious that we are not going to get a satisfactory explanation. As has been pointed out before, the government has permitted a vacuum to exist. That vacuum must be filled. The government now accept full responsibility for this measure. I would point out that section 5 simply permits the government to create a situation in which highway transport can run wild, and it will not even indicate to us how it proposes to deal with this matter, by what method or through what agency. There is nothing more that can be done but to let the government fulfil the undertaking that it has given to try to make this legislation work.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not the case, Mr. Chairman. I have now before me the brief presented at the conference by the province of Nova Scotia. It reads in part as follows:
There should be assurance that no one province can so affect extra-provincial highway transportation as to deprive any other province of extraprovincial highway transportation service and rights.
With respect to this second proposition, the situation under the privy council decision in the Winner case., we believe to be that the federal government has jurisdiction with respect to and responsibility for legislation relating to extra-provincial highway transportation. Some measure of retention of this jurisdiction and this responsibility by the federal government is in our view necessary.
That is why we put that in. I repeat what I said earlier, namely that the province of Ontario objected to this clause 5. But after the Minister of Justice and the attorney general for Nova Scotia had explained their position, the attorney general for Ontario said that of course the federal government should have this clause. Both he-that is the attorney general-and the minister of public highways for the province of Ontario subscribed fully to this clause in the bill.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I realize that it permits the governor in council to exempt from the provisions of the act so as to place in that area which we have called a vacuum today persons engaged in interprovincial and international highway operations.


George Alexander Drew: This section might have been described as the section to perpetuate the vacuum so far as and whenever this government desires.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 5 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 6-Penalties.
Donald Methuen Fleming: I have a question to ask on clause 6, Mr. Chairman. Who will be responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the act and of licences issued under it?


An hon. Member:: It is ten minutes after ten.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Seeing that the authority of the provincial boards will be exercised under this act and will also be exercised under the authority of the provincial statutes with regard to intra-provincial operations, I think it necessarily follows that they would see to any prosecutions that would be necessary.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is more than a question of prosecutions; it is a question of enforcement in a broad sense. From the answer given by the Minister of Justice, are we to take it that once this legislation is passed the federal government assumes no responsibility
Motor Vehicle Transport whatever for the enforcement of its provisions and of licences that might be issued in pursuance of its terms?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think perhaps, if my hon. friend would permit me to do so, it might be better to put it this way. There are in existence-and there have been for some years past-provincial boards which have been up to the present time and are now exercising jurisdiction over both intra-provincial and interprovincial motor transport. The federal authority, following the Winner case, has no such administrative body. The purpose of this bill is to leave both intraprovincial motor transport and interprovincial motor transport to be licensed, authorized, controlled and administered by the provincial boards. The only exception to that procedure, of course, is section 5 which, as the minister himself says, we hope we shall never have to invoke.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the minister has used a great many words-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -which have no relation whatever to the question I put to him. I think there is a fundamental misconception here.
The provincial boards are not enforcement bodies. They are semi-judicial bodies which hear applications and determine when certificates of public convenience and necessity should issue. Then the possessor of such a certificate makes application to the department of highways and, if other requirements are satisfied, he obtains his licence. When it comes to the matter of enforcement, those provincial transport boards do not accept responsibility, that is to say with regard to whether there is compliance on the highway with the terms of the licence. Very often these licences are issued with limitations and conditions attached to them. If the Minister of Transport is correct in his interpretation of section 3, then presumably some of these licences issued with respect to international and interprovincial highway transports will contain similar conditions. Who is going to see to it that these conditions are fulfilled? Who is going to be responsible for them? Is the federal authority going to accept any responsibility for enforcement in situations of that kind?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think my hon. friend knows perfectly well that under the existing arrangements in all of the provinces the existing administrative authority looks after the licensing. The checking on the road is done by the provincial police forces, where they have provincial police forces. In those
5970	HOUSE OF
Motor Vehicle Transport provinces that have a police agreement with the federal government under which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police discharge provincial police functions, the mounted police enforce the regulations in the same way as the provincial police, and the attorneys general of the provinces carry on any prosecutions that may be necessary. That arrangement will simply continue. Certainly there would not be much sense in continuing all the existing provincial enforcement bodies which have to be paid for by the taxpayers and have the federal government set up in addition an elaborate duplicate enforcement authority for which the taxpayers would also have to pay. I think my hon. friend's question answers itself.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the question admits of a simple answer, I would be obliged if the minister would say so, that the federal government is not going to assume any responsibility in connection with enforcement but is proposing to leave that to the provincial authorities. If that is the case it would be the simplest thing in the world for the minister to say so.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I said that just a few moments ago. I said that would be the case unless it were necessary to invoke section 5 in which event we might be involved in a somewhat limited way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But not otherwise? The minister nods his head.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 7-Proclamation in a province.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Is the minister in a position to say with respect to which provinces at the present time it is intended to proclaim this act?


Lionel Chevrier: It is not intended to proclaim this act unless the provinces indicate they want it passed, and as far as I know all of the provinces want this legislation with the exception of two.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It will not be proclaimed unless the province itself actually invites proclamation? Is that the situation?


Lionel Chevrier: From the correspondence I have in my hands now I think it would be possible to proclaim it in eight of the ten provinces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But it will not actually be proclaimed until a definite request is made from the provinces? Is that the situation?


Lionel Chevrier: I think it can be taken that the request has already been made, not only at the conference but since, and I would take


it that request is sufficient. However, if it is thought that another request should be made that could be made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am simply seeking to
establish the basis on which it is to be done. Perhaps I can take it from the minister's answer that the federal government will be in a position to proclaim it with respect to all the provinces except two unless the minister receives a further communication from any one or more that they do not want it.


Lionel Chevrier: That would certainly be my recommendation to the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the last clause of the bill is carried I should like to say a brief word. In its excellent chapter entitled "National Transportation Policy" the Turgeon commission said a good many important things back in 1951, but they are summed up in this one sentence:
It is of course permitted to hope that the provinces will some day agree to co-operate with the federal authority in the carrying out of a common policy of co-ordination.
I express the hope, Mr. Chairman, in line with the view I expressed earlier that this bill be regarded as on a trial and error basis, that this legislation will not stand in the way of the eventual realization of that hope.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I would draw to your attention that it is now ten o'clock and I ask you to call it ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 7 carry?


Harold Edward Winch: Ten o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the title carry?


Harold Edward Winch: I ask you to call it ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the pleasure of the committee to complete the bill before us?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: By leave, shall this bill be read the third time now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting.


Harold Edward Winch: Next sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the third reading of the bill we have just finished discussing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We might get some light on it in the meantime.


Walter Edward Harris: Then the bill to repeal the National Physical Fitness Act, then consideration of the amendments made to the Criminal Code by the Senate, then the bill to which first reading was given this morning, namely, an act to amend the Criminal Code (race meetings). Then we will move to go into supply and take the departments of trade and commerce, transport, secretary of state and veterans affairs.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, could I ask now when we may expect to have some information about the Municipal Grants Act and the Judges Act?
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the War Veterans Allowance Act?


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that notice of a resolution for the introduction of the amendment to the Judges Act will be in Votes and Proceedings of today and will be called as soon as it gets on the order paper. I was discussing the Municipal Grants Act with the Minister of Finance this afternoon and he will be making a statement on it at a very early time.


[Stage Direction]
It being eighteen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 15, 1954 Mr. Knowles: By leave.