1955-05-23

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, before the doors of the house were opened to the public you led us in the usual prayer for our beloved sovereign, Queen Elizabeth. Today the people of Canada are celebrating officially the anniversary of Her Majesty's birthday. In this house, as in other years, we will be evidencing our devotion to Her Majesty by continuing to give consideration to the public business of her Canadian subjects. But with your permission the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and I would like to suggest that before doing so we stand and sing together the first verse of the royal anthem.
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God Save the Queen.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 381 (from the Senate), to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Mary Matilda Getto Paquin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Ruth Nourse Tomlinson Wilson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Joseph Henri Marcel Giguere.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 385, for the relief of Edith Isabella Bond Brown.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Yolande Joos Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Norva Florence Lemon Farley.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 388, for the relief of Freda Marie Johnston Storey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 389, for the relief of Jack Beattie Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 390, for the relief of Florence Mary Ann Meakin O'Ranski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 391, for the relief of Theophile Kulczycki.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 392, for the relief of William Michael Grayburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 393, for the relief of Katharine Leitner Bouchard Frankenburg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 394, for the relief of Clara Gaetan Milot Fullerton.

Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 395, for the relief of Lily Shenker Silverton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 396, for the relief of Alsye May Lissemore Masterson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 397, for the relief of Sylvia Knel-man Wiseman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 398, for the relief of Sara Beiss Stein.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 399, for the relief of Veronica Vera Bordenuik Reidt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 400, for the relief of George Gerald Melville Scally.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 401, for the relief of Joseph William James Tanney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 402, for the relief of Aline Mailloux Simoneau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 403, for the relief of Margaret Violet Oswald Nicol Maclver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of Irving Umansky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 405, for the relief of Veronica Forrester Rose Kennedy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 407, to incorporate the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists.-Mr. Croll.


Mr. Balcom:: When a civil service employee is transferred from one province to another, are moving costs and transportation paid as in the armed services?


Mr. Harris:: When a civil servant employee is transferred from one province to another his moving -costs and transportation are allowed and paid in accordance with the removal expense regulations, prescribed by the treasury board, that are applicable to civilian employees of the government.

Questions


LOBSTER TRAP INDEMNITY REGULATIONS, P.E.I.
Mr. Maiheson:: Under the lobster trap indemnity regulations during 1954:
1.	How many fishermen, by counties of Prince Edward Island, insured their lobster traps?
2.	How many traps were insured?
3.	What amount of premiums has been paid?
4.	How many traps were lost?
5.	What amount of indemnity was paid?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1. No. of fishermen insured:
Kings	 3
Queens	 38
Prince	 2


ST. CYPRIEN, QUE.-TELEPHONE LINE
Mr. Perron:: 1.	Has the federal government made expenditures since 1947 for a telephone line in the district of St. Cyprien, county of Dorchester, Quebec?
2.	If so, what amounts were spent each year by the federal government for such telephone line?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	1948-49,	$2,427.00;	1949-50,	$1,600.00;
1950-51, $2,821.00; 1951-52, $2,488.50.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
[Stage Direction]
Total		
2. No. of traps insured:	
Kings 	 Queens 	 Prince 		
Total 		
3. Premiums paid: Kings 	 Queens 	 Prince		
Total		
4. No. of traps lost:
Kings	
Queens	
Prince	
3,296
Total
3,967
5.	Indemnity paid:
Kings	
Queens	
Prince
[Stage Direction]
Total

Mr. Bell:: 1.	Has the C.G.S. Walter E. Foster been returned to Saint John, New Brunswick, from its temporary duties in the gulf of St. Lawrence?
2.	If not, when will the Walter E. Foster be returned to Saint John, New Brunswick?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	No.
2.	As the Walter E. Foster requires to have some work done in Montreal by the builders it is anticipated that the ship will not be ready to return to Saint John before July 15.
(Mr. Harris.]


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	How many investigations have been made in the last three years under the Combines Investigation Act?
2.	How many of these have resulted in prosecutions and/or fines?
3.	What was the amount of the fine and the name of the company in each case?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations of the Canadian National Railways and for the issue of securities guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada in respect of such refunding to an aggregate principal amount not exceeding $200,000,000.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1955 not exceeding $123,508,334 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1956; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that, except as expressly provided, the aggregate principal amount of securities outstanding at any time shall not exceed $115,999,000; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for

the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $115,999,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 12, consideration in committee of Bill No. 188, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act-Mr. Gregg-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Compensation.
Mr. Gregg:: Mr. Chairman, this bill was before the standing committee on industrial relations and from the study it was given there, it was decided that a clarification might well be made at two places in the bill. When we reach those, I shall ask one of my colleagues to move the amendments.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, the amendments to which the minister refers now being in our hands, we are quite satisfied with them and will indicate our acceptance when the time comes.
I would just like to say one word about this bill in general. I know the minister recognizes the concern we feel about the phrase which occurs all through this bill indicating the province. "The usual place of employment" is the term ordinarily used. We are very much concerned lest any misunderstanding of the intent should at any time hold up payment or consideration of payment to an injured workman. We ask the minister to make sure there shall be no delay at any time, and that no controversy shall arise as to the province which shall have jurisdiction over any workman. The minister is given the power in this act to name the province. I hope that at all times the matter of settlement will be expedited, rather than have any workman suffer by reason of delay or confusion.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Compensation and persons eligible.
The Chairman:: May I point out to hon. members that clause 2 has been amended
Government Employees Compensation Act in the committee by the insertion of a comma after the word "Majesty" in line 27. Shall clause 2 as amended carry?


Mr. Churchill:: That is not the amendment we understood was to be presented. It was not just the insertion of a comma, but a change in the phraseology.


Mr. Sinclair:: I move:
That clause 2 of the bill be amended by deleting subsection 1 of section 3 of the said act as it appears in the bill and that the following be substituted therefor:
"3. (1) Subject to this act.
(a)	an employee who
(i)	is caused personal injury by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, or
(ii)	is disabled by reason of an industrial disease due to the nature of his employment, and
(b)	the dependents of an employee whose death results from such accident or industrial disease, are, notwithstanding the nature or class of such employment, entitled to receive compensation at the same rate and under the same conditions as are provided under the law of the province where the employee is usually employed respecting compensation for workmen and the dependents of deceased workmen, employed by persons other than Her Majesty, who
(c)	are caused personal injuries in that province by accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment, or
(d)	are disabled in that province by reason of industrial diseases due to the nature of their employment,
and such compensation shall be determined by the same board, officers or authority as that established by the law of that province for determining compensation for workmen and dependents of deceased workmen employed by persons other than Her Majesty or by such other board, officers or authority, or by such court as the governor in council may direct.


Mr. Winch:: This is a small point, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps I may have misunderstood you, but as you read the amendment I noticed that the verb was "is" under (c) and then under (d) you said "are". Is there any reason for that difference or is that only a slip of the tongue?


William Alfred Robinson: May I read (c) and (d) again in order to remove any misunderstanding. They read as follows:
(c)	are caused personal injuries in that province by accidents arising out of and in the course of their employment, or
(d)	are disabled in that province by reason of industrial diseases due to the nature of their employment, . . .
And so on. The word "are" is used in both cases.


Harold Edward Winch: I understood you to say "is".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
4004	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act
On clause 4 (renumbered as 5)-Death of employee at place other than that of employment.
Mr. Diefenbaker:: This point has to do with clause 4. I should like to ask the minister whether he would give some consideration to adding the province of Saskatchewan to the province of Alberta as therein provided. The clause reads:
Where an employee is usually employed in the Yukon Territory or in the Northwest Territories, he shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be usually employed in the province of Alberta.
Great developments are taking place in the Northwest Territories immediately north of the northern boundary of Saskatchewan, and there will be further developments in the near future. Those developments being contiguous to the province of Saskatchewan, should any proceedings be taken in respect of compensation to a person entitled under the act, provision should also be made for the right of that person to have it regarded, for the purposes of this act, that he be employed in the province of Saskatchewan. I do not think any of the territories are north of the province of Manitoba, but if they are the province of Manitoba should be included as well.
I suggest that is in keeping with the developments that have taken place in the territories. A few years ago these developments were exclusively in the areas of the Northwest Territories contiguous to the northern boundary line of Alberta. Today, however, with the developments taking place in the Northwest Territories directly adjacent to the northern boundary of Saskatchewan, I ask the minister whether he would not consider adding the province of Saskatchewan in that section.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This will become clause 5 if the amendment is passed, but perhaps you would permit me, Mr. Chairman, to answer my hon. friend on the point he has just made. I can tell him no representations were made to the standing committee on industrial relations with regard to the province of Saskatchewan with respect to compensation applicants from the Northwest Territories. I admit that strong representations were made on behalf of the province of British Columbia. But when consideration was given to all the factors it did seem to my department that a more expeditious carrying out of these applications could be done for the present at least through the province of Alberta. I can assure members from British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba that if as we go forward it appears there are advantages to be gained by having it done in several provinces rather than


in one, I will certainly give full consideration, to the matter if I am minister of labour, but I do not think it would be useful to doit at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister explain why it is more expeditious for a person coming within the ambit of the act and working immediately north of the northern boundary of Saskatchewan, for example, to be deemed to be employed in the province of Alberta? As I recollect the statistics I have seen, at least half of those employed are from the province of Saskatchewan. Why should those people, for the purpose of so-called convenience, be deemed to be employed in the province of Alberta? I can understand section 5 very well. It states:
Where an employee, other than a person locally engaged outside Canada, Is usually employed outside Canada he shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be usually employed in the province of Ontario.
I can understand the reason for not having a multiplicity of loci for employment purposes, but I cannot understand why there should be this concentration of development in the Northwest Territories into the province of Alberta. I feel this is happening not only in connection with the matter before us now but with regard to other matters. I think the minister might give consideration to the request, which in my opinion is reasonable. Certainly the experience in the last couple of years of those of us who live in Saskatchewan has been that there is a continuing channelling of the development in the Northwest Territories and also in northwestern Saskatchewan into Alberta.
I believe this is not an unreasonable request. Certainly an equal number, if not most, of the employees in the areas north of Saskatchewan are from Saskatchewan, and there is no justification whatever for deeming them to be usually employed in the province of Alberta. I know that practically all the developments taking place in northern Saskatchewan, and even in Saskatchewan as a whole, are being by-passed in favour of developments in the city of Edmonton and the province of Alberta. While that city is represented in the government by a minister who is concerned with northern development, nevertheless we in Saskatchewan believe- and believe fairly, I suggest

that we have a right to consideration; and that area of northern Canada which will become greater as the years go by should not, by legislation or otherwise, be channelled into any one direction, namely in the direction of the city of Edmonton.

Government Employees Compensation Act
When I make this statement I am expressing a view held generally in Saskatchewan, without regard to party considerations. We believe these developments contiguous to our province should not be considered as the monopoly or the right of a province not contiguous to the areas in question.
At the moment I am not considering an amendment, but I do feel that the minister's argument, when he says it would be more expeditious for a person north of Saskatchewan to have to go into Alberta to have his claim considered under the compensation laws there provided for government employees, has behind it an explanation other than the convenience of the individual. I would ask the minister to explain how it is considered there would be any added convenience for an employee in the area north of Saskatchewan, where major developments are now taking place, to do as he has suggested. I would ask him to tell the committee why it would be more convenient that such person be subject to the law of Alberta, as a resident of that province would be.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, on this same subject-and I am speaking with a view to obtaining information rather than of making a statement-I understood the minister to say that the procedure he has suggested would be more expeditious. I understood him to say that both the Northwest Territories and the Yukon would be considered in this instance as coming under the workmen's compensation act in Alberta.
I cannot understand why this should be so, and I am asking the minister for some enlargement of his earlier statement. The Yukon is north of British Columbia. All the systems of transportation to the Yukon go through British Columbia, either along the Alaska highway, or by the air lines from Fort St. John. Therefore I suggest that, from the standpoint of operating with expedition, communication by transportation passes through British Columbia either by road or by air.
Then in addition I believe the workmen's compensation act in British Columbia is just about the best to be found anywhere in Canada. I suggest, therefore, that from the standpoint of expedition and equity in the matter of transportation, and from the standpoint of the excellence of British Columbia workmen's compensation legislation, these claims should be handled by the province that is closest. I fail completely to understand the statement by the Minister of Labour, and I hope he will explain not only what he means but how his department came to the conclusion he has indicated today.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Vancouver East. I can see no reason why Alberta should be selected for the purpose indicated. I do not know what the minister will think of my suggestion, but I am wondering why the section should not read in this way:
Where an employee, other than a person locally engaged outside Canada, is usually employed outside Canada, he shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be usually employed in the province immediately south of his location in the Northwest Territories.
I do not see why any one province should be picked out in this instance. And I certainly agree with some other statements made by the hon. member for Prince Albert in this connection. If we are going to select any province I cannot see any better argument for selecting Alberta than there would be for the selection of any other province, including Saskatchewan.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, this matter is
of importance, of course, but I wish to point out that it will have no importance in the development of the province in which these claims are handled.
During 1954-55 we have had in the Northwest Territories a total of 294 claims, 156 of which required only local medical aid. Since I brought in the amendment before- and, by the way, this is not a new amendment; it is just a carrying forward of existing procedure-the matter has been very thoroughly worked out with the government of the Northwest Territories and with the department of government here in Ottawa responsible for their administration.
There were a number of factors to be considered. For instance, the ordinances of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories are based upon Alberta rates. It is basic, of course, to this legislation that the benefits be similar to those available to workers in the same area. If one were to take the relatively small number of accidents that occur among federal government employees in the northwest country and were to have the employees of some companies claiming in British Columbia, others in Alberta and others in Saskatchewan, I am quite sure it would make for more delay than if they were to be done through one channel.
It is not necessary, of course, for an applicant to travel to make his claim. He can make it where the accident takes place. The experience we have had and the discussions which have taken place in the committee would indicate that at least for the present the suggested procedure would be in the best interests of the claimant. It is not because of the benefit to the administration, but
4006	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act rather because we can give better service to the claimant who suffers an accident and submits a claim on account of that accident.


Harold Edward Winch: I do not wish to hold up this
legislation, but I would ask the minister to explain why he considers this is for the benefit of the claimant. What is the advantage for the claimant who is injured in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories when his application must go through Alberta? I agree with the minister when he says there is no advantage to any province that handles these cases, because the federal government reimburses that province only to the extent of the actual expenditures and a share of the administration costs, in accordance with the amount of work that has to be done. Actually it is an added burden on a province; therefore I am looking at it only from the point of view of the person who is injured. From that point of view, and that alone, I maintain that in the interests of the claimants they should be permitted to go to that province that can give them the best return. And I say, with all due respect to Alberta and Saskatchewan, that British Columbia can do that. Where is the advantage to the claimant who must go through Alberta, and not through Saskatchewan or British Columbia?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I can give that at once. If the legislation required that the applicant should go through the province immediately to the south, British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan, it would be necessary to take a map of the Northwest Territories and say that those who are working within certain limits shall go to Saskatchewan, and none other. Those who are working in those limits shall go to Alberta, and none other. I can visualize prospectors flying over the Northwest Territories, not knowing when they pass those imaginary lines. It would be a very great deal of work to undertake for a very small amount of employee compensation work involved.


Harold Edward Winch: Where do prospectors come in under this act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Employees of the federal department of mines who may be prospecting in the north country would certainly come under this act.


John George Diefenbaker: Perhaps the minister can explain the difference between the workmen's compensation acts in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba? Is there any difference between the acts? If so, in what particular; for in determining the matter of expedition I do not think the minister answers the criticism when he says that after all there are not going to 

be many cases. Everyone will join with him in the hope for a minimum of accidents. Why do you choose the province of Alberta? Has it a better workmen's compensation act than the other provinces? Can the minister say in what particular the act is better? If the act is not better, there is no serious difficulty in the way of altering the section to read, "in the province directly south of the place where the accident has taken place", or words to that effect.
The minister said you would need a map. Well, that is not very difficult. You know what the parallels are. If it is within a certain parallel, then it is the province of Saskatchewan; if it is within another parallel it is the province of Alberta, or the province of British Columbia. I repeat, this is another example of what we in the province of Saskatchewan most definitely resent, namely the concentration of developments in the northern parts of Canada adjacent to our province which are more and more forcibly, and under legislation and direction, finding their way from our province into the province of Alberta.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Harold Edward Winch: I have one more question. I am very interested in this matter. Just what were the strong representations that were made by the province of British Columbia? I have not seen them. The minister said strong representations were made. May I ask what they were?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, they were very much the same as my hon. friend has made to this committee, but they were by members from the province of British Columbia before the standing committee on industrial relations.
I should also like to tell the hon. member for Prince Albert that the primary consideration in this matter, in the opinion of the members of the committee, and in the opinion of the department, is the speed with which a claim may be processed and the applicant taken care of. I will state to him in general terms that the workmen's compensation benefits in the province of Alberta are not quite-equal to those of the province of British Columbia or of the province of Saskatchewan. The difference, however, is not very great.


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the minister himself had some doubts as to the efficacy of his rule of thumb, for I see that under clause 10 a substitution is to be made. A little later the following provision is to be made:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the minister may make regulations for-determining, for the purpose of this act, the place where an employee is usually employed . . .

Why is the minister, by order in council, to have the power to override clause 4, which provides that the employee shall be deemed to be usually employed in the province of Alberta? Clause 10 provides that the minister may make regulations tor determining, for the purpose of this act, the place where the employee is usually employed. Why does the minister ask for the power in a later clause to override the absolute powers of clause 4?
Possibly he can explain that at this time. It might clarify the reasons for clause 4; for it seems strange to me that in one section of the act provision is made that such and such a province shall be deemed to be the place where an employee is usually employed, and then another section provides that the governor in council may, by order in council, make regulations for determining, for the purposes of this act, the place where an employee is usually employed. To me that does not seem to make sense. Why the definite provision in one section, and in a later amended section the provision that the governor in council may himself alter the express words of a statute?
That is another power we did not object to at the time, but it is certainly a most unusual thing to say in one section that a person shall be deemed to be resident within a certain province as far as the application of the act is concerned, and then in another section that the minister, through the governor in council, whatever the actual words of the statute may be, may change them at his whim for any reason. I cannot understand why there should be any insistence on the provision that for the purposes of this act the person shall be deemed to be usually employed in the province of Alberta. Why is it so necessary to make explicit reference to the particular province unless there is some purpose in mind?
Expedition does not appeal to me, which is the argument the minister put forward. It is equally expeditious whatever the western province may be. I suggest that the Alberta compensation act is believed by his departmental officials or himself to be a more effective or efficient act than the acts of the other provinces. If that is the reason, then let us have the information. It will clarify the matter a great deal.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The clarification of the expression "usually employed" in the discussions of the standing committee had no particular relation to the item which is now before us, namely the matter affecting the Northwest Territories. It was felt by the committee that there might need to be a clarification of that
Government Employees Compensation Act expression "usually employed" as it appears in various places in the bill. In order that this might be done, whether the accident took place within Canada or whether it took place in another part of the world with respect to a Canadian civil servant, there should be authority to make a clarification, if it should be necessary; but it has nothing particularly to do with this matter of the Northwest Territories.


Harold Edward Winch: I still have one more question to ask the minister, because I think it is only right that hon. members should have a clarification of what is meant and what the plans of the department are. In my day I have had a good deal to do with many hundreds of workmen's compensation cases. I can see some of the problems under this section. If the section goes through the way it is now and a person is injured in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories, will he be considered as coming under the compensation act of the province of Alberta? What are the particulars the department has worked out in the case of a person injured in the Northwest Territories who becomes either a total disability case or a permanent partial disability case?
I am certain the minister must know that if an injury occurs in a certain province, or in this case in a territory, it would have to go through the province, but the home of that person may be somewhere else. He may be on partial disability or total disability, and then he would come under the compensation laws of that province, in this case the province of Alberta.
If his home were in British Columbia-and I imagine as far as the territories are concerned there must be quite a few who consider their homes to be in that province-if further medical examination or attention were required, or if there were to be an adjustment in the degree of disability, then the board of that province could function only with the authorization of the workmen's compensation board of Alberta.
Although the number of injuries that might occur in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon would likely be small, I would imagine the majority of those concerned would not be residents of Alberta. I think we should hear from the minister whether consideration has been given to that phase of the problem, and what determination has been arrived at as to how these cases can be handled. Is the situation to remain as it is now, so that no matter whether a man is a TD or PPD he will have to go through the province of Alberta in order to obtain any adjustment in the way of medical attention or hospitalization?
4008	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, if my hon. friend will look up certain portions of the proceedings of the committee-I will send him the page numbers-I think he will find a complete reply to his question. Under the old act, if a man were injured in the Northwest Territories he came under the laws of Alberta regardless of where his home base was. The intention of this bill is to provide that federal government employees working in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon who are injured will come under the laws of the province in which the federal department establishment under which they are employed is located.
If an official from Ottawa who is on a department establishment here proceeds to the Northwest Territories and meets with an accident, he will receive compensation under the Ontario laws. The same thing would hold true if he were a federal civil servant who proceeded from Vancouver or Victoria to the Yukon and met with an accident. The man injured would come under the laws of the province in which he was usually employed, in that case British Columbia.
There was a long discussion in the committee because there was some fear that there might be a misunderstanding of the phrase "usually employed". The minister was given the right to work out regulations to cover that point. If a government employee was usually employed and had his base in Saskatchewan and was injured while working in the Northwest Territories, he would come under the provisions of the Saskatchewan law. Only those working under establishments or in federal offices located within the Northwest Territories come under this special dispensation applying to Alberta.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at this point I could ask the minister a question. As the minister has said, this point was the subject of considerable discussion in the committee. I think the reason it did not have more discussion was that members from British Columbia did not oppose it too strongly, though it was mostly British Columbia members who objected to it.
I think there should be some clarification of this situation. Both in the standing committee and in the committee of the whole the minister has referred to the phrase "usually employed" as meaning the place from which the pay cheques are issued. I should like to know how many federal offices there are in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not believe I have that information here. There are offices of the unemployment insurance commission, and there would be offices of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I could get that in-


formation, but the number of federal employees in offices there would not be very large.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not concerned with the number of employees, I am concerned with the number of offices located there from which employees would receive pay cheques.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not that information.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I imagine there would not be very many.


Milton Fowler Gregg: My guess would be probably eight or nine federal departments.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If that is the case that would seem to wipe out the minister's argument that you would have to draw a map. If there are only eight or nine offices all you would have to do would be to make a list showing that this one belonged to Alberta, that one belonged to Saskatchewan, this one to British Columbia and so on. As the minister has said, if a man is injured in a particular part of the country it does not necessarily mean under this act that he will be dealt with in the place where he is injured. As a matter of fact this act would take him away from the place where he was injured and put him under the jurisdiction of the province in which he is usually employed.
I think all you would have to do to clarify the matter would be to delete this subsection, then simply name the offices located in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories and allocate them to the nearest province. I believe it is as simple as that.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: When we were in committee we spent a tremendous amount of time dealing with this particular section, and after a great deal of debate and argument the minister brought in an amendment which met with the unanimous approval of the committee. As far as I can remember everybody seemed to be satisfied. I think the hon. member for Prince Albert was somewhat confused, because as I understood him he seemed to think this had to do with natural resources. Of course it does not deal with that.
The purpose of this act is to provide that those who are usually employed-I am using that phrase in the meaning of the amendment-in British Columbia will now be cared for under the British Columbia Act; those who are usually employed in Nova Scotia will come under the Nova Scotia legislation, but those who are usually employed in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon will come under Alberta. It is merely a matter of convenience of administration.

As the minister has pointed out, there is some difference in the compensation rates of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta, but the difference is quite small. It would apply only to those few cases where the employees are based in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories. I cannot see any necessity to do away with this section. We went over all this very carefully in the committee and the minister brought in an amendment which I think met with complete agreement, and I do not see why we should thrash out the whole thing again.


Mr. Byrne:: If the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Vancouver East had been on the committee I think I would have had more support for my suggestion, and it would have done away with any controversy that might arise over this very question. I suggested that we should have a uniform compensation act to cover civil servants right across Canada. I see no reason why the civil servant who happens to be working in British Columbia should receive benefits which are above those received by those residing in Alberta, or New Brunswick, for that matter.
If the administration, investigation and so on are to be left in the hands of the provinces I think we in this parliament could write a compensation act that would be all-embracing and as good as that of any of the provinces. Then all this discussion would have been unncessary. But I did raise the question also of the Yukon being connected more closely with the province of British Columbia, and that therefore the administration would be simpler if it were handled through British Columbia. The minister gave a satisfactory answer to that question, and in view of the fact that we do not have all-embracing legislation we could well accept this clause as it now exists.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to argue the matter, but I must say that I am very much impressed with what the hon. member for Kootenay East has said, that as far as employees in the Northwest Territories are concerned, in those areas outside of the provinces, there is no reason whatever why there should not be a workmen's compensation act applicable to them. Such a workmen's compensation act of course could not be made applicable by a federal statute to causes of action that might arise among federal employees within the several provinces.
However, I brought this matter up, not having been present in the committee and not knowing it had been brought up, simply to direct attention to the fact that we have seen this as a regular course in Saskatchewan, that 50433-253
23, 1955	4009
Government Employees Compensation Act for some reason or other these great developments that are taking place in areas north of our province, both as regards shipments out of the goods that are produced and shipments in of the necessary machinery, manpower and the like, seemed to be definitely removed from the ambit of any company operating in Saskatchewan and to be definitely directed through the city of Edmonton, regardless of whether or not it was more convenient. This is but one further indication of the type of thing to which we take strong exception in the province of Saskatchewan.
Having said that, I do not want to belabour the matter but I do tell the minister that he certainly finds himself in a most paradoxical position. In section 4 it is definitely established, if the present section passes, that the person shall for the purpose of this act be deemed to be usually employed in the province of Alberta. In section 10, if that section is passed, the minister will be able to say that section 4 does not apply, and by order in council he may direct that the person shall be considered to have been employed in some other province. That looks to me like draftsmanship that has not been very carefully done. It certainly will create definite difficulties in future cases.
Having said that, in order to bring the matter to a head and in order to cover the situation referred to by my hon. friend from Saskatoon, I move that all the words after "employed" in section 4 be deleted and the following substituted therefor: "in that province which is south of the area in which the accident occurs". It would then read:
Where an employee is usually employed in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, he shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be usually employed in that province which is south of the area in which the accident occurs.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask this question in that regard. Suppose a person is usually employed in Nova Scotia, would that case automatically be handled by the province which is immediately to the south? Supposing they were in a section north of Saskatchewan; their case would then be handled by Saskatchewan?


John George Diefenbaker: That is correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then we are in exactly the same position the hon. member for Prince Albert is complaining about. He is complaining because some of those who happen to be north of Alberta or north of Saskatchewan are going to be dealt with by Alberta, but he has no objection whatever to those living in Nova Scotia being handled by Saskatchewan if they happened to be working north of Saskatchewan. That is not solving the problem either. Some of
4010	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act those people living in Nova Scotia might want to be serviced in British Columbia, for instance, and they may be working immediately north of Saskatchewan. What is he going to do with them? That is not going to help the problem. It is just going to create confusion.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, as far as I can follow this discussion, the trouble is that most of those taking part in the discussion are a little too provincial-minded. This is not a provincial act; this has to do with federal employees. Regardless of where that federal employee is farmed out, the employer is still the federal government. The minister, in the amendments he brought in, has cured the fears that we had in committee.
I was a member of the committee. We discussed this for a long time and we sent the minister back with this, and be came back with it at another meeting. What the hon. member for Prince Albert is complaining about is exactly what we complained about, but I believe the minister cured it in section 10. That is why section 10 was brought in.


John George Diefenbaker: Why have section 4? Why should section 4 not be entirely deleted?


Clarence Gillis: It was because of the wording of section 4 that we made the suggestion to the minister. He proved to the satisfaction of the committee that the adjudication of claims that occur in the Yukon and Northwest Territories are more easily handled at the present time through Edmonton than any other section that has a region set up for compensation purposes. It was suggested in the committee that that may be all right now, but it may be changed in future. Under section 4 of the act it is mandatory that they still remain in Edmonton.
Then it was suggested that there should be more flexibility as far as the minister and his department are concerned, and that there should be a provision that would give him the opportunity to change by regulation the place where the person was usually employed if other circumstances arose before this act was gone into again. It was because of section 4 that section 10 was brought in. If the hon. member would read it I think he will realize that if later there are changed circumstances, if the minister deems British Columbia or Saskatchewan the proper centre for the employees under discussion, then under section 10 he has power to make the change without coming back to another committee and to the House of Commons. If you will read section 10 again I think you will realize that it cured the matter as far as the committee was concerned.


Let me put this section 10 on the record once more. I hate to be arguing legal points with my hon. friend, because this is not my field. This provision is aimed at bringing flexibility into clause 4, which is firm as far as the adjudication of claims that arise in the Northwest Territories is concerned. Section 10 reads as follows:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the minister may make regulations for determining, for the purposes of this act, the place where an employee is usually employed, and generally for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect.
After listening to the discussion, as we did for several days, and after the discussion we have now had, I think the hon. member for Prince Albert will agree that because of the firmness of section 4 in providing that the adjudication had to be done in Alberta, this section 10 now gives the minister the power to make a change if he so desires, if it is more advantageous to have the adjudication done in British Columbia or Saskatchewan.
As to employees coming under this act, first they are employed through the federal government here in Ottawa, and you have them from Newfoundland clear out to the Northwest Territories. It is for the purpose of providing some adjudication machinery that this act is written. By and large I think most of these people will be centred in Ontario anyway because, no matter what department it is, they take their employment through the civil service commission or the department right here in the city of Ottawa, and they are sent out from here. If they are injured in the Yukon or in Newfoundland they automatically come back to Ontario for adjudication. It is only the odd one you run into that might cause friction, as anticipated by the discussion here this afternoon. I want to say that this act is a great improvement over the old one.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: The main discussion in the committee was on the point that has been discussed this afternoon. But in the judgment of the committee the establishment of section 10 has given the minister the necessary administrative latitude to cure the occasional situation that might arise under section 4.
I believe the bill without any amendment serves the purpose for which it was intended. I could not support any change such as that suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert. After writing in that word "south", when you sit down and write a claim the first thing you have to do is consult a compass

and say, "Exactly where am I in relation to this claim?" I think the provision is flexible enough as it is now.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all that my hon. friend has said with regard to the purpose being to make this legislation flexible. But what you do, if you pass it in its present form, is this. At the moment I am not speaking of the amendment; I am replying to my hon. friend. You have section 4, which definitely says:
Where an employee is usually employed In the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories he shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be usually employed in the province of Alberta.
Section 10 says the minister may, by order in council, make regulations for determining, for the purpose of this act, the place where an employee is usually employed. Those are contradictory statements. You cannot have both. If you are going to have section 10, then I submit for the consideration of the minister that section 4 should read in this way:
Subject to the provisions of section 10, where an employee is usually employed in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories, he shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be usually employed in the province of Alberta.
In other words, in the event that no order in council is passed section 4 will be the determinant. But section 4 will only be the determinant subject to the provisions of section 10. I mention that point because I think the minister should give further consideration to that section, even though the amendment I suggest be not adopted by the committee.
23, 1955	4011
Government Employees Compensation Act an amendment moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert to a part of clause 2, namely section 4 of the act.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


William Alfred Robinson: I have the amendment before me, but I need further clarification. Will the hon. member for Prince Albert kindly let me know whether he refers to the first "employed" or the second "employed" in the wording of the original section?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member for Prince Albert can correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the amendment he first moved is to be replaced by an amendment which would add to this section the words "subject to the provisions of section 10".


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


William Alfred Robinson: 
William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps I should clear up a procedural point before we go any further with our discussion. Clause 2 of this bill deals with sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the act.
1	called clause 2 of the bill. The Minister of Fisheries moved an amendment to clause 2, which was carried. I then called clause
2	as amended and clause 2 as amended was carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


An hon. Member:: Yes.


William Alfred Robinson: I then called clause 3 of the bill and clause 3 was carried. I then called clause 4 of the bill which was a clause added by the committee. At this point the hon. member for Prince Albert rose and commenced to discuss section 4 of the act, which is a part of clause 2 of this bill. I raised no objection and the committee raised no objection because, as can be seen from the printing, it was a natural mistake to have occurred. At the present time I take it that, by consent, the committee is dealing with clause 2 of this bill. We are dealing with 50433-253i
I thus arrive at a section which has no meaning whatsoever. On the other hand, I can find some meaning if I apply this amendment after the second "employed" in the section. It would then read as follows:
Where an employee is usually employed in the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories he shall for the purposes of this act be deemed to be usually employed in that province which is south of the area in which the accident occurs.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the discussion which has taken place, if I may be permitted to do so I should like to withdraw the amendment I moved. May I have the consent of the committee?


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member permission to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I then ask to amend section 4 by adding these words:
Subject to the provisions of section 10 hereof,_
That is at the beginning of the section, which continues as follows:
-where an employee is usually employed . . .
4012	HOUSE OF
Government Employees Compensation Act
And so on. I move that amendment so we shall not be in the position of having passed two sections which are completely divergent, contradictory and paradoxical. I suggest that the minister give consideration to that point. Otherwise you have a definite section, then later on you say the section can be changed by the governor in council. I submit that the wording therefore should be:
Subject to the provisions ot section 10, where an employee is usually employed . . .
And so on. I so move.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think I understand now what the hon. member for Prince Albert means, but I cannot see why the amendment is necessary. I would take it that wherever the word "usually" is used section 10 applies and the minister may use his discretion in naming the place where the man was usually employed. It seems to me that is so clear that confusion may be created if we amend section 4 in the way proposed by the hon. member for Prince Albert. I understand his meaning and I think I know what he has in mind, but it seems to me that his endeavour to put that meaning into the legislation does add confusion. Maybe the minister can state when he is answering whether or not my interpretation of section 10, which he himself brought in, is correct.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am certain that the explanation given by the hon. member for Prince Albert was not in the minds of the members of the committee when they asked me to work out an amendment to section 4 which would be a new section 10 of the bill. To my mind it is a very simple amendment. Perhaps it may not be the answer, but it was put before the standing committee with the intention of providing a means to deal with cases where there might be difficulty in defining the words "usually employed". It has no special application to the Northwest Territories _ as such. It applies to the whole administration of the act. In the light of the thought given to the matter not only by the officials and law officers but by the standing committee, I think we would be much happier, when the bill becomes a part of the act, if the wording were to remain as it is now.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I cannot agree with that. I am sure every member of the committee who took part in its deliberations realized that this was a very confused piece of legislation from start to finish. We could not agree on what was the place of usual employment. The wording of the old act, which referred to the place where the worker was ordinarily resident, had been changed, though many of us thought the expression in the old act was the better term. We could not see


that changing it to the place of usual employment was any improvement, and it created the difficulties we have encountered today.
I think even this committee is now confused as to what is the place of usual employment.
The minister has said repeatedly that the place of usual employment is wherever the pay office is situated, the place from which the man gets his pay cheque. I am sure that has not been in the minds of most of the people who have spoken this afternoon, and I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert that section 4 of the act which is amended by clause 2 of the bill certainly comes into conflict with the amendment which will now be clause 4 of the bill.
I fail to grasp the reason for any opposition to including the words, "subject to the provisions of section 10." It seems to me it merely clarifies the intention of section 10 and does away with the possibility of an administrative officer saying some time in the future, "There is your section 4 and it stands. If your place of usual employment is the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, then you are governed by section 4", without ever turning over the page and looking at section 10. I think there should be a reference in section 4 to section 10 because, as the minister has said, the whole idea of including section 10 is to clarify section 4, so why not say so right in section 4?


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the proceedings of the committee that dealt with the bill. Although I was not a member of the committee I was an observer of the discussion that took place, and it appeared to me that in certain quarters there was a good deal of unnecessary misunderstanding of the references in the bill to the place where a person is usually employed. To anyone familiar with the manner in which provincial workmen's compensation laws are carried out that is a well known and well understood term. It has been in common use, as far as the workmen's compensation act of British Columbia is concerned, for a number of years, ever since the arrangement came into being changing the method of paying compensation from the province where the accident occurred to the province where the workman was usually employed. As far as I am aware there has been no difficulty in reaching an understanding of the meaning of that term in relation to people coming under the jurisdiction of the workmen's compensation act of British Columbia.
There was a good deal of discussion in the committee with respect to the matter of jurisdiction in the case of employees of the federal government in the Yukon and the

Northwest Territories. I listened to the discussion, and as I understand the situation brought about by the amendment now before us, if we apply the proposed section 10 to section 4 we are in effect giving the Minister of Labour a new administrative latitude which was not the intention of the minister when he introduced the proposed section 10 in the committee. As I understand the situation, when the minister introduced the proposed section 10 in the committee it was for the purpose of giving him the power to define the term "usually employed" if any misunderstanding should arise as to what was intended by that term. It was for that purpose only and really had no relation, as I understood it, to this section dealing with place of employment in the Northwest Territories.
I think we should be clear. As far as I am concerned I have no objection to giving the Minister of Labour the right, if certain developments should take place that make it desirable, to fix the place of usual employment for people in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in a province other than Alberta. I would be quite prepared to support that move.
Having listened to the argument, I think the minister is on sound ground in leaving Alberta as the primary place for the time being. But that might not necessarily continue to be the case. On the other hand, it does seem to me that if you attempt to correlate the proposed section 10 with the provisions of section 4, which refers to the Yukon and Northwest Territories, you are creating an understanding which I certainly did not believe to be the purpose of the minister when he introduced it in the first instance.
Amendment (Mr. Diefenbaker) negatived: Yeas, 9; nays, 47.


William Alfred Robinson: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 2 as amended carry?
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Regulations.


William Alfred Robinson: This is clause 4, which was added by the committee on industrial relations. I shall read it:
4. Section 10 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
10. Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the minister may make regulations for determining, for the purposes of this act. the place where an employee is usually employed, and generally for carrying the purposes and provisions of this act into effect.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Great Lakes Fisheries


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, in committee I raised objection to this clause, because I thought it was putting under a regulation the method of interpreting the meaning of words in the statute. I said in committee that this doubtful expression, "usually employed" should be defined in the interpretation section. I thought it was a rather new departure to give the minister freedom to interpret a phrase in a bill. In fact I believe it is a fault in drafting, which I recognize as a difficult art, that there should be so much confusion over the use of the expression "place of usual employment". I wish to record my objection to this method of interpreting that phrase.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Then clause 4 in the bill has been renumbered by the committee as clause 5. Shall clause 5 carry?
Clause 5 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


GREAT LAKES FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
10,	1954
James Sinclair: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 279, to implement a convention on great lakes fisheries between Canada and the United States.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The motion for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole upon a bill is not debatable.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.


Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few observations at this time, mainly as a result of the very illuminating evidence we heard the other day in the fisheries committee. For the benefit of those who may not be as familiar with the situation as those of us who heard that evidence, may I say it was revealed that as a result of the lamprey menace in the great lakes the trout fishing in lake Huron is now completely ruined. That industry was valued at $5 million a year, was engaged in by both Canada and the United States, and has now practically disappeared. The federal department of fisheries in conjunction with the corresponding department of the United States

Great Lakes Fisheries
are now making a joint effort to stamp out the lamprey menace and put the fishing industry of the great lakes back on a paying basis.
It is unfortunate that this action was not taken years ago, because the trout fishermen are suffering a heavy annual loss, and until the industry is restored in that area the loss will continue. I am glad to see the Minister of Finance in his seat, because he has never been too far away from the great lakes, and would be more familiar than most with what is taking place there. Under the convention -the two senior governments are going to undertake this joint effort, which had been carried on previously by eight states in the United States and by Ontario in Canada.
The evidence in committee disclosed that weirs have been constructed in creeks and streams up which the lamprey have gone to spawn. The evidence disclosed that in their last year the lampreys grow from a length of four or five inches to 18 inches, having fed mainly on trout. It is when they go up to spawn that the challenge is placed before the two departments concerned. What alarms me is that the situation had reached a point where it was almost beyond immediate control by any department, simply because research work was not undertaken years ago when it was learned that the lamprey was becoming a curse to the fishing industry. With the situation today, even if all the eels going up to spawn are caught it will still be seven years before the evil can be stamped out.
We find in the estimates for the Department of Fisheries, under item 145, a vote of $355,000 to provide for the share of this federal government in the administrative expenses of the great lakes fisheries research committee established jointly with Ontario. This sum is also to provide for a program designed to eliminate lampreys in the great lakes.
Evidence in the committee disclosed that $50,000 a year has been set aside for research work, part of this sum to be paid by Ontario and part by the dominion. No doubt a greater sum will be paid by the agencies in the United States because, after all is said and done, one of the great lakes, namely lake Michigan, is in their country. Lake Michigan has been infested with this curse to the same extent that lake Huron has, so I would assume that in due course they would pay more than we ought to pay. It appears that the program calls for work to be done in lake Superior, to hold the line at the more southerly end of that lake where it empties into the lower lakes. I agree that this is sound business. I do not agree that no attempt should be

made to eliminate this curse in lake Huron and re-establish the fishing industry there on a sound basis.
It appears that there are some 50 streams in the north channel of lake Huron up which these lampreys go to spawn, and apparently these are the only streams up which they go. That in itself is important. I was worried for fear that they were spawning all over in the different streams of the different lakes. They told us in the committee that these weirs or contraptions they have for destroying the lamprey cost anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000, depending on the proximity to accessible roads and that sort of thing. That would be the cost in lake Superior.
It has not been my practice at any time since I have been a member of this house to ask any department of government to spend money just for the sake of pleasing somebody who thinks it should be spent. Here is an industry that is very important to a great many people. It needs to be invigorated. I am going to make a suggestion to the minister in the hope that he can persuade his colleagues on the front benches to accept it. I hope it meets with his approval because, after all is said and done, if one part of our national economy is disturbed or crucified to the extent of $5 million annually it affects the whole economy.
I know the minister would be only too anxious to re-establish the trout industry without delay. It cannot be done overnight. I am very glad this action is to be taken without further delay. While the scientists do not claim to have perfected a device to completely destroy the lamprey, they are working on different projects. As a matter of fact one of the witnesses suggested that through some electrical means, or sound waves, they might be able to exterminate the lamprey without injuring any other fish.
I said these weirs or contraptions cost anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000. I am going to suggest that the minister place in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to take care of weirs on these 48 or 50 streams where they know probably 90 per cent or even more of the lamprey go to spawn. We all agree that the attack must be made in lake Superior to hold the line. But let us at the same time re-establish the fishing industry in the other great lakes, particularly the trout industry.
One may say that the fishing industry in the great lakes is greater in poundage and in dollars and cents than it has been in the past. I admit that. A great many fishermen are fishing oftener and are using more nets and greater efficiency as time goes by than

they did years ago; but I am going to tell the minister this. I said it before when I made a few remarks on this subject. In my part of lake Huron the fishermen are going broke. Some of them have been using up their surplus. One fisherman I have in mind has a terrific overhead. He is a very capable fisherman. Because of the lamprey and other things that affect the fishing industry he has been operating in the red to such an extent that he cannot continue any longer.
I urge that we rehabilitate the trout industry in lake Huron, and at the same time hold the line in lake Superior. It is going to be a seven-year job before it will be completed. With the greater knowledge these scientists have and will be obtaining, the problem will be licked. It is just too bad it was not tackled years ago. If the area is not too remote and is accessible by boat, the department can complete work on the 48 or 50 weirs with the amount that is being immediately provided, and then they can work in lake Huron; but the work will not be done at a cost of less than $200,000, and that amount will have to be spent yearly until this curse is eliminated.
I would suggest-and I hope the minister will agree with me-that we might better spend $250,000 or $500,000 a year to remove this curse and save an industry that produces $5 million a year. That sounds like common sense. I hope the members of the treasury board and the members of the cabinet will agree with this suggestion. Let us not wait for five years to spend $250,000, when we can do it today. It is too bad the department did not start 10 or 15 years ago when they knew the curse existed.
When the figures were given the other day they disclosed that we produced almost 15 times the amount of trout five years ago that we produced last year or the year before. It was quite apparent to some that something ought to be done. I make no apology for saying this. The responsibility should have been accepted, no matter what government was in power. Research is not new. They knew what was going on. They had been experimenting for some years on methods to eliminate this curse. .Those methods should have been proceeded with at great haste. I would ask the government to appropriate an extra $250,000 or $500,000 a year to re-establish this $5 million industry.
The lamprey are now preying on the trout. After the trout are gone they will turn to the whitefish. The lamprey will be found not only in lake Huron but in all the other lakes as well. I sincerely hope the government will agree to the suggestion. I think the sum of $50,000 for research is picayune.
Great Lakes Fisheries
That is the amount to be expended by the federal and provincial governments. What is needed is $100,000, $200,000 or $500,000 a year. That is needed to prevent the loss of $5 million. That is not pin money. These fishermen work hard to earn what they make. They make a great contribution to our economy.
As I said earlier, I never make it a practice, and I do not intend ever to make it a practice, to ask for moneys unless I think they can be wisely spent. I do not know of an instance where this government could spend money more wisely than in an effort to destroy this pest and at the same time re-establish the fishermen.
I suggested the other day in committee, and I would like to put it on the record here, that in conjunction with this program of eliminating the lamprey eels in these streams off the north channel the government at the same time should restock the lower end of lake Huron, that is near Sarnia, with trout fingerlings. The minister indicated in committee the other day that they were working in full accord with the Ontario government, and I am sure that if arrangements could be made to restock this area these fish would gradually find their way along both shores. I suggest also that this be a co-operative effort with the level of government with which you are dealing on the other side.
Perhaps next year when the estimates are being considered and it is found that these contrivances are not as successful as it is hoped they will be, sufficient money will be voted for research so we can do our part in re-establishing the fishing industry on the great lakes.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in listening to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because he spoke most sensibly and realistically. The fishermen along the shores of lake Superior are appreciative of this legislation. Men make their living from this industry in places such as Heron Bay, Marathon, Terrace Bay, Schreiber, Rossport, Nipigon, Port Arthur and Fort William. These men tell me the fish are getting scarcer. I should like to ask the minister if compensation could be arranged for the catching of these lamprey eels. Such compensation would be attractive to the younger element among fishermen.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, coming as I do from British Columbia I may not have the same direct and immediate interest in this question as the hon. members who have preceded me, but I do want to say that I found the evidence given before the committee in connection with this bill most interesting and

Great Lakes Fisheries informative. I think everything possible should be done to accelerate the program being initiated by this legislation.
I gathered from the research experts who appeared before the committee that they are hopeful they have devised a method of dealing with the mature lampreys as they enter the streams to spawn, but I gathered also that they are not quite so certain the methods they are considering to deal with the lamprey before it reaches maturity have reached the point where they can be assured that these lampreys can be disposed of at that stage. It seems to me if it should be found that further appropriations for research would expedite the efforts to deal with the lamprey in the earlier stages, and thus get around the necessity of having to wait for six and seven years, it would be a worth-while expenditure.
This bill proposes to ratify an international treaty arrangement. Just how effectively this will work out will depend a great deal upon the attitude taken by the United States counterparts to the Canadian members of the international commission to be set up. I feel it would be appropriate for this parliament to indicate that there is a desire on the part of Canada that everything possible be done to accelerate this program and restore the fisheries in lakes Huron and Michigan. But I would suggest that before the minister brings an increased appropriation before parliament he should ascertain through this international commission that the United States people are prepared to do their share. Then any increased appropriation by us would be worth while. Otherwise it might be throwing good Canadian dollars down the drain, or I suppose one could say letting them run over Niagara falls.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all aware of the importance of the fishing industry to the economy of Canada. The report of the Department of Fisheries for 1953 indicates that for that year the total catch was approximately 1-8 billion pounds; the income of the fishermen amounted to $91-8 million, and the catch had a market value of $179 million. When we look at the matter from that point of view we can readily understand the importance of this industry to the national economy, as well as its tremendous importance to a great number of our population who must depend upon the industry for a livelihood.
When introducing this measure the minister referred to other international commissions which had been set up, such as the international Pacific halibut commission, the Pacific salmon fisheries commission and others. I am sure these different treaties have commendable objectives and in the 

main are achieving the desired results, but we do not agree with all the regulations which have been passed in order to accomplish those objectives.
It may seem a little strange that members from British Columbia should wish to speak on Bill No. 279, to implement a convention on great lakes fisheries; but in view of the importance of fisheries to our economy I should like to make two or three observations. The bill would appear to have two main purposes, research and lamprey control. This was a very interesting subject which came up for debate in the committee. I must confess my ignorance of the lamprey situation. In fact, I had not heard about it until it was brought to our attention by the minister in his introductory remarks. But after seeing the film that was shown on the occasion of the committee's meeting, and also hearing the departmental officials as they outlined the problem, it certainly indicates a very serious situation existing in the great lakes. I am sure that this measure that has been introduced will be very welcome to every member of the house, and of course, doubly so to the fishermen who are concerned. Therefore, I should just like to indicate, Mr. Chairman, that we are supporting this bill, and we hope that the efforts that are being put forth to control the lamprey menace and also develop the interests of the fisheries in the great lakes will be successful. Therefore we in this group welcome and support the bill.


James Sinclair: Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the hon. members who have spoken in approval of the substance of this bill. I do not think there is any need for me to make any lengthy remarks at the present time. I spoke at some length at the resolution stage of the bill. My parliamentary assistant went into it in some detail on the second reading of the bill, and when we were before the committee on marine and fisheries we had before us two top scientists of our department, specialists in freshwater fisheries, whose evidence I know was found to be of very great interest to members of the committee. The committee reported back the bill with no amendments, but with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Lambton West that perhaps we should be doing more on this.
I should perhaps just answer one or two of the points that have been made here. The question was asked why we had not gone into this problem earlier. The administration of the great lakes fisheries is not under the federal Department of Fisheries but under the province of Ontario. The province had been concerned for some time about the

depredations of the sea lamprey. For those of you who are from the inland provinces, the sea lamprey is a member of one of the lower orders of eels whose normal habitat is the sea and which comes into rivers to spawn. Many years ago the lamprey came up the St. Lawrence and were able to change their environment to the extent that they lived in lake Ontario without returning to the sea and spawned in the streams flowing into lake Ontario. They have been there for some years and have not done too much damage there. However, they passed through the locks around Niagara and entered lake Erie and lake Huron. They did little damage in lake Erie, because the streams flowing into lake Erie come through flat ground not suitable for spawning. However, in lake Huron and lake Superior they have found river conditions ideal for spawning and so have become a great problem. The lamprey must go upstream to spawn in the spring of the year, just after the break-up. The male and female lamprey lay and fertilize the eggs, from 60,000 to 100,000 eggs per female, which hatch out during the summer. The small lampreys drift down to a mudbank and lie there four years burrowed in the mud. In the fifth year they come down to the lake and begin their destructive activities.
In that one year, as the hon. member for Lambton West reminds us, they increase in length from four inches to 18 inches, feeding entirely on the blood and body juices of other fish, the principal victim being the lake trout, a most valuable fish. The whole great lakes fisheries are very valuable, both in the size and the species of catch. The fact that this lake is in the centre of a great populated area cuts down the difficult problem for fisheries of the transportation of fish. The difficulty in the province of Ontario was in trying to handle this problem by itself, since across lake Superior there are eight states similarly affected by the different fisheries regulations. There was obviously not much point in the province of Ontario launching a large-scale lamprey control program if nothing was done across the lake, because population of lamprey move back and forth.
In 1946 the federal government was asked by the province to take action, and since that time we have been negotiating with the federal government of the United States to try to bring about an international agreement similar to the very successful ones we have on the east and west coasts. The one difficulty with the United States government was not lack of willingness, because their fishermen have been more affected than ours; it was the lack of federal jurisdiction. In the American states the primary jurisdiction over fisheries rests 50433-254
Great Lakes Fisheries
with the state governments. However, the United States government was able to work out a plan acceptable to the states and a bill is before congress at the present time to approve this treaty. When this bill is approved by parliament and congress, the commission can begin its work.
In our estimates last year, when we saw it was likely that this commission would be approved, we had an item of $150,000 for lamprey control and $15,000 for research, to begin control by our department. We spent $161,000 of that last year. It is always difficult to get a program like that under way and, of course, we have no federal fisheries officers in the great lakes area. This year we have raised that vote to $330,000, which is the amount our scientists and engineers tell us can be usefully spent this year. We have increased our research vote also. We are putting up $25,000, and the province of Ontario is matching that. This is all in anticipation of the work of the commission. It is true that we are concentrating our lamprey work on lake Superior. I think there is good reason for that. The lamprey is just now entering lake Superior, and we think we can stop that entry now by concentrating our attack there and so saving the lake Superior fisheries. The next step, having learned the methods which are most satisfactory, will be to move back into lake Huron. It will be a long process, because the lamprey has a seven-year cycle. The most effective way to kill it is as it is going into the stream to spawn, which happens only once in a cycle. But we are also engaged in the poisoning of the mudbeds in which the small lamprey lives for four years, which will cut down the incidence of lamprey even in the intervening years. I do not think there is too much point in trying to restock lake Huron until we have substantially cut down the lamprey population for I do not think we should be restocking the lake for the lamprey to feed upon. The hon. member for Lambton West has pointed out that there is a loss of $5 million a year in the commercial catch of lake trout as a result of the depredations of lamprey. That is true for that species but there has been one offsetting factor. As the population of lake trout fell off, populations of other fish have increased because the food used by the lake trout became available to them. The result has been that, despite the lamprey, the value of the total catch of all species has not declined very much. We consider that the job of this commission is to provide the scientific knowledge for what we call scientific management and control of the fisheries to restore the balance between the lake trout
4018	HOUSE OF
Great Lakes Fisheries
and the other commercial fish. Lamprey control is only one aspect of that scientific control.
The hon. member for Fort William asked if there was any commercial value to the lamprey. Unfortunately, there is not. There is a small market among some Europeans for smoked lamprey. The lamprey is a very low form of fish; it has cartilage instead of bone and is not even a good eel. It is very difficult to catch in the lake because it does not feed on any bait except live fish. As far as next year's budget is concerned, that of course will be recommended to parliament and to congress by the commission when it is set up. I may say that I heartily agree with the hon. member for Lambton West that Canada has received good value for what this parliament has spent on the work of these international fisheries commissions. Last year's increase in the catch of salmon and halibut paid for the costs of these commissions many times over.
You will notice that in the convention attached to the bill provision is made for the division of costs by the commission. The reason for that is that these fisheries are of more importance to the United States than they are to Canada, for one reason. We share Ontario, Erie, St. Clair, Huron and Superior, but the states have lake Michigan entirely to themselves. Therefore they have more at stake. It may be therefore that the division of costs will be a little bit heavier burden on the states than on ourselves. I thank the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Fraser Valley for their remarks. Our province of British Columbia is a long way from the great lakes, but we are the people who have seen the value of such treaties and what they can do to restore fisheries which were apparently on the way out. Our scientists are convinced that by this co-operative work with the federal government of the United States and the province of Ontario and the eight states across the way, we can restore the great lakes fisheries.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Will the minister answer a question? Have you considered giving a bonus or compensation to anybody who catches these eels?


James Sinclair: These lampreys are there by the million. They are worthless but we are spending money killing them where they are most vulnerable.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Joseph Warner Murphy: The point I attempted to make, Mr. Chairman, was that the department not only hold the line in


lake Superior, but that they do something more this year, not wait until next year or the year after. I think they should do something this year when they know that they have some 50 streams running into the north channel. It is not as though they are all over lake Huron. They are there probably within 50 or 60 miles. I think that an effort could be made this year to kill these lampreys when they go up to spawn. If it is too late to do anything this year, maybe preparations could be made so that something could be done next year. My argument is that there is no occasion for delay. You are now tackling the problem. I say that you should accelerate that attack.


James Sinclair: May I again point out that the vote we have today is really on an interim basis in anticipation of the establishment of the commission. We hope the commission will start its work this summer. We have done the necessary engineering to spend effectively this $330,000 on weirs and electrical fences in the present year. I am sure when the commission makes its first report we shall be able to do the engineering work to take care of any larger program they may recommend. At the moment I agree with our officials who say that the most important work should be in lake Superior, to kill them there and then to move back into lake Huron and lake Ontario.


Joseph Warner Murphy: But, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the matter of dollars and cents, your officials spoke of the matter the other day. They are highly qualified men and I am certainly one of the members of that committee who was glad to hear their evidence. They said that these weirs which are built on these streams or tributaries to the lake would vary in cost from $5,000 to $10,000 depending on the accessibility to highways, boats or that sort of thing. Here in the north channel you certainly have accessibility by boat. There is no question about that fact. I see the minister who represents that particular area sitting in his seat. I am going to suggest that he read what has been said today and what was said a few days previously.
After all is said and done, I agree-and I have said this before-that you should make your attack in lake Superior where you know you are going to meet with success because they have only been in there recently. You know where they are spawning. You also know that these cursed things come up about 50 streams running into lake Huron and in that north channel. It is not as though you had to wander all around lake Huron. Why hesitate to spend a quarter of a million

dollars this year? Unless you do spend it you are going to continue to lose $5 million worth of trout a year from these lakes; that is not only for us but I mean for the United States. Half of that should be our portion. Unless that money is spent you are not going to kill the lampreys in lake Huron. You are not going to re-establish the trout fishing in lake Huron. In all seriousness I suggest that this is a common ordinary dollar-and-cent proposition where you invest $100,000 or $250,000 or half of that and your return is probably $1 million or $2 million a year. There is no man with common sense who will disagree that that is a good economic policy for you to follow. After all, you are not going to stamp out the curse of the lamprey eels in lake Huron by killing them up in lake Superior. They are still going to exist in lake Huron. After they take your lake trout, the next thing will be the whitefish. In all seriousness I suggest that an effort be made to accelerate the attack by including lake Huron in your program.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Convention approved.
Mr. Nowlan:: I wish to speak for a moment on clause 3. I did not speak on clause 1 because I made it plain at another stage of the proceedings that this party was heartily in favour of this act. But clause 3 brings in the convention itself. I was interested in what the minister said a few moments ago and I was wondering whether he could amplify that for the benefit of this committee. I do not think this matter was raised before. At least it was not dealt with in detail as far as I know in the special committee to which this matter was referred.
As the minister pointed out, the great difficulty in dealing with this thing in the past has been the question of jurisdiction. You have at least eight American states on the south of the great lakes and you have the province of Ontario on this side. As to the constitutional question, as I recall the constitution the American states have the residuary powers and the American congress have the specially delegated ones. The reverse is the situation in so far as Canada is concerned or at least that is the situation today under the decisions and so on and so forth.
Just what is the position in so far as these American states are concerned? Have they delegated their authority to the American congress? And if so, how? Right now, of course, everyone is frightened. Everyone is prepared to co-operate. But suppose that five or six years from now the situation is 50433-254J
Great Lakes Fisheries
relatively under control and then we will say the state of Michigan passes regulations which are contrary to the regulations which may be passed by this commission. Would that state or any other state be in a position to do so or have they, either by legislation, by contract or in any manner delegated their authority to the American congress so that the Dominion of Canada knows that they are dealing with the duly authorized authority? In one of the articles of the convention, namely article 10, we find this provision:
Nothing in this convention shall be construed as preventing any of the states of the United States of America bordering on the Great Lakes or, subject to their constitutional arrangements, Canada or the province of Ontario from making or enforcing laws . . .
And so on. The convention is obviously drawing a line of distinction-at least that is suggested by article 10-as between Canada and Ontario on the one hand and the American states on the other. I would ask the minister to clear up that point for the benefit of the committee.


James Sinclair: There is no jurisdictional problem in Canada about any of these treaties because the federal government has control over the fisheries. The province of Ontario is our agent in the control of sport fishing and the great lakes fisheries. As far as the American states are concerned, our legal officers were concerned about this matter and have looked at the arrangements made now. These American states have agreed to give the federal government the necessary authority for this period of 10 years. The commission is just for 10 years, and then is subject to renewal to be worked out.


George Clyde Nowlan: How have they agreed?


James Sinclair: I am sorry, but not being a lawyer I cannot answer that question. But it was to the satisfaction of our law officers. We have a parallel situation with regard to the international salmon commission on the west coast. The American waters are in the state of Washington which has control over fishing there and that state has given the necessary authority to their federal government now for the last 18 years. The arrangement is most satisfactory as far as regulations are concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Coming into force.
George Clyde Nowlan: Did the minister say that similar legislation is now before congress?


James Sinclair: Yes.

Canadian National Railways


George Clyde Nowlan: In what stage is it before the American congress? Has it been submitted?


James Sinclair: It has been submitted. We have been assured that the states concerned are all pressing to make quite sure that it is passed by this session of congress.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is not the intention to proclaim this legislation until that legislation has been passed by the United States congress?


James Sinclair: When it has been passed by the United States congress we will proclaim it. We hope to have the commission set up this year.


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


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 351, respecting Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Drew:: Is the minister going to make a statement?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out when introducing the bill, its primary purpose is to consolidate into one statute the legislative provisions relating to Canadian National Railways. A complete enumeration of these legislative provisions is set forth in the second schedule of the bill. This schedule shows that there are no less than 23 enactments that are to be repealed in whole or in part. As this means that at the present time each of these 23 statutes must be consulted in order to determine the exact provisions of what I may call the charter of the Canadian National Railways, I am sure that no further arguments than this are needed in order to persuade hon. members of the desirability of consolidating all of these provisions into a single statute.
In examining the bill it will be found that, though in some instances the wording in some sections has been altered to conform to modern standards of drafting, only five changes in the enactments applying to the company are made. Three of these are intended to give the company (1) power to operate a telecommunication system; (2) power to construct short branch lines, and (3) power to operate motor vehicles for the carriage of traffic. The fourth change is being


made so as to authorize officers and employees of the company to act as directors of partially owned subsidiaries; and, finally, the last change is the setting up of a simple procedure to extinguish the charters of constituent corporations.
Some of the subsidiaries of Canadian National already possess powers to operate telecommunication facilities and motor vehicles, but it is considered that it would be more convenient if these powers were vested in the parent company itself. I should like to say a few words further to that subject at the end of these remarks.
I should now like to say something with regard to what I have described as short branch lines. As will be noted from the text of the bill itself, section 183 of the Railway Act, which permits railway companies in general "to construct, maintain and operate branch lines not exceeding in any one case six miles in length", is not applicable to Canadian National Railways. The powers of the company to construct railway lines are to be found in section 20 of the Canadian National Railways Act which empowers the company to construct railway lines, branches and extensions, etc., in respect of the construction of which parliament may authorize the necessary expenditure or the guarantee of an issue of the company's securities. In simpler words, this means that the company may not undertake the construction of branch lines or extensions, even though they are less than six miles in length, until the necessary expenditure for the specific branch line or extension has been approved by parliament. It happens not infrequently during the interval between annual budgets that the management of the Canadian National Railways receives applications from industries for short spur lines to serve their plants; and I think that it obviously is desirable that the railway should be in a position to respond to these applications and build the required trackage as quickly as possible.
It is proposed, therefore, to give the company the power to construct railway lines, branches and extensions which do not exceed six miles in length, and so to put it in a position comparable to that of the railway companies governed by section 183 of the Railway Act to which I referred a moment ago. As in the past, however, the decision to construct such line, branch or extension will remain subject to approval by the governor in council, and it will still be necessary that its location be sanctioned by the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the fact that all other railways in Canada governed by the Railway Act may, subject to that legislation, proceed with the construction of branch lines

and extensions not exceeding six miles in length without parliamentary approval, I think it would be timely to free the Canadian National Railways from the disability affecting it and endeavour to place it on a footing similar to that of its competitors.
Under existing legislation, section 8 (3) of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, only directors of the Canadian National may represent the company on the board of directors of any partially owned company. For reasons of greater convenience it is proposed to authorize not only the directors but also officers or employees of the parent company to serve on boards of directors of these partially controlled companies.
With respect to the extinguishing of the charters of constituent corporations, I may say that there is no provision in the statutes for the surrender of a charter of a railway company which is usually incorporated by special act and it is, therefore, necessary to obtain an act of parliament. As will be seen from the first schedule of the bill, the Canadian National Railways system comprises a large number of constituent companies. It is hoped that the setting up of a simple procedure to extinguish the charters of constituent corporations will facilitate the steps now being taken by the management to simplify as much as possible the corporate organization of the railway.
I wish to assure hon. members that this bill is the result of long and careful study by the management of the railway, the various government departments concerned and the cabinet. After second reading of the bill, if it is the pleasure of the house to adopt it, I shall propose that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Officials of the company will be in attendance at the committee to explain the various provisions of the proposed legislation.
I should like to add a particular word with regard to the apprehension which appears to exist in the minds of persons engaged in the operation of trucks and buses on highways that it was intended by this legislation to enable Canadian National Railways to enter competitively the field of highway and bus transportation. I think that what I said in the discussion of the resolution should perhaps have set aside any doubts as to the intention of the government on that score in presenting this legislation, but on rereading one or two sections of the bill I think it may be found that they might lend themselves to an interpretation that there was the intention on the part of the government to
Canadian National Railways give very broad powers to Canadian National Railways with regard to highway transportation when such is not the case.
During the discussion of the resolution I said, in explaining this particular power in the bill, that the railways in the past had been under the disability that at times, when consideration has been given to the abandonment of a short line, the railway has been in the rather peculiar position before the board of transport commissioners of being unable to offer, on behalf of the railway company itself, to undertake to provide motor service in lieu of a passenger train. They have had to produce the undertaking of some subsidiary to provide that service. They have no power to operate motor vehicles, so that they are unable to give a formal undertaking that they will establish a motor service as an alternative to the train service that they propose to abandon.
As I said then, Mr. Speaker, it is not intended there should be any change of policy with regard to the powers of the railway so far as highway transportation is concerned. However, it does seem that section 18 of the bill might lend itself to the interpretation that all of the companies enumerated in the first schedule of the bill were declared works for the general advantage of Canada. I think it will be necessary to make amendments to the bill when it is in committee in order to avoid giving to the railways broader powers than we have in mind.
From an examination of the list of companies appearing in the first schedule to the bill, particularly part III, where there are a large number of companies mentioned, it will be seen that it is clearly an error in drafting that has led to the impression that it was the intention of the government to declare as works for the general advantage of Canada, for example, the operation of a company called Canadian National Railways (France) or Central Vermont Transit Corporation.
I think if that list is examined carefully it will be found that perhaps the reason for the present disquiet with regard to this policy in highway operations arises from the fact that Canadian National Transportation, Limited, is included in these companies in part III. It is my intention, therefore, to avoid any doubt, to move that the act be amended so as to exclude, as works for the general advantage of Canada, the operations of the companies mentioned in part III of the schedule to which I have referred.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National Railways, through its company, Canadian National Transportation, Limited, has very comprehensive highway powers; but it is not intended
4022	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways to give such comprehensive powers to the Canadian National Railways. As will be found by reference to the bill, it is intended only that the parent company shall have powers in conjunction with or substitution for a rail service. This is designed primarily in order to regularize the pickup and delivery services in the metropolitan centres, and to give the company corporate powers to enable it to provide trucking or bus services in cases in which rail line abandonment would not be permitted by the board of transport commissioners unless a formal undertaking with regard to road transport were submitted.
As I said earlier the primary purpose of the bill is to consolidate a large number of enactments relating to the Canadian National Railways. I have no doubt that for that reason the bill will commend itself to the house, and I think it will be found that the other changes are in the interests of the Canadian National Railways.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the minister has referred to a section which has already caused apprehension on the part of truckers as well as others; and what he has just said has not removed the reasonable cause for that apprehension.
He has on several occasions used the word "intention"; but what we must consider is what the effect of the legislation is, as we examine the bill before us. It is not sufficient to say that the government intends to do certain things; what we must examine is what powers we are placing in the hands of this agency of the government by the measure before us.
The minister has merely stated that it is proposed to remove from part III of the first schedule the name of Canadian National Transportation, Limited.


George Carlyle Marler: If the Leader of the Opposition would permit me to clarify that point, the point I wished to make was that it was intended that the companies referred to in part III of the schedule would not be declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada-not that a particular company should be dropped, but that the companies in part III of the schedule would not be declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.


George Alexander Drew: Then it was with particular reference to Canadian National Transportation, Limited, that the minister spoke in making the remarks he did about withdrawing them from the application of clause 18.


George Carlyle Marler: All, in effect, are to be withdrawn.


George Alexander Drew: But clause 27 is one which confers upon the railway company the rights already referred to by the minister, when he mentions that the company may, in conjunction with, or in substitution for the rail services under their management or control, buy, sell, or lease motor vehicles of all kinds and maintain and operate motor vehicles on highways in Canada or elsewhere for the carriage of traffic, and may charge tolls therefor.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a subject that can be disposed of by a removal of the list of companies from the names of those set forth in part III of the first schedule, so that it will not have application to section 18. What section 27 clearly does is to make it possible for the railway companies to organize, in conjunction with or in substitution for rail services, services by motor vehicles.
That may be desirable. There are many cases where I feel sure that there would be agreement that, in substitution for a short line over a difficult route, it might be highly desirable and convenient to provide such service. It may be debatable, it may be arguable, that it is desirable that the railway company should have power to engage in long-range trucking and in long-range passenger service by motor vehicles, or in other activities of that kind.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the bill as it is now drafted places no limitation upon the powers of the railway company to enter into that field. That brings us back to certain matters that were before the house last year. It will be recalled that, after long years of litigation, there was a case from New Brunswick which was carried to the Supreme Court of Canada and from the Supreme Court of Canada to the privy council. That case is reported in the Law Reports (1954) Appeal Cases, page 541, and is the case of Attorney General for Ontario and others, appellants, and Israel Winner (doing business under the name and style of Mackenzie Coach Lines) and others, respondents.
In that case the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was reversed. It was declared that interprovincial transportation fell within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Then, having obtained this result, for which very large sums of public money had been spent during litigation that extended over some considerable time, the government completely changed its attitude. Having obtained the judgment it sought, it then proposed to do the very opposite. And we find reported at page 4196 of Hansard for April 28, 1954, the brief statement of the then minister of transport in regard to a conference which

had just taken place at that time. This brief statement by the minister of transport at that time sets forth exactly the position that was taken by this government after it had obtained a judgment of the privy council, which places the full authority over intraprovincial traffic of this kind which they had sought for some time. These are the words of the then minister of transport:
The federal-provincial conference on highway transportation convened in Ottawa on Monday of this week and completed its business this morning. I think it is safe to say that the conference was a successful one.
In view of the position of the federal government that it was reluctant to enter the field of extra-provincial highway transportation, it suggested to the provinces that they control and regulate such extra-provincial undertakings in the same manner as that in which they were controlling intra-provincial movements. The provinces seemed to be willing to accept this suggestion. Thereafter there was drafted a bill which was submitted to the conference for its approval. Dependent upon the reaction of the various provincial governments to this draft bill, the federal government will be willing to give consideration to enacting at this session of parliament legislation which would make the proposed bill valid.
That bill was introduced during the session. It was assented to on June 26, 1954. It was known as the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. I must confess that there seems to be a form of special simplicity that is an inherited quality of ministers of transport. The minister of transport said last year:
The provinces seemed to be willing to accept this suggestion.
Why would they not? They had been fighting this case through the courts for years. They had carried it to the privy council; they had lost. Then, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had succeeded in obtaining a judgment from the privy council, which he regards so lightly, he then came back here and, having reported the case to his colleague, the minister of transport, the minister of transport decided that they did not want what the decision gave them, and so they offered to hand this control back to the provinces, and the provinces seemed to be willing to accept this suggestion, according to the minister of transport. But there was a joker, as there is so often, in the measure put forward and enacted as the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which purported to place under the provincial authorities the issuing of licences and the control generally. We find under section 3, the governing section in regard to the operation of transport, the following:
(3) (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.
Canadian National Railways
(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.
Then we find in section 5 this important provision.
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.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not pointing out here for the first time what the effect of that was, because this is what I said when this measure was before the house last year. I am referring to page 5940 of Hansard of June 14 of last year:
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.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when I made that observation I was urging that the bill go before the standing committee. That was not done. I moved at that time that the second reading should not be proceeded with but that the bill should be referred to the standing committee. There was another reason why that should not have been dealt with at that time, and there is a reason why this bill should not be dealt with now. In April of last year there had been a conference of governments of Canada. That conference had been told that this government wanted the control of all intra-provincial as well as extra-provincial transportation to remain under the control of the provincial governments and under their licences. If that is so, then that applies to all transportation by motor vehicle. Anything else would render provisions of this kind utterly meaningless.
If any railway is to be given power to enter that field under a federal law, and that federal law is to override, as it must, if it is within the constitution, a provincial measure, then the situation would simply be that by indirection this government would once again be invading the provincial field, in spite of the

Canadian National Railways fact that it had purported to consult them in regard to a matter of this kind.
There is a very important principle at stake here. There is a principle at stake which has been discussed in this house before. This government goes through the motions of calling a conference of the provincial governments. Then it places something before them. The provincial governments go home thinking that they understand what this government intends to do, and after they go home satisfied with what was told them so reliably they find that by some indirect method this government invades the very field that they said they were not going to invade. That is exactly the proposition before us in this field.
The Minister of Transport had this to say when the motion providing for the introduction of this measure was before the house on April 26 of this year, as reported at page 3198 of Hansard:
There is no intention on the part of the government, in adding to the powers of the railway that of owning and operating motor vehicles, to make any sinister change of policy. We merely intend to make a change which will enable the railways, in effect, to do through the parent company what they have been doing already through subsidiary companies.
Then there was certain discussion, and an interjection in the debate, and the present minister went on as follows:
I do not think it would be an infringement, Mr. Chairman. I believe it is competent for parliament to empower a federal corporation to operate motor vehicles. I do not believe, for instance, that merely because the power is derived from parliament the operator of the motor vehicles could claim he would not be subject to the laws of the province in the operation of those vehicles. I think my hon. friend could find many examples of dominion corporations operating motor vehicles strictly in conformity with provincial requirements.
There is the old axiom qui s'excuse, s'accuse. The very fact that the minister was so emphatic that there was no sinister purpose indicated the fact that at least the purpose could be open to question. There was perhaps ground for apprehension in the loose draftsmanship, but such change as he has indicated he proposes to make in committee certainly would do nothing to remove that apprehension as to the powers conferred by section 27.
I do not believe that it is necessary for the declaration in section 18 to be applicable to any of these operations to make section 27 fully operative. That I submit is particularly so in view of the closing words of the section. Not only does it confer upon the railway company the right to operate in conjunction with or in substitution for the rail services under their management, or control certain motor vehicle operations, it states that they may charge tolls therefor. If

they are permitted by a dominion statute to charge tolls, then surely the operation of tolls is being conferred by this dominion act. If the act relating to the railways is within the competence of the parliament of Canada, then it would override provincial legislation. If there was any question about its overriding provincial legislation, the government could always refer to section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which provides that by order in council they can negative the effect of the act anyway.
The experience of hon. members of this house has surely not been such that we have any reason to doubt that the government would use section 5 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act if it found any difficulty in permitting the Canadian National Railways to operate this service.
Let us just see where this goes. If this right is given to the Canadian National Railways, is that an indication that the government is going to do the same kind of thing it does with regard to the C.B.C. and give to the government-chosen agency rights which deny fair competition as between private enterprise and government agencies? If so, then it must confer the same right on the Canadian Pacific.


An hon. Member:: They have it.


George Alexander Drew: As a matter of fact I was going to say that they have it anyway. If this power is given to one railway, what about the Ontario Northland railway and what about the other railways right across Canada from British Columbia to Newfoundland? Every one of those can then demand, and with justice, equality of competitive position with the Canadian National Railways. You will have broken wide apart the principle enunciated last year in this house by the Minister of Transport when he told the members of the house what they had decided on at the conference of governments. You will be once again repudiating a clear understanding between this government and the provincial governments arrived at at a conference of that kind.
By the procedure being followed in this case you have another of those indirect methods of breaking an implicit understanding between governments which has been repeated over and over again in other legislation. I submit that this bill contains an important principle, a principle which relates to the undertaking upon which the Motor Vehicle Transport Act was introduced. They had their judgment giving them authority; they then purported to confer upon the provincial governments the supervision and licensing of motor vehicle transport. They

come forward now with an amendment to the general act covering the Canadian National Railways which would change the position they took at that time, which would repudiate the position they took at that time, and then they would be able to protect anything that was done under section 5 which can vitiate the whole effect of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act.
I submit that before this bill is proceeded with there should be another conference with the provincial governments. I submit that it is an honourable obligation of this government to call together the representatives of the provincial governments and discuss the effect of section 27 of the act now before us and find out whether that was what was contemplated at the time the governments met last year, and whether that would be a satisfactory arrangement.
I submit that anything short of that would be a dishonourable course in the face of the understanding which was placed before the house last year. It was no doubt made on the expectation that the provinces were to retain the licensing power, the establishment of rates and everything else; but this act specifically states that the railways shall set tolls. Presumably that in turn would come before the transport board. This is not the sort of thing that should be brought before the house in this way.
In the deliberate delay in order to justify the course they were following they brought the motor vehicle transport bill in last year in June at a time when it was not a practical possibility to follow the regular course and submit it to the standing committee. The bill went through the house over our objections as to the procedure being followed. We now have a new device. I do not know whether the government has decided that it was wrong in abandoning the rights it had obtained under the judgment of the privy council; we do not know the whole story, for the whole story has not been told this house.
But whether we have the whole story or not, I submit that, in view of the fact that this government on its own initiative consulted the provincial governments last year, this measure should not proceed until they again consult the provincial governments in regard to the effect of this section. I say that because this section goes far beyond any mere consolidation of the act which we have under consideration. As a matter of fact I question very much if this should have been brought in in this way, because it is a provision far from a mere consolidation of existing statutes. It introduces a completely new principle in regard to the operation of the railways.
Canadian National Railways
I do not wish to be misinterpreted in regard to this. In what I am saying at this time I am not presenting arguments as to the desirability of this right being conferred upon the railways or otherwise. I think every hon. member here wants to see the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway and every other railway in this country in a position to give the most efficient, the most economical and the most progressive type of service to the people that it possibly can. Within our constitutional authority and within our honourable obligations to the provinces, where an undertaking explicit or implied has been given, then I think that the hon. members of this house will be found ready and willing to confer such rights as will improve the opportunities of the railways to perform the kind of services they do on behalf of the people of Canada.
We must remember of course that trucking and bus services are also a large part of the transportation system of Canada, just as are the air and boat services. The point that I am making is that this privy council decision in regard to the operation of motor vehicles was given in accordance with the government's wish and following the argument of the Canadian government, and they then turned around and purported to hand back to the provinces the very rights they had gained by the privy council judgment, subject to the joker clause in section 5. But the fact remains that the intention was clear, as stated by the minister of transport last year in the statement that I have read to this house, which was made here on April 28, 1954.
I am not going to move an amendment at this point because I hope that the Minister of Transport, confronted with the statement made by the minister who was minister of transport last year, on April 28, will recognize that there certainly would be a failure to carry out a reasonable understanding with the provinces when they proceeded to force through this house by the government majority a section which would challenge the very clear understanding that the provinces had when they met this government last year.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with the voice that I have today, I shall not be imposing on this house for very long. That is almost an invitation for some of my friends in the house to express pleasure that I have a bad cold, but I notice that their kindness and courtesy keep them from doing that.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not comment at any length on the phase of the matter which has been opened up by the Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me that if the government

Canadian National Railways is in any difficulty over this matter, it arises not from the section of the bill that is now before the house but rather from the course that was followed last year when the government sought to get out from under an obligation imposed on it as a result of a court decision. We shall be glad to study all the various angles of this matter, but we shall bear in mind in particular the fact that the chief competitor of the Canadian National Railways is in some instances in the truck and bus business. We do not feel that obstacles should be put in the way of the Canadian National Railways having the same opportunity which is now enjoyed by the Canadian Pacific Railway.
There are just one or two other things on which I wish to make a comment. First of all, I confess to an interest in the legal and constitutional aspects of legislation of this kind. 1 suppose that, as I am a novice in this field, my interest is sharper than might otherwise be the case. I notice in particular the long list of ancient enactments which are to be repealed in whole or in part by the bill the minister is now presenting to parliament. I was interested particularly in the fact that one of these enactments which is to be repealed in part is a statute which was passed before July 1, 1867. It always intrigues me how we can amend legislation which the parliament of Canada did not even enact, even as it intrigues me that we now find it possible in the parliament of Canada to amend the British North America Act even though it was passed in another jurisdiction. Perhaps the very mention of that right gives the answer as to how pre-confederation statutes can be amended. I suppose that in the long run it is the crown which is doing the enacting and if the crown's advisers or parliaments change from time to time it is still possible to do this sort of thing.
One of the pieces of legislation being repealed by this bill is section 3 of chapter 37 of the statutes of 1852, which was entitled "an act to incorporate the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada". I have in my hand a copy of the statutes of the province of Canada passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and in the first session of the fourth parliament of Canada. It is an ancient and musty volume. As a printer I enjoy looking it over and realizing that it was all set by hand. A very good job was done by my fellow tradesmen of that day, considering the difficulties of setting type by hand. However, there is this interesting section of this ancient statute, a

statute passed before Canada came into being in 1867, which we are now repealing. It reads as follows:
III. And be it enacted, that the gauge of the said railway shall be five feet six inches: and the fare or charge for each first class passenger by any train on the said railway, shall not exceed two pence currency for each mile travelled, the fare or charge for each second class passenger by any train on the said railway shall not exceed one penny and one half penny currency for each mile travelled and the fare or charge for each third class passenger by any train on the said railway, shall not exceed one penny currency for each mile travelled; and that at least one train having in it third class carriages shall run every day throughout the length of the line.
This particular railway, according to the preamble or clause 1-they are one and the same in this statute-was to run from the city of Toronto to the city of Kingston and thence to the city of Montreal. Obviously, it is time that a section, if it is still the law of the land, that prescribes a gauge of five feet six inches for the railway running from Toronto to Montreal, were repealed. I ask what has happened through the intervening years. Has the railway running on that line been breaking the law, because it has been running on a gauge less than five feet six inches in width? If the government feels it is now necessary to repeal this archaic section, are not some of the other sections in the same statute equally archaic? For an obvious reason I am not going to take the time of the house to read some of the other archaic sections, but I suggest that there are a number that are quite out of date. If it is now found necessary-and I confess it intrigues and puzzles me as to why it should be necessary-to meddle with legislation that was passed before there was a dominion of Canada as we now know it, what about some other statutes that were passed at that same time? There was the Cobourg and Peterborough railway; there was the Toronto and Guelph railway; there was the Galt and Guelph railway; there was the Grand Junction railway; there was the Hamilton and Toronto railway. These are all in this same volume of statutes of 1852. Incidentally, I find that in all of these statutes that I have checked, the provision for a gauge of five feet six inches is spelled out. That is not now the gauge, so far as any of these railways are concerned. Yet those sections in these other acts are not being repealed. The Fort Erie and Goderich line and the Montreal-New York Railway system are also mentioned. The next one I notice is the Quebec Temperance hall association-but that is not a railway. I would ask the minister if he could explain why it was found necessary

to pick out for repeal that one section of the many statutes in respect to railways passed by the old province of Canada; yet apparently it was not found necessary to deal with any other sections of the many statutes in respect to railways passed prior to July 1, 1867.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, it is not my intention to speak at any length. There is really just one other matter to which I shall refer, and I shall do it in a very brief manner simply by reading to the house a letter which came to me shortly after our debate on the resolution preceding this bill. I may say that, if the house wishes to have the signature to this letter placed on the record, I have the authority of the writer of the letter to indicate who sent it to me. I note Mr. Speaker, that you wish me to give the name, and I shall do so. The letter reads as follows:
79 Dunraven Avenue. Winnipeg 8, Man.,
April 28/55.
Dear Sir:-
This letter was addressed to me.
-At this time, when there is so much discussion in the commons about the C.N. Railways, I thought you should know what happened to my husband.
He was laid off effective November 17/54. Hast week he received a 'phone call asking if he was available for work with the railway. He was working at the time at a low rate of pay and so *decided to go back to the railway to better ourselves financially and also because of six years' time spent in the railway service.
On April 23rd he was told to report to Transcona shops on Monday, April 25th. He quit the job he had, returned to the railway and at 3 o'clock the same day, Monday, April 25th, he was given a letter stating he would be through on April 29th due to a "reduction in staff". Eight men were hired and three were let out. Incidentally, I never heard of Donald Gordon taking a cut in salary to help their so-called economy drive.
Yours truly,
(Mrs.) J. B. Johnstone.
Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I do not think I need to make a speech on employment matters so far as the C.N.R. is concerned. That letter speaks volumes. It is a common practice in these days, in speaking of a certain "ism" with which we are having to struggle in the world, to refer to it as being Godless. I ask you, what is more Godless than treating men like that?


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this measure. I was much interested in hearing what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) had to say with regard to this particular bill which is before the house. A slight reference was made to it by the Conservative party when the resolution was
Canadian National Railways before the house. I was pleased indeed when I heard the Leader of the Opposition speak in much stronger terms. I was not at all surprised, though, to note the stand which was taken by the C.C.F. party when they said they were in favour of Bill No. 351 as it stands, because that would only be extending the power which the C.N.R. seeks so as to equal that which other railways enjoy. The thought came to my mind that maybe it is wrong to have the C.P.R. enjoy such privileges and that two wrongs would certainly not make a right.
Before I go too far with what I intended to say, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer more particularly to what was said the other night. When the resolution was before the house, I was much concerned about this bill particularly when I saw reference made to motor transport. I guess I must be a little bit suspicious when it comes to that subject, because I have been dealing with it ever since 1937 when the agreed charges legislation started in this house and in 1938 when that legislation was passed. The other day when this resolution was before the house I went to some lengths to elicit some information from the minister in charge of it. Briefly I just want to review that discussion in order to show the point that I am going to raise. In the debate on April 26 of this year, as reported at page 3195 of Hansard a reference was made to this matter by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who had this to say:
The second question has to do with the sentence which says that the C.N.R. is to be given power to operate motor vehicles. I understood from the minister last night that the company is already operating motor vehicles through a subsidiary company, but will he give a further explanation as to whether there is to be any change in the C.N.R. policy of operating motor vehicles?
That was all that he said on that occasion about it. I know he was concerned about it because those remarks show some concern. Then the Leader of the Opposition today went considerably further in expressing the importance of this proposed bill and his alarm over it. It seems, Mr. Speaker, that on the part of this government there is a tendency- whether or not it is intentional, I am not in a position to say, although I think probably it is intentional-of always trying to centralize power in Ottawa and of attempting to infringe upon the rights of the provinces. I shall exemplify that point a little bit further. I want to say at once that I do not believe that is the minister's purpose. When we were in committee discussing railway matters and agreed charges, Mr. Donald Gordon, who is president of the C.N.R., did not make any

Canadian National Railways bones at all about his position with regard to motor transport. He made it quite clear that they were out to do everything they could to get rid of their competitors as far as transport problems are concerned. There was no secret about that. Hence when I saw in this bill the provision for motor transport, I was alarmed, and rightly so, because we in western Canada know what it means whenever the railways propose an increase in freight rates, supposedly, as they say, because of truck competition. It is we, the ones who are in the non-competitive areas, who get soaked by the increase. Therefore we must be ever alert to that invasion of our rights. When this question was before the house I put this question briefly to the minister. As reported at page 3196 of Hansard I said this:
I wish to draw the minister's attention to the portion pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles. The minister will recall that when we were discussing Canadian National Railways in the special committee some time ago the president, Mr. Donald Gordon, made extensive reference to the operation of motor vehicles b.v the C.N.R. That is particularly important to me, because I wonder what significance this provision has with regard to the expansion of the services already in operation by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R.
The C.N.R. and the C.P.R. operate motor vehicles now, and I am wondering whether, if the C.N.R. gets permission through parliament to operate motor vehicles, the railway may be in a position of being able to override the provisions of any province regarding the issuance of licences for motor vehicles. I should like the minister to clear up this matter for me when he replies. As the situation stands today, if the railways want to operate motor vehicles in the city of Calgary, for example, they have to get a licence from the provincial government, and they must show need-
I want to emphasize that point. Under present conditions they must show need.
-before any more licences are issued so the industry will not be overcrowded, and in order to satisfy other precautions laid down by the province.
It was pointed out to us by Mr. Gordon, president of the C.N.R., that the railways were now using the operation of motor vehicles to extend, as he put it, competition with the trucking industry of Canada.
I made one slight further reference which I think I should put on the record. As reported on the next page I said this:
I am very much concerned about this matter, and I ask the minister to comment at some length on the statements I have made, particularly pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles by railway companies and the use of agreed charges.
I may say that I am not so greatly concerned at this moment about the matter of agreed charges, but I am definitely concerned about the invasion by the federal government of further provincial rights.
When the minister was speaking, I think he gave a forthright statement; and I think I so expressed myself when I was speaking on
[Mr. Johnston (Bow River) .1
that occasion. But I think the minister probably was deceived because when he, as he indicated this afternoon, took a second look at this bill, he found that it should have a few changes in order to make certain that some of the extensive powers which were being passed on to the Canadian National Railways were not carried out, in fact. But make no mistake about it, I do not think that Donald Gordon was deceived by it; not for a moment. Nor do I think that the solicitors who assisted in drawing up this legislation were deceived by it because they are too clever men to be deceived in that regard. I am not implying for a moment that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) is not just as clever, but, with all the duties he has, I can quite understand how his advisers even, or certainly Donald Gordon along with his advisers, could have slipped this over on him. That is very clearly brought out when the minister indicates that he has taken a second look at it and now proposes to bring in some amendments. Of course we do not know what they are, and as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out a while ago we must take only what is before us. We have the bill before us and we have all looked at it very carefully. We look upon it with some alarm. At page 3198 of Hansard of April 26 the minister answered me in this way:
At all events I should like to assure the members of the committee, and particularly the hon. member for Bow River, that there is no intention on the part of the government, in adding to the powers of the railway that of owning and operating motor vehicles, to make any sinister change of policy.
I am glad the minister said "sinister change" because that is exactly what is being done. Even though it may be unknown to the minister himself, it is a very sinister change of policy. The minister continued:
We merely intend to make a change which will enable the railways, in effect, to do through the parent company what they have been doing already through subsidiary companies.
I agree again with the Leader of the Opposition that last year when the Motor Vehicle Transport Act was passed the federal government made it very clear in the house and to the provinces that they did not want to interfere in any way with provincial rights as far as trucking is concerned and that even though they had the right to govern interprovincial trucking business they wanted to pass that right on to the provinces so there would be no confusion. Yet despite that assurance and despite the legislation that was passed they now come with a bill

which usurps every attempt to control trucking by the provincial governments. The minister went on to say:
There is no suggestion either that in granting this power the railway shall be free from the necessity of complying with the requirements of provincial governments so far as provincial laws apply to the operation of motor vehicles owned by the company.
I say again that I believe the Minister of Transport really believed that, but as he looks over the bill now I think he finds that he was in error in believing it. My reason for saying that is that the minister, having had a second look, has now said that he will have to bring in some amendments so that this power cannot be passed on to the railways. Of course, we do not know what the amendments are but we will find out. Then I went on to say:
May I ask the minister this question? Would that not be infringing on provincial rights? Could we legally put something like that in federal legislation, which would be a violation of provincial rights?
This happens to be the section that the Leader of the Opposition quoted but I think I should put it on the record again for the sake of continuity. The minister said:
I do not think it would be an infringement, Mr. Chairman. I believe it is competent for parliament to empower a federal corporation to operate motor vehicles. I do not believe, for instance, that merely because the power is derived from parliament the operator of the motor vehicles could claim he would not be subject to the laws of the province in the operation of those motor vehicles.
May I point out to the minister that if the bill is passed in its present form that is exactly what the railway companies would be able to do. They would have overriding rights over any provincial legislation. The minister continued: .
I think my hon. friend could find many examples of dominion corporations operating motor vehicles strictly in conformity with provincial requirements.
I am pointing this out, Mr. Speaker, because I want the house to understand thoroughly the position which I took on that occasion. I was fearful of this very thing and I tried to indicate it to the minister so that he would be on the alert for anything of this nature. I am not going to say it was because I spoke on that occasion that the minister took a second look at the legislation, but nevertheless he did so and as a result he has now indicated he intends to bring in certain amendments. On that occasion I had this to say:
May I ask the minister this? Suppose the province decided that it was not necessary to have another trucking concern within the province or within the city where the company was making its application. Suppose the province said they would refuse to grant a licence on the ground that the operation was not necessary. Would they be
Canadian National Railways
able to do that if we granted the company parliamentary authority to carry on this type of operation?
The minister answered:
There are some constitutional aspects of that question which I would hesitate to try to dispose of summarily. I suppose the question would come up as to whether it was an integral part of the railway operation. All I can say to my hon. friend, and I hope he will be satisfied with it, is that there is no intention in the legislation to relieve the railways of the necessity of complying with the requirements of the province in the operation of these motor vehicles.
There again I think the minister intimated very clearly that, so far as he was concerned, he did not think that power was in the bill but, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I think it is there.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. gentleman consider this a good point for him to break his speech?


Charles Edward Johnston: 
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when we called it six o'clock I was speaking in the debate on second reading of Bill 351, and I had pointed out that there were things which had crept into the writing of the bill which, in my opinion, were not then known to the Minister of Transport, and that when he gave his statement to the house the other day saying, in effect, that it was not the intention of the government to extend the powers of the railways over truck transport any more than it then possessed, he made that statement in all sincerity. I believe he did, but that he had one put over on him when those who framed the legislation drew it up. I think the minister would almost agree with my statement in that particular.
I should like now to go a little further with what I was saying before six o'clock, when I was pointing out the minister had indicated that there are one or two places in the proposed bill where he intends to have some changes made. He did indicate that where part III of the first schedule refers to the Canadian National Transportation, Limited-


George Carlyle Marler: And the other companies in part III.


Charles Edward Johnston: And the others, too. He did indicate that he is going to have

Canadian National Railways it changed so that it will make sure that there is not any misunderstanding with regard to the powers being allotted to the railway companies.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes.


Charles Edward Johnston: And, as the minister says, to any other companies to which that may apply.


George Carlyle Marler: To which part III applies.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, to which part III applies. Well, that is a very broad statement, because I do not know to just what other parts part III of the first schedule applies. So again I must take what is in the bill.
I am afraid however that there are other parts of the first schedule that would appear somewhat suspicious-that is, parts other than the one to which the minister referred. For instance, there are several references in the first schedule to the Canadian National Express Company. Now, the Canadian National Express Company operates trucks. To what extent they could go ahead and operate trucks to accomplish the same purpose, I do not know.
Then, reference is made to the Canadian National Transfer Company.
Clause 27 in the bill gives the railways extreme powers, when it authorizes them to operate motor vehicles of all kinds and to lease them. It gives power to-
-maintain and operate motor vehicles on highways in Canada or elsewhere for the carriage of traffic and may charge tolls therefor.
Unless that section were done away with, too, it seems to me that, regardless of whether the minister changes something in the first schedule, the railways would still have the power to enter a province and start a trucking business. As I said the other day, they could operate a truck line between Calgary and Edmonton, regardless of the protests of the province-and this, even though the schedule was changed.
Clause 27 is indeed a most dangerous one for the provinces, because the railways could go in and override any provincial legislation contemplated by the provinces, or legislation then in existence.
Then, too, there is contemplated in clause 18 of the bill a most dangerous provision. I would draw the minister's attention to the very first line of that clause where it says: "The railway or other transportation works". In that section, regardless of whether or not the minister removes some of the items in the first schedule, that line in clause 18 which refers to "the railway or other transportation works" could include, in my judgment, any
TMr. Johnston (Bow River).]

type of truck transport the railways might want to operate. And unless it was indicated specifically that "the railway or other transportation works" excluded those referred to in clause 27, then the railways would be able to operate in any way they saw fit. But if it was indicated in clause 18 that the "transportation works" excluded those referred to in clause 27, the section so amended might have some bearing on that matter. Then in the second part of clause 18 it refers to "the works of every company that is comprised in Canadian National Railways". There, too, is a tremendous leeway for the company.
So again I draw to the minister's attention the fact that, even though he were to remove part of the first schedule-which he says he is going to do-I do not think this action alone would be sufficient, because there are other places in the proposed bill that would give the railways the right to carry on operations as fully as they intend to. Because certainly the term "Canadian National Railways" is used on many occasions, and it seems to me that term is broad enough to allow the railways to operate trucks in any manner they see fit.
I say again that I do not think for one moment this was an oversight by the railway company, because they are too shrewd, by far, to allow a thing like this to escape their attention, particularly when on almost every occasion they have made particular efforts to squeeze the trucking business out of existence-not merely to put it on a fair, reasonable and competitive basis, not at all, but to squeeze it right out of existence so that they can monopolize the whole transportation system.
Oh, if we wanted to go into agreed charges -that, too, is another matter. But, mind you, they would hardly need agreed charges if this bill went through as now framed. They would have no competition from the trucks. Mr. Gordon said in committee, in effect, he was not going to give trucks any advantage. He could get rid of them. And, make no mistake about it, that is what they have in mind.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: May I ask the hon. member a question. Does clause 25 say that all trucking shall belong to the railways, or is other trucking expelled?


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, that just draws my attention to another expression I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. Clause 25, to which the hon. member for Fort William has referred, says in the very first line:
The national company-

That is, the national company-
-may carry on all business that is customarily carried on by express companies, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the handling of express money orders or other methods of transmitting or handling money, securities, or other articles of value.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I know I am referring to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not refer to it again.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, but can we not get away from a discussion of the clauses? I know it is tempting, for the purpose of making an argument, to put certain clauses on record, particularly when most of one's speech deals with one clause or another. But at this stage I think we ought to get away from a discussion of the clauses. That is what the rule says.


Charles Edward Johnston: Your Honour will realize that I referred to the clause because the hon. member for Fort William had made specific reference to it. And that is another point to which I would draw the minister's attention. There is an important background in this of which I think we should take cognizance. The reason I am so concerned is that the bill proposes to insert the words-and the Minister of Transport has already made reference to this, so I suggest I am not out of order in repeating these words-
The works of every company that is comprised in Canadian National Railways but is not incorporated by or under the laws of Canada are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
That appears in two places in the clause- "for the general advantage of Canada"-and indicates the damage which could result from any bill using those words, particularly this bill.
To give some idea of the importance of that clause in the bill I wish to refer to another article from a prominent individual in Canada who is now dead. I draw to your attention again, sir, that those who put that expression in the bill knew without doubt what they were doing. I refer to the particular words that I mentioned a moment ago "for the general advantage of Canada." To give you some idea of the tremendous importance of this section, I want to quote from an outstanding authority on legal matters, the former chief justice of Canada, the late Right Hon. Sir Lyman Poore Duff, when he commented in the course of replying to certain questions referred to the Supreme Court of Canada by the governor general in council in October, 1929, as follows:
The authority created by section 92 (10) (c) is of a most unusual nature. It is an authority given
Canadian National Railways
to the dominion parliament to clothe itself with jurisdiction-exclusive jurisdiction-in respect of subjects over which, in the absence of such action by parliament, exclusive control is, and would remain vested in the provinces. Parliament is empowered to withdraw from that control matters coming within such subjects, and to assume jurisdiction itself. It wields an authority which enables it, in effect, to rearrange the distribution of legislative powers effected directly by the act, and, in some views of the enactment, to bring about changes of the most radical import, in that distribution:-
This is one example in the bill. I continue: -and the basis and condition of its action must be the decision by parliament that the "work or undertaking" or class of works or undertakings affected by that action is "for the general advantage of Canada", or of two or more of the provinces: which decision must be evidenced and authenticated by a solemn declaration, in that sense, by parliament itself.
That has reference to the British North America Act, Mr. Speaker. When the framers of this legislation put the section under discussion in the bill they knew that when this transport bill was given this wide power and Canadian National Transportation, Limited, was included in that, along with similar expressions, they were taking away from the provinces every vestige of control over trucking within their boundaries.
The British North America Act has this to say about the expression "for the general advantage of Canada". Section 92 of the British North America Act reads:
Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures.
92. In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-
Subsection 10 (c) enumerates them and reads:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
By placing these words in the bill, the railways are permitted to enter any province, even though that province has enjoyed the exclusive rights over transportation and trucking for 100 years, and usurp the whole powers of the province.


Mr. Dufresne:: They always have since confederation.


Charles Edward Johnston: Even though they have exercised such powers, there is no reason why we should delegate that by statute, and it would be a very bad mistake, Mr. Speaker, to do it.
The late Sir Lyman Duff recognized the importance of that section in the British North America Act, and he pointed out that wherever the federal legislation has drawn

Canadian National Railways on it and has used that expression, it has been used for the express purpose of taking absolute control of those subjects over which provincial governments have always exercised their jurisdiction. We must be very careful in this house that we do not exercise any more powers of centralization than we already have.
I suggest to the minister that when he brings in his amendments to the bill, which he says he intends to do, he should not overlook changing clause 18 and clause 27 and all those other parts of the bill which refer to motor transportation. I hope he will see that these clauses are withdrawn from the bill and that there are no further infringements upon provincial rights.
There is just one more word that I should like to say in regard to this matter. When the bill is referred to the committee, I hope the minister will make the order of reference sufficiently wide so that all parties concerned in this matter, the trucking organizations, the railways and others, will have the right to come before the committee and state their case and have this legislation drawn up in the interests of all of Canada.


Mr, W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I shall trespass on the time of the house for only a moment. There are one or two provisions of this bill which I must take exception to. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) objected to this legislation on the ground that the trucking provision was a violation, or an invasion, of provincial rights. Frankly, I cannot get too excited about that aspect of the act, although I am sure my colleagues, the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Poulin) and the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon), will comment on it. I oppose this bill for another reason.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the main purpose of the Canadian National Railways should be to run a railway. It seems to me also, that the main purpose of the executive and the officials of that company, should be to concentrate all of their efforts on running that railway, in a successful way.
Any hon. member who looks at the C.N.R. balance sheet, even in a superficial way, knows that so far the present management has not been able to make a financial success of our government-owned railway. Three years ago Mr. Donald Gordon and the government came to this parliament, and asked for a reorganization of the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways. The net effect of that reorganization was to wipe out more than $1 billion and substitute therefor
(Mr. Johnston (Bow River).]
non-interest bearing stocks. The government told us at that time that, if the reorganization was proceeded with, future balance sheets of the Canadian National Railways should be a good deal better; the profit and loss statement should improve. To a degree perhaps it has, but the over-all picture is still pretty bad as far as the Canadian taxpayer is concerned. But this year once again the Canadian National Railways have shown a huge deficit of $28-7 million.
All Canadians realize the role which the Canadian National Railways have played and are playing in the opening up and in the developing of the Dominion of Canada. Most of our citizens are willing to finance capital expenditures for the Canadian National Railways when they are used for that purpose- namely the opening up of the Dominion of Canada. But in my opinion they are neither willing nor anxious to pay taxes to permit the Canadian National Railways to embark on a lot of side enterprises apart from railroading merely to duplicate or compete with existing facilities. Such a trend is becoming more prevalent every year within the Canadian National Railways.
Last year, despite the fact that the railroad was operating at a substantial loss, the government came to us and demanded the fantastic sum of $20 million to build a luxury hotel in the city of Montreal. They asked for that huge sum, despite the fact that there were already dozens of other hotels in Montreal, and despite the fact that the existing Canadian National hotels, for the most part, had over a period of years not been profitable.
The bill that is before us tonight permits the Canadian National Railways to go into a good many business enterprises other than railroads. For instance, one clause of this bill permits the company to construct or acquire telecommunication facilities in Canada or elsewhere in the world. I ask hon. members to note the word "elsewhere". What is the government policy in regard to telecommunications? What new investment is proposed? What extension is planned elsewhere in the world? Precisely how will this extension help the Canadian taxpayer? I think the minister should answer those questions.
This afternoon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) assured parliament that, as far as trucking was concerned, this bill proposed no great change in government policy. I think he made that statement to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew). I hope the minister will pardon me if I say that it is a little difficult for hon. members to accept his words at face value. Because what is

the minister saying? He is saying in effect: "We want these new powers which will permit the C.N.R. to go into trucking, but we are not going to use them". Why ask for powers which will not be used? I just do not see the logic of such a position.
As I read clause 27, the C.N.R. would be given wide and comprehensive powers which would permit them if they so desired to go into both the trucking and bus businesses. Such a development would inevitably mean a substantial investment by the taxpayers of Canada. Surely, before this bill passes, the minister should tell parliament what investment the C.N.R. proposes to make in trucking, and precisely why this step is necessary.
I cannot convince myself that the C.N.R. should go into the trucking business at this time. I think such a step would be undesirable; I think it would be unfortunate; and I think it would be contrary to sound business principles. What is more important, I do not think it would be in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer.
Clause 29 of the bill is even more revealing.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member probably heard me ask the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) not to refer to particular clauses. Reference to particular clauses of a bill is usually made in committee and not during the debate on the second reading. Would the hon. member be kind enough not to refer to particular clauses.


Mr. Thatcher:: This is a bill to permit the C.N.R. to go into the trucking and bus business. But in addition it may go into such businesses as wharves, docks, dockyards, slips, elevators, offices, warehouses and other buildings. Just where is this going to end? If the C.N.R. were going to finance all these side enterprises out of profits I probably would not have much objection, but such is not the case. Today the C.N.R. has invested substantial sums of money in sidelines other than the railways, and it is taking the money for such unnecessary expansions directly from the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer. Before hon. members agree to the passage of this bill they should realize that every single Canadian is going to have to dig down into his pockets to help finance the expansions which Mr. Gordon and the government are planning.
It seems to me that Mr. Gordon and the C.N.R. officials first of all should make a financial success of running their railroad. Then when they have done that, if they so desire they can come to parliament to ask for additional money to run these sidelines.
I was disappointed this afternoon when neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the
Canadian National Railways hon. member for Bow River moved an amendment to this bill. It seems to me that the matter is too important to rush through, so I am going to move an amendment. I may have trouble finding five hon. members to stand up, but I shall worry about that when the time comes. I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon):
That Bill No. 351 be not now read a second time, but that it be read this day six months.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition expressed the belief that a conference should be called with the provinces before this matter was settled. If he believes that, and I am sure he does, I hope that he will find it possible to support this amendment, which would make it possible for his wishes to be carried out.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 351 now before the house, and entitled "an act respecting Canadian National Railways", cannot be of small concern to those who uphold and favour private enterprise in Canada. Nor can it fail to retain the attention of true Canadians, particularly the staunch defenders of provincial autonomy, as guaranteed by the British North America Act.
We note that the main purpose of the bill is to enable the Canadian railways to operate a highway transport system in any of the Canadian provinces and even from one province to another.
According to the bill, the Canadian National would be entitled to operate a trucking business for the transport of goods as well as a bus service for the transport of passengers.
Mr. Speaker, more and more the government is launching out into a dangerous socialist policy conducive to nationalization of the transport system, whether by rail or motor vehicle.
Little by little a nefarious centralization policy is being developed, which, on the one hand, will gradually destroy private enterprise and, on the other hand, deprive provincial authorities of powers which belong to them de jure and; de facto.
To allow the Canadian National to operate such a transportation system would be a serious breach of the principles recognized since confederation and would amount to a systematic and gradual scuttling of private enterprise.
The contents of this bill show that the government intends to practise unfair and unjust competition with regard to people who

Canadian National Railways invested considerable capital, or small savings, in transport companies for the conveyance of goods or in bus companies for the transport of passengers. Should this bill be passed, it would be a serious encroachment upon the most elementary definition of democracy, because it would also cause a slow but painful and sure death to the transport industry in Canada.
I cannot bring myself to believe that the idea behind this bill originated in the mind of the Minister of Transport, for whom I have the greatest regard. I do fear, however, that it may be the irresponsible work of some powerful bureaucrat whose influence within the Canadian National Railways and the Department of Transport overshadows the influence that should be exercised first and foremost by the minister.
It is inconceivable that such a bill should have been introduced without due regard for its disastrous consequences, not only for the existing transportation industry but also for all Canadian taxpayers. It must be remembered that the proposed new subsidiaries connected with the Canadian National Railways, and whose establishment parliament is being asked to ratify by this bill, will be set up with the money and to the prejudice of the people.
All existing private companies already give full and complete satisfaction to their customers, whether it be for the transport of passengers or freight.
Those companies, large and small, were generally established as a result of enormous sacrifices made in the best interests of the patrons as well as in that of the operators. The competition they will now have to face will be considerable and it is to be feared that most of them will eventually fold up or face bankruptcy. Private enterprise is certainly in no position to face government competition, a competition which can, at any time, drive out private competition because of the vastly larger capital at its command. It must not be forgotten that it may call upon the people's money as it wishes.
Should the Canadian National Railways one day take a fancy to remain alone in the transport business in this country and to eliminate all their competitors, they could achieve their purpose with the greatest of ease. Might, in this case, would make right.
Not being subject to the laws in force in the various provinces of this country and being subjected to no authority but that of the
[Mr. Dufresne.l
board of transport commissioners, which comes under federal jurisdiction, the Canadian National Railways can, at any time, wage a price war upon those which stand in their way. On the railways' recommendation alone the board could approve of a reduction in rates in any of the provinces of this country, with no regard for possible consequences.
Why should the Canadian National worry about profit and losses in its operations, since this is a government owned business? If, at year's end, it finds itself facing a deficit, it can always call upon the Canadian government to use its majority in this house to vote such amounts as are necessary to make good the deficit. One fact which will be forgotten then, as it so often was in the past, is that in this case, as in others, it is the Canadian taxpayer who always foots the bill.
This measure, Mr. Speaker, sets a very dangerous precedent and jeopardizes the future of private enterprise. It brings us a step closer to a reprehensible centralization, which wide-awake people are trying to check. What is worse, some sections of that bill are nothing less than a direct provocation to the provincial authorities, which, up to now, had control over the transport industry in Canada.
The section of the bill which prevents provincial authorities from exercising their jurisdiction over the operation of various Canadian National services making use of the provincial highways, which were built with moneys collected in the respective provinces, is an invitation to disorder. It is not the first time, by the way, that the Liberal government of Ottawa sets such a bad example.
Even if it were only for the reason I just mentioned, I hope that the Minister of Transport will agree to withdraw the bill now before the house, for the protection first of private enterprise in Canada and then of the poor taxpayer who cannot foresee in the future that relief so urgently needed.
Mr. Speaker, since this discussion has been mainly on two sections of the bill to which a majority of members seem opposed, I wonder if the Minister of Transport could not split up this bill into two parts? Why not bring down a bill to consolidate the existing legislation which is enacted again in this Bill 351, and then bring down a special bill on the question which concerns most members as well as the provinces and all those who hold a position in our private transport industry?

I know I shall be told, Mr. Speaker, that when drafting these sections, a section of the British North America Act, that is, section 92, subsection 10, paragraph (c), was used as basis; it reads as follows:
Such works as, although wholly situated within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
It is amusing to note, Mr. Speaker, how that charter known as the British North America Act is by-passed by the government when it suits its own purpose, and also how abusively and skilfully it is resorted to when, again, it serves the government's purpose.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Transport will not prove indifferent to the flood of correspondence he received, particularly from the chambers of commerce of Quebec province, from the federation of those organizations, and a number of other groups which are availing themselves of our road transports. I hope he will alter, if not the whole bill, at least the two sections relating to the point I just mentioned. I hope he will pay particular attention to my remarks and that, when the two sections we oppose are brought before the committee, he will not hesitate to invoke that same section of the British North America Act and strike them out of this legislation for the benefit of this country as a whole and of all of its citizens, and more particularly of private industry which otherwise would go to rack and ruin as it would have to face a centralization firmly established by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the hon. minister to give serious consideration to my remarks and to those of the hon. members who preceded me, and I am convinced that when the house is in committee, the two controversial sections, which are known to everybody though I am not allowed to quote their numbers, have been eliminated.
(Text):


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I would not have had anything to say on this bill were it not for the fact that we are now faced with a motion. As far as I am concerned, I do not intend to support the motion to give the bill the six-months hoist. In my judgment, I have always considered that particular line of action to be a rather cowardly way, if I may say so, of getting out of making a decision. Either the bill is right or it is wrong and it should be
Canadian National Railways either voted for or voted against. I do not think we accomplish anything by asking someone, six months from now, to make a decision on something on which we should make a decision now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member to revise the expression he used when he said he thought it was a cowardly way of reaching a decision. It is no doubt a reflection on the person who moved the amendment. The hon. member is usually wise and reasonable. He could perhaps modify that expression by deleting the qualification "cowardly".


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, I was not making that reference apply to any particular person. But if you consider it to be offensive, I will say that it is following the line of least resistance.


An hon. Member:: Ducking the issue.


Clarence Gillis: In other words, ducking the issue. As far as I am concerned, one of the crying needs in this country today is for a national transportation system. When you take a look at the freight rates across this country, with the development of transportation in the air carrying both passengers and cargo, the St. Lawrence seaway which will provide another means of transportation fairly well across the country and the trucking business that is being built up straight across Canada, if we are sensible I think we must realize that some time someone must have the courage to take hold of the whole transportation system across the country, bring it under one regulatory body somewhere and see if he cannot get some sanity into the whole system, with the possibility of the equalization of freight rates, whether the transportation is by air, land or water, by means of trucking or by railroads. I think that procedure is a "must" and that it will have to come. I think this bill is a step in that direction. First, it is an attempt to bring under one set of covers all of the statutes that have to do with the Canadian National Railways so that it will be a handy reference for anyone who wants to talk about railway legislation.
As far as the C.N.R. is concerned, may I say that I have served year by year on the committee that looks after their accounts. I have served on that committee fairly continuously since coming to the house. While the railway is doing many things that we do not like, nevertheless we must recognize this fact. This railway is serving many sections of this country that otherwise would

Canadian National Railways not be getting any service at all; if it is to be on a straight commercial basis, there would be no service. If you are going to measure the service of the railway and its value to the country in terms of dollars and cents, then you will tear up a great deal of the mileage of the Canadian National Railways.
When someone says that in this house a couple of years ago we wrote off a huge debt for the Canadian National Railways, may I point out that we did no such thing. We relieved the Canadian National Railways of a debt which they inherited, not one which they built up. The Canadian National Railways took over many operating railroads in this country when they were in bankruptcy or when they should have been put into bankruptcy. But instead of doing that, the C.N.R. took over those companies and also their bonds and continued to pay these bonds and the interest on them year by year, a procedure which piled up a huge deficit charged to the Canadian National Railways but which should have been written off in a bankruptcy court many years previously. Most of the members who have been here for some time and who have taken an interest in the struggles of the C.N.R. realize that the writing off of that debt was something that was proper. But do not think it was charity to the C.N.R. It was no such thing.
In the second place, unless the truckers, the airways and others are prepared to sit down and to come under one set of legislation, with someone in authority to regulate the future of transportation in the country, the situation is going to get worse and worse all the time. At least this is an attempt to get gathered together all of the legislation pertaining to that particular system so that you may have a handy reference and see exactly where the pieces of legislation fit in. If we want to measure the C.N.R. in terms of dollars and cents or profits, then we shall be obliged to discontinue a great deal of service across this country. I know that no member of this house is prepared to do that. In my judgment, the expansion in other fields is merely an attempt to get money in order to continue the service that is necessary. Unless they get that money, the C.N.R. are not going to be able to serve many of the unprofitable sections they are serving today.
I am prepared to make a decision on this bill now. There are many sideline issues that we can argue with Mr. Gordon. We do argue them with him and we shall continue to do so. However, I do not think they should be confused with this particular bill. I see nothing wrong with the bill. I think it

is a step in the right direction. I think that we are going to have to go further than this. I think we are going to have to have transport under some regulatory body in order that we may get some sanity into freight rates on transportation by sea, land and air. This is something that must come, and it is not too far away. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to support this bill now and to take a look at it in the future to see whether it is working out properly or otherwise.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the hon. member began to speak, he indulged in some petty namecalling, something which it was his privilege to do if he so desired. But I think he knows quite well that the only possible motion that I could have moved, if I wished to have this bill turned down, was the one which I did move. That was the reason I proceeded in such a manner and no other.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In what the hon. member is stating now I do not think he has a proper question of privilege. He is complaining about the qualification which the hon. member used in connection with the action he has taken.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I am finished anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may think that the expression used by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) with respect to the motion moved by him was perhaps too strong. There are others who may perhaps think that it was not strong enough. In trying to have the rules observed and decorum preserved, I usually ask the co-operation of the member who has used a strong expression or one that may be called offensive. I think the hon. member for Cape Breton South has co-operated quite gracefully. He has modified his expression. At this moment I therefore do not think the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) can complain about anything.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I feel much as does the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. I feel that this matter of hoisting the bill for a matter of six months would be most important and most essential at this time. More particularly am I of that opinion because, by that procedure being adopted, we shall find that the dominion-provincial conference will probably have sat during the intervening space of time and it might well give the premiers of the various provinces as well as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) an opportunity of discussing the importance of the issue at hand.

The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said that he is prepared to make a decision now. May I say that we all appreciate the readiness of the hon. member for Cape Breton South to make a decision now. But we all understand that he is a socialist and that as such he does not at all mind putting everything under one head in this fair dominion. Therefore I can well understand his taking that attitude. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke on this subject this afternoon he was undoubtedly thinking along the same lines and expressing support for the C.C.F. attitude that the best way to cure the ills of the country is to bring everything under one head.
In supporting the amendment that the bill be not read at this time but six months hence I do so for three particular reasons. First, I consider that it involves an infringement of provincial rights. This topic was fairly well discussed this afternoon. Second, as I understand it, the C.N.R. was formed with the knowledge that the Canadian taxpayers were taking over a pretty poor business risk. We had businesses that were bankrupt and the Canadian government stepped in for purposes best known to itself at that time. Each of us can read the history of what happened, but apparently it was considered essential to keep our northland open in an economic way. My third reason is that we are apparently going to try to put out of business now the truckers who are actually subsidizing this very railway at this time. In other words, it is being done in the same way as my C.C.F. friends do in my own riding when they get the I.W.A. to support them and the Social Credit members of that organization also have to contribute 50 cents apiece to help to put me out of office. They have no alternative because the majority rules. The same thing applies here so far as the truckers are concerned.
To deal with each of these points in its own perspective, let me refer first to the question of the infringement of provincial rights. This evening the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) mentioned that the late Chief Justice Lyman Duff had brought to our attention the necessity of exercising caution in respect of the infringement of provincial rights. I believe he did that in 1929 when dealing with a water act. Then earlier than that there was the case of Luscar Collieries Ltd. v. N. S. McDonald which is to be found in 1925 and 1927 Canada Supreme Court Reports. It was a very similar case and the justices of the day found reasons for bringing a spur line of
Canadian National Railways some 51 or 5| miles under the jurisdiction of the C.N.R. They did so not by reason of the fact that it was in the interests of Canada under section 92 (10) (c) of the British North America Act-they scrapped that idea altogether-but rather by reason of the fact that they decided it was in the interests of Canadian National Railways, the spur was an integral part of the railway and must be treated as such. Since the railway at that time was already nationally owned it was found that was sufficient reason to bring it under federal jurisdiction.
My second reason for opposing the bill is that when the C.N.R. was formed it was done with the full knowledge that the Canadian taxpayers were taking over a poor business risk. The people of Canada realized at that time that there were many bankrupt railways involved by reason of the fact that unnecessary risks were taken by venture capital to open up various regions of Canada with the hope that Canada would grow by such leaps and bounds that everybody would be wealthy who owned shares in these railways. I draw to the attention of my C.C.F. friends again that private enterprise capital is quite ready to risk money when it thinks it has an even chance of succeeding, and that was the case at that time. Unfortunately the country was not ready to be opened up as quickly as these people had hoped with the result that Canadian National Railways was formed to take over many of these bankrupt or practically bankrupt companies.
In taking over these railways we discovered they were not and could not be profitable because they were not constructed along profitable routes. There was not sufficient industry or a large enough number of people along the lines to make and keep these railways profitable. So the railway business began to go into other fields, and that is the danger I see in the bill now before us. Last year we voted an expenditure of some $20 million to enable the railway to go further into the hotel business. If we take over some of these trucking lines and still discover that Canadian National Railways will not pay, then I can envisage the minister coming back at another time and, in the national interest, taking over the restaurants along the C.N.R. routes because if we take them over they will probably make the railway pay. From that point we might possibly proceed to take over the wholesale houses because they supply the restaurants. This thing could keep on enlarging to the point where we will truly have the nation for which our C.C.F. friends have long hoped.
4038	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways As to my last point, I feel it is wrong to ask the Canadian taxpayers, in effect, to subsidize an industry that is today oversubsidized. When the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific were built we gave them certain rights such as the control of oil lease lands in the province of Alberta. That has certainly helped to a major degree in the case of the C.P.R., more particularly with respect to their control of Consolidated Mining and Smelting at Trail. I believe that well over 50 per cent of that company is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Those things helped to add to the general economy of the railway.
They were done in the past and so we have no quarrel with them because they were inherited as the railways made their way across the nation. That was a part of the agreement. I am not going to quarrel with that at this time but I do take issue with the taking over of good sound trucking businesses, as a good number of them are, because of the inability of the C.N.R. to operate as economically as it should. That would be a tremendous help to the railway and possibly it might be able to break even.
I know that Donald Gordon explained to the railway committee that there were specific reasons for the loss that the railway showed last year. One was a bookkeeping matter having to do with depreciation, the difference between user and line depreciation, as he outlined it to us. The loss might have been $5 million less by changing the form of depreciation. Another reason was one that I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be very pleased to hear. Last year, when the unemployment situation was so critical, Canadian National Railways kept some 6,000 to 7,000 men at work that the C.P.R. would never have retained.
I have not given too much thought to the matter of whether or not that was right, but offhand I do not think so. I do not think the state should keep people working for it unless there is something for them to do that needs to be done. In this instance these people were kept at work and were paid considerably more than comparable men in other industries who were dispensed with and had their jobs taken away from them.


Mr. Nicholson:: Have you any shops in
your riding?


Frederick George Hahn: Yes, there are C.N.R. shops in my riding, and I can tell you a good deal about them. This very thing is going to have a drastic effect on them. I am sure the minister will bear me out when I say that it was only a couple of weeks ago I asked 

for certain information as to why our shops are being gradually closed. I am waiting for a return, and perhaps when I receive it I shall have more to say at some later time.
But at this time, and in connection with this bill, the essential factor is that we are discussing a proper way to carry on the business of the nation. I would say the C.N.R. should not be the body that keeps people on the job, just for the sake of giving them work. We should have an economic system set up in such a way that those people would have work, not just an occupation.


Mr. Pouliot:: May I ask a question. Is the hon. member now referring to the large number of men employed by the Canadian National Railways for the shovelling of snow in the wintertime?


Frederick George Hahn: Am I complaining about it?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.


Frederick George Hahn: Well, if that is the only way the Canadian National Railways have of getting rid of their snow, then I would say they have to get rid of their snow that way, and I would certainly say they should keep the men employed.


Clarence Gillis: But that is exactly what you are complaining about.


Frederick George Hahn: If those are the people to whom Mr. Gordon was referring, people at Winnipeg and other points-


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: They were not the ones he was referring to.


Frederick George Hahn: He said at that time that they were kept unnecessarily because there was not work for them, but that he was keeping them. There were 6,000 or 7,000, as I recall it-we can get the figures-who were doing practically nothing but drawing their pay. They were on the job. Read the minutes of proceedings; it will do you good.


Clarence Gillis: He was talking about the snow shovellers.


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: No, he was
not talking about the snow shovellers. Do not mix it up.


Frederick George Hahn: I am in some doubt as to who is making this speech, Mr. Speaker, but I presume we will soon find out.


Mr. Philpoll:: Get back to the trucks.


Frederick George Hahn: I am not too concerned about the trucks just now. My contention is-and it is the contention of possibly every rightthinking businessman-that if you are going

to have a proper economic system in this nation you will have to have jobs for people to stay at work, so they will have work if and when they want it. In the meantime, to give them work in this way is not good enough. It is in the Lord Bennett fashion, where, on the prairies, it was said that when a road needed gravelling a wheelbarrow was all that would be used, rather than a bulldozer.


Jean-François Pouliot: No one would shovel snow for funny money.


Mr. Blackmore:: What do you know about funny money? Let us hear what you think funny money is.


Jean-François Pouliot: I mean your scrip, your rubber stamp.


John Horne Blackmore: No such thing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I can see that the hon. member for Temiscouata and I will have to get together and discuss the funny money situation.


Charles Edward Johnston: He would not understand it then, even.


Frederick George Hahn: Oh, I am satisfied he is capable of understanding. All he needs is a thorough explanation of it and, realizing the length of time he has been in the House of Commons, and what he has contributed to the nation during his life as a parliamentarian, possibly I will learn a good deal about parliament, at the same time.
Meantime my suggestion is that we must stop putting the Canadian National Railways into various forms of business in which private enterprise is engaged, and in which it is doing such a good job. I am satisfied practically all members would agree that, so long as the private individual finds the risk is a reasonable one, he will accept it and carry on the operation of our trucking business. And I would say further that it should be the purpose of government to go into business only at such times and in such places as private enterprise is not willing to take the risk, and the government should do so only if and where it feels that it is necessary that a particular type of business should be begun.
(Translation) :


Mr. P. E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, because the bill now before the house entails encroachments upon the rights of the
Canadian National Railways provinces, it is fitting that strong protest be voiced against those encroachments and I shall do so now although very briefly.
If the bill is passed in its present form, operations of the Canadian National bus and truck companies would come under the jurisdiction of the federal board of transport commissioners. It is an ill-chosen time to encroach upon provincial autonomy.
The Canadian National has no right to be placed in a privileged position toward its competitors. It should be subject to the same regulations and enjoy the same privileges as other similar organizations.
If there is one firm on which provincial authorities should keep an eye and whose operations should be supervised by those it serves most directly, it is the Canadian National.
As everyone knows, and I have said so many times, the province of Quebec is not getting from the Canadian National Railways the treatment to which it is entitled in all fairness. More often than not, the company's management has turned a deaf ear to our claims and requests.
As far as my particular district is concerned, the minister knows that the railway line from Montreal to Chicoutimi has long ceased to meet the needs of our population.
Twelve hours to cover 300 miles is far too long for the pleasure one gets on such trains where, most of the time, there is no dining car.
Stations along this line leave much to be desired in the way of comfort. The Canadian National Railways service in our part of the country is that of an old railway line built almost 70 years ago to serve the few villages of settlers then established in the Lake St. John district.
Today, with its grade crossings, its old station and its dilapidated buildings, it mars the city of Chicoutimi.
We have always had trouble getting some necessary improvements and our efforts were not more fruitful when we asked for the St. Felicien-Chibougamau railway.
I should hope that the Minister of Transport will soon be in a position to give us some better news on this matter. I have no intention of reverting now to this subject.
I merely wish to record my opposition to this bill because it contains clauses which encroach upon provincial rights and also because it carries us a step further along the road to the artificial paradise of the socialists and their state paternalism.

Canadian National Railways
The Canadian National Railways are not as yet able to operate at a profit. They are a sick business, as was recently stated by Mr. Fairweather, vice-president for research.
Their ailments and failings will not be remedied by giving them power to enter into the truck and bus business.
Their management will only find there a further opportunity for piling deficit upon deficit. Mind you, I do not think they lack the required ability, but I am convinced that they have to feed a white elephant which had to be taken off the hands of those who had brought it forth to save them from bankruptcy.
The Canadian National Railways are putting up a new hotel in Montreal. It should, by the way, be called Chateau Maisonneuve. A recent article in Maclean's magazine showed how logical it would be to give it that name, which has been recommended by the people of my province. This establishment will be rented to American capitalists. Will the same thing be done with the bus and truck lines which it is proposed to organize under the terms of this legislation? If these services are profitable, why not keep the profit? If not, why set them up?
The Canadian National is already enough of a drain on the taxpayers' pocketbook. It should not be given the means to be a further charge upon them. I therefore second the motion introduced by our colleague, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher). I do so because I am against centralization in any way, shape or form, and against socialism, even when it is advocated by the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Mr. Raoul Poulin (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to waste the time of the house in useless repetitions; nevertheless I wish to voice my opposition to the passage of Bill No. 351 and explain why I shall vote in favour of the amendment.
While I do not have the advantage of being a lawyer, I shall risk an opinion in a field where I can very possibly err.
In my humble opinion, if the bill is adopted without amendment, it will remove from the jurisdiction of the provinces the various bus and truck lines and connected highway transport services operated by the Canadian National Railways.
While I know it is against the rules to discuss in detail the particular section which will .create that situation, I can well say that

this will be one of the general results-and not the least-of the adoption of the bill.
I stand to be corrected if I am wrong but I think that, even if in this case we do not infringe upon the letter of the constitution, we are surely going against its spirit.
It is quite easy to foresee, without too great a stretch of the imagination, the development and the importance that might be taken on some day by what the bill calls, in questionable French, "les ouvrages de chemins de fer ou autre ouvrage de transport". This means the possible development of fleets of trucks for the transport of goods, and of bus lines with many powerful units for the transport of passengers. And all that outside the jurisdiction of our provincial legislatures, which are nevertheless responsible for transport and traffic legislation within their boundaries, as well as for the onerous job of building and maintaining a highway system which is extremely costly for our provincial and municipal administrations.
Anyone conscious of the sometimes unbounded ambitions of the Canadian National Railways officials can well wonder whether the new transport organizations authorized under this bill will not some day become more important than all those which at the present time come under private enterprise.
We would then be faced with a strange and abnormal situation where provincial jurisdiction in a most important field of its own would be practically inefficient and inoperative, since it could not operate in a very important part of its sphere, which would then be under the jurisdiction of another political body.
But, even if this bill did not threaten to facilitate the gaining of a foothold in the field of provincial autonomy, the fact remains that it would represent a socialist measure which should be rejected, because it does not correspond to a real need and would in no way remedy the few abuses or inconveniences that may result from or be maintained by the present system.
On the contrary, this legislation would involve unfair competition with private enterprise, which has made considerable sacrifices in order to set up a suitable system, and would make the taxpayers responsible for the liabilities of a competitor who frequently shows a deficit, which he passes on to the taxpayer, instead of paying for his errors himself.

I would, moreover, Mr. Speaker, point out another fact which is familiar to me: there are a great number of small communities and remote and sparsely populated localities, where the larger transport organizations are not interested in operating, because there is no profit in it. These limited territories are served by individuals who are able, owing to their work, their efforts and their sense of economy to operate with a small margin of profit which allows them all the same to earn their living and, at the same time, be of help to the communities they serve.
It is to be feared, Mr. Speaker, that any future transport organizations of the Canadian National Railways of Canada will enter these territories and operate at a loss while competing unfairly with pioneers who have had and still have the merit of being selfsupporting and do not ask their patrons to pay for their occasional losses. If, in these nice spring days, the Canadian National Railways suddenly feel the fever of expansion, they could, instead of embarking upon new ventures which will probably result in new deficits, try to calm this fever by undertaking urgent works which are actually and exclusively within their field, such as the construction of the railway line connecting Chibougamau and St. Felicien.
(Text):


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, when I took my first look at this bill and saw that it affected some 65 companies and dealt with 23 individual statutes, I decided that it would certainly take a Philadelphia lawyer to speak intelligently on the technical aspects of it. Perhaps, then, I may be forgiven if tonight I speak on it as the son of an ex-employee of the Canadian National Railways, one who started with the old Grand Trunk Railway, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), over 60 years ago. My only regret is that because of ill health he cannot be here in the gallery tonight. As a matter of fact, I gained some experience from being close to the railway and taking my first trip on it when I was four years old by riding with my father in the caboose.
It seems to me that in spite of all the expressions of affection for the railway which we have heard from all sides tonight, there still continues the tendency to snipe and bark on every possible occasion at the operations of this great company. It has its weaknesses, we all know that; but these weaknesses can be magnified many times if we continue 50433-255
Canadian National Railways to attempt to make a political football of its operations. We should consider the aspect of employee morale in connection with our criticisms. I wonder how we would feel if constantly, day after day, there was someone who had some new axe to grind in connection with the company that might employ us? Therefore, I say, by all means let us make this a business type operation. Let us give it the opportunity to be run as a good business. I do not think we will have accomplished that unless we are prepared to accept the ordinary principles of company organization and operation in the direction of this great public enterprise, the same principles used in connection with the direction and operation of our largest private corporations.
If we ask the people to look at the company in that light then I think it is clear that we should expect those who direct the enterprise to look on their duties in the same way. We should expect adequate direction from the head people of this corporation and we should expect them to appear before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines once a year ready to make a complete disclosure of the operations of the company. If it so happens that we are not satisfied with their stewardship during the previous year obviously there is only one answer-they need replacing. But they should not be harassed from day to day into the ensuing year.
When I look at this act I wonder if one of the failings in connection with the direction of the company can be found in certain observations by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) who indicated in the house that he was loath to see a type of arbitrary control concentrated in one man. As a matter of fact I think the president of the Canadian National Railways would welcome the additional advice and help which he would get from a larger board of directors.
It is unheard of that a company of this size should be operating with a board of directors of seven and directed with an executive quorum of only four. The board of directors should be representative of the best business minds in the country. I am sure that there is no dearth of material and I am sure that there would be no reluctance on the part of anyone if the government should see fit to increase the membership on the board of directors, even to fifteen. Let us have the advice of the best businessmen we can get and avoid any indication that we are running a one-man show.
I think in the company there is unswerving loyalty to the president, but I think also that

Canadian National Railways the employees ask if it is not possible that within the ranks of that great organization there are men of a calibre who could head the enterprise which they may have served in for most of their adult years. For the maintenance of employee morale I think it will be necessary in the future to indicate to these employees that there is no job not open to them, not even at the top.
I think also that there is a necessity for better public relations. The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) referred to the obligations which had been handed down and placed upon this railway. It is time that we told the public the true story of that burden and indicated in its true relationship the job which the company is doing and can do.
I come now to the question of stewardship. It seems to me that we must attempt if it is at all possible to get this company, this management, on all fours with the provisions of the Companies Act. I like to think that everyone in this country is a shareholder in this railway and that once a year the members of the standing committee hold voting proxies for those people. Once a year the management should come to them and make a complete disclosure of the operations of the past year. It may be that we are not entitled to information in advance which may affect company policy, but I am quite sure that at the end of the year at the time when ordinarily shareholders would pass a resolution confirming the acts of the directors for the previous year a full disclosure should be made to that committee. In regard to reports and opinions when dealing with companies I should like to read from Masten and Fraser's "Company Law of Canada", page 658:
As regards the right of inspecting reports and opinions, the principle is that, shareholders having a common interest in the company's property, an opinion having regard to such property paid for out of the company's earnings is the common property of the shareholders; but the principle does not apply where the interests of the company and the shareholders are adverse and the parties are sundered by litigation: Woodhouse & Co. Limited v. Woodhouse (1914) 30 T.L.R.559.
Then I think of the employees of this company as being shareholders, and I quote from the same publication at page 720:
A by-law or resolution of the directors will be invalid and ultra vires of the company if it operates unequally towards the interests of any class of the shareholders: North-west Electric Co. v. Walsh (1899) 29 S.C.R.33.
I think of these employee-shareholders as being a special type of shareholders and I wonder when such agreements are entered into as the one with the Hilton corporation if we are not passing bylaws or resolutions

which are ultra vires of the company because they react unequally towards the interests of a class of shareholders. When we do that we foreclose those people from an opportunity to get to the top in their chosen profession.
Then in connection with borrowing money and the provision of the Companies Act in connection therewith, in the case of an ordinary company it is necessary for two-thirds of the shareholders to confirm a borrowing bylaw. This is protection for the shareholders of the company, so that there will not be any steamrollering which may affect the physical assets or the securities of the corporation unless two-thirds of the shareholders approve. Yet in the operation of this company over the last year we have seen a tendency to steamroller special provisions in connection with borrowing money in connection with which we have not been given adequate information.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that I am not supposed to refer to specific sections in connection with this legislation, but I do not believe I can pass without saying this. Unless there is some general provision in connection with the holding of these directorships, it is possible for even Conrad Hilton himself to be appointed to this board. I see nothing in here which restricts the appointment of the chairman of the board to a person who is a Canadian citizen.
In addition I note something unusual as well, that the president of this company may not be a director-a very unusual type of arrangement, as you find that in the Companies Act it is necessary that the president of the company be on the board of directors. I wonder what type of operation we can expect, unless the man who is closest to the administrative functions of the company is sitting around the table with the rest of the directors. These are provisions which must be studied closely.
There are aspects we have talked about today in connection with federal and provincial jurisdictions, but to make this company work and work well there are the problems of personnel and their morale. Let us see that between meetings of the standing committee this company is allowed to plot its own course and do its own job. Let us free it from the everyday sniping, but then once a year bring it strictly to account before the shareholders and make full disclosure of all the facts that should be presented at any annual shareholders' meeting.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, there are very few occasions when I have the pleasure of thanking a member of the opposition for services rendered. This time I want to express my appreciation

to the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) for having confirmed in every way what I said the other day about the powers of the chairman of the Canadian National Railways. In that respect I have some excerpts, one from a deeply Conservative paper, the Ottawa Journal, and another from the Toriest of all Tory papers, the Post-Record, of Sydney, which I shall read. The other day I said that it was the Tory policy to prevent members of parliament from inquiring about what is being done. I do not wish to disturb my hon. friend. I shall try to be as gracious to him as he has been gracious to me, but I want him to know the truth about the management of the Canadian National Railways and its dealings with the parliament of Canada.
There are two policies. There is the Liberal policy and there is the Conservative policy. The Liberal policy is to the effect that members of parliament have an unquestionable right to secure information from the management of the railway and to exercise the necessary control over the expenditures. That is the Liberal policy.


An hon. Member:: Why don't they follow it?


Jean-François Pouliot: This is why the committee is called, to hear the statements of Mr. Gordon and his staff. Then there is the Conservative policy, which is to the effect that the Canadian National Railways shall be left alone to manage the company in a true business manner without any interference from politicians like my hon. friend from York West, the member for Temiscouata, and all of those. It is the kind of policy of laissez faire which has been so well described by Thackeray in his essays, which my hon. friend must remember better than I do, as he is younger than I am and his reading of that must be fresher in his memory. The Tory policy is a policy of laissez faire. Let well enough alone; do not intervene in the good management of the Canadian National Railways; leave them alone; they are experts and they know what they have to do. We politicians must bow to them. We must let them do all they want, always provided that it is not done by the politicians, and provided that the politicians do not interfere with the management.
My hon. friend from York West suggested that the number of directors should be increased. Why? No one is consulted. Why should we have more? At the present time there are six or seven, and Mr. Gordon pays no attention to them, just as if they did not exist. My hon. friend suggests that they should be more numerous. Why not consult the members of parliament? We have the committee. As a classical example, I asked 50433-255i
Canadian National Railways Mr. Gordon to tell me the price that he had paid for fence posts-something like that, but bigger. My hon. friend would be surprised. Mr. Gordon has very much confidence-and I am very glad that Mr. Gordon was not a professor of philosophy. He told me that it was unethical to inquire about the price paid for fence posts by the Canadian National Railways. We do not have the same ethics.


An hon. Member:: They were not political fence posts?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, they were supposed to be made of good timber-cedar fences. Then my hon. friend was a learned barrister at law and he had the law in hand when he told us that the decisions of the company must be confirmed by two-thirds of the shareholders. He had a big book and he quoted precedents, just the same as he would have done before parliament sitting as a high court-the high court of the land. My hon. friend knows one thing and many more; but there is one thing that he does not know or that he has forgotten. It is that the companies incorporated by virtue of the Companies Act of Canada or the companies act of any province are supposed to make regulations to govern their meetings. Although my hon. friend has not been sitting here long he is too experienced a member to ignore the laws of the land and he is too conversant with them to do so. It is too bad that, instead of wasting his time in reading a big book on company law, he has not read the previous reports of the railways and shipping committee which contain extremely interesting material.


John Borden Hamilton: I have them here also.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend has read those reports, he has read them too quickly, and he did not have the time in which to memorize what has been said by Mr. Gordon. As reported at page 226 of the report of 1952 we find the following:


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no. Mr. Gordon, X asked for the bylaws of the railways and I see in this section there is a mention of the board of directors. I wonder why you have any objection to letting us have the bylaws of the board of directors of the railways.


Mr. Gordon:: Are you referring to section 11, Mr. Pouliot?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. The board of directors of the national company are mentioned there and X take the occasion to ask you this question, because I had a copy, a summary, an extract of the bylaws that were passed in 1927, and I wondered why I could not have the bylaws of the board of directors of the company.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Well, It is a little confusing; this board of directors reference in section 11 has to do with the Securities Trust. Now, is it the Securities Trust that you want the bylaws in connection with?

Canadian National Railways


William Alfred Robinson: I think Mr. Pouliot just sees
the words "board of directors".
The chairman was not a mind reader.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There are no bylaws in connection with the Securities Trust that I know of.
My hon. friend will be much surprised to hear this:


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no, but as the board of directors of the railway is mentioned there, I am asking why we could not get a copy of the bylaws governing the board of directors of the railways.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think I can make a general statement here. There are all sorts of bylaws tacked up on station walls, bylaws cautioning against spitting on the platforms, with regard to nuisances, and so forth. Certainly we will give you those.


Jean-François Pouliot: But I am referring to bylaws concerning meetings.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There are all sorts of bylaws affecting the internal day-to-day management of the company that are not appropriate for release. They have to do with all types of matters.


Jean-François Pouliot: Such as playing poker on the train?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes, we will give you a bylaw
covering that. We do not approve of poker on trains.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell you in black and white [DOT]what I would like to have. I would like to have a copy of the bylaws covering the passing of resolutions.
This is what is referred to in the company law so that meetings of the board of directors are orderly.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The passing of resolutions?


Jean-François Pouliot: What I would like to know is the constitution of the company in virtue of the will of the board of directors.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: You must understand what I mean.


William Alfred Robinson: Do X understand, Mr. Pouliot,
that you wish to have copies of any bylaws that delegate to the directors the power to pass and to deal with matters by resolution which ordinarily would be dealt with by bylaws?


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no, it is not that; what I want is very simple. I want a copy of the bylaws of the board of directors governing their meetings.


William Alfred Robinson: As to when the meetings are to be called?


Mr. Fraser:: Or what their powers are?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes.
I will ask my friend the hon. member for York West to listen to this. I am not speaking. It is Mr. Gordon who is speaking.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: There is no such thing, Mr. Pouliot. What happens is this, the board of directors meets on a date which is agreed, and in practice we meet once a month. During the course of the board of directors' meetings, questions which come up for discussion sometimes call for formal resolutions covering legal matters, such as the execution of a mortgage or the release of property, or things of that kind. That is just a normal, ordinary resolution and it says "Resolved that the company agrees to do thus and so". Now, there is nothing formalized in bylaws about that. They proceed in the ordinary way any board of directors proceeds. There is, as I say, a public list of bylaws which refer to the conduct of the public in respect of company property, trespassing, spitting on the platform, committing nuisances on trains, and things of that kind.

I will not continue. My hon. friend and my colleague have enough. There are no bylaws governing the meetings of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. Those meetings take place haphazardly according to the wish of Mr. Gordon.
I want my hon. friend to realize that I have observed the most parliamentary language in respect of this matter and that a suggestion or criticism is not an offence. I am sure that my hon. friend is not offended by what I have said to him. Mr. Gordon had no reason to be offended when I made a similar suggestion to him. But he does not accept any suggestion from anyone. So much is that so that we had this incident one day in the committee when reference was made to someone who could have disagreed with him. I said, "You would have fired him at once if he had disagreed with you". He then used an expression which is used in duelling, namely touche; and he happened to be.
The Ottawa Journal which belongs to the same political faith as does the hon. member for York West wrote an editorial on April 29. They headed the editorial, "Donald Gordon No 'Czar' ", It reads in part as follows:
If Mr. Pouliot had more experience of the facts, circumstances and processes which make a corporation or business tick he wouldn't talk such nonsense.
In other words, I would not say that Mr. Gordon could not be at the same time president and chairman of the railway, but I say that for the very good reason that the railway is not like an ordinary corporation, a bank or industry of some kind where the stock is owned by the shareholders and the shareholders meet to elect their directors who represent private interests. In the case of Mr. Gordon of the C.N.R. it is not a matter of private interests. It is public interest because the stock is owned by the people of Canada, and that is why Gordon has to be checked. Otherwise we will have much to complain about him, the same as happened with Sir Henry Thornton. It is very unfortunate. I do not say that to be unpleasant to Gordon. I have no grouch about him, but on the other hand the time has come when parliament should put its nose in that business contrary to the suggestion of the Journal. The editorial goes on:
He would know, to begin with, that Mr. Gordon, as president of the Canadian National and chairman of its board, isn't some sort of czar or mogul issuing edicts right and left to servile trembling subordinates, but mostly one member of a board, largely taking the advice, and sometimes compelled to take the advice, of his executives and fellow directors.
They are all experts over there. If the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton)

knew more about it he would not have spoken as he has done, because I consider him an honest and straightforward colleague. It is a case where ignorance is bliss. The Journal goes on to say:
And Mr. Gordon, in this position, is on all fours with the head or president of any corporation-
It is untrue.
-be it a railway, a bank, an insurance company or a big manufacturing industry.
It is untrue for the reason already mentioned.
In certain circumstances, of course, where there may be lack of unanimity among board members or executives-
There is no lack of unanimity. They are not consulted. It is well known that there cannot be any lack of unanimity because Gordon decides alone.
-it is up to the president or chairman of the board to make a decision; to give the leadership which is implied by his position. But that is far different from his being a dictator, the sole voice or arbiter in all that concerns operation. No corporation could be run in that way-
Well, after having said that I was wrong the conclusion is that I was right, although they do not give me credit for it.
-nor any other institution for that matter. Not any more than it could be run by a babel of voices without some voice in the end having a final say.
This is the most illogical article that has ever been published by the Ottawa Journal, but I am happy with the conclusion. I am thankful for that just the same as I was thankful to my hon. friend for some of the statements he made which confirm my statement. I think if I read fast I will have the satisfaction of putting on record this editorial from the Sydney Post-Record, of April 28, another Tory paper. The Journal is Conservative, the Post-Record is Tory, the two shades of opinion of the Conservative party. The editorial is headed, "Job With Authority", and reads:
A Liberal member of parliament protests that Donald Gordon is too much of a dominant force in running the Canadian National Railways. Mr. Gordon is C.N.R. president-a big man doing a huge job. Canadians certainly do not want a weakling at that post. The accusation of Jean-Frangois Pouliot is frivolous although he himself is in earnest about it.
Thank you, Sydney Post!
His complaint is funny but also a little disturbing. The mighty C.N.R., spanning the continent, with a far-flung network of branching lines,
Canadian National Railways
has the attributes of the circulatory system of a living creature-which it is in the functions it performs, supplying the lifeblood of this young giant of a nation. The C.N.R., the property of Canada, is too vital to the country to be made the plaything of politics. It must have strong and authoritative management.
That is the same thing as my hon. friend has said, the same thing as the Journal has said, the same thing as all Tories everywhere are advocating now and have advocated from the time of Arthur Meighen, Borden, Bennett, Mackenzie and Mann and all those fellows. My young friend said I would like to see the founder of the C.C.F., Mr. Woods-worth, in the gallery, that he would have been proud of that. I will tell him I would have liked to see Arthur Meighen in the gallery. He would have cheered and the Speaker would have had to call him to order. He would have been elated to hear the hon. gentleman. We do not know whether the spirits of Sir Robert Borden and Lord Bennett in the great beyond are not rejoicing with him over his statement. Mackenzie and Mann must be very happy with his speech. I must finish before ten o'clock. The editorial continues:
No one is accusing Donald Gordon of inefficiency or laxness on the job. Instead it appears there are a few complaints in the House of Commons because he is doing it "too well". That's what it amounts to when we analyze what was said. Mr. Gordon simply is making an effective fist of the job he was appointed to do, without political interference but accountable in his performance to the nation.-
But not to the committee. No one can know the price of fence posts.
-And Canadians at large-this seems certain- don't want any political monkeyshines interfering with the job.
Monkeyshines! We are monkeyshines according to this Tory sheet of Sydney. Members of parliament are insulted because they forget-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Pouliot the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall continue the order of business as outlined on Friday night.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 24, 1955