1955-03-14

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, on February 18 I indicated to the house that I hoped to be able to announce some interim payments by the Canadian wheat board before seeding. I am now in the position to make an announcement with respect to barley.
Effective today the initial payment for all grades of barley has been increased by 10 cents per bushel. Until today the initial payment for the basic grade of barley, No. 3, C.W. 6-row was 96 cents per bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur. The new price for this grade is now $1.06 per bushel and initial payments for all other grades have been increased by the same amount.
Producers who delivered barley to the Canadian wheat board between August 1,
1954,	and the close of business on March 12,
1955,	will receive an adjustment payment of 10 cents per bushel. The wheat board expects to commence issuing cheques covering this payment during the first week in April.
During the period from August 1, 1954, to March 12, 1955, producers in the prairie provinces delivered about 80 million bushels of barley to the board and therefore the adjustment payment will amount to about $8 million. The higher initial payment is effective today at all country elevators and will apply on barley delivered by producers for the balance of the crop year.
This is the first of a series of payments which will be made to producers by the wheat board this spring. In a few days, I expect to announce an increase in the initial payment for oats and, later, the final payment on the 1953-54 wheat pool.
[Later:!

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of a report in the
press with respect to the interim payment on grain. Can the minister say whether the final payment on wheat can be announced before seeding in order to alleviate further the western farmer's critical financial position?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have already announced that the payments are to be made on barley, oats and wheat as fast as cheques can be written. I do not know that I have to repeat that statement at every session.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the announcement be made before seeding?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, I hope so.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT AND AUDITORS' REPORT

Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: On
behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I wish to lay on the table two copies in English and two copies in French of the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines for 1954, together with two copies in English and two copies in French of the auditors' annual report to parliament of Trans-Canada Air Lines for the year 1954.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Mang:: 1.	What are the qualifications required by the Canadian wheat board for issuing grain delivery permit books?
2.	How many grain delivery permit books were issued by the Canadian wheat board for the crop years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55?
3.	How many grain delivery permit books were issued to co-operative farms in the years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The Canadian Wheat Board Act:
18. (1) Subject to the provisions of this act, a producer may require the board to issue a permit book authorizing delivery of grain produced on the land comprising the farm of the producer.
(2)	The actual producer of grain on any land has the prior right to possession of the permit book in which such land is described but shall make the permit book available to

Questions
any other producer entitled to deliver grain thereunder on the request of such producer.
(3)	Not more than one permit book shall be issued in respect of land comprising any farm or group of farms operated as a unit.
(4)	No permit book shall be issued to any person other than a producer. 1947, c. 15, s. 5.
In addition to the above, the definitions in section 2 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act are relevant. These are:
(2) (a) "actual producer" means a producer actually engaged in the production of grain; (i) "producer" includes, as well as an actual producer, any person entitled, as landlord, vendor or mortgagee, to the grain grown by an actual producer or to any share therein.
Canadian wheat board regulations, 1954-55: (1) No permit book shall be issued naming a delivery point where there is no licensed country elevator. (2) The board may change the delivery point named in a permit book if the change is deemed advisable by the board.
2.	The number of grain delivery permit books issued during 1952-53, 1953-54 and 1954-55 is as follows: 1952-53-240,591; 195354-241,253; 1954-55-229,963 (to January 13, 1955).
3.	According to wheat board records the number of permits issued to co-operative farms was as follows: 1952-53-22; 195354-24; 1954-55-23 (to January 31, 1955).



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the Department of Defence Production attempted to have a flying saucer built?
2.	If so, has the attempt been abandoned?
3.	What has been the total expenditure incurred to date?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	In 1954 the A. V. Roe Company was given a contract to investigate the possibilities of a vertical take-off aircraft. No authorization was given for construction of a prototype.
2.	Canadian government support for the project has been withdrawn.
3.	$396,740.09-Subject to final audit by cost inspection and audit division, comptroller of the treasury.



AIRCRAFT OF CANADIAN REGISTRY

Mr. Hamilton (York West):: 1.	How many aircraft are there of Canadian registry?
2.	How many of these are licensed as commercial aircraft under the following headings: (a) having disposable load in excess of 6,000 pounds; (b) having disposable load in excess of 1,100 pounds but not greater than 6,000 pounds; (c) having disposable load of up to 1,100 pounds?

3.	How many of these are licensed as private aircraft under the following headings: (a) having disposable load in excess of 6,000 pounds; (b) having disposable load in excess of 1,100 pounds but not greater than 6,000 pounds; (c) having disposable load of up to 1,100 pounds?
4.	How many multi-engined aircraft are there of Canadian registry under the following headings: (a) those owned by Trans-Canada Air Lines; (b) those owned by Canadian Pacific Air Lines; (c) those licensed privately; (d) all others?
5.	How many multi-engined aircraft are there of Canadian registry both private and commercial which have been designed and equipped for freight use only under the following headings: (a) those owned by Trans-Canada Air Lines; (b) those owned by Canadian Pacific Air Lines; (c) all others?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: As of December 1954-
1.	2,800.
2.	(a) 160; (b) 460; (c) 749.
3.	(a) 10; (b) 232; (c) 1,045.
4.	(a) 63; (b) 28; (c) 37; (d) 132.
5.	(a) 3; (b) 2; (c) 6.



SMALL LOANS ACT

Mr. Brown (Essex Wesl):: 1.	When was the Small Loans Act passed in Canada?
2.	Have there been any amendments to the said act? If so, when?
3.	What is the maximum rate of interest permitted under the said Small Loans Act, or any amendments thereto?
4.	How many loans, by years, have been made in Canada under the said act, for an amount of (a) $500 or less; (b) over $500?
5.	When was the operation of the act last reviewed, (a) by parliament; (b) by departmental committee or officials?
6.	Have any complaints been made to the government as to the operation of the said act?
7.	If so, what is the nature of the complaints made to the government of the operation of the said act?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Dropped.
2.	Dropped.
3.	Dropped.
4.	The Small Loans Act applies only to loans of $500 or less. The number and amount of such loans made during 1953 under the act, as well as the number and balance outstanding at the end of 1953 were as follows:
Small loans made:	Number, 770,449;
amount, $174,503,558.
Small loan balances outstanding: Number, 482,976; amount, $81,840,415.
For previous years see reports of the superintendent of insurance for Canada respecting small loans companies and money-lenders tabled in the House of Commons.
5.	The operation of the act was last reviewed by parliament in 1946. Apart from the continual review inherent in departmental

Orders for Returns
supervision, the operation of the act has not been officially reviewed by any other committee or officials.
6.	Yes.
7.	A few complaints have been received to the effect that licensed lenders were charging more than the maximum permitted under the act.



DISTRIBUTION OF LIME, N.S.  GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Kirk (Aniigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	Does the federal government assist in making lime available to farmers in Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, how much was spent by the federal government in Nova Scotia in each of the last five years?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1949-50, $72,134; 1950-51, $89,268; 195152, $108,367; 1952-53, $60,612; 1953-54, $60,774.
The expenditure for 1954-55 is estimated at $63,000.



IMMIGRANTS


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: 1.	How many Canadian employers applied to the immigration department or made arrangements with the immigration department to hire immigrant workers in 1954?
2.	Of these, how many specified that the immigrant workers so engaged had to be of a certain religious faith or fulfil certain religious qualifications?
3.	How many immigrants were referred to Canadian employers by the immigration department in 1954?
4.	Of these, how many were sent to employers who specified that the immigrant must fulfil certain religious qualifications?
5.	Is there anything in the department's practice of referring immigrants according to religious qualifications laid down by employers which violates any of the provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act?


Mr. Piclcersgill:: 1.	Information not available; there were over 7,500 immigrants during the calendar year 1954 who were destined to specific employers.
2.	Information not available.
3.	Statistics are not kept as to the number referred; however, 29,473 immigrants were placed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration with Canadian employers during the calendar year 1954.
4.	Information not available.
5.	No.



FARM POPULATION

Mr. Anderson:: 1.	What was the total number of farmers on the land in 1951?
2.	What was the percentage of Canada's population on the farm in 1941?
3.	What was the percentage of Canada's population on the farm in 1951?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The total number of farm operators in Canada at the 1951 census was 623,091.
2.	At the 1941 census the farm population was 27 [DOT] 4 per cent of Canada's total population.
3.	At the 1951 census the farm population was 20 [DOT] 8 per cent O- Canada's total population.



RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS


Mr. Hellyer:: Is any action being taken by the federal government to protect the health of people engaged in the use of radioactive materials?


Mr. Robertson:: Yes. In order to ascertain the amount of radiation being received by radiation workers the occupational health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare established in 1951 a film monitoring service. This service was originally designed to protect people working with radioisotopes but it has been expanded so that it can be used by people working with X-rays. Noting the amount of exposure received by these workers enables the division to give advice to the many industries, hospitals, and other bodies taking advantage of this service on appropriate ways of providing radiation protection.
The occupational health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare also gives advice during the planning stages of all radioisotopes laboratories, in order that radioactive material can be handled safely. Recommendations are made as to the design of the laboratory, safe techniques for using the radioactive isotopes and safe methods of disposing of radioactive waste so that there is no danger of contamination of air or water supplies. Advice is given concerning the training of personnel who are proposing to use radioactive materials. This division is planning to provide training courses emphasizing the safe use of radiation.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Small:: 1.	How many motor vehicles (trucks, cars, etc.) are operated by the various departments of the federal government in Canada?
2.	How many motor vehicles (trucks, cars, etc.) are operated in Ottawa by the various departments of the federal government servicing their departments?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: 1.	What was the total cost of fires in the Department of National Defence during: (a) 1954; (b) January and February, 1955?
2.	What was the total cost of loss by: (a) navy; (b) army; (c) air force, during above periods?

Motions for Papers


AMHERST, N. S.  GOVERNMENT LEASES
Mr. Lusby:: 1.	How many leases are now current of business or other premises in the town of Amherst, Nova Scotia, rented by or for the use of the government of Canada or any department or agency thereof, or any crown corporation?
2.	What are the following details with respect to each such lease: (a) name of lessor; (b) location of the leased premises; (c) name of department, agency, corporation or other occupier of the leased premises; (d) amount of rental; (e) length and expiry date of the term demised?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Zapliiny:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and/or other communications exchanged between the government of Canada, or any department thereof, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, since January 1, 1953 to date, relating to a request of the said company made to the government of Canada for a guarantee of the company's bond issue and/or any other form of financial assistance.



FILM BOARD


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters and telegrams that have passed between the national film board and Douglas Sinclair, a professional movie photographer, since the 1st day of February, 1954, which have to do with a claim by Mr. Sinclair that he was interfered with or prevented by the national film board officials and employees from taking moving pictures of scenes and events at the carnival held in Quebec city during the month of February.


Mr. Pickersgill:: May I have leave to table them immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to revert to motions at this time to table the return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Now tabled.



PIPE-LINE GUARANTEE

Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all communications dated at any time since July 1, 1954, received by the government or any minister thereof, with reference to proposals for a government guarantee of bonds in connection with the building of a trans-Canada pipe line, or making any other proposal in connection with the building of such a pipe line, together with a copy of the replies thereto.



MUNICIPAL GRANTS ACT


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
(Mr. Fraser (Peterborough).]
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to extend the benefits of the Municipal Grants Act and to provide for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
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.
(Translation) ;


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Girard) put a question to me. I was unable to hear it distinctly enough to grasp its full import. Here it is, as reported on page 1928 of Hansard:
Has the Prime Minister read in yesterday's press an account of an address in which the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) stated that the red ensign had been the official flag of this country since 1945 and would remain so until parliament had chosen another?
I must confess I have not read all the newspaper reports but I have read the text of the minister's speech. The minister summarized, in the very few words of the document, an order in council dated September 5, 1945, P.C. 5888, authorizing the use of the Canadian red ensign within and without the limits of Canada wherever it is desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag. Neither in the order in council nor in the minister's speech have I found the words "official flag".
The second part of the hon. member's question is as follows:
Could he also tell us whether the red ensign is the temporary flag of this country, to serve until such time as parliament has adopted a permanent one or its official flag, and whether it will remain so until parliament has designated another, as the minister has said?
The only answer I can give is to repeat that neither in the order in council nor in the minister's speech have I found the words "official flag". As for the rest of the question, well, this order in council is still in force and, as long as it so remains, it provides that it is the red ensign that should be flown as the distinctive national flag.
I am sending the hon. member a copy of the order in council dated September 5, 1945, together with a copy of the translation published at that time.

(Text):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister give the house a statement on the announcement in the Globe and Mail of March 12 that research men in his department have discovered a new system of processing yarn so as to make it more wearable by five to ten times in comparison with present material? Will he also comment on the report that the process has already been made available to the United States authorities and tell the house whether it will be made available to the textile industry in Canada in the near future?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I shall take the series of questions asked by the hon. member as notice.



REPORTED DETERRENT RING OF BOMBER BASES IN NORTHERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence, as to whether Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom has asked for permission to establish, as part of its deterrent ring, a number of bases in northern Canada to permit of the basing of her bombers in those localities?
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National
Defence): I thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. The answer is no; no representations have been received to that effect.



CONTROL PROJECTS IN DAUPHIN AREA, MANITOBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent statement of the minister of agriculture for Manitoba in the legislature to the effect that the agreement between the government of Manitoba and the federal government for certain flood control projects in the Dauphin area has not yet been signed on
Inquiries of the Ministry behalf of the federal government, can the minister inform the house when this agreement may be completed and signed?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, this has to do with work which has been going on for three or four years. The policy is to sign these agreements in the spring of each year when the work is starting. I am not sure when this will be signed.



RIPPLE ROCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, of which I have given notice? Are the plans now being used for the removal of Ripple Rock the same as those submitted in 1943 by Charles C. Starr and Robert Crowe-Swords?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. Some years ago outline plans were submitted by the gentlemen referred to by my hon. friend, based upon a tunnel, which is an ordinary engineering concept. These outline plans were never accepted by the federal government and are not being used in connection with plans being prepared now. In fact, we have no knowledge that Dr. Dolmage, who has been commissioned to prepare plans and specifications, has ever seen the plans to which my hon. friend referred.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture, as to whether he will take action to expedite payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. I have had reports from several points in my constituency indicating that such payments have not been received. I shall send the names of the municipalities to the minister at once; but there are a number of other places in the province where payments have not yet been received, while others have received them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have been continuously encouraging those who are out in the field to get the reports in as soon as possible, and have payments made. I understand a very considerable number have been made, and I shall speed them as rapidly as possible.
1982

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



LINDSAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in my absence on Thursday last the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hodgson) referred to a building being constructed in Lindsay by the Canadian National Railways and asked why the work was being done by contract and not by railway forces. The management of the railway advises that the skills necessary for specialized building construction could not be obtained from maintenance forces as constituted at present.



ST. GEDEON-REPORTED CLOSING OF STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to answer a question asked on Thursday last by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon).
(Translation):
Last Thursday, the hon. member for Chicoutimi inquired whether or not the Canadian National Railways intended to close the St. Gedeon station and also whether or not the day train service between Cham-bord and Dolbeau would be discontinued.
In reply to the first part of the question, about which the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Gauthier) also inquired outside the house, I shall give the hon. member for Chicoutimi the same answer I gave the other member, to wit: the Canadian National Railways informed me that no recommendation has been made with regard to the closing of the St. Gedeon station.
As for the second part of his question, the Canadian National Railways inform me that trains Nos. 194 and 195, Chambord-Dolbeau, ceased to operate March 6, last. The management decided to discontinue this service because, in their opinion, the traffic did not warrant the costs of operation.
(Text):



BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR-REPORTED DISCONTINUANCE OF PARTICIPATION BY CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, before the orders of the day were called, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) asked a question concerning the discontinuance of Canadian government participation in the British industries fair.

The British industries fair, as the name suggests, is for the purpose of promoting the interests of United Kingdom industries. The commonwealth countries have been permitted to participate on a government basis only. We have reviewed our position from time to time, and have entertained some serious doubts for the last two or three years as to whether or not our participation was justified. We asked our representatives on the spot to make a close examination last year as to the results obtained, and I must confess that these were rather disappointing. In the circumstances, therefore, it was decided that Canada would not show at the exhibition this year. I understand that all other members of the commonwealth have decided to stay out this year for the same reasons as we did.
Arrangements have been made for Canadian participation at the British plastics exhibition to be held next June, and the lumbering and building products at the building exhibition in November, both of which will be in London.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I have a question arising out of his answer which I should like to direct to the minister. In view of the importance of extended trade with the United Kingdom and the extended sales which may be possible, will the minister not reconsider this, having regard to the number of years that Canada has been represented at these fairs, both at London and at Birmingham, and also remembering that there are ways in which we can place before the people at those fairs Canadian goods in precisely the same way that British manufacturers place before the people of Canada at trade fairs here the goods that they produce? While we wish economy, the cost, I think the minister will agree, is comparatively trivial in relation to the over-all amount of trade involved, if in fact there is any possibility of this fair encouraging the sale of Canadian goods in Britain at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Leader of the Opposition is under a misapprehension when he says we can show Canadian goods at the British industries fair. That is not permitted. We can simply put in a national exhibit indicating that Canada manufactures certain goods; but it is not an exhibit where Canadian goods can be shown.
The character of the British industries fair has changed within the last year or two. It was formerly sponsored by the British government. It is not so sponsored at the present time. It is sponsored by the British

industry, and all commonwealth countries have agreed that a simple national exhibit is not helpful to any of us at the present time. Where we can show Canadian goods we do participate in British fairs, as is the case with the plastic exhibition and the lumbering exhibition.



DISCONTINUANCE OF SUBVENTIONS ON COAL TO NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys? Will the minister explain to the house the reason why subventions on coal shipped from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland were discontinued while at the same time subventions were increased on the movements of western coal?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The coal subvention policy was designed to assist the Canadian coal industry and thereby employment. It was found by experience during the current year that subventions to Newfoundland did not provide substantial additional markets for Canadian coal, and the over-all results did not contribute to the purpose for which subventions were established.
In western Canada the coal industry, because of competition from oil and gas, is in very difficult circumstances and it is felt that the increase that was recently announced will give the remaining mines at least a better chance for survival.


John Horace Dickey: May I ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys whether he will be good enough to inform the house as to the rate of subvention on western coal as compared with the rate of subvention on Nova Scotia coal coming into central Canada.


Mr. Lennard:: Put it on the order paper.


George Prudham: As I announced in the house last week, the maximum subvention on western coal will be $4 a ton; whereas the provision with respect to the movement of Nova Scotia coal is $4.75 maximum. It might be of interest to hon. members to know that about 500,000 tons of maritimes production moves at the maximum rate of $4.75 a ton into the Ottawa and Hull regions. In addition to that, they will be getting the 10 per cent preference on purchases for government services if it is required.
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES



CONTROLLING OF LEVELS OF LAKES WINNIPEG, MANITOBA AND WINNIPEGOSIS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture? Has the minister received a request from the government of Manitoba with respect to a project to control the water levels of lake Winnipeg, lake Manitoba and lake Winnipego-sis? If so, will he state whether consideration is being given to such a project by the federal government?


James Garfield Gardiner: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of the question. I am not sure that the question he has directed to me is one that I can fully answer other than to say there has been a discussion for some time between the members of the government of Manitoba, myself and others with regard to a possible policy for controlling the levels of those lakes; but it is only in so far as it affects agriculture that we in our department are concerned with, that is in connection with activities that take place affecting the flooding of farm lands. Therefore, I should not like to attempt to answer the question in full other than to say that the answer we have always given up to now is that it is a provincial responsibility.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister? Has the Prime Minister anything that he would like to report to the house from the emergency session of the cabinet held on Saturday morning to deal with the question whether or not the government intends to subsidize?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps some day my hon. friend will have taken oath of office with respect to cabinet meetings, and he will know then that the Prime Minister would not be in a position to answer questions in that regard.



COPYRIGHT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, normally a question concerning the Copyright Act would be directed to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Secretary of State, but since this problem arises out of a ruling given by the Department of Justice and enforced by the Department of National Revenue, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the government's intention to introduce at the present session any amendment to the Copyright Act and in particular to section 27?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No recommendation has come to my attention as yet with respect to amendments to the Copyright Act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the Minister of Finance? Can either of them tell me when I may expect an answer to two questions of mine numbered 2 and 3 on the order paper, which have been there for nearly seven weeks?


Walter Edward Harris: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that the questions will be answered when they can be.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Minister of Transport that on March 8 I asked him a question which he took as notice at that time. I think this is a question where perhaps the minister could make a new record for the government and give me an answer today or tomorrow.


George Carlyle Marler: I have not overlooked my hon. friend's question and I hope he will have an answer tomorrow.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, or in his absence to a parliamentary assistant who may take it as notice. In view of the pamphlet just issued by his department entitled "Canada,


Vacations Unlimited", which indicates on pages 9 and 10 the transportation systems in Canada, is the minister aware that there are two national transportation systems in Canada, one being the Canadian National Railways combined with Trans-Canada Air Lines?



ASKING OF QUESTIONS ON ORDERS OF THE DAY

['You can say everything you know in two minutes; get up and say it.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. Speaker:: It appears that the questions have terminated and we are about to embark upon the orders of the day. I do not want to single out any particular question which has been asked, but rather I shall refer to them all. I have had occasion to say that I was not favourably impressed by the questions that were being asked on the orders of the day and I have suggested to hon. members that they read citation 295 to be found on page 119 of Beauchesne's third edition. Perhaps they have and it may be that those who have were not the ones who have been asking questions today. I should like to read some of the paragraphs in this citation to those who have been asking questions today or who may be asking questions tomorrow and on following days. This reads:
In putting a question a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits.
In asking a question, observations which might lead to debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limits of a question.
The purpose of a question is to obtain information and not supply it to the house.
A number of examples are given of questions which in the past have been decided as not being proper to ask and I should like to cite some of these. I shall not quote them all because there are some 30 or 40.
A question oral or written must not:
(c)	multiply, with slight variations, a similar question on the same point.
(d)	repeat in substance a question already answered, or to which an answer has been refused.
(e)	inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are true.
(f)	contain an expression of opinion.
(j) be framed so as to suggest its own answer.
(w) raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to the question.
(bb) ask the government's opinion on matters of policy.
(cc) ask what advice a minister proposes to give crown, (but may ask what advice he has given).
(gg) seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as decisions or proceedings of cabinet, advice given to crown by law officers, etc.
I know that it may be said by some hon. members that if they were to adhere strictly to those rules it might be difficult for them to enjoy the interesting question and answer period before the orders of the day are called, but I would remind hon. members that unless

we intervene from time to time to ask hon. members to refrain from asking questions which are obviously out of order, this matter is simply going to get out of hand.
I should like hon. members to consider seriously whether in many cases they should not wait until a particular department is in supply to ask some of their questions. Questions should be of an urgent and national character. Whether a bridge or dock is to be erected in a certain locality in an hon. member's constituency is a question which I think could wait until the estimates are before the house.
With these words I ask hon. members to co-operate and I am looking forward to a very interesting question and answer period in the days to come.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 11, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. St. Laurent-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Defence Production Act to increase the salary of the Minister of Defence Production from ten thousand dollars per annum to fifteen thousand and to repeal section 41 which provided for the expiry of the act on July 31, 1956.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this subject has been under discussion already and there might be almost some question in the minds of many hon. members as to the extent to which further discussion is necessary, particularly having regard to the fact that at this stage there is not much difference of opinion as to the principles which are really involved in the request being made to the house. It is not always that the words of the Minister of Defence Production, who is responsible for the administration of this department, find complete acceptance in this house, and yet I think there will be acceptance of the statement made by the minister as reported at page 1969 of Hansard of March 11 as follows:
In my opinion it is esssential, in view of the kind of world in which we are now living, that we have a Department of Defence Production staffed with experienced and efficient personnel and with the powers to perform its operations on a continuing basis.
I think every hon. member will be in agreement with that proposition. However, that is not everything that is before us. The measure that will be under consideration when the bill comes before us is one which embraces a very wide field of administrative responsibility. It is to that measure that the
Defence Production Act remarks have been directed and it is to that measure that I propose to direct my remarks now.
Why talk about this at this stage? If parliament is still a representative body where the voice of the people can be heard through their representatives it is essential that we talk about problems of this kind at the time when they come forward for consideration even though we may recognize that the decision will in the end be determined by the government, and by the party which supports it, with reasonably uniform acceptance of the position that the government puts forward.
Why should this be discussed at this time? We all recognize the need for a Department of Defence Production? We all recognize that this department should have the necessary authority to acquire the necessary materials which are essential and to direct the production of those things which can be used in our participation in the joint defence of freedom.
The reason this subject should be discussed now is to be found in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself at the time this bill came before us on an earlier occasion as reported at page 836 of Hansard of March 2, 1951. The Prime Minister is reported as using these words:
It is proposed that the act would expire on July 31, 1956. There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
There, Mr. Chairman, is the reason we should be discussing this subject now and' there is the reason I am placing before the members of this house the earnest proposal that at this stage the Prime Minister reconsider the decision to proceed with this measure without substantial amendments and redrafting and also that due consideration be given to the way in which the special powers which are not necessary can be deleted without in any way impairing the effectiveness of the measure for the purposes it is intended to carry out.
Surely it is not too much to ask at this stage that the Prime Minister himself from both his parliamentary and legal background consider the words he used at the time this bill was introduced. He should also be prepared to consider at this time the possibility of drafting an act with all the facilities required but with appropriate restraints.
Mr. Chairman, may I say at this point that in quoting the statement a few moments ago, I have quoted the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) relating to a measure introduced by the Prime
1986	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act Minister which I assume the Prime Minister accepted as a correct proposition in relation to this matter. I would not wish any misunderstanding to arise out of that quotation. The measure was introduced by the Prime Minister and the words I quoted in support of the introduction of that measure are the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I might perhaps expect the Prime Minister himself would have used more restrictive words, although not because he has any thought of restricting the measure more than any other member of the government. I recognize that under the system of government solidarity there must be acceptance of the proposition which is put forward, but the Minister of Trade and Commerce, anxious to proceed with the activities of that department, might well be inclined to state a broader desire for power under the act and for its continuance than might the Prime Minister himself.
I do ask the Prime Minister to reconsider those words. When I say they are the words of the Prime Minister I feel certain the Prime Minister will not in any way question the fact that these words represent a statement of the government as to what was proposed at that time.
I notice the Prime Minister nods approval of my remark, as I felt sure he would, in regard to such a simple and basic proposition which was then placed before us.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it has been said that we are living in very serious times. I do not think there is an hon. member of this house who is not fully conscious of the seriousness of the times in which we are living. The government may be charged with the day to day responsibility for speaking on behalf of Canada in international affairs. However, every hon. member of this house, as a member of parliament and a representative of the people who sent him here, is fully conscious of the extremely serious circumstances surrounding us at this time.
One thing which has emerged from the discussion of this present situation is that the highest hope we can have at this time is that through the combined efforts of the people who are united in the cause of freedom there may be long years of stability out of which, in God's good time, peace and an extending measure of freedom may be carried to the whole world.
No member of this house, including the members of the government, can foretell with absolute certainty what may happen a year from now, two years from now, ten years from now or 25 years from now. The most we can do is to put forth every effort we are called upon to exert to give to the cause of


freedom the strength it requires to face the threat with which it is confronted at this time. Nevertheless we do recognize that this situation may continue to exist for a long time to come. Perhaps for most of the lifetimes of all the hon. members in this parliament, we are going to be living under some form of threat to the free system to which we adhere. Surely, therefore, this is a time for us to examine with the utmost care the way in which we can best carry forward into the years ahead the fundamental principles of our free parliamentary system without in any way limiting our ability to perform effectively the share of responsibility we are called upon to accept in this great joint endeavour.
Perhaps a year from now much may have changed. I mention that because the act we have under discussion does not come to an end this year but comes to an end on the 31st July, 1956. Why then is it necessary for us to deal with this act without giving to it all the consideration that can be given? It is even possible that in the wisdom of divine Providence there may be a much greater measure of international stability a year from now. If that were so, I would hope that we would all be anxious to return as much as possible to the methods of parliamentary procedure and parliamentary responsibility which have stood the test of time under this system of ours. Our free system-that free system we are trying to preserve against all the threats which have been described in such ominous words-is a system which relies mainly upon the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. We are a monarchical democracy. We are a member of the commonwealth. We have a federal system under our own constitution. All these things are special attributes of our own Canadian form of democracy. But the fundamental strength of the democracy rests upon the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law.
At this time I ask that all hon. members, and particularly those with legal training, consider carefully how far we can safely go in short-cuts which remove from parliament its real authority and deny, in fact if not in name, the rule of law in any substantial measure. It is not enough to say that these powers have not been enforced. If the powers that exist are powers which are contrary to these fundamental principles, then at a time when we are devoting so much of our thought, energy and treasure to the defence of that system, it surely is appropriate that we should carefully examine how we preserve these powers under the special conditions under which we live.

No matter what may have been said or what arguments may have been put forward in 1951, as we look forward to the years ahead with the hopes that grow out of our expanding strength, surely it is a time for us to examine all the facts, to examine the measures that are put before us and to find how these can be best framed to preserve the fundamental principles upon which our system rests while denying to the government no essential powers to deal with those emergencies that might arise under the pressure of events that can be readily foreseen. This is no mere legal or academic question. This building, the facilities offered to us for our meetings here, or the beauty and the dignity of these surroundings, all have no substantial importance unless the principles are effective in preserving the freedom that we proclaim.
Mr. Chairman, there is plenty of time to re-examine this measure. I would hope that the Prime Minister would seize this opportunity to carry out the statement which was made on behalf of the government in 1951 to the effect that some of the powers in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature, and to find how best the powers that are needed can be defined and described without leaving the wide, unlimited powers which have existed over these past few years. It is not enough to say that these powers have not been employed. The very fact that these powers might be used to persuade somebody to do something, without the actual formal exercise of those powers, is in itself a sufficient exercise of those powers to put us on our guard at this time.
This is not some new subject, Mr. Chairman. This is not something that we consider now for the first time. It is something that has been reviewed from time to time in the past, and those who were conscious of the conditions which were needed to maintain the vitality and the integrity of our system have always asserted the necessity for maintaining the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. None have been more vigorous in asserting those principles than have the lawyers of this country whose training has made them aware of what it means for any person to find himself charged or to find his rights in any way denied under executive measures which have not in advance defined the rights of the individual or the penalty which might be imposed.
Sometimes it does no harm but does a great deal of good to examine ancient records in order to see the way in which the minds of people of other times were engaged with this very problem. I think there is a
Defence Production Act strangely familiar sound to these words from the "Letters of Junius" written nearly 200 years ago when he was discussing this very question of the removal from parliament of their full authority over the affairs of the people. May I quote these words:
We can never be really in danger till the forms of parliament are made use of to destroy the substance of our civil and political liberties: till parliament itself betrays its trust by contributing to establish new principles of government; and employing the very weapons committed to it by the collective body to stab the constitution.
At that time the warning was being given that under the form of parliament powers may be conferred upon the government which could stab the constitution, or which could deny the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law. It is a warning which has been repeated over and over again by those who have considered the effects of delegated powers of this nature.
Mr. Chairman, the nature of the threat of any departure from long-established practices is not to be measured by what has happened; it should be measured by what could happen at some other time. I am not attributing to any member of the government any motives other than those stated by those who have put forward their support of this measure. In these serious days we are all citizens of Canada deeply concerned about the future of Canadians growing up in this great land of ours and their freedom in the years ahead. I would not seek to draw any distinction between the sentiments of any member in this house in regard to the future of Canada, and of the people who will live in it in the years ahead. The statement has been repeated to us over and over again that this may be a long and tedious struggle for freedom, which we hope will reach a secure peace in the years ahead without the blight of such a terrible war as is now pictured to us as a possibility.
Let us break new ground. Even though four years ago it may have seemed wise in the mind of the government to go farther than some of us thought was desirable at that time, let us accept the proposition which they put forward that we are going to live under conditions of this nature for some time, and, recognizing that, to remove all powers which are not essential. This would restore to this parliament a feeling of its own authority, a feeling that it has that supremacy over the business of the people which is, in fact, the very basis of our free system.
We must not, Mr. Chairman, let this system of ours merge into something else by default. Even if we accepted without challenge the very high estimate which, from time to time, has been expressed by members

Defence Production Act opposite in regard to the almost boundless capacity of certain members of the government to meet the present and foresee the future, even if we were prepared to go as far as some of the members opposite have gone, that would not protect us from the charge that we have failed in our duty if we forget that the laws we pass are not laws for individuals. These are laws for any individual, and should not be passed at all unless they would be safe in the hands of any government that might be formed.
We have seen here and in other countries the extension of the power of government under the pressure of war and the events following two world wars. Without reviewing all the arguments we have had in the past, let us recognize the extent to which that encroachment upon our procedure has already been made, and decide that this is an excellent opportunity to review the situation and to approve a measure which will start us on a new course. Let us frame a law that does, in fact, preserve the authority of parliament and the rule of law, while giving those powers that are necessary to meet the kind of continuing threat which we see before us and which is likely to continue for some time to come.
By all means, Mr. Chairman, we must not drift by default into some form of dull and uninspiring collectivism in the name of patriotism and prompt action. It is so easy to say that there are great dangers, that we must be ready to meet those dangers. We all subscribe to the proposition that we must face the dangers and prepare ourselves for all eventualities that may come. We have all subscribed, without reservation, to the principle of joint action to defend our security, our freedom and the peace which has been bought at such a price in blood and treasure. No single word that has been said is in any way a challenge to the basic proposition put forward on behalf of the government, which I have already quoted, that in view of the kind of world in which we are now living it is essential that we have a department of defence production staffed with experienced and efficient personnel, and with the powers to perform those operations on a continuing basis. With that, we all agree. We want that done in a way that will meet all our requirements.
It would, however, be a Pyrrhic victory if, at staggering expense and tremendous national effort, we sustained our free system against all Russian threats but in doing so destroyed these very principles upon which our free system rests.
Let me repeat, even though they have been
mentioned over and over again, that those
principles are the supremacy of parliament


and the rule of law. I ask the Prime Minister to recall the words used in support of this measure in the first instance, at the time the bill which later became law was introduced in his name. I quote those words as found at page 836 of Hansard for March 2, 1951:
There is no particular significance to this date, other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
We take the word of this government, and we take the general knowledge that is available to us, that we are going to live for some time under conditions such as these. We ask the Prime Minister and the government to take this opportunity to chart a course that may conceivably be not only one of great moment to Canada but one of the turning points in the history of our parliamentary democracy.
I have no thought of going into detail as to the abuses that might occur or to quote some of the rather strong statements that have been made as to the way in which this act could be put into effect. I simply take the statements of the government itself as to the purpose of this act, as to what it means, and I point out that since the motion now before us calls for the setting up of a department of defence production with powers to carry on its activities, we subscribe to those principles. In putting forward the arguments we do, we certainly are not challenging the fundamental proposition now before us. Believing, however, that there are important issues which have themselves been so clearly stated on behalf of the government, we think that every member in this house should carefully consider the history of our system and what it means for parliament to be really prepared, what it means for our people to know from day to day the laws under which they must operate and the penalties that would be imposed if they failed to observe those laws.
Whatever exceptions there must be to those general principles under the unusual circumstances in which we live, let those exceptions be limited in clear and understandable terms, as they have been in some other jurisdictions. While our systems are not the same I would point out that, in the United States, where many of their business activities are similar to ours, their defence production act has more than 600 sections, in order to define in clear and understandable terms many of the powers conferred by that act.
I would also remind members in this committee that in the United States they have committees of the congress with wide powers to call witnesses and to demand the production of papers, which gives them a far wider measure of control in any event over special

legislation of this nature. Those who are carrying on operations of this kind very close to us have felt it advisable to define the powers in much wider terms, even though they have a broader measure of supervision than we have here.
I do strongly urge once again that between now and the time the bill comes before us the Prime Minister consider the opportunity presented to this government to give leadership in returning in as full a measure as possible to the members of this House of Commons the fundamental principles of our democratic system, the supremacy of parliament and the rule of law.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I want first to say that we in this party agree with the assumption that under present world conditions it is wise, if not essential-indeed, I think it is essential-to have a Department of Defence Production which will allow us to be well prepared for any eventuality. We understand that the world now stands in a half light, a sort of dusk, half way between peace and war. We are conscious of the fact that preparedness for any eventuality is absolutely necessary if we are to prevent the shadow of the H-bomb, which now overhangs us, becoming the twilight of our very civilization.
Four years ago, when the Korean war was raging, the Prime Minister came before the house and said, in effect, "I have a brain child. I am going to introduce a bill which will set up a department of defence production on a temporary basis. This bill will also give the minister responsible for that department wide and sweeping extraordinary powers." The Prime Minister suggested that we should approve this brain child, that we should go along with her and support her. We pointed out that we did not think she was especially handsome. She had many features we did not like.
The Prime Minister was quick to admit that in any case her life span would not be very great, that in effect she was almost a monstrosity but that we could put up with her for a short time. Therefore he called upon us to be charitable and to go along with this child of his. He asked us to support her and to escort her-to take her at least as far as the Korean war. We pointed out very diplomatically that we did not like her looks, that we did not like her flat feet, her bowed legs, her under slung jaw and her horse face. As a matter of fact we said she had a face that only a mother could love. "But", we said, "under the circumstances we will be gallant and will co-operate with you. We will accompany this brain child at least as far as the Korean theatre."
Defence Production Act
The Prime Minister said that was all that was required. After all, if this girl had to go to the Korean theatre by herself, accompanied only by her relatives, she might develop an inferiority complex; and, besides that, what would the neighbours say? Under the circumstances, we in this party reluctantly went along with the suggestion. The Prime Minister said, "As soon as the show is over you can have her back here in the house, and forget about the whole thing".
What has happened? As soon as the Korean show is over-and it is barely over- and at a time when not all Canadians are out of that theatre, the Prime Minister rushes up to us with a shotgun and says, "I have the Minister of Defence Production here, and he thinks you ought to marry the girl."


An hon. Member:: You already have.


John Angus MacLean: "After all", he says, "besides that, if you do not, then I am afraid she will feel that her future is not very secure. It is the same thing, anyway".
Now, Mr. Chairman, it may be that a reluctant date-at-the-theatre and an until-death-do-us-part proposition may be the same thing, in the minister's language; but it is not the same in mine. I do not intend to be taken in by that kind of proposal.
The other night the Minister of Defence Production seemed to chide hon. members in this party when he said, in effect, that we supported the bill reluctantly four years ago, and that now we are talking against it. Let me point out that the proposal confronting us today and that which confronted us four years ago are not the same at all. Four years ago the bill was introduced on a temporary basis. I know the minister has told us that the proposition now is very much the same as it was four years ago. If that were so this opportunity to discuss the merits of the bill would not automatically have arisen.
When the minister was speaking about the Defence Production Act on March 2, 1951, he said, as reported at page 839 of Hansard:
By and large, these are the powers that are now contained in the Defence Supplies Act, which, hon. members will notice, is only being suspended during the life of the present proposed act. Other powers are of an extraordinary nature but fitted to the extraordinary circumstances of today.
Because the cold war of that time had become a shooting war, we in this party went along with the proposal then made. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra stated our position at that time in these words:
Mr. Speaker, because of the very serious situation which Canada is facing at the present time, and because of the ever present threat of war, members of the official opposition have no intention of

Defence Production Act opposing this particular resolution or the bill which will follow it, unless that bill turns out to be in terms which are objectionable.
The then member for Nanaimo, now the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, also very ably expressed the position of our party on that occasion when he said this at page 873 of Hansard of March 2, 1951:
In this respect, that I agree in principle with the setting up of this Department of Defence Production. I realize, as he does, that the minister in charge of the department must be given certain powers in order that teeth may be put into the legislation so as to enable him to produce the equipment so essential for our defence forces. Like him, I feel there should be no unnecessary powers, or powers which are not essential, given to the minister. That point has been dealt with, and I shall not refer to it again.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is abundantly clear that four years ago we went along with this temporary act because we were in a hot war at that time and extraordinary steps had to be taken because of the extraordinary position in which we found ourselves. I repeat, we realize at this time that a Department of Defence Production on a permanent basis is essential, but we do not agree that the wide powers that are given the minister under the present act should be made permanent. After all, we should not put ourselves in the rather ridiculous position of forfeiting the freedom which we are setting out to defend in the process of preparing to defend it.
Most of us in this group are veterans of at least one war, and therefore we cannot be accused of being unsympathetic to the point of view of the military men. We know the tragedies of going into battle ill-equipped with obsolete arms, and we do not want that to happen again if we can prevent it. Nevertheless, we will not abandon the position which we are sworn to defend just to make the stockpiling of arms a little more convenient. The Minister of Defence Production might say that that sounds very pleasant but it is academic, we must display horse sense in these difficult times. I say that for me horse sense is not good enough. I know the sense of horses fairly well. I know that horses will not approach voluntarily any real or apprehended danger; I know they will not approach it without a struggle. But I do know that you can turn a horse around and back him into a fire, into deep water or over a precipice and he will not object. I am .afraid, Mr. Chairman, the Russians know our horse sense too well. There is more than one way of winning a cold war. The Russians recognize that if they can back us into a position they want us in, it will be just as successful as a frontal attack. I would regret seeing any Canadian government taking any action which even remotely smacked of panic.


After all, in a cold war we cannot solve all our difficulties by using exclusively the methods which won for us in the last war. It is not open warfare to begin with. It is too easy a solution to say that the government can take extraordinary powers and stockpile a great amount of munitions, or even the latest and most efficient types of armaments. The problems of the age of the H-bomb are more difficult than that.
We are in a cold war which is a permanent condition. We must be able not only to defend ourselves if the cold war flares up into a hot war here or there, but we must also have long-range planning which will make open warfare unattractive to our enemy. That includes efficient civil defence and a long-term planning for the dispersal of our vital industries so that three-quarters of our industries and about one-fifth of our population will not be wiped out overnight by a few H-bombs.


The Chairman:: Order. I am extremely
sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I fail to apprehend how his remarks have any connection with the resolution before us. I do wish he would co-operate by confining himself to the resolution.


John Angus MacLean: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have related my remarks to the resolution in my own mind, and when I have completed my remarks I think you will see, Mr. Chairman, the sense of what I have to say.
The bill suggested by this resolution is not, in my opinion, the answer to our present problem. As I have already said, the cold war is a permanent proposition. It is apt to extend into the future as far as any of us can see, and therefore we must be prepared to take our part in it under conditions which will be permanently acceptable. The provisions of the present act are not acceptable if they are put on a permanent basis.
The proposed bill to extend the life of the present act has for its purpose the winning of the cold war and the prevention of a hot war. Our purpose is to attempt to preserve our civilization as we know it. If we acquiesce in any way in the giving up of our freedom we shall create pleasure in the minds of the men of the Kremlin because they know that it is very easy for people under this type of program to go on beyond the point of no return. It is not the policy of the men in the Kremlin to win control of the world by an all-out war.
I believe that the policy of the Kremlin is to win world control through the demoralization of the peoples of the free world, to bring about a chaotic state of affairs in which communism can easily take over control. That

has been the pattern so far and I have no reason to believe that it will change. The Russians are following that pattern for a very good reason, and that is because they know their history. History teaches us that great civilizations of the past, almost without exception, fell, not because they were conquered and overrun by external powers, but because they crumbled from within.
I say in all sincerity that at this time the Prime Minister perhaps more than any other person in Canada is the custodian of the freedoms which we have inherited. It behooves us all to see that our freedoms are handed on unimpaired to posterity. I think therefore that in this cold war which will go on as long as we can see we should enact legislation only which will be acceptable on a permanent basis. After all, dreadful as it seems, we must accept cold war conditions as being normal conditions, for the rest of our lives at least.
I have a suggestion to make which is in line with the similar one already made by the Leader of the Opposition. I suggest that a bill be introduced which would set up a permanent Department of Defence Production along much the same lines as any other department of government. That bill would of course repeal the present Defence Production Act, and repealing the present Defence Production Act would automatically end the suspension of the Defence Supplies Act which was passed in 1950. I think that this house would accept very readily the setting up of a Department of Defence Production if the act was limited to the physical setting up of that department and if the powers which were to be granted to the Minister of Defence Production were outlined by the Defence Supplies Act amended as considered suitable. In that way we would avoid this confusion of having both propositions in the same bundle.
The powers which might be granted from time to time to the Minister of Defence Production could be adopted on their merits as occasion required without implying in any way that the Department of Defence Production should not be carried on on a permanent basis. I think that a happier solution could be found to the problem now confronting us if the Prime Minister would see fit to reconsider the position.


Mr. Trainor:: Mr. Chairman, before the
resolution is carried I have a very few brief remarks to make. Last Friday during the discussion of this resolution my hon. friend and distinguished constituent, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, gave some interpretations of the Defence Production Act which I think are quite interesting but which
Defence Production Act have not received the comment that they deserved. I should like to read briefly from page 1963 of Hansard of March 11 where the hon. member is reported as follows:
It seems to me if there is going to be defence purchasing and defence procurement on a scale of any magnitude it is necessary for the government to have powers to protect the economy of the country against the inflationary effects of those purchases and procurements.
And then in the following paragraph:
I think there is no question about the inflationary effect of defence procurements, purchases and building. In my view the cost of housing, which is higher today than a few years ago, is a direct result of expenditures by the government under the heading of defence.
I think that that interpretation poses a dilemma for the minister. As I see it, he has three choices. First, he may ignore the interpretation, in which event he will in effect be allowing the interpretation to stand by default. Second, he may repudiate the interpretation, in which event he must lose the support of the socialists because they seem to have made this interpretation the basis of their support of the resolution. Third, he may accept the interpretation, in which event the act stands exposed in all its authoritarian nakedness and the fears of the hon. members for Eglinton, Greenwood and Vancouver-Quadra, as well as those expressed by my leader this afternoon, stand completely justified. It will be very interesting to know which particular horn of the dilemma the minister will select.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to speak on this resolution but one or two remarks which have been made this afternoon bring me to my feet because I just cannot agree with the contentions put forward. I listened most carefully to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and to the hon. member for Queens. I thought that I had not heard correctly something which the hon. member for Queens said, and as he left the chamber I asked him whether I had understood him rightly to say that the effect of the passage of this resolution and the bill with its implications would give comfort to the men in the Kremlin, and he said I had.
The hon. member made that statement, not once but half a dozen times during the course of his remarks. I think we should make it clear in this House of Commons that when we are discussing any motion or bill it makes no difference whether it gives any comfort to the men in the Kremlin; whether they condemn it or commend it, we will deal with our business in our own way irrespective of what Moscow thinks. I think it is rather strange to have a member of the House of Commons ask us to support or oppose a measure before our parliament in Canada
1992	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act because of the possible reaction of the men in the Kremlin. To me that is a most astonishing point of view, especially when it comes from the Tory party.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Vancouver East will recall that I was forced to interrupt the hon. member for Queens and indicate that he was not adhering strictly to a discussion of the resolution. I hope that the hon. member for Vancouver East will adhere to the resolution.


Harold Edward Winch: I certainly have, sir. I was only commenting on what has already been said but having said it I have said, I think, what I wanted to say.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, I could not let this occasion pass without making some comments on this resolution. I would be shirking my duty as a member of this house if I did not rise and say in the strongest terms possible that the resolution extending the powers of this act to no definite date is one of the greatest setbacks in the history of democracy in this country which I have seen during my short term in parliament.
This house at one time begat a monster and that monster begat another head. As a result of public opinion the first head was chopped off; that was the Emergency Powers Act. It was felt that the second head, the powers under the Defence Production Act, would die a natural death in 1956. Consequently, attention was not drawn to it. The people of Canada were not aroused concerning its dangers and on a quiet winter day in 1955 we see a resolution, short in length but mighty in effect, which purports to extend the life of the department with all its insidious powers.
I would like to draw a comparison. Let us assume for a moment that the minister who administers this act is the minister in charge of national defence. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, an exact comparison of the powers he seeks under this act would have full-out conscription for the army under the Department of National Defence. He is asking for powers to deal with industry and the manpower involved in industry, powers which we would not have given to the Minister of National Defence to deal with the actual manpower of the country. Just think of that comparison for a minute, Mr. Chairman. It is a complete denial of the free enterprise system which this government claims to espouse. The government takes great credit for the production of Canada when it can say, "We point to it as a free enterprise system." While pointing to it with one hand as free enterprise they simultaneously point with the other hand and say, "This is not


free enterprise, we are not clever enough to enter into contracts with you which would cause you to perform the things we want you to perform. We have this club and if you are not good boys we will use it."
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, the fundamental principles for which many Canadians have laid down their lives, and for which a great portion of the national budget is allocated, are being laid on the altar under this act.
After all, a man working at a machine in a factory in this country has certain rights. This resolution suggests the rights of the man working in a factory can be taken away by the minister. What does it mean when a minister can say that a manufacturer is not performing his duties properly and the minister is taking over his factory? It simply means the minister is taking over the workmen in the factory and is taking away the individual rights of the people in the plant.
The action is much deeper than would appear by this resolution. The hon. Leader of the Opposition said that in 1951 his party took the word of the government that this act was of a temporary nature. By the introduction of this new resolution one can see how much the word of this government is worth. The question is self-answered.
I have often wondered, and I ask myself today, how many of the members who sit behind the minister who administers the department which this resolution concerns know exactly the terms that are contained in the act? The hon. member for Eglinton outlined some of the terms very carefully. They go to the very depths and roots of our system. They take away, on the strength of one man's opinion only, whoever the minister may be who is in charge of the department at the time, every right to which we have pledged ourselves in the past and to which we expect others in the future to pledge themselves.
I suggest, as have other hon. members before me, that a resolution could easily have been introduced which would continue the life of the department but at the same time give it only the powers necessary for carrying out its work under our system of freedom of the individual and of enterprise.


Mr. Nicholson:: May I ask the hon. member for Peel if he is going to vote for or against the resolution?
Mr. Pallet!: You will find out in due course.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the general discussion has concluded there are some questions which I propose to ask the minister, but I do not wish to interrupt the general discussion if any hon. member wishes it to continue.

I think some information of direct interest to the house is required at this stage. Probably the Minister of Defence Production would furnish the house with some answers to these questions which I think are quite obvious to all of us at this stage of the discussion.
I am wondering if the minister will indicate to the house explicitly what use has been resorted to with respect to the powers conferred upon him by certain sections of the act.
Let us take section 23, for example. It is the section which empowers the minister to oblige someone to enter into a contract with him to furnish defence supplies or to construct defence projects. What use has been made of that section by the minister? Have there been any cases where the minister has resorted to the powers conferred upon him by that section in order to procure defence supplies or to procure the construction of a defence project?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, since this act was passed there has been no resort to that section; however it is a section which I think should be in the act. We go to great expense, sometimes several millions of dollars, to put special equipment into a privately owned plant to perform a special service. I think we should have the right to demand that, if the use of that equipment in that plant is necessary, the owner will undertake the work, whatever it may be. Please understand there is no denial of his right to go to the courts and appeal any decision of the department if it turns out to be unfair to him or if it deprives him of any rights. The court can adjust the compensation. Nevertheless, we believe that where we have spent large sums of money in putting equipment in privately owned plants we should have the right to insist that our work be done in the plant if the use of that machinery is required.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has dealt with one case and has sought to support the section by citing an instance where the government has invested public money in a privately owned plant. The section is infinitely wider than that and does not confine itself to that case at all. Is the minister then of the opinion that, if the power is confined to cases where the government has invested public money in a privately owned plant, that will meet the foreseeable needs of the department in that regard?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think not, Mr. Chairman. I maintain that if the use of any facility in Canada is needed for the defence
Defence Production Act services of Canada in times such as these or in times of danger, the government should have the right to call on any facility, whether these are government owned or not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has expressed an opinion. We are looking for information, not simply his opinion, as to situations which might throw any light on or lend any support to the proposed continuation of these powers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think I can give my hon. friend a concrete example. In the last war there was great pressure for textiles that were needed to clothe the troops. One particular textile mill refused to make cloth for the services on the ground that it did not like to do business with the government. It had the facilities and should have contributed its bit to the government program but it was more profitable for that mill to refrain from government work and to serve the domestic market which was also short of material. In that case we insisted that that firm undertake its share of government work. I think that is a case in point. It might occur in any branch of production. If any firm, for reasons of its own, is unwilling to take government work, I think that in time of stress the government should have the right to insist that it does so in so far as supplies for the armed services of Canada are involved.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It is significant that the one case the minister has pointed out is a case that occurred in wartime under different legislation. I take it that he has no case to point to under the present act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is so. But it
might occur tomorrow. For instance, we are going into the far north to build a great project under conditions of considerable stress. Suppose our steel fabricating companies say, "Sorry, we do not like that type of work; we are going to use our facilities to build something else". I maintain that we have a right to insist that those facilities be used for that early warning line which we believe is urgently needed, whether the steel companies prefer to do something else or not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Does the minister seriously suggest that any company engaged in steel fabrication is going to refuse to do business with the government in relation to any project that is as serious as the one to which the minister referred?


Harold Edward Winch: They did in the last war when there was limitation of profits.

Defence Production Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member back there is not the minister, and I prefer to have my information from the minister on this point, if he does not mind. I am repeating my question. Does the minister seriously suggest that any individual or firm engaged in the steel fabricating business is going to refuse to do business with the government in a matter as important as the one which he has mentioned?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I took the steel fabricating industry purely as an example. But I can tell my hon. friend this. I doubt if there is anyone in the world at present in charge of defence production who has had more experience than I have had; and my experience leads me to believe that it is desirable that we have a defence production act.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to accept that statement of opinion as an answer or as containing any information. The minister may like the idea of continuing powers and of having these powers, and the government may like it. But I am asking the minister if he seriously suggests that there is any steel fabricating firm in Canada that is going to refuse to enter into a contract with the government to do that kind of work?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I seriously suggest that I can think of firms in Canada-not in the steel fabricating business-that I would not be too sure would willingly give up their domestic business in order to do defence production business.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I suggest to the minister that they are not the kind of firms that he should be wishing to do business with, anyway, if they have no more sense of public responsibility than that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As long as we can pick and choose, that is not a difficulty.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The whole point is that the government is able to pick and choose now. It is a buyer's market today. In the times in which we are living, with extensive unemployment in this country, with many plants idle or operating at substantially less than full capacity, surely the minister is not seriously going to suggest that he is not able to pick and choose.
I turn now to section 24 which is the section under which the minister has wide powers with respect to the requisitioning of supplies. Has the minister had occasion to make use of the powers contained in that section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes; we have indeed. In the early days we requisitioned. For instance, we took what nickel we needed for war purposes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: When?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1951, when nickel, copper and zinc were extremely short. You need to go back only a few years. So did the United States. The United States had a priority system. So did we.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We recall the situation-and I mentioned it when speaking last Thursday on this matter-that existed when this act was first put into force. There was a scramble for materials of the kind to which the minister has referred. The purpose of the act at that time was to give power to the government to allocate materials and to assure sources of supply in a quite limited market, in the face of a general scramble among the nations that were engaged in a program of rearmament. Has the minister any cases where those powers have been exercised since 1951? If so, will he give us the date of the most recent exercise of the power of requisitioning under the section?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had a strict priority system in 1951, 1952 and 1953. It is only in the last year, I think, that we got rid of the last of the priority system. What is a priority system? It means giving priority to defence needs. When I was speaking last Friday-I think my hon. friend was not in Ottawa that day-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes; I was.


Clarence Decatur Howe: He was not in the
house anyway, perhaps. At that time I said that meetings are being held in Washington to consider restoring allocations on aluminum, copper and a third metal whose name I do not remember. I also said that the United States had recently stopped the export of steel scrap, that we relied heavily on the United States for steel scrap and that it is quite possible that we in Canada might have to go back to allocating steel scrap. Allocating for what? Allocating for defence services.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I now ask the minister a question with respect to section 30 which is the section under which the governor in council may designate materials as essential materials and certain services as essential services. What orders are outstanding under that section now? What orders are in effect under section 30?


Clarence Decatur Howe: None at the moment. But as I have just been saying,

Washington believes, as do we, that it may be necessary to go back to that system of allocation and priorities.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that the same answer would apply to section 31 which is the section that gives the minister power to do certain acts and things and to make orders and regulations with respect to control and regulation of production, processing, distribution, acquisition, disposition or use of essential materials or the supply or use of essential services for the purposes that are set out in the subsections. I take it that there are no orders outstanding under section 31 today?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not at the
moment.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I now wish to ask a question with regard to section 32 which is the section which gives the government power to lay down the penalties that are to be attached to breaches of the regulations. As I mentioned on Thursday, the penalties for some offences are defined in the act. Others are to be attached to breaches of the regulations that are passed under the act. May I ask the minister in how many cases it has been necessary to launch prosecutions under section 32 of the act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could not give the number offhand, but at least 10 or 12 since this act was passed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What was the most recent one? When did the most recent offence among the 10 occur?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not recall that. The Department of Justice handles such prosecutions. We would put in a complaint to that department of a violation of either a priority order or an allocation order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it there has been nothing within the past several years?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Oh, yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister's reference goes back to the days of allocation orders, the last of which expired in 1953, and which had been undergoing reduction or demobilization prior to their final expiry in that year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But 1953 is only 14 months behind us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think we are in a situation where some substantial improvement has occurred. I sought to draw attention to the difference in conditions today as compared with those of four years ago. I think what the minister has had to say today underlines and emphasizes the point I sought to make on Thursday, that the conditions that existed
Defence Production Act in 1951, which this bill was specifically aimed to meet, have changed very greatly since.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend let me comment on that? I claim that is not the case. True, there was a recession in the United States and in Canada during the latter months of 1953 and the early months of 1954 which made strategic materials easily available. This situation has changed today. As I have said, we have a shortage today of nickel. We have a shortage of copper. We have a shortage of aluminum, and we are threatened in Canada with a shortage of scrap iron. Are we passing this legislation for conditions of recent months, or are we looking ahead to conditions that we are very likely to face in the future? Does my hon. friend say we will never need these provisions? My experience indicates we will, but if he takes the opposite view the house will have to decide between us.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am quite prepared to meet the minister on that at any time, but the point at issue I think is that the minister characteristically asks for more powers than he needs; that is the whole point. I have indicated that we in the opposition are quite prepared to see the government given adequate powers to meet the situation. We do not wish to be niggling about the particular definition of powers. We do wish, however, to see some effective limitation imposed on the powers in this bill, which now are sweeping and untrammelled in their nature.
In this measure the government is proposing to take away the one effective limitation. I do not say it was adequate, but at least it was an effective limitation. It was one in point of time. Nothing is offered to the house by way of a substitute to control these powers. The minister will have everything hereafter that he has at the present time or has had since 1951, even in the face of a greatly changed world situation.
I have another question, Mr. Chairman, and that is about the power of the minister under section 27 to appoint a controller where he is satisfied that someone has failed to enter into a defence contract or is likely not to perform in a businesslike and efficient manner a contract into which he has entered. Has any situation arisen yet where the minister has found it necessary to exercise the powers conferred upon him by section 27 to appoint a controller?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That situation arises where we have set up a plant for a particular job. I shall use this as an illustration, but not to indicate that action has been taken or is likely to be taken at this plant. Take the Orenda engine plant in Toronto; we

Defence Production Act built the building and installed the machinery. I think the building cost $17 million and the machinery about $40 million. We sold the building back to private industry, and under the arrangement the government will continue to own the machinery. It will be used for the purpose indicated. Suppose we saw that through bad management the plant was failing to produce what was required? In other words, that as a result of bad management it was not turning out Orenda engines to what we believed to be the capacity of the plant. Suppose we find the plant going bankrupt as a result of bad management? We had similar cases in the second world war, a number of them.
Are we to stand by and see the efficiency of the plant drop or see the plant go bankrupt, and face the inevitable consequences of either event? No; we reserve the right, if the owners will not change the management or if those responsible will not change the management, to insist that the management be changed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has not
answered my question, so I shall put it again. Have any conditions arisen or has any situation arisen where the minister has found it necessary to exercise the powers conferred by section 27 and appoint a controller?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, we have not appointed a controller since 1951, but we have had situations where if the owners or those responsible had not been willing to resolve them we would have appointed a controller.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was it necessary in any such case for the minister to threaten to appoint a controller?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We never
threaten.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You never threaten?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Never threaten.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I take it that although this section was there and no controller was appointed, the minister at no time held over the head of a corporation or individual concerned the threat that a controller would be appointed if they did not mend their ways?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We ask them to mend their ways. If we are satisfied that they will not, we act; but we never threaten.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that a situation did not arise where the minister found it necessary to act; he obtained satisfaction without resorting to these powers. Is that true?


Clarence Decatur Howe: We did not take action under the powers. The powers were there, however.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I take it that the reason the powers were not exercised was that the minister was able to obtain satisfactory results in his dealings with these firms without resorting to the powers under the act?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Without exercising the powers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We in this group are not reluctant to point out the anti-social characteristics sometimes displayed by private industry. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, none of us has ever made any stronger indictment of private industry than that made this afternoon by the Minister of Defence Production. If he, as an ardent defender of the private enterprise system, feels that in the face of national need legislation of this kind is necessary, I suggest that point should be considered even by my friends to the right who are also strong protagonists of the private enterprise system.
I need not spell out or repeat the instances the minister cited this afternoon. The statements he made were very serious, and I suggest that they do indicate the need for parliament to establish certain economic controls and to put those controls in the hands of the government, when you have a program of defence procurement and defence purchasing on a scale such as we have at the present time.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made by my hon. friends to the right, such as the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra, the Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, particularly as they submitted in strong terms the need for the rule of law. I take second place to no one in my interest in the rule of law. I shall remind my friends to the right of that phrase on some occasion that will arise not very far in the future. Nevertheless, I do not intend to be fooled by those who would equate the rule of law to the unfettered right of private industry to be a law unto itself, even in the face of national need.
I am ready to admit that this act should be thoroughly studied by all of us before we agree to the bill at the second reading stage. I hope that between now and then the government might consider whether some changes in the act itself might be made. I suggest, as one change, that instead of wiping out the expiry date altogether another expiry

date might be written into the act. The department as set up originally in 1951 was to expire July 31, 1956, and perhaps the government would consider putting in an expiry date of, let us say, July 31, 1958 or 1959.
Those are details which I hope the government will consider. Even as I have asked my hon. friends of the Conservative party to pay attention to what the Minister of Defence Production has said in asking for this legislation, so I would ask the government to pay attention to the suggestions put forward from this side, including what has been said by members of the official opposition.
Meantime, as I see it, a case has been made for the continuance of economic controls to protect the economy against the effects of defence purchasing, defence procurement and defence building, and on that basis it seems to me this resolution should be allowed to pass.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I would have been perfectly satisfied to let this matter go at the conclusion of the question period by the hon. member for Eglinton, but I do not think I can let the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre go unchallenged.
It seems to me that in two world wars, and in a major one only recently, Canadians from all parts of the country volunteered to give their lives, if necessary-


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John Borden Hamilton: I shall get to the
point.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I am afraid the discussion has been going somewhat far afield. I remind hon. members that a discussion of the powers under the Defence Production Act in my opinion is relevant in a discussion of this resolution only if that discussion is related to the expiry of the act.
The resolution draws our attention to the fact that it is intended to repeal section 41, which makes provision for the expiry of the act on July 31, 1956. The time of expiry is brought particularly to the attention of hon. members. Therefore I have not felt it possible to limit the discussion of powers contained in the original Defence Production Act so long as that discussion has been directed primarily to the expiry of the act, and as to whether those powers should be continued beyond July 31, 1956. Hon. members will recall citation 439, I believe it is, which provides that discussion at the resolution stage should be somewhat brief. I am hopeful that at this late stage in the debate hon. members will confine their remarks more strictly to the terms of the resolution itself.
Defence Production Act


Mr. Green:: If I may intercede on behalf of the hon. member for York West, I do suggest that he had the right to reply to the statements made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and that the same rule that has applied to other hon. members who have taken part in the debate this afternoon -and that includes ministers-should also be applied to the hon. member for York West. There is no reason for his being cut off just as he is beginning his speech. I do suggest he was cut off before he had the opportunity even to start to make his point, and I would ask that he be allowed to continue.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Of course I have no desire to be unfair to any hon. member, but it did seem to me that the remarks were of a very general nature. Hon. members will recall that this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition spoke along somewhat general lines. Nevertheless I followed carefully his remarks and I thought that, in essence, they were directed to the expiry of the act. Therefore I did not make any attempt to interfere with the discussion, because I thought his remarks and those of other hon. members, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, were directed essentially to the expiry date. If the hon. member for York West wishes to confine himself to that phase of the matter he is at liberty to proceed, of course.


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour, discussion in this debate has been directed throughout to the powers the act gives, because the removal of the expiry date makes those powers permanent. In making his remarks the hon. member for York West is surely entitled to deal with the powers in the act. However, he had the opportunity to say only about two sentences before Your Honour intervened. I do urge that the hon. member for York West be given the same opportunity that has been given the more senior members in the committee today.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra and I seem to be saying the same thing but in different words. We seem to agree that a discussion of the powers in the original act is relevant so long as that discussion is directed primarily to the point whether such powers should be continued beyond July 31, 1956. I had just said, when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra rose, that the hon. member for York West had a perfect right to proceed so long as he directed his remarks along that line, as other members have done.


John Borden Hamilton: I shall get to the point very quickly. Meantime I might be permitted to say that today some slight semblance of barracking has started, and it
1998	HOUSE OF
Defence Production Act would seem that at least I have graduated from the junior position I held when entering this chamber.
Let me relate my remarks in this way. If Canadians are prepared personally to volunteer their services to their country without reservation, including a willingness to give their lives if necessary, I am quite certain that corporations or others with whom the Minister of Defence Production may have to deal can be counted upon to co-operate in the same way. I am sure that in many cases veterans of the first world war were directors of the corporations that supplied materials in the second; and I am firmly convinced that the volunteers of the second world war in many instances were those who made possible the materials that went into the war supplies for Korea.
From listening to the replies given by the Minister of Defence Production, I have the feeling that when we talk about requisitions in connection with supplies for this type of effort, in the vast majority of cases representatives of our commercial organizations have sat around the table with him to work out a program satisfactory not only to themselves but to the government of Canada. Under those circumstances, knowing that these are the same people, the same men, who were prepared to risk their lives, I am certain there will be no lack of co-operation in so far as their assistance to the government in a material way is concerned.
The big stick is not required in Canada, in times of danger. And if times become really serious, I am sure the House of Commons would be prepared to grant in some other legislative form the powers needed to carry out a supreme war effort.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I have two or three more brief questions, Mr. Chairman, but I do wish to make a comment on the remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre allowed himself to make. We are not unfamiliar in this house with the way in which the C.C.F. seizes upon every possible opportunity to preach the doctrine of regimentation through government controls. It is not surprising, therefore, today that we should find the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rising to make the kind of speech he did. He will be recognized, as those who share his political creed are recognized, as the apostles of regimentation.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. The hon. member for Eglinton was in the committee a few minutes ago when I rose, and surely he must expect from the remarks I made then that I would ask him to co-operate by refraining from the type of remarks he is now making, and confine himself to the resolution.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With great respect, Mr. Chairman, I was making comment in reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who was not restrained in anything he had to say. My remarks were fully as relevant as his.


Mr. Ellis:: He does not speak ten times in an afternoon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Neither do I. Perhaps the hon. member does not understand the difference between speaking and asking questions. Perhaps he will learn in time, for his associates have learned a great deal about advocating regimentation.
Now, sir, may I ask the Prime Minister a question? He indicated this afternoon during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that the speech made in the house on March 2, 1951, on second reading of the bill, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce met with his approval; that it was a statement of government policy to which the Prime Minister personally subscribed. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister, when he subscribed to the statement on page 836 of Hansard that "some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature", what particular powers in the bill he had reference to?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I had reference to no particular powers in the bill. I will assure the hon. member that recently I reread this bill three times to try to determine in my own mind what powers it would be prudent to do away with at this time, and quite frankly I was not able to find any that the circumstances of these times do not make as desirable as the circumstances of 1951 made them when they were adopted.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I take it the view of the Prime Minister is that there are no powers in the bill that come within the description given in 1951 "special powers which should not be of a continuing nature"?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is not what I said, Mr. Chairman. I said I was looking for powers that it would seem reasonably prudent for those who had responsibility to suggest deleting from the bill at this time, and I was not able to find them.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If I correctly apprehend the Prime Minister, Mr. Chairman, he has not answered my question. Here is a statement made on March 2, 1951. The words are very plain. At that time the Prime Minister and the government recognized that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature. Will the Prime Minister now cast his mind back to 1951 and state to the committee what

were the powers the government recognized at that time as "special powers which should not be of a continuing nature"?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: There were no special powers. What we recognized as being of a special nature is that the hon. gentleman and I both feel it is most unfortunate that there have to be those extraordinary powers in order to provide adequately for our participation in the defence of the free nations; and I think he hopes, as I do, that they will not be of a continuing nature in this world.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Prime Minister may be satisfied with his answer. If his answer is correct it means that he has contradicted the statement made in 1951.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes. If you will examine the answer of the Prime Minister as given to this question-


Mr. Slick:: This is 1955.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, it is 1955, a rather different situation. And in reply to my question as to what were the powers to which reference was made in 1951, the powers which the government said at that time it recognized as special powers which should not be of a continuing nature, the Prime Minister in effect says there are no such things, there are no special powers in this bill which should not be of a continuing nature. If that is not a contradiction I do not know what is.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is what the Prime Minister just said, because I asked him to give what was in the mind of the government in 1951. The Prime Minister has just said to the committee that there are no special powers in this bill which should not be of a continuing nature.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: The Prime Minister has not made that statement, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to try to unravel the web the hon. gentleman is weaving at this time, but I am quite satisfied with the answer I have given to his question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am weaving no web. I would like to get some information, in other words a plain answer to a plain question. The Prime Minister has done quite a bit of weaving since I started on this simple question. My question was very simple. I shall be happy if the Prime Minister will answer it even now. My question is, what were the powers in this bill which the government recognized on March 2, 1951, were special powers which should not be of a continuing nature?
Defence Production Act


John Horace Dickey: Read the end of the quotation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is the end of a sentence. The full sentence is:
There is no particular significance to this date-
That is the date of expiry, July 31, 1956.
-other than to recognize that some of the powers sought in this bill are special powers which should not be of a continuing nature.
Now, my question is-


John Horace Dickey: Read the next sentence.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What does the next sentence say?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It goes all over the place.
It reads:
Bearing in mind the present situation, and the program which has been announced by my colleague the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), a period of five years seems a reasonable minimum for the duration of the act.
It has nothing to do with the question whatsoever.


John Horace Dickey: It certainly has.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I am sure the Prime Minister must value the assistance the hon. member for Halifax seeks to bring to his rescue. It is a very significant situation indeed. I would be a little surprised if the Prime Minister welcomes this form of juvenile assistance.
May I go back now, Mr. Chairman, in the hope of eliciting a simple, direct answer to my question? What were the powers contained in the bill which on March 2, 1951: the government said were special powers which should not be of a continuing nature?


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether the Prime Minister is not going to answer the question?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Prime Minister feels that he has sufficiently answered the hon. gentleman's question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The record will plainly show that the Prime Minister has not answered the question at any time. The nearest he came to it today was the contradiction of the statement made in 1951.
There are two other questions I should like to ask the Minister of Defence Production. First, has it been necessary to exercise the powers conferred under section 28 of the act under which the minister may, in effect, relieve a person of a legal obligation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is very difficult to go back over three or four years and remember whether we relieved anybody of an obligation or not. I assume we have; I do not know. I cannot think of a particular instance.

Defence Production Act


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is a very important matter. If the minister has not the answer at his fingertips will he undertake to prepare the answer? He says he does not recall any such situation. I take it the minister will be prepared to look into that subject, if he is not in a position to give a full answer now, and give a full answer when the bill comes before the house next time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The next question is in relation to section 29, under which the minister may where he deems it expedient cause an inquiry to be made, and may appoint an investigator. Has it been necessary at any time for the minister to act under section 29?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Inquiries are carried on by a section of the audit division of the treasury which is attached to the department. These inquiries have been carried on quite frequently. As I recall, I do not think we have appointed a special investigator.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I take it that the minister is indicating that no investigator has been appointed as such under section 29?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I would not like to give a categorical answer without looking into the matter. I shall be prepared to answer that when the bill is under discussion.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, we have had a most interesting discussion on this resolution this afternoon, but I must say that I am just a little disturbed in deciding what position I should take. Like the majority of hon. members I feel that I should look searchingly at any suggestion for the continuation of the great autocratic and dictatorial powers which are placed in the hands of a cabinet minister by this act, but at the same time I think all hon. members want to give into the hands of the government and of the minister those powers which may be required in time of national emergency.
So that I may be absolutely in order, may I say this resolution asks for the repeal of section 41 which provided for the expiry of the act on July 31, 1956. In support of this resolution and the bill which is to follow we have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence Production, who are champions of the free enterprise system, saying that this resolution and the following bill should be passed. At the same time we have Her Majesty's loyal opposition, also the champions of the free enterprise system, asking a number of questions and indicating that they are fearful of this power being vested in the hands of the present government and minister.


It is on the basis of the arguments put forward by the champions of private enterprise on the government side and on the opposition side-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Alfred Robinson: For fear that I may find myself in difficulty I hope the hon. member will not try to discuss the merits or demerits of the free enterprise system on this resolution. Perhaps he will confine himself to the resolution, as he indicated he would at the commencement of his remarks.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry if I was getting out of order. As I was saying, the resolution provides that section 41 of the act be repealed, this being the section which provides for an expiry date. I had mentioned that arguments have come from the government side indicating that they stand for certain principles, and they are opposed on an argumentative basis by others who also stand for the same system. I say it is on the basis of arguments which are directly related to the principle of this resolution, and which we would want to analyse from all points of view, that we have to reach a decision.
I want to say that I have reached my decision, and it is that if the minister or the government who have had to deal with problems in Canada at a time of national emergency have in their experience found it necessary to have certain powers in order to get the co-operation of private business in Canada, and if the government and the minister who are still in power feel that the Canadian and world situation is still such that in the national interest they require to have this authority in case it is required to get co-operation under this system, then I am going to support a minister with experience, a minister who supports private enterprise and who says, "I need these powers in the event of a national emergency in Canada". I am going to support the resolution.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a word or two before the resolution is passed or voted upon, whichever may be the case. I have listened to the debate on this resolution for the past few days. Back in 1951 when the Defence Production Act was brought before this house I made it clear on behalf of the group I represent that we realized the need for placing in the hands of the minister those wide powers required to meet the situation and to protect the Canadian economy. We did not feel that it was any reflection on private enterprise. It was a situation which had to be met and which required wide powers in the hands of

the government for regulatory purposes, wide powers which industry itself in the country was asking for for its own protection.
We did think at that time that the government was wise in placing a time limit of five years on the act, but we felt also that it would be perfectly justified in having the act terminate say on July 31, 1956. It has now been indicated by the minister that as we draw somewhat closer to the terminal date he feels it is going to be necessary to repeal section 41 of the act, which indicates to me, at any rate, that he thinks it will be necessary to make the terms of the act permanent.
I do not like it. I believe that even though it may be considered essential to grant a continuation of the powers under the act it would be wise for the government to consider placing a terminal date in the bill. I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in that regard. I would not like to lend my support to the repeal of section 41. Before bringing down the bill I believe the government should consider including some terminal date, if not the one suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, of July 31, 1958, at least something that is reasonable.
If the government will do that it will have my support for the continuance of the act. I support the resolution, but certainly if the government indicates that there is to be no terminal date at all, that they are going to make this act a permanent act, I would have to consider my position most carefully before I agreed to a continuation of the act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps I might explain the difficulty. If it were not for the human element in the department I would be quite willing to set another date and debate the matter again. However, the difficulty is that the Department of Defence Production is staffed by civil servants. The dollar a year men have gone; they served their time, and we now have trained civil servants occupying the positions. Over 1,000 men in the department are to all intents and purposes temporaries. In other words they are in a department that is due to expire on a certain date.
The reason I had to announce that the government would undertake to make this a permanent department was that the men were leaving me because I could not promise them a position for more than a year. We have very able men in the department who should not have been placed in that position. They were men who could have taken excellent positions in industry. They could do better in industry than they could in the
Defence Production Act government. Their attitude was that they would stay if they could be guaranteed a good future in the government, but if this was not the case they would go elsewhere, where they could be certain that their services would have a future.
That is the reason for asking that the time limit on the department be removed, which action in effect changes the department from a temporary department to a permanent one.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask the minister if he
thinks it is possible to put a provision in the act which would terminate the powers given to him under this act when the situation makes it possible to do so?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hardly think
that is necessary. If we get back to a reasonably normal time and the powers are not required, I think the government of the day will certainly come forward and revise the act voluntarily; but neither the hon. member nor I can see too far into the future, and I do not think we should attempt now to decide whether or not the powers of this act will be required over a long period in the defence of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Defence Production indicated the reason he wanted the powers made permanent was to provide for the civil servants in the department, and 1 think we all believe this should be done Why would it not be possible to word the bill in such a way that the department is made permanent but these powers are made temporary, and subject to review within a certain length of time? Surely it would not be beyond the capacities of the Department of Justice to draft a bill of that type.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Chairman, any legislation of the government can be reviewed at any time on the motion of anyone in any part of the house, as I understand it.


Solon Earl Low: Would the minister not say that it might be wise to make it mandatory upon the government to have this legislation submitted for review at regular intervals? I think the idea suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra is an excellent one, whereby the minister could consider including in the act some provision to make it mandatory upon the government to submit it to the house for review, let us say in three or four years or whatever he feels desirable.


Howard Charles Green: I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, there is on the statute books an act known as the Defence Supplies Act which is suspended by section 40 of the Defence Production Act. In other words,

Defence Production Act in 1951 when the Defence Production Act was passed it suspended the act known as the Defence Supplies Act which had been passed, I think, in 1950. Surely some legislation could be brought in which would provide that the defence production department will continue as a permanent department, but the question of what powers it should have shall be reviewed within a certain length of time. If some provision of that kind were made I think it would pretty well meet the objections which have been brought forward in this debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, I remind my hon. friend that he fought the Defence Supplies Act much more violently than he has fought this act; he kept at it for days. I do not know why anyone would get any comfort from going back to the Defence Supplies Act, but if the house wishes to adopt this resolution, before the bill is brought in the government will consider the request of my hon. friend. I do not know whether or not the government will accept the hon. member's suggestion, but at least it will be given consideration.


Frank Exton Lennard: I merely wish to make a brief comment. Earlier this afternoon some mention was made of reluctance on the part of firms to deal with the government and accept government orders. I feel in that respect the government must accept some of the blame because, to use a common phrase, they have not always been good pay. The government sometimes required weeks and even months before making payment to firms for goods delivered. In some cases during the last world war I know that firms were embarrassed to the extent of being unable to meet their payroll obligations because of reluctance or delay on the part of the government of that day in making payment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say one further word concerning section 41. I do not have it at hand at the moment, but I know section 41 as it is now set out in the act is not allembracing. It says, if I remember correctly, that this act shall expire on July 31, 1956, except for section such and such.
I hope in the consideration which the Minister of Trade and Commerce has promised to give he will consider the possibility of wording that section in the opposite way, letting it stand that the department goes on but including a provision in section 41 which would say that sections so and so of this act-and these could be the sections dealing with the wide powers-will expire on such and such a date. This action would give the officials and employees of the department a sense of permanency as far


as their employment is concerned, but would also bring before parliament at an appropriate date and on a mandatory basis a review of the whole question of the powers contained in the act.


Solon Earl Low: I am sorry I did not hear all the answer which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when he was asked if the government could consider bringing in with the bill some provision for a periodic review. If I understood correctly what I did hear, there was no undertaking whatever given to the hon. member that the government would give consideration to the suggestion.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, he did.


Solon Earl Low: If I remember correctly he said that if we will let this resolution go through he would consider the suggested provision. I do not think that is the time when this should be done. I think now is the time to get an undertaking from the government, before this resolution is passed. As far as I am concerned, I do not propose that we should let the resolution go through unless the government will give this house a definite undertaking concerning the consideration of including in the bill provision for a periodic review of this act before parliament. If they will do that I will say: "Go ahead, put the resolution through." If they do not, I am afraid I cannot go along with it.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Solon Earl Low: No, certainly not. I think the Prime Minister or the minister must realize we are trying to be reasonable about this. I am trying to be reasonable, and I am sure those who are supporting me here are reasonable in their attitude. I do not propose that we shall sacrifice the rights of this parliament, especially on a matter of this kind which can easily mean the establishment of a dictatorship-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Solon Earl Low: That is exactly what it would be, and that appears to us to be the meaning of it. Surely it would be a simple matter for the Prime Minister to say: "We shall give consideration to such a provision in the act and will bring something in." That is all we are asking. What about it, Mr. Chairman? May I ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to give consideration to such a provision?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has already stated that the government would give consideration to the views which have been expressed here in that regard.


An hon. Member:: No, he has not.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry? Shall I report the resolution?


Solon Earl Low: No, no, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Blackmore:: I gather from what the minister said that the only reason for leaving the duration of the act indefinite was to assure the people employed in the department that their jobs would be continuing.
That suggestion gives me the greatest alarm, because certainly those men will want to maintain an act which will give them a job for probably 20 or 30 years. If we are legislating for their welfare I think there is a far safer way of doing it. I would far rather propose that we guarantee them jobs somewhere else during that 20 or 25 years than to undertake to guarantee it to them by a bill of this kind which, as the hon. member for Peace River points out, certainly means the establishment of dictatorship and can be in no way interpreted otherwise.
What conceivable chance has the opposition of obtaining a review of this act once it is passed and goes into the records? What assurance have we that ten years from today there will be in charge a man who will be as sane, as wise and as responsible as the present Minister of Trade and Commerce? I do not hesitate for a minute to say that I think what the Minister of Trade and Commerce has done, with the tremendous powers he has had during the last few years, has been admirable. I do not see how a man could have done any better. But let me say this. We do not often find a man like the Minister of Trade and Commerce; we do not find more than one in about every million. We therefore must take precautions to see that the country shall be reasonably safe no matter what kind of minister gets into that position.
I certainly would not be in favour of letting the resolution pass. It must be recognized, Mr. Chairman, so that those reading Hansard will understand it as we in this house understand it, that the only chance in the world we have of holding up this act is right here at the resolution stage. The government can ride roughshod over us at any other stage, but it cannot ride roughshod over us at this stage. If we propose to hold up the resolution we can do it until next Christmas or longer. This is where the opposition has some chance of asserting the right of the people against a government that may be disposed to use too much power unwisely. I am not in favour of passing the resolution until we have a commitment.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I perhaps was responsible for this difficulty in the suggestion I made. However, my understanding of the
14. 1955	2003
New Westminster Harbour Commission statement made by the Minister of Defence Production was that he would give serious consideration to the suggestion that has been made, namely that the bill be changed so that the defence production department will be made permanent, but that the powers of the department will be subject to review within a reasonable period. The rules of the house being what they are, my own personal opinion is that that promise meets the situation. We are all desirous of achieving the same objective. I do not think there is much difference as to the objective we hope to reach.
I suggest that the matter be allowed to stand as it is at the present time, on the understanding that the resolution goes through and that the government will give serious consideration to this suggestion. Then, of course, if a change is not made, when the bill is brought down hon. members can decide whether or not they wish to oppose it. We shall then all have our rights which will not be prejudiced by accepting the minister's promise as made just a few moments ago.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. St. Laurent thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 256, to amend the Defence Production Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


NEW WESTMINSTER HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 187, respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners.


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister or his parliamentary assistant going to make a statement?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much that can be added to what I said the other day when the resolution was introduced and debated. However, as hon. members will recall the suggestion was advanced that this bill be referred to one of the standing committees after it received second reading. At that time I said the suggestion would be considered. The matter has been considered, and I now wish to state that once the bill has received second reading a motion will be made to refer it to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Canadian Forces Act


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the parliamentary assistant for having this matter reviewed and for agreeing to send the bill to the standing committee. I think that is the proper way in which to have it considered. As that particular committee is meeting later this week, I think no delay will be occasioned by reason of the bill having been referred to it.
Under these circumstances the official opposition have nothing further to say at the present stage.


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, although this bill is going to a committee I just wish to go on record as saying that I believe in this instance there should be some addition to the New Westminster harbour commission; that my riding is much concerned with the expenditure of money by that body; and that during the meetings of the committee, of which I am a member, I shall bring this matter to the attention of the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Ralph Osborne Campney: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Canadian forces to amend the National Defence Act to provide for the reinstatement under certain circumstances of a member of the Canadian forces who has been released, to place members of the Canadian forces in the same position as civilians in respect of judicial process, and to make certain other amendments to the act; also to amend the Defence Services Pension Act with respect to the payment to women of pensions or gratuities under certain circumstances, to extend the provisions relating to the augmentation of pension on re-enrolment, to extend the time within which an election may be made to count prior service, and to make certain other amendments to the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Mr. Harkness:: Is the minister going to make any statement or explanation with regard to the meaning of this resolution?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a short statement which I hope will be helpful. The bill which will be introduced in consequence of the adoption of this resolution will be entitled "The Canadian Forces Act, 1955". It will be similar in title and scope to the Canadian Forces Act enacted by parliament in each of the past five years,

from 1950 to 1954. In fact it is a more or less routine bill designed to make a number of what we consider desirable amendments to statutes affecting the armed services. This year the bill is more limited in scope than usual, in that it contains proposed amendments to only two acts, namely the National Defence Act and the Defence Services Pension Act.
Thirteen clauses of the bill contain proposed amendments to the National Defence Act. These amendments deal with a variety of subjects and would effect a number of changes in military law and procedure. Several of them are designed to give added protection to accused persons. Others it is hoped will facilitate the administration of justice under the code of service discipline.
One of the most important of the proposed amendments would repeal the section of the National Defence Act under which members of the forces are given wide exemptions from judicial process, and would substitute therefor a section exempting only the property used by members of the forces for military purposes from execution under civil judgment.
Another proposed amendment would permit an officer or man who has been released from the Canadian forces or transferred from one component to another to be reinstated, with his consent and subject to regulations made by the governor in council, without the necessity of a break in his service where it appears equitable that this should be done.
Other amendments proposed to the National Defence Act would authorize the minister to substitute for a finding of guilty made by a court martial, a finding of guilty on an included or cognate offence-


Douglas Scott Harkness: Excuse me-what was that again?


Ralph Osborne Campney: -on an included or cognate offence-that is a lesser offence-and would authorize him to order a new trial where an irregularity in law has occurred at a court martial, and would enable the judge advocate at a court martial to decide questions of law arising during the trial rather than, as at present, merely advising the court thereon.
Other proposed amendments would place certain limitations on the period during which a person may be held in service custody awaiting trial; would clarify the provisions respecting automatic remission of punishment after suspension, and would permit the return to Canada for trial by a civil court of a person subject to the code of service discipline who has committed outside of Canada a criminal offence punishable by the laws of Canada.

There are other proposed amendments to the code of service discipline that are of a technical nature and can best be explained in detail when hon. members have the bill before them.
Twelve clauses of the bill contain proposed amendments to the Defence Services Pension Act. These also relate to a wide variety of subjects. Two of the more important amendments would incorporate in that act provisions similar to those now contained in the Public Service Superannuation Act. One of these would empower the treasury board to grant a widow's pension in certain cases to women who would not otherwise be entitled thereto. The other would enable a contributor who fails to elect to count prior service for pension purposes within one year of becoming a contributor, as is now required by the act, to elect at any time whilst he is still a contributor, subject however to such penalty as may be provided by the regulation.
Another proposed amendment would authorize the governor in council to extend the provisions for augmentation of pensions upon re-enrolment in the forces or appointment to the public service, to pensioners re-enrolled or appointed subsequent to the 30th day of June, 1950.
Other amendments proposed will permit the adoption of administrative procedures designed to facilitate and expedite the payment of benefits under the act, and effect other technical changes in the act.
The foregoing amendments, Mr. Chairman, are of considerable importance to the efficient and equitable administration of our defence forces, and I therefore commend this resolution to the favourable consideration of the committee.


George Randolph Pearkes: The resolution, as contained in the routine proceedings and orders of the day, does not give us a great deal of information as to the matters which will be contained in the bill to follow. This afternoon the minister has given us some further information which would indicate that this bill is going to contain some 25 clauses, the majority of which are unrelated one to another, and which will amend two different acts, the National Defence Act and the Defence Services Pension Act.
There will be a variety of subjects dealt with in this bill. It would seem that they are intended to give additional protection to the servicemen, and if that is the principle of the bill then I think we could concur in it. However, we shall have to reserve our judgment on the various detailed clauses because, from the information which has been given us, it is impossible to really make a full assessment of their value. Each of these 50433-127
Canadian Forces Act
clauses will deserve careful consideration. Reference has been made to a reduction in exemption from judicial process which will apply to all servicemen. I feel we shall have to examine that clause carefully to see that the servicemen are duly protected.
Another thing that strikes me is that the position of the judge advocate general is now to be somewhat altered. In the past the judge advocate general has attended courts-martial in an advisory capacity, either he or his representative. Now he is going to be there more in an executive position, in that he will give rulings on points of law. I feel we would like to look into the implications of that more fully.
I am not going to say any more on the resolution at the present time, therefore, but shall wait until we have the bill before us.


Mr. Thomas:: This resolution would appear to introduce one of the omnibus bills to which reference has been made from time to time. The hon. member tor Esquimalt-Saanich said a moment ago that 25 clauses of the bill amend two acts, and that a variety of amendments are going to be put forward. It would appear that they are mostly for the better, according to the minister's explanation, but it is rather difficult to draw any conclusion at the moment. In view of the minister's statement we shall have to reserve judgment on these amendments until we have an opportunity of studying the bill and ascertaining just what is entailed in each of the clauses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister one question? When he referred to continuing the right of election under the Defence Services Pension Act he said this was comparable to an arrangement under the Public Service Superannuation Act. May I ask whether the penalties for delaying that election a great length of time are the same in this legislation as they are in the Public Service Superannuation Act?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I speak subject to correction, but I think they are.


Clarence Gillis: The minister will recall that on many occasions I have raised the point in the house where, when a serviceman dies in the service and his superannuation payments are returned to the widow, the income tax branch charge back the total amount and take a considerable chunk of it. In my view this is a piece of injustice, and I am wondering whether the minister will include that in the proposed legislation. If so, it should be made retroactive.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have a considerable number of duties in the administration of my own act and, as has been explained on a number

Canadian Forces Act
of occasions, what the hon. member suggests would necessitate an amendment to the Income Tax Act, in respect of which I am not charged with jurisdiction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak to your seatmate, the Minister of Finance.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise the same objection I raised last year and the two preceding years, as to the form of the resolution and the bill which will be founded upon it. This is an omnibus resolution, and of course the bill will be an omnibus bill. In addition to that, we see in the resolution some six or seven matters to be dealt with, and then the minister proceeds to tell us about 25 matters are to be considered. In other words the resolution does not indicate to us what the bill to be founded upon it is to contain, but indicates only a few of the many things.
It does not seem to me that is a reasonable procedure in the introduction of legislation in the house. The resolution should be more specific than the one now before us, or those we have seen in former years. Perhaps there should be two or three resolutions dealing with specific matters, and two or three bills.
So far as we know at the moment, perhaps there is not much that is objectionable in the proposed legislation. Of course we will not know that until we see the bill. I do feel, however, that the procedure is objectionable, and some other method of introducing the legislation should be found.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Calgary North, because this matter was discussed last year and the year before. With the minister now in full charge of his department he is in a position to make the necessary changes. The weakness in the present instance, as has been pointed out, is that the resolution proposes several changes and then, to make it even weaker, it adds that peculiar clause, "and to make certain other amendments to the act".
The minister has mentioned today a whole series of changes upon which at the moment we cannot comment at length because it is difficult to keep them in mind. As a new broom on the job, and with his experience as associate minister, I would hope that next year the minister would divide the resolution, and amend each act separately.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
[Mr. Campney.l
Mr. Campney thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 257, respecting the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


RAILWAY ACT
George Carlyle Marler: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Railway Act following the report on the railway-highway crossing problem in Canada, made by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to provide for an increase in the annual appropriation to the railway grade crossing fund from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 and for certain changes in connection with the administration of the fund.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a statement?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes. On January 14, 1953, my predecessor tabled in this house a copy of order in council P.C. 1953-52 of that date by which the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada was directed to make an investigation and report on all phases of the problem of railway-highway crossings. In doing so he called attention to the fact that the number of accidents occurring at these crossings had become a matter of mounting national concern.
The board, in compliance with this order in council, carried out a very comprehensive investigation that involved the holding of public hearings at many points in Canada and the examination of a large number of submissions. On June 21, 1954, my predecessor tabled the report made to the government by the board upon completion of its investigation.
In its report the board of transport commissioners made the following recommendations:
1.	That instead of the present contribution of $1 million to the railway grade crossing fund there should be each year an appropriation of $5 million subject to the proviso that where on April 1 in any year there is an uncommitted balance of more than $2 million in the fund the appropriation for that year should be such sum as with the uncommitted balance would amount to $7 million.

2.	That the present contribution of 40 per cent of the cost of the actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public to a maximum of $150,000 in respect of any one crossing at rail level be increased to 60 per cent and $300,000 respectively.
3.	That the fund should be made available to aid reconstruction and improvement of grade separations in existence at crossings when the proposed legislation comes into force which, because of their location, design or size are inadequate for the highway traffic using them, the contribution in any one case not to exceed 30 per cent of the cost of reconstruction nor the sum of $150,000.
4.	That contributions should be permitted toward the annual cost of maintenance and operation of automatic signals installed at crossings after the proposed legislation comes into force, the contribution in respect of any one crossing not to exceed for any year the actual cost for that year nor the sum of $200.
5.	That the provision in subsection 1 of section 265 which prevents a contribution from the fund in respect of crossings at rail level constructed after April 1, 1909, unless there is the agreement referred to in the subsection between the railway company and a municipal or other corporation or person, should be eliminated but there should be a provision that the board shall not apply any money out of the fund towards the cost of work in respect of a crossing unless the crossing has been in existence for at least three years prior to the making of the board's order to apply the money.
6.	That the board should be empowered to make contributions toward the cost of highway projects which involve the construction of a grade separation and the closing of an existing crossing or the diversion from the existing crossing of nearly all the highway traffic using it.
7.	That section 263 of the Railway Act which places on the railway company unless and except as otherwise provided by an agreement approved by the board all cost of protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect of any crossing of the highway where the railway is constructed after May, 1909, be repealed.
If the present resolution is carried it is proposed to introduce a bill to make the necessary amendments to the Railway Act to give effect to these recommendations, with the exception of that providing for contributions toward the annual cost of maintenance and operation of automatic signals installed at crossings after the proposed legislation 50433-127i
Railway Act
comes into force. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the legislation is designed to give effect to all the recommendations of the board of transport commissioners save that respecting contributions to the annual cost of the signals, to which I referred a moment ago.


Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, it is nearly six o'clock. Will you call it six o'clock?


The Deputy Chairman:: Does the committee wish me to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Chairman, last year when the estimates having to do with the railway grade crossing fund were before the committee I made some observations on grade level crossing conditions in the municipalities of Toronto and Scarborough, and mentioned their great concern about the heavy toll of fatal accidents and the evident slow progress in eliminating the many hazards.
The Minister of Transport at that time on a point of order contended that as the whole problem of railway-highway crossings in Canada was under review by the board of transport commissioners, a quasi-judicial body, the discussion was sub judice. He found out later, however, that the board had finished its investigation and had filed its report, and subsequently apologized to the house for not having had knowledge of the fact sooner.
I now have had the advantage of having read the report on the board's studies and findings, and make the following observations on this complex problem. The board's report is replete with necessary information and will be of great value for future reference.
The commissioners held 17 public meetings and one final and general hearing. They commenced their examination possessed of an awareness of the public's apprehension that the problem was not receiving satisfactory attention. They have endeavoured to bring it into proper perspective, collating the many elements of national concern into a pattern they hope will speedily effect a remedy, but it is without a plan as to when and where to apply.
There is ample evidence throughout the report that all were anxious that the annual toll of death and injury should end. It was

Railway Act
also apparent from the start that the incidence of accident did not create or develop a policy of accident prevention, but that accident occurrences must be in sufficient numbers before elimination of grade level crossings would be considered, let alone undertaken.
Grade level crossing accidents engaged attention early in the century. The rapid growth of the railways became such a problem that the Railway Act was revised in 1888 to give the railway committee wide powers to meet the situation. In the next 20 years our railways had expanded to 20,000 miles of track with 14,000 level crossings, and in the year 1904 there were 52 killed and 232 injured, or one killed every week and one injured every other day. Notwithstanding the wider power given to the committee their efforts to abate the dangers did not satisfy the public demand for adequate and greater protection.
The government then created a new authority, the board of railway commissioners, with extended power and authority, who likewise found that the problem of grade level crossings did not lend itself to easy solution, as the crossing hazards increased faster than protective devices could be installed or grade separations built, because the resources of the railways and the municipal corporations were too meagre to keep pace with expansion, making it difficult for the new board to measure up to its responsibility of assuring standards of safeguards.
This situation brought into being the railway grade crossing fund in 1909, that provided for set sums to be voted annually for a stated number of years, spelling out the percentage to be paid from the fund at 20 per cent and the limit of cost of each project to $5,000, and only three to any municipality a year.
The board invited the provinces to contribute to the fund, adding that they would observe any condition the provinces stipulated, but the provinces declined although they did assist through the avenue of grants in aid to the municipalities.
Reporting on their first year of administering the fund, the board drew attention to the financial burden placed upon railways and municipalities.
Following this through the years and up to the present time were a sequence of amendments at set intervals increasing the per annum grants from the original amount of $5,000 to the present $1,000,000, raising the percentage of the fund's assistance from 20 to 40 per cent and limiting the cost to $150,000 a project, allowing only six projects

a year to any municipality, with the total cost of a project to be allocated on a division of 40 per cent by the fund, 30 per cent by the municipality and 30 per cent by the railways.
During this period special assistance was given from the unemployment and farm relief funds to the railway crossing fund, and special votes by parliament of $7,300,000 were made to relieve unemployment in the years 1930 to 1939. However, in the war years 1940 to 1946 no grants were made to the fund by parliament and it was during the war years that the situation got beyond us.
The total expenditure from 1909 to 1953 for highway crossing protection was $51,731,255, of which the municipalities paid the largest share, $19,250,000 or 37$ per cent; the railways paid $18,250,000 or 35$ per cent, and the railway fund paid $14,250,000 or 27$ per cent.
According to table No. 9 of the report, 1951 is the last year for which the number of level crossings is given, 32,612-although I believe it stands at over 33,000 to date-of which 3,296 are protected and 29,316 unprotected, compared with the record of 1921, 30 years ago, when there were 2,279 protected crossings and 25,699 unprotected.
It is obvious that we are slipping fast. The board itself despairs when it confirms this by saying:
This does little to encourage the hope that in the near future the problem can be substantially reduced or disposed of.
However, it does make an effort to show some improvement was made, but the figures are there to show that there was no progress.
The investigators found that the consensus of contention was that the unprotected crossings must go; that rural and urban crossings were critically inadequate in protective standards under present-day traffic; that the continuing increase in shocking accident fatalities made imperative a standard of safety rules for trains and highway vehicles at all rail crossings in conjunction with automatic signals and a planned system of advance warning signals and floodlighting of crossings, reflector signs and devices on railway cars to cope with new hazards of high speed, heavy traffic and poor visibility. They also recommended that the provinces and municipalities must recognize their responsibilities by making effective regulations and laws with increased instead of diminished enforcement.
It is also revealed that there is a tendency on the part of those paying the cost to minimize the accident occurrence and the death toll by the use of percentage figures. However, with every shocking fatal accident

Railway Act
the public clamour and insist that something must be done, and that is the real genesis of this report.
The problem of paying for these projects is one which engages the ingenuity of the board, for all through the report, repeated again and again, is their concern about the ability and capacity of the participating parties, the railways and the municipalities, to meet their obligations of the shared cost of projects. To give an idea of what the average costs in the various undertakings are:
For flashing lights and bells	$	6,100.00Annual maintenance	$	560.00
For automatic short-arm gates and
signals	$14,200.00
Annual maintenance	$	865.00
Grade separations or crossing elimination with traffic volume, soil and drainage conditions, highway and rail approaches, expropriations and property damage, produce the heaviest financial burdens, and the most difficult to bear. The average cost for them is estimated at:
Lower cost subway ranging from $78,000 to $350,000.
Higher cost subway from $400,000 to $2,100,000.
Overhead bridges from $40,000 to $725,000.
Highway diversions from $1,000 to $220,000. The general breakdown for an average urban project is $800,000, and for the average rural project $100,000. As the grade separation projects are linked up with traffic congestion and bottlenecks in urban areas, the necessity for their removal becomes urgent. The board when compiling its many tables gave the number of crossings, but failed to catalogue the grade separations or register the schedule of immediate requirements for Canada, so we must gauge the magnitude of the program by the submissions to the board by the provinces and municipalities.
Edmonton: five separations in the next five years at a cost of $6,500,000, with an additional seven required in the near future.
London: 11 railway street crossing bottlenecks estimated at a cost of $9 million.
Toronto: 38 level crossings at an estimated cost of $60 million.
Quebec: a complete railway relocation is required to eliminate the many level crossings, the cost of which has not yet been determined.
The province of New Brunswick: five hazards needing separations, plus Moncton with 13 level crossings.
The province of Nova Scotia: a large number of general grade separations, plus Halifax with the Fairview bottleneck and many main line hazards.
Prince Edward Island: 257 grade level crossings, four of which are rated as grade separations.
The municipality of Scarborough, to which I drew the attention of the house last year, requires eight grade separations and has 26 crossings which need immediate protection, and 22 which require realignment, bank reduction and sight clearance. Every province and 45 municipalities, which included all the larger cities, were listed as presenting claims.
The report clearly sets out that the problem, in the board's opinion, is not wholly a safety and accident prevention problem, as the great majority of grade separations are determined on other grounds such as population growth, urban development, and the tempo of life that places a high value on motor vehicle services, demanding a free flow of highway traffic through eliminating stops, delays and congestions at grade crossings.
While the answer to the grade crossing problem is grade separation, the board points out it must be realized that when costs are high, and the capacity and ability of any of the participating parties to pay is feeble, or if they are unwilling to pay, then the less costly crossing protection will have to suffice. Benefits from a grade separation are measured and compared with the costs so that, when built, it will give the greatest return.
Certain broad general conditions must prevail to warrant the costly grade separation instead of the less costly protection, such as increased value to the economy, enhancement of residential and industrial values, improved business, greater parking facilities, greater street capacities with unimpeded fire and police services, and a general tone of welfare to the community.
In applying the data obtained in their survey the board have been able to give a picture of the cost of an all-embracing program of grade crossing elimination and grade crossing protection. They estimate, for the whole of Canada, a total cost of between $655 and $700 million; and, if spread over a period of 20 years, the annual cost would be $33 million. But they qualify their conclusion by saying that at the end of the 20-year period only 1,433 grade level crossing hazards, or less than 5 per cent of the total number, would have been eliminated.
They again pose the question of the participating principals' ability to support any or all of their share of the actual costs the benefits would impose on them; and that other projects not in the category of grade level railway crossings would have to be neglected or abandoned. The board dismisses

Railway Act
the proposition of embarking on a wholesale program that would, in a few years, speedily and permanently dispose of the grade level railway crossing problem as outside the realm of possibility, and submits the following reasons:
1.	That the cost, $655 to $700 million in a hypothetical selected program, would complete less than 10 per cent of grade level projects in Canada.
2.	That the benefits would not warrant the enormous cost, and grade level railway crossing accidents were less than 1 per cent of all highway traffic accidents; and other useful necessary projects might rank in priority.
3.	That the federal government could not support the entire program, and it would strain the resources of the railways, municipalities, and most of the provinces; and the money might be spent in areas where least needed.
4.	That a heavy demand would be made on the engineering and technical staffs of the railways, provinces, and municipalities, and would limit the work attempted.
5.	That it would interfere with the removal and relocation of railway lines and highways.
If time permitted I would show the fallacy and weakness of the contentions in their five reasons. However, I shall make no comment on the first three of these reasons, other than that you will come to the same conclusion I arrived at: that the board was seeking escape routes to avoid facing up to and resolving the real issue.
The fourth reason will confirm my conclusions on the first three when they state:
That a heavy demand would be made on the engineering and technical staffs of the railways, provinces and municipalities, and would limit the amount of work attempted.
The colleges turn out year after year from their classrooms the calibre of men and women we need for this work. We lose a great number of the young men and women who have graduated from our colleges in emigration to the United States and other countries year after year because we have no place to employ their skill and talent. We cannot say the amount of work attempted would be cramped because of lack of staff. This work is the very thing we are constantly searching for. It offers employment to our young men and women who have graduated from our colleges, and they are earnestly seeking for such opportunities. You can see the kind of thinking the board has given to this phase of the problem.
The board did not give much attention to, nor did it elaborate upon the future increase

of population by natural growth and immigration, and the industrial and commercial expansion and the impact it would have on the problem, through the increased volume of highway and railway traffic in the years ahead.
The board again emphasizes the fact that it is far beyond the municipalities' and railways' ability to carry the burden with their financial resources. Well, from our knowledge of the municipalities' plight we have to go along with them in their contention that the general inflation, in vogue through the government's inability to hold it in check, has added to their difficulties. This is also reflected in the high cost of education, public works and social and welfare services, and is further aggravated by the federal and provincial governments' taxes which take so much of the people's income that even a moderate increase in municipal taxes is impossible, because the general level of the people's wages and income has not kept up with the faster pace of inflation.
Provincial governments help the municipalities to the extent they feel is warranted by the various projects, and to the extent that their financial resources will permit; but no definite policy has been established, and if it were not for this assistance the municipalities could not have undertaken some of their major projects.
A major part of the report is occupied with analyses, some factual and some conjectural, with checks, benefits, values, responsibilities, allocations, limitations, approaches, and examinations; but it always trails into the avenue of the participating parties' ability to pay, so that it becomes an obsession with them, to the extent that they have obscured the main terms of reference of their commission, namely:
(a)	conduct a survey and report on the methods considered by the board to be practicable, under all pertinent circumstances, of eliminating hazards and improving the public convenience and the protection and safety of the public at such crossings;
(b)	review and report on the adequacy of the railway crossing fund to provide for construction of works for the protection, safety and convenience of the public at such crossings;
(c)	make such recommendations as the board may deem advisable in the premises.
Why do we have this report, and the bill that now proposes a revision and amendment of the present act? We have them because of the incessant demand from every community in the Dominion of Canada where there is a railway crossing hazard for an increase in the appropriation by parliament to the railway grade crossing fund, adequate to put an end to the expanding catalogue of gruesome and fearful accidents. As each accident occurs, and the press relates the

shocking details, fresh impetus is added to the pressure by the public that something be done to put an end to it.
I have pointed out, and often, the board's continued reference to the municipalities' and railways' inability to pay. I have done so because I want to emphasize their penchant for strolling from the main intent of the terms of reference, namely to eliminate hazards, and improve the public convenience and the protection and safety of the public at such crossings.
While the report is important, and a valuable source of information, it has only confirmed what the public already knew, namely that enough is not being done to stop the nation's mounting toll of railway grade crossing accidents because enough funds were not being appropriated to the railway grade crossing fund; that the problem has long since got away from them, with the race about lost; and that they are not now going to be satisfied with this new piece of stop-gap drop in the bucket legislation, because it only mirrors again what has happened in the past.
Do the board or the government think the public are going to be deceived with the report's double talk, when they state on page 53 that while within the limitation of fixed funds on the one hand, and the increasing costs of protection on the other, it may be concluded that protection has kept pace with the crossing problem, and their use of percentage figures in table No. 9 in order to establish their conclusions? The factual figures show there were 1,128 protected urban crossings in 1921 and that 30 years later, in 1951, there were 1,597, or an increase of 469. That is good; yet there were 2,873 unprotected urban crossings in 1921 and 3,883 in 1951, an increase of 1,010 unprotected crossings, a fact which tells an altogether different story.
The same pattern is repeated in the rural areas. Disregarding the protected rural crossings, which showed an increase of 548, the unprotected urban and rural crossings showed a total increase of 3,617 in the same 30 years ending in 1951. That is an alarming increase that cannot be explained away by percentage figures. This increase certainly refutes their contention of keeping pace with the problem.
I have previously mentioned that they have applied to accidents this technique by which they arrive at an accident frequency in the years 1946 to 1952-when there were 604 accidents at 1,771 protected crossings-of 4-9 per year per 100 crossings, and when there were 2,455 accidents at 29,316 unprotected crossings for a frequency of 1-2 per year per 100 unprotected crossings. The public are
Railway Act
not fooled, either, with this percentage juggling. They know averages better, and they grasp these gruesome facts for the same period of 1946 to 1952 in this way. There were 3,059 accidents, or an average of over one a day; 980 were killed, or someone was killed every two and a half days; that 3,404 were injured, or over one a day-some permanently disabled-at a level crossing somewhere in Canada.
The public cannot be deluded. They are not interested in the percentage of people killed or injured in relation to so many miles of railway or to so many thousand motor vehicles per mile of highway. They want to know, and that soon, how and when these accidents are to end; and that is what the terms of reference specified.
This problem from the start has been scantily dealt with, with never enough to tackle the job properly and a narrowness in scope; and even now the board's recommendation, which appears generous when compared with the present appropriation, is a continuance of the same old policy of too little and too late. The board has failed by not coming to grips with this great works project, having compiled tables and charts on everything but the one thing that is most essential, namely the number of grade separations, the number of short-arm gates and signals, the number of bells and automatic signals, the number of railway and highway diversions and relocations needed; in fact, a complete listing of every project that is deemed necessary by the municipalities, provinces and railways, and the estimated cost thereof. If this information were available, the House of Commons would then realize how gigantic this problem is, and that it goes far beyond any previous idea we have held. It is a project so huge that it dwarfs the St. Lawrence seaway project, inasmuch as it stretches from coast to coast.
Using the board's hypothetical selective program-and their assumptions were based on past experience-as an example, the board set the cost at $655 million, and they said this amount would complete only 1,433 projects or about 5 per cent of the existing 29,316 unprotected railway grade level crossings. The committee will readily sense that the real cost would be in the $5 billion bracket, that it is now beyond the board's capacity to handle, and that their recommendation of $5 million a year, compared with their estimated cost of $33 million a year for a period of 20 years, would accomplish only 5 per cent of the work to be done. They will realize that this is only toying with the problem, and how futile and hopeless the amount of $5 million would be with the

Railway Act
object of overcoming the railway grade crossing menace which the people are demanding should be overcome and to which the terms of reference refer.
Let us consider the yearly average of construction, namely 10 grade separations and 90 protected grade crossings that $1 million a year is now producing. If this average is multiplied by five, the rate of progress would then be stepped up to 50 separations and 500 protected crossings a year. You will realize how slow we shall be moving and how ineffectual the sum of $5 million a year will be, even with the advantage of the board's increased share in the cost from 40 per cent to 60 per cent, and the reduction of the municipalities' share from 30 per cent to 25 per cent and the reduction in the railways' share from 30 per cent to 15 per cent; you will observe that we are arriving nowhere.
This dilemma we are now in, through our grade level crossing problem, can be used to develop a plan to relieve our unemployment situation which the committee now knows is recurring each year and is prevailing now. That is a plan that can fit into and be integrated with other scheduled public works projects, because of the great flexibility that grade crossing projects allow; you can start them where and when the unemployment is most acute. Unlike the St. Lawrence seaway project they are not confined to one area. The broad mantle of this huge railway grade level crossing project is comprised of thousands of work projects of various sizes and descriptions, and one could be picked out to fit the need in any particular area. With modern techniques in use today in outdoor construction, such projects could be started any time of the year, a consideration which unfortunately does not apply to road building.
It is evident that we shall have to support the resolution before the committee which implements the board's recommendations, and be thankful for this small mercy in the nature of a few crumbs that fall from the government's table to relieve the anxiety of our people who are imploring that this slaughter at our railroad crossings shall be stopped by elimination of the hazards that cause it.
I believe this is a fair summation of the board's report which, to me, reveals 25 years of frustrated effort. I believe the government should realize that this railway grade level crossing problem is out of control, and that it is their duty to augment further the funds now recommended so as to tie the project in with their other works projects and relate it to our unemployment problem. Then it will be the solution of the railway grade level
fMr. Small.]
crossing problem and will relieve the unemployment situation, if the government will incorporate it into a well planned, long-term schedule by creating jobs when the employable unemployment tension is most acute and at its peak.
I expect that I shall be regarded as impertinent for giving this resume of the board's report and making a rough synopsis of it. If I have made it appear that the board are inured to their position by being continually importuned from every section of the dominion for more to be done than their limited funds will permit, I want it to be on record that they are held in high esteem and are regarded as martyrs to a cause, trying to perform a hopeless task that a parsimonious government has imposed upon them.
The debates on unemployment and war veterans allowances should have made it clear to the government that where the suffering of our citizens is concerned-whether through the tragedies of want or tortured agonies at our railway crossings-the people of Canada do not want shabby treatment to be accorded in the alleviation of their distress, and are willing to share the cost.
It is now too late to make any immediate relief works effective to remedy the present unemployment, owing to the government's inertia. However, the railway grade crossing projects can be put on the Prime Minister's desk for placement at the top of the agenda for discussion at the forthcoming dominion-provincial conference to be held in April. At that time plans could be made to cope with the problem of next year's seasonal employable unemployed, in order to avoid a repetition of the government's nonperformance during the winter of 1954-55.


Alfred Claude Ellis: In introducing this resolution, Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that the proposed legislation will implement the recommendations of the board of transport commissioners, with one exception, namely that provision be made for the maintenance of automatic signal devices, which the board suggested should be set at not more than $200 per year.
In considering the proposed legislation, one must do so in the light of the problem with which it seeks to deal. The main recommendation would appear to be increasing from $1 million to $5 million the annual appropriation for the railway grade crossing fund. There are also to be changes in the administration of that fund, namely in the amount which the fund will pay, which is to be increased from 40 per cent to 60 per cent of the cost of any one project, and the amount that can be granted to one project will be raised to $300,000.

The board of transport commissioners have presented a very good report dealing with the railway grade crossing problem in Canada. I am not going to deal with the report because the previous speaker put a great part of it on the record. I do feel, however, that the background material in the report gives us some idea of the growing magnitude of the problem.
The minister spoke of this problem as being one of mounting national concern. I think it is interesting to note that in 1909, when this fund was set up, automobile registrations in Canada totalled some 5,000. Since that time the number of automobiles in Canada has increased by 640 times, and I believe the total registrations are now in excess of 3,200,000. When we consider this trend, together with the increased cost of providing crossing protection, we can understand the magnitude of the problem which this legislation proposes to meet. The board has mentioned several instances where certain projects would cost in the neighbourhood of $2 million or more.
As the minister pointed out the board, in its recommendations, suggested the contribution to the fund be increased from $1 million to $5 million. Of course, that is only part of the picture. If you read the report you will find that the board of transport commissioners suggested a program which they felt would be necessary to meet the problem today. The cost of this program would be in the neighbourhood of $655 million. The board has suggested that if this were spread over a 20-year period it would amount to an annual expenditure of $33 million. When we consider these recommendations, we begin to see the amount of money set aside by this legislation in its proper perspective. As the previous speaker has pointed out, even this ambitious program suggested by the board would not cover more than between 5 and 10 per cent of the crossings in Canada. I want to stress the fact that while the board made a specific recommendation concerning the $5 million, they did point out that any worth-while effort would involve an expenditure of $33 million per year.
Under those circumstances, and taking into consideration the fact that in Canada less than 10 per cent of our railway crossings are protected while in the United States around 16 per cent of the railway crossings are protected, I think the figure proposed in this legislation is very inadequate indeed. Of course all members in the house will welcome the increase in the contribution from $1 million to $5 million, though I feel that many of us will have grave misgivings as to the adequacy of this increase.
Railway Act
In its public hearings across Canada the board of transport commissioners heard representations from many municipalities and other highway authorities. The board suggested that almost all parties appearing before the board at public hearings stated there would have to be a substantial increase in appropriations to the fund. Where the parties making submissions made reference to particular figures, the recommendations ranged from $4 million up to $30 million. It is quite evident, therefore, that in the opinion not only of the board of transport commissioners but also of all other parties in Canada who are interested in this problem, the increase in the appropriation would have to be much higher than is called for in this legislation.
I should like to point out now that the mere appropriation of a sum of money does not necessarily mean that that money is going to be used to do the job. In introducing the resolution the minister pointed out that any money left in the fund, when added to the annual appropriation, could not exceed $7 million. This clearly indicates that the government is satisfied all the money is not going to be used up each year. There is going to be a considerable amount of that money left over at the end of the year. They have, therefore, set a limitation of $7 million on the amount of money that can be carried over for this purpose.
I feel that the reason for suggesting the money might not always be used up is quite obvious. The grants in aid principle is not an altogether sound principle. It is all very well when the other parties to the agreement are in a financial position to take advantage of any appropriations which may be made available. If we find that money is available in the grade crossing fund and municipalities are unable to make the contribution required by the terms of the act, then that money is not going to be used and the job is not going to be done.
I suggest that a rigid formula, such as is contained in this legislation, is going to mean that a great many municipalities in Canada will not be in a position to get work done that is absolutely necessary. We must point out that the legislation calls for an increase from 40 per cent to 60 per cent in the amount that may be spent out of the fund. So far as that goes, it is quite satisfactory. It will ease the situation to some extent. But as a matter of fact it is questionable as to how many municipalities at the present time are going to be in a position to take advantage of grants made to this fund. I think this problem was evident at the very time the fund was set up. As a matter of fact, if hon. members will refer

Railway Act
to page 25 of the report they will find that the commissioners have quoted from the report of the board of railway commissioners in 1909-10. I shall read a sentence from that report, which says:
The expense of a separation of grade is always a costly work. The local municipality almost always objects to contributing, and of course should not contribute as much as the railway company; in some instances it should not contribute at all.
So within one year of the setting up of this fund it was agreed by the board of railway commissioners that there are instances when a municipality should not be called upon to contribute anything toward a project. And it seems, Mr. Chairman, that if that condition obtained in 1910, then the municipalities are much less able to play their part today.
There is little question that over the past 40 years municipalities and provincial governments have been called upon to provide additional services and to assume financial burdens which were not envisaged 40 years ago. So the municipalities are less able to contribute to any great extent to this work at the present time than they were at the time the fund was set up. I suggest the commissioners at that time felt there were instances in which municipalities should not be called upon to pay anything toward projects, and that situation certainly obtains in this country today.
If the most effective job is going to be done under this legislation, then grants from the fund will have to be made in a more flexible manner than is outlined in this legislation, and I believe that under certain circumstances the administrators of the fund should be empowered to pay up to 100 per cent of the cost. There is no use having a formula that is going to deny to the municipalities the chance to correct this great national problem as it is found in their localities. I think the way to get around the situation, as I have said, is to empower the board of transport commissioners to use discretionary powers to grant, under circumstances based upon priorities, in accordance with the greatest need, and having regard to the element of danger at grade level crossings. The board should be empowered to pay out of the fund up to 100 per cent of the cost.
There is one other extremely important aspect of this problem. Thus far I have been discussing the question of the railway grade crossing fund from the standpoint of protection and to some extent the convenience of the travelling public. But the other aspect I would like to mention this evening has to do with our present unemployment situation

in Canada. No one can deny that at the present time Canada is faced with a very serious unemployment problem. For many years we in this group attempted to get the government to face up to the realities of the economic situation in the years immediately following the war, and to plan to maintain full employment in Canada. We have urged, in the years when unemployment figures have been mounting, that the government should take the necessary measures to provide employment for Canadians.
At the conclusion of the second world war many Canadians were led to believe that the government had this matter in hand. We heard much talk about a shelf of public works. The suggestion was made that when unemployment developed the government would reach up on the shelf and take down public works projects to provide employment. A few years later we found that this was merely a delusion, that no such shelf of public works had been set aside by the government.
So the situation today is that, in spite of the fact that over half a million men and women in Canada are unemployed, the government has no plan whatsoever for the alleviation of this distress. The only piece of legislation which could be tied in any way to the problem of unemployment was the recent legislation dealing with the unemployment insurance fund, and I do suggest that improvements in unemployment insurance legislation do not provide employment.
Under the circumstances I suggest that we must look at this problem not only from the standpoint of protection but also from that of providing at least a measure of employment opportunity for Canadians in various parts of Canada. There seems little doubt that this work is the type that can be fitted into measures to relieve unemployment. As the previous speaker pointed out, many of the projects have already been considered and planned by municipal governments. I am sure there are many municipalities throughout Canada that have had plans for the building of subways and other grade separation projects, that have been gathering dust on the shelves for many years.
It is quite clear that projects of this kind could be put into operation within a reasonable length of time. Then again, this is a problem which is not concentrated in one particular part of Canada; it is found from coast to coast. Therefore any measures of this type can be used in those parts of Canada where unemployment actually exists, and it is quite general throughout the country today.

With this in mind I wish to suggest that what I have said is not new. Anyone who wishes to refer to the report of the board of transport commissioners dated May 10, 1954, will find at page 27 a section dealing with special appropriations for grade crossings. The report goes on to point out that-
Apart from the statutory appropriations to the fund, there have been two other types of financial assistance made by the federal government for this work.
In the first instance sums of money were transferred to the unemployment relief fund in the early thirties. As a matter of fact, in 1930 the sum of $500,000 was transferred direct from the unemployment relief fund to the railway grade crossing fund, to be used in accordance with the provisions of the act. Other appropriations were made purely as measures to relieve unemployment. That is to say, the ordinary statutory provisions regarding the spending of that money did not apply in those cases. There were direct grants of money, without such strings attached as one would find in connection with sums of money under the legislation.
As I said, in connection with the first type, in the year 1930 half a million dollars was turned over to the railway grade crossing fund, and in 1932 another $500,000 was transferred. Parliament approved a special vote of $500,000 in 1934. There was a special vote of $300,000 in 1938, and a vote of $500,000 in 1939.
Those sums of money were added to the statutory grant, at that time $200,000 per year, to the railway grade crossing fund. In addition there were sums of money paid out by the government for highway crossing protective works, by way of unemployment relief funds. These grants were not restricted by the statutory provisions governing the fund, and there were certain differences between the types of grants made.
The board sums it up in this way. In the first instance, the board authorized payments out of these special funds, subject to the approval of the governor in council. Second, they could be applied to existing subways and overhead bridges as well as level crossings. Third-and this is very important-contributions could be made to the cost of the projects up to 100 per cent. Fourth, in orders making grants from such funds there were to be special provisions in regard to the working hours of persons employed on the works for which the grants were made.
At that time the general rule had been 70 per cent; the fund would pay 70 per cent of the cost of projects. However, in many cases the full 100 per cent was paid. The 50433-1281
Railway Act
board relates that sums of money were appropriated in each of the years from 1935 right up to 1939-40, $1 million in each year, although I notice in 1937-38 some $1,064,000 was appropriated. Therefore we had three types of appropriations. First of all there was the statutory appropriation under the legislation, which at that time was $200,000. In addition we had money transferred from other government sources to the railway grade crossing fund, which had to be spent in accordance with the provisions of the act. Then, third, there were contributions made directly as a public works project to alleviate unemployment distress at that time.
If the government had followed this principle in other fields during the 1930's, Mr. Chairman, a great many of the millions of dollars that were poured down the drain, spent on direct relief with nothing to show for it, would not have been spent in that way. We would have had something to show for all the vast sums of money that went into direct relief during the time of the last depression.
In view of the record, apparently there were no difficulties at that time in transferring appropriate sums of money. I suggest we could adopt the same principle here. I suggest that we accept the proposition that we need an increase in this fund from $1 million to $5 million primarily as a protective measure, and incidentally a measure which would be necessary if there were no unemployment in this country at all. This measure should have nothing to do with that.
Of course any government expenditure will have some effect on the unemployment picture, but primarily the legislation before us now can be viewed on its merits as a measure to provide greater safety at our highway crossings in Canada, but I suggest and rather suspect that the government looks upon this measure as something to be used in the alleviation of the unemployment problem in Canada. I rather believe the government feels that this legislation will do more than provide a measure of protection. If that is so, then the government should extend this principle and make satisfactory contributions to the fund.
I have not dealt with the technical aspects of grade crossings because the problem is well understood by all hon. members. I do not think there is an hon. member in this house but has personal knowledge of a great many rail crossings in his own constituency which pose a great threat to traffic. I know in my own constituency there are a great many dangerous crossings, some of which might be

Railway Act
protected by automatic signal devices, but a number can be protected only by subways or other grade separation projects. I think that is self-evident.
The problem is there. The board of transport commissioners went into it extensively and outlined the problem we face today; but I do feel that we have to view this legislation from this point of view. I am sure we accept the increase from $1 million to $5 million, although we have reservations as to the adequacy of that amount. Indeed, the evidence seems to suggest that that amount is wholly inadequate. In view of the fact that recommendations have been made by interested parties to the board of transport commissioners, and at every opportunity they advocated substantial increases in this fund; taking into consideration the fact that the board of transport commissioners themselves indicated the need for an extensive program in this country, which they outlined as costing around $655 million, I feel that hon. members cannot do other than look upon the amount provided for in this legislation as inadequate.
In view of the serious unemployment situation in Canada I believe that if the government would take a leaf out of the history book of a few years ago, and in addition to the statutory grant of $5 million would make additional sums of money available in terms of the ratio between the statutory grants and the sums of money which were actually expended during the 1930's-and remember a dollar went a lot farther in those days than it does today-they could well afford to add to the $5 million mentioned in this legislation an additional amount. I know it will not be done through this legislation; but if this job is to be done, then the government ought to bring in supplementary provisions to add to this fund an amount of money with particular reference to the unemployment problem in Canada at the present time.
The government could well afford to appropriate the sum of $15 million in addition to the statutory grant of $5 million; for one thing is certain. This problem is one which will have to be met. Every time we pick up a newspaper we read of a tragic accident. I noticed in the Gazette this morning a picture which I am sure a great many hon. members saw. It was a picture of a car which had been sliced in two in a crossing accident in the city of Montreal yesterday. One can hardly pick up a newspaper without noticing the loss of human life and property damage which has occurred at unprotected crossings. I will admit that in many instances the human element enters into it, errors of human

judgment. Nevertheless, it is up to us to do as much as we can to eliminate these accidents.
With respect to the unemployment situation, which is most important at this time, I ask the government to make provision for supplementary legislation of some type to make available to this crossing fund a sufficient sum of money to make not only a frontal attack on the great level crossing problem in this country with respect to safety, but also to make some small contribution at least toward the alleviation of unemployment in Canada.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I want to say a few words at this time, Mr. Chairman. We all understand that at the resolution stage we have not had an opportunity to see the bill nor to know in detail what is the government's intention regarding this matter. It is true the minister did make some reference to it this afternoon when he mentioned this particular subject.
One thing we can be grateful for is the fact the board of transport commissioners did hold hearings on this matter. They travelled over the length and breadth of this dominion to ascertain the difficulties to be encountered in an enterprise such as this. In the different provinces in which they had their sittings they gleaned some very important information from those concerned with the problem. The one thing that is possibly more outstanding than anything else is that this question is being brought to the fore at this time. As was indicated a moment ago by the previous speaker, you can hardly pick up a newspaper without finding a description of another crossing accident. In fact, there was one occasion when I myself came very close to colliding with a train at a railway crossing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who won?


Charles Edward Johnston: I was in possession of all my senses on that occasion, although it has been suggested that maybe I was not.
I am quite sure it is not necessary for me at this time to go over the recommendations made by the board. The government is fully aware of them, I am sure, because the minister has said that in general they are going to implement those recommendations with one or two exceptions.


George Carlyle Marler: With one exception.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am glad the minister has corrected me, because I recall now that he did say with one exception. Therefore it seems quite useless to go over

all the recommendations made by the board. However, I do think that the amount of money the government is proposing to make available by this legislation is not going to be sufficient to meet the problem. As has been mentioned already, there are some types of crossings that will take at least $2 million to correct.
I think the minister would be well advised to consider some of the suggestions made by the provinces. The province of Alberta has a very definite plan in mind with relation to these crossings. I believe they are working to a great extent in conjunction with the engineers of the railways. For instance, under the government plan the road between Calgary and Edmonton was located parallel to the railroad. It seems to me that great consideration should be given to that one point alone, because when a highway parallels a railroad you eliminate the necessity of railway crossings.
If my memory serves me correctly, and I nave travelled the road several times, there are only two level crossings over the main line. Wherever it was necessary to cross the main line the provincial government saw to it that overpasses were put in. It is quite true that they are expensive and run to large amounts of money, but I do not think we should be too much concerned with the cost. I recognize immediately the minister's difficulty in raising sufficient money to carry on an enterprise of this kind, but if we can save one life by putting in an overhead crossing it seems to me the money would be well spent.
When the minister is making his plans for this project I think he would be well advised to bring in the provincial ministers who are responsible for this type of construction and see what co-operation he can get in moulding an over-all plan for crossing construction so that we will be able to eliminate, I was going to say 90 per cent but certainly as great a number of these crossings as is humanly possible. We all place great value on human life, and this is one way to assist in saving it.
It has been suggested that this could be considered as a relief project, but in my opinion it should not be. Certainly in carrying out this operation great assistance will be given in providing employment, and every consideration should be given along that line; but, as I said when I was speaking on unemployment, I do not think public works programs in themselves are going to provide a cure-all for unemployment. I take the same view in this connection. I am not underestimating the importance of providing public works for assistance to the unemployed,
Railway Act
but this should not be considered as an enterprise of that kind. It should be undertaken as a project which is essential, and which I am sure every Canadian will welcome in that it will provide protection against the loss of life. The sooner this plan can get under way the better it is going to be.
As I said a moment ago, I think it would be quite useless for me to dwell longer on what the government should and what they should not do. When the bill comes down we will know exactly what they are going to do. I hope the minister will see to it that the legislation to be brought down will be sufficient to meet the requirements; that there will be the closest co-operation between federal and provincial authorities, and last but not least that he will not permit financial considerations to be placed in the way of constructing these most necessary projects. Money should not be the main consideration. Due consideration should be given to the protection of life, which all Canadians are desirous of bringing about at this time.


Mr. Balcom:: Mr. Chairman, it is quite
natural that a small province like Nova Scotia, with a total of 989 level crossings of different types, is very pleased to have the Minister of Transport introduce this legislation increasing the contribution to the railway crossing fund from $1 million to $5 million. Like all provinces we have a level crossing problem.
Some years ago a number of citizens of Halifax came to Ottawa in an effort to have what is known as the Fairview underpass attended to in order to eliminate the traffic congestion that was occurring there. The Fairview underpass provides about the only main exit from the city. In 1951 the mayor of Halifax appealed to the board of transport commissioners and presented a plan, a copy of which I have here-it may be of some use to the minister-covering changes in this underpass so there would not be congestion at this point.
The initiative may lie with the city and the province, but I submit that the Canadian National Railways are a party to this and they should assume part of the initiative in this connection. I hope I am in order when I take this opportunity to commend the Canadian National Railways upon the great improvement they have made in the service to the maritime provinces, particularly to Nova Scotia which is the terminal of the Canadian National Railways in the east. Lately they have improved the type of accommodation offered and the employees are providing an efficient service.


An hon. Member:: Order.

Railway Act


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I think 1 am in order. This is of great importance to our great national railway. They have dieselized and modernized the trains in every respect, and since the Minister of Transport has come into office the time between Montreal and Halifax has been reduced by something over two hours.
It can be said that today we are a nation on wheels, because I believe that one out of every five persons has an automobile or a motor vehicle of some kind. This road leading out of Halifax is really the lifeline of the city, as it is the only way we have to get out in case of an emergency. The civil defence authorities appear to have changed their thinking from some months ago, and they now intend to evacuate the cities. They have already carried out experiments along this line. We think the time has about come when the Canadian National and the province and the city of Halifax should get together and eliminate the Fairview underpass. We would suggest to the minister this is probably the most important and dangerous one in the east, and it should be given early consideration.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to limit my remarks to just one phase of this discussion.


Mr. Croll:: Hear, hear.


John Borden Hamilton: Contrary to the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Bow River, who said money should be no object, I think I might say money definitely is an object in connection with this debate.
The hon. member for Danforth and the hon. member for Regina City both referred to the serious situation in connection with the financing of this project by the various municipalities. It seems to be a common habit here to answer any requests by having someone on the government benches stand up and tell us how many millions of dollars the government is already spending for this type of improvement. The critical point concerning this project is the difficulty of the municipalities in providing the necessary finances.
I think this difficulty arises from two main causes. First there is the limited tax base which is available to the municipality and second, the proximity of the municipality to its tax base. The municipality feels very quickly any changes in economic conditions and trends. The chief burden the municipality must bear now arises from the fact that large masses of additional people are moving into most of the urban centres, causing an immediate requirement for services of all types. Probably education is the chief and

most immediate service they must provide. These services must be provided before the municipality has an opportunity of laying its hands on the tax revenues the newcomers may produce.
That problem does not confront us here. As a matter of fact, when additional people arrive in the various municipalities there is an immediate prospect of funds becoming available to the federal treasury from income tax and sales tax on the items purchased by the new arrivals.
The situation confronting us is certainly not brought about by the home owner, who has to pay a fairly substantial portion of the cost of grade separation. I said in connection with the unemployment debate that houses were not out of work, people were. I say tonight that houses are not going to go through the grade separations, people are.
This problem has arisen because of the terrific increase in the number of motor vehicles presently owned by every section of our population. I might say they are therefore the people who should pay for this type of construction, but I am certain their first answer would be that they are already paying. I am certain they feel they are paying fully for any type of amenity they receive in connection with road construction and grade separation. In advancing that argument I might refer to the Public Accounts of Canada, 1954, volume I, which contains some material which is enlightening so far as motorists are concerned.
The federal government collected $94,715,040 from excise taxes on automobiles. On the sale of rubber tires, tubes and items of that kind it collected $11,381,716. I can only estimate the amount of sales tax it collected, and I base my estimation on the brief of the Canadian Automobile Association which was presented to the Minister of Finance on September 10. It would appear that sales taxes provided the federal treasury with approximately $90 million. In addition we must consider the taxes on the importation of automobiles of all kinds and I am sure this could probably be worked out in round figures amounting to $25 to $50 million. This does not take into account the millions of dollars which are collected from the people of this country and are included in the corporation taxes paid by the car manufacturers in Canada. I think I can leave it to you to conclude that the figure we are talking about is in the area of hundreds of millions of dollars.
What does this government do for the motorist? I have searched far and wide, and I find it is recorded in the same book that the government spent approximately $13,378,998 on the trans-Canada highway last year.

Approximately another $400,000 was spent in administering this fund, survey services, etc., and approximately $1 million was spent on services. In addition to this I assume we should charge in an item for the parkway system in Ottawa, which totalled approximately $750,000. I am sure the federal government collected between $225 and $250 million last year, but apparently it is only prepared to spend approximately $15 million on motorists.
If we were living back in the horse and buggy days, or if we were only concerned with pedestrians, there would be no requirement at all for this type of construction. There appears to be no doubt the people who use this type of construction are already paying 100 cents on the dollar for it, and it should be provided for them. In that way and in that way only are we going to be able to remove from the municipalities the burden which is being placed upon them in the proportion they must contribute to this construction.
How much will we accomplish? I read an article which appeared in the Weston Times and Guide of Thursday, March 10, 1955, to the effect that a subway or underpass is planned for construction at the corner of Royal York road and Dundas street west in my constituency. I understand there has been agitation for this since 1917. Perhaps with this magnificent increase in the federal government's fund it is possible that it will eventually be constructed. However, a few days later, on March 14, 1955, I read an editorial in the Globe and Mail to the effect it has been necessary to remove from the metropolitan Toronto budget some $6,500,000 for capital construction in this municipality and two others. We see therefore that the problem of financing these projects is upsetting the budgets of the municipalities. The editorial also pointed out that Toronto proper has had to cut its budget by $10 million.
I made a point of contacting the reeve of the municipality in this constituency, and he informed me this particular construction which has been asked for since 1917 was knocked off the books even before it got this far. As to the danger which has been spoken about by other hon. members, and the critical financial situation the municipalities are in, it seems to me that the only way in which these difficulties can be overcome is by a realistic approach to the whole tax problem. I am quite sure we shall not get that approach until we have the dominion-provincial conference, which has been asked for by almost all the parties in this house.


Mr. Boisvert:: I should like to say just a few words, Mr. Chairman. I welcome this
Railway Act
legislation in the hope that it will serve to eliminate a few of the 20 railway-highway crossings which exist in my constituency. In the past those crossings have caused horrible accidents, owing to the fact that many of them are located in villages and do not offer adequate protection to the users of the highways.


Mr. Purdy:: Mr. Chairman, coming as I do from the railway centre of Nova Scotia, I feel that I should say a word of commendation to the minister and the government for introducing this resolution. I am looking forward, as a result of this legislation, to at least the elimination of some level crossings in our province.
As was said by the hon. member for Halifax a few moments ago, there are almost 1,000 level crossings in Nova Scotia. Some of them are protected by signals, but most of them are without any protection whatever. I understand, of course, that this fund will be administered under a four-way program among the provincial government, the municipalities, the railways and the board of transport commissioners. I would assume that in the first few years, possibly quite a large proportion of the money would be used in connection with the trans-Canada highway. That is all to the good.
Nevertheless, many of the accidents which have taken place on our highways-and there have been far too many of them-at level crossings have not been on the main roads. They have not been on the main railway lines. They have been on branch lines, or lines of railway with only three or four trains a day running over them. Many accidents at level crossings take place on such lines. It was only a couple of years ago when, in my own constituency, six or seven people were wiped out on a short line on which there were just two trains a day. Those people got in the way of one of them and the whole family was wiped out.
I was going to express my hope that a considerable amount of this money will be used in erecting signals on roads other than our main roads. The elimination of level crossings on the main roads in most cases will merely tend to speed up traffic; and as so frequently happens, when you speed up traffic in one place people merely get into greater trouble elsewhere. It might be a greater lifesaver if some of these signals were put on our secondary roads. The old slogan that any time is train time is certainly true today. One thing that I believe could be done to great advantage would be to erect far more signs at railway crossings just bringing to the notice of our people this slogan: "Any time is train time".

Railway Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe all members of the committee will be glad to vote for this resolution. The fact of the matter is that many of us would like to vote for it four or five times. In other words we feel that the steps being taken are good and in the right direction, but that they do not go far enough.
The Minister of Transport and others on the government side no doubt feel that they are quite virtuous, in that they are implementing most of the recommendations made by the board of transport commissioners in connection with this matter. As a matter of fact the minister has pointed out that the bill will implement all but one of those recommendations. Even before this stage of the legislation is over I hope he will explain why it was decided not to implement that one particular recommendation, which had to do with a contribution toward the annual cost of the maintenance and operation of automatic signals installed at crossings after the recommendation came into force.
With regard to the request that has been made particularly from the opposition side of the house, namely that more should be done than was recommended in the report, I should like to read a couple of sentences from an editorial on this matter which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 29, 1954, shortly after the report of the board of transport commissioners was tabled in the House of Commons. These are the sentences I have in mind:
The board is to be congratulated for making these long-needed changes in the terms. But in doing so the commissioners only underlined the magnitude of the problem they refused to face realistically when they turned their attention to finding the dollars necessary to solve it.
I share that view, namely that the board are to be congratulated for the recommendations they have made, but I suggest that in their report they have but underlined the magnitude of the problems. They should have recommended sufficient dollars to meet it, and so I am interested in this concluding comment in the editorial to which I have referred:
If the board had set the figure too high, it would have been parliament's duty, when the recommendations are converted to legislation-in time, we hope, for the next session-to cut it down. It should be, therefore, parliament's duty to find the courage the board lacked and increase the government's contribution to the fund to the point where it will be possible to protect all dangerous crossings.
I think many of us in this committee share that view, namely that there was a failure on the part of the board to envision what is really needed in this country in terms of protecting the dangerous crossings.

Like others who have spoken, I come from a part of the country where we are in sore need of a number of grade crossing separations. As I pointed out in the house last year, there is one in particular for which I have been asking over a number of years. Even while we have been making these requests on the floor of the house we have had further accidents and further loss of life, particularly where the main lines of the railways come into and go out of our city of Winnipeg.
There is just one other comment I want to make, Mr. Chairman, because the ground has been well covered by my colleague the hon. member for Regina City and others who have spoken in this debate. I should like to urge the Minister of Transport and others in the government to become even more interested-more involved, if you want to put it that way-in this whole question of the loss of life on our highways, both at level crossings and in other ways.
As hon. members on the other side of the chamber will know, last session some of us tried to persuade the Minister of Justice and others on the government side to take the lead in calling a conference on highway safety, in order to see whether something could not be done to cut down the loss of life on our highways both at railway crossings and in other ways.
I was disappointed when sessional paper No. 179-A, which was tabled on Monday, February 21, 1955, in response to certain questions of mine, indicated that no one in the federal government had given consideration to inviting the appropriate representatives of the various provinces to meet for the purpose of discussing the matter to which I have now been referring, despite the fact that this matter was discussed in the House of Commons on April 1,1954. Amongst the ministers who indicated that no consideration had been given to this matter was the Minister of Transport. However, Mr. Chairman, this is one of the main reasons I wanted to say a few words just now, and 1 shall be very brief.
I was pleased to note that the Canadian Good Roads Association has taken the lead in calling a conference to be held at Ottawa May 24th to 26th, which will be under the distinguished patronage of the Governor General, and which will be chaired by a gentleman most of us in this house know very well, the Hon. Brooke Claxton. I understand that this conference is to be attended by many representatives of provincial governments and many representatives of other organizations in this country, in an effort to see if something can be done to increase the safety element upon our highways and cut down the loss of life.

As you may have sensed already, Mr. Chairman, 1 am going a little bit afield, but not far. I admit I am talking about something that goes a little beyond the loss of life occasioned by automobiles colliding with trains at railway crossings, but I suggest it is related. I hope the Minister of Transport, because of his concern with this legislation, will go further and see that his department or the government is also represented at this conference to be called by the Canadian Good Roads Association, I am sure that anything anybody can do, including this government, to try to cut down the loss of life in these ways will have the support of every member in this house, that where ten years ago we ment will see that it is represented at this conference. Let us do everything we can to achieve greater safety at our level crossings and on our highways generally.


Mr. Schneider:: Probably every member in this house has at some time witnessed a grade crossing accident, has seen the wreckage or met the victims, or perhaps has had a very narrow escape from such an accident. I feel that grade crossings are a major problem in this country. I believe our program is far behind that of most of those countries in which I have travelled. You will not find one unguarded level crossing in most countries in Europe.
Unemployment is the most pressing problem we have at this time. If we are indulging in any public works to create employment, this is the most useful work we can do. I must say that I feel an amount of $5 million is altogether out of line with the needs of this country. At a limit of $300,000 for each job, such an amount would allow only 16 jobs to be completed in Canada. My city of Kitchener alone could use a good part of the $5 million to correct the many dangerous crossings at which many people have been killed.
The idea that gates protect people is not correct in all cases. I personally had an unpleasant experience in driving onto the railway track at our principal crossing in Kitchener, namely the King street crossing. I found the gate on the far side lowered before me when a train was approaching. I started to back off the track and found the gate closed behind me. Luckily it was a wide crossing or I would have been obliged to crash the gate. The same thing happened at this same crossing to at least one other person of whom I know.
The city of Kitchener has a problem at the King street crossing, where traffic is blocked regularly and queues of waiting cars are formed stretching for blocks. When fire
Railway Act
trucks or ambulances are blocked at this crossing it could be very serious. 1 urge that the $5 million should be increased to at least double or perhaps triple that amount for this year or other years when there is unemployment. Unemployment is serious in my district, as is the problem of level crossings.


Miss   Benneil@: From what has been said by various hon. members tonight, Mr. Chairman, one can only conclude that this is a very pressing and very grave problem so far as danger is concerned. While the $5 million mentioned here is a very small amount, it is a gesture in the right direction. All the hon. gentlemen tonight have talked more or less from the standpoint of money, and being a woman I am going to talk for just a few minutes from the standpoint of the preservation of human life and property.
I should like to speak particularly in connection with what we call secondary roads, to which one hon. member referred, or what hon. members who come from the rural areas will know as township or county roads. These roads present very grave problems, particularly here in the province of Ontario. What is true of the province of Ontario, Mr. Chairman, is true throughout this country, around and near the great centres. We find that population, in great numbers and heavy concentration, is now moving out into our rural areas. I think my county is a fair example of what is happening in this nation, if 1 may be pardoned for using it as an example.
Even three years ago a large part of my county of Halton was a rural area, but there is now a heavy concentration of population and industry which is growing every day, every week and every month of the year. For example, in that county we have 19 concession or what we call township roads running north and south. We have as many roads running east and west, which the farmer members will know we call side roads.
Across these 19 concession roads run three of the main lines of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. We have the line running from Toronto right through to Buffalo and New York. Then we have a double track line running through the central part of the county from Toronto through to Detroit. At the northerly end of the county we have another double track line running from Toronto right through to London and Sarnia. Bisecting the county from north to south we have the Hamilton railway line that runs into the northern part of Ontario.
That means, Mr. Chairman, that there are at least 75 level crossings in the county, in addition to those on the Queen Elizabeth

Railway Act
highway, the Dundas highway, No. 7 highway and No. 5 highway. These are all crossings that are virtually unprotected, and for the most part they are relatively in the same condition today as they were years ago, in spite of the increased traffic.
I can say very conservatively, and I am sure I will be supported by other members in this house, that where ten years ago we had one car passing over a given crossing, today we have 100. They are going to the Ford plant and to other industries too numerous to name. There are school buses. Today we have consolidated schools, and the children are going in these buses across these dangerous railway crosssings. The plants are on 24-hour shifts. The men are going along the highway hurrying to get to work, and they are hurrying back home at night. Then there are the women going back and forth to various kinds of business. You can see, therefore, that this is a very real and very serious problem. Every day it is a matter of potential death and damage to property.
As one goes through the county you see that the road signs leading to these main railway crossings are in the same condition they were many years ago. They have not been modernized. One of the reasons for that is that these townships or municipalities look after these signs that warn of the approach to these main railway lines. These are heavily travelled roads. I would say that one of the things that should be considered and as to which experiments should be conducted is the standardization of a method of protecting the railway crossings across this country.
In this way the people in my county of Halton, as well as others in counties right across the country, would be familiar with standardized methods of protection. In addition to that, there should be some centralized authority such as the railway board or some such body, which would accept the responsibility for placing the protective signs and looking after the roadway approaches.
As recently as last Friday evening I passed over one of those crossings in my county, in which a double-track high speed line is involved. As I approached I noticed that the crossing was hidden by a great amount of shrubbery and trees growing along the right of way. This growth had not been properly cleaned out. The sign that was there was old, and apparently had been there for many years. There was no way of seeing it readily, because on it there were no reflectors, or if there were any they were practically invisible at night.
In my view a standardization of protective measures, under a proper authority, would
'Miss Bennett.]
not be expensive. There is no necessity to spend hundred of thousands of dollars. In discussing this subject we do not need to talk in millions. I believe we could have an adequate protection of human life and property if the standardization were centralized under a proper authority that would be responsible all across the country. We should look into this matter, and experiment with the proper types of approach. We must decide whether the approach would be best with a curve, or if it should be straight, or whether there should be an incline. In other words, what procedure should be adopted to effect the greatest preservation of human life.
Then we could have new types of signs. None of these things would cost very much. Such signs could carry adequate reflectors so people could see them at night. While I cannot give the figures for the whole of Canada, I believe it would be safe to say that at night there are more accidents from cars running into freight trains than from freight trains running into cars. It has been stated in the report-and this suggestion should be considered-that reflecting material should be placed on freight cars passing over railway crossings so that people who are approaching such crossings would be able to see them. Then, as we find already in some provinces, consideration should be given to setting the rate of speed, such rate to be observed throughout the country.
I have no desire to detain the committee, but I would repeat that if adequate protection were given many hundreds of accidents could be prevented. I repeat that we would do well to standardize our methods right across the country, and that there should be a centralized authority dealing with these methods with a view to seeing that they are used properly and adequately throughout the country.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with those who have complimented the minister upon placing this resolution before us at this time. I do not do so because of any belief that it will solve the problem of unemployment, because I do not think an expenditure of $5 million on level crossings will solve that problem. However, it is certainly an indication that at long last the government has come to realize that something must be done about level crossings. While this may be only a beginning, it is a recognition of that vital problem.
May I compliment the lady member who has just taken her seat upon bringing to the attention of the committee the fact that there are hazards in addition to those offered by level crossings. She has mentioned the presence of trees and shrubbery; and when

she did so I was reminded of a crossing on the Westminster highway leading across Lulu island where the trees and white guard railings are just in line with the line of vision of the automobile driver, thus frequently obstructing his view and making it practically impossible to see what is coming down the track.
It would not cost very much to eliminate these obstructions and reduce the hazard which is found in similar situations in all parts of the country. The fact that the expenditures in war years interfered with the amount of work done on level crossing projects has culminated today in the greatest rash of level crossing accidents in the history of our nation. Coupled with that is the fact that there are more automobiles on the roads than ever before, travelling at higher speeds and with greater horsepower. In many instances drivers are forced to place reliance upon signals that do not exist. We find that in many instances, through mechanical failure of signals or for some other reason, accidents occur.
The hon. member for Regina City has suggested that this expenditure might serve to relieve the unemployment situation. I do not believe so, because this $5 million is only a drop in the bucket. As I suggested earlier, I believe this expenditure should be made for humanitarian rather than for other reasons. It is true that the improvement of grade crossings would require the employment of a certain number of people, but I am convinced that $5 million spent in the building of houses, or something of that nature, would do more to create jobs for those requiring work.
Now to get back to the level crossing problem, I have in mind the summer resort community of White Rock in my constituency in which, normally, some 6,000 or 7,000 people live. But on some Sundays one can find as many as 30,000 people at the beach at that point. Anyone who is familiar with White Rock and the surrounding area will know that there is only one possible way of getting to the beach, and that is by crossing a railway track which is situated about 100 yards from the beach. There is no underpass or overpass, although the area would lend itself very well to an improvement of that kind. The location of the track would render it a comparatively simple matter to put in either an underpass or an overpass.
As I said earlier, there is no possible way of reaching that beach except by crossing "the railway track. In the time I have been there I have known of at least one death at that point, a year ago when a small child was killed. We know that children crossing
Railway Act
the track do not watch with as great care as adults, with the result that they are injured.
It seems to me the main purpose behind this legislation is to provide means to eliminate hazards of that kind. If I felt for one moment that the resolution was offered only as a means to help solve the unemployment situation I would not be too enthusiastic about it. I look forward to the minister examining the problems in areas where one would expect to find a heavy influx of people across railway tracks. He would have to decide whether it would be possible in such instances to create a pedestrian crossing or one suitable for motorcars.
The other matter I should like to deal with is this. Where we have new railway lines built or in the course of construction, such as the Pacific Great Eastern in British Columbia, I would strongly suggest to the minister that the Department of Transport bring in legislation to make it possible at a nominal cost to have roads travel over or beneath the railroad itself. There are thousands of such places in the mountains of British Columbia, and I am actually amazed every time I take a tour through the province to discover how few overhead passes or underpasses we have in British Columbia. In many places it would be a simple matter to change the road a very little bit at a relatively small cost and thereby save hundreds of thousands of dollars or the millions of dollars that we are talking of spending at this time.
I would suggest that before approval is given to the actual route of the trans-Canada highway, these points be kept in mind. It is most important to save money, but we can still do a good job in this country by thinking of the safety of life and at the same time saving for the taxpayer some of his hard-earned cash.


Frank Exton Lennard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a moment of the committee's time to support the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Halton. I believe that in many parts of the United States there are approach signs to level crossings which read "Stop, Look and Listen". If in some way we could make it compulsory for vehicles to come to a complete stop at level crossings, and if it were properly controlled, it would solve the problem to a great extent, because in time people would become educated to it and the majority would come to a full stop. It would prevent a great many fatal accidents and a great deal of the damage to property.


Mr. Brooks:: I wish to say just a few words on this matter. It has been discussed by hon. members from nearly every point in Canada

Railway Act
except my own province. It is not necessary for me to say that we have the same problem in New Brunswick as other provinces have. As a matter of fact between Moncton and Saint John there are probably as many grade crossings as, if not more than, there are in any other part of Canada.
I was much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Waterloo North, who mentioned the protection that is given in other countries. Many of us will remember that in England 40 years ago there were very few level crossings. They had overhead bridges and underpasses in practically every part of the country where there was a railway crossing. Forty years ago they were that far ahead, and I have often wondered why we have been so slow in Canada.
I agree with other hon. members that $5 million a year is very little as far as the elimination of railway crossings in this country is concerned. We certainly should have the $33 million a year which was recommended by the commission. The sum of $33 million spent over the years would place us in a position comparable with that of other countries.
I agree with the hon. member for York West, who pointed out that the federal government collects hundreds of millions of dollars from the automobile industry in this country. There is no reason why this money should not be spent to make the roads safer for the automobile owners and users of the
roads. The provinces collect money from the automobile industry for the upkeep of roads. Apart from helping to construct the trans-Canada highway, on which they are spending something like $15 million a year, the federal government makes no other contribution to the upkeep of roads.
Since it is now nearly ten o'clock I shall not say anything else on this matter tonight, but I endorse what has been said by all hon. members. I do not think the amount provided for in this legislation will be enough to do the job. Something further must be done for the protection of the public so far as railroad crossings are concerned.


George Harris Hees: Since it is about one minute to ten o'clock, will you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it the wish of the committee that I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Sinclair:: You can say everything you know in two minutes; get up and say it.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall resume the adjourned debate on the motion to go into supply.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 15, 1955