1955-05-24

[Stage Direction]
"ROYAL anthem"
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the opening of the house yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in private conversation asked whether I would join with him in asking those present to sing the first verse of "God Save the Queen", as had been done last year. Naturally, I agreed wholeheartedly with the suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would raise this matter on the orders of the day.


George Alexander Drew: I am rising on a question of privilege, in view of the statement that I made a proposal of which I was unaware at the time. The Prime Minister used these words, as reported at page 4001 of Hansard:
Today the people of Canada are celebrating officially the anniversary of Her Majesty's birthday. In this house, as in other years, we will be evidencing our devotion to Her Majesty by continuing to give consideration to the public business of her Canadian subjects. But with your permission the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and I would like to suggest that before doing so we stand and sing together the first verse of the royal anthem.
I was not aware of the words that were to be used, and of course I do not suggest that there was any discussion of the actual words that would be used. I did not have an opportunity to mention this yesterday, because naturally the members all rose immediately and sang "God Save the Queen". In view of the fact that there is a tendency for statements placed on record to establish precedents, and that my name was joined in this suggestion, I do think it appropriate that I should ask the Prime Minister what was the significance of the words "royal anthem" used on this occasion.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Leader of the Opposition that there was no other intention than to express our devotion to our beloved sovereign by singing the anthem which is a prayer for her success in this life and happiness in the hereafter. I had
given no previous thought to the way in which it could be described. It is the anthem which has been spontaneously accepted by the loyal subjects of Her Majesty and her predecessors throughout the commonwealth. I hope it offends no one to call it the royal anthem.
It seems to me it is significant that the loyal subjects of our sovereign throughout the commonwealth should wish to express in the form of a prayer their devotion to the beloved head of this great organization of which we are all the loyal subjects, and proud to be so.


Mr. Winch:: May I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: This subject, I think, could more properly be raised on the orders of the day. The Leader of the Opposition had reason to raise it as a question of privilege because he had been associated with the suggestion yesterday and therefore I allowed him to state his point. If there are to be any further questions asked with respect to the exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition I think they should wait until we reach the orders of the day.
[Later;!
On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: In
connection with the question that was raised a moment ago by the Leader of the Opposition on a question of privilege, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, is it not a fact that "God Save the Queen" is our national anthem?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: "God Save the Queen" has never to my knowledge been adopted by any act of parliament or any resolution or any proclamation. It has by usage, I think, been spontaneously accepted by all the subjects of the British crown that they express their devotion to the crown in that form. I do not know any Canadian who is not glad to participate to the extent of his vocal powers in singing that hymn.
Whether it should be called a national anthem or whether it should be called a national prayer, I really do not know. I know it is honoured by all Canadians, and I know there are a good many Canadians who also

Inquiries of the Ministry like to pay similar honours to the other hymn, "O Canada". There have been debates in this house about national anthems and national flags. I do not think a debate over national anthems has ever been any cause of division. The debate over the national flag has caused expressions of very contradictory feelings, and I do not think Canada gains anything by controversies of that kind. I have always regarded both the tune and the words of "God Save the King" as an expression of devotion to the throne which is an essential part of our social organization, and I hope it will long remain a central part of it.
There have been suggestions that some of us on this side of the house objected to the word "royal". I think that is absolute nonsense. The hon. member and I expressed, I think, the feelings of practically all Canadians when we were considering the bill with respect to the royal style and titles. The hon. member recalls with what deep emotion and unanimity the sentiments we both expressed on that occasion were greeted by all our fellow members in the house. I hope that also will remain true.


Harold Edward Winch: May I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. What is the national anthem of Canada? Is it "O Canada" or is it "God Save the Queen"? If the Prime Minister is not able to give a definite answer, is he as Prime Minister concerned about the matter, and is he prepared to bring in a recommendation to the house and to the people of Canada as to what is our national anthem?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to bring in any recommendation to the house to establish anything by law as a national anthem. I do not think that procedure has been necessary in any country of the commonwealth. The spontaneous feelings of the people of the commonwealth have always sufficed to indicate to them in what manner they could best express their devotion to the crown.


Harold Edward Winch: Will the Prime Minister answer my first question? Is there a national anthem for Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I do not know of any legislative provision made in this house or in the parliament of any other of the nations of the commonwealth establishing by legislation that such or such is the national anthem.



CUSTOMS ACT


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 410, to amend the Customs Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the essential purpose of this bill is to clarify and bring up to date certain sections of the Customs Act.
The present law only requires vehicles to report to customs when conveying dutiable goods. As the house is aware, my department is now charged with the administration of other regulations such as those involving the health of animals, insect infestations and diseases of plants, etc., and in addition the departments of immigration and health are concerned that everyone crossing the border should report.
An amendment is being proposed to the valuation sections which clarifies and confirms our present principles of valuation. It is also proposed to limit the period following the date of entry for appeals against original appraisal.
The tariff board will be empowered to hear appeals from departmental rulings affecting export drawback as well as domestic drawback. At the present time, if goods are diverted from use for which free entry or a lesser rate of duty was accorded, we can only make demand for the proper duty from the person found in possession. It seems desirable to also hold the original importer responsible in cases of this kind.
At the present time a lien holder has only 30 days from the date of seizure to apply for a judicial order to declare his interest in the goods or vehicle seized, and it is proposed to extend this time to 60 days. I shall be glad to give further details when the bill is up for second reading or when we get into committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 406, to incorporate Stanmount Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Hellyer.
Bill No. 409, to incorporate Gillespie Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. MacDougall.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I directed a question to the Minister of Transport in connection with accidents on a certain section of the

C.N.R. line in Saskatchewan. I wonder whether the minister is now prepared to answer my question.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the management of Canadian National Railways advise that on April 6, at mileage 71-4 on the Miniota subdivision, there was a freight train derailment caused by a broken rail. An investigation was held by the railway company and it was found the broken rail was due to a rare type of fissure.
On May 14 at Birmingham on the Touchwood subdivision a freight train was derailed, the cause being a soft track due to a water pocket under the track, which in turn was caused by frost. This accident occurred at three o'clock in the morning and the investigation disclosed that the track had been patrolled the previous evening, so this act of nature occurred with little warning.
In neither accident was there personal injury suffered. The management assure me that constant vigilance is maintained to prevent accidents of this kind.



PORT MANN, B.C.  ALLEGED LAY-OFFS AT SHOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I regret I did not give notice, but perhaps he will take it as notice. Will the minister explain to the house why lay-offs are continuing at the Port Mann, British Columbia, shops of the C.N.R. and give the reasons therefor? Will he say whether or not there is any possibility of re-employment, or are more lay-offs expected? If so, will he give the reasons therefor?


George Carlyle Marler: I shall take the hon. member's question as notice.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a dispatch over the week end from Washington which quotes Senator Neuberger as saying "the Eisenhower administration could learn a lot from our neighbours in Canada about a polio vaccine program".
In view of the fact that the cost of carefully tested vaccine for three immunizations is $1.50 in Canada compared with $3 in the 50433-256
Inquiries of the Ministry United States, I wonder whether the minister could assure the health and welfare of Canadian children by having all the available vaccine in Canada handled by public agencies?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to comment on the earlier observations of my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Modesty forbids.


Mr. Knowles:: Just bow.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think I would want the house and the country to know that there has been the fullest co-operation in this matter between the federal government and all the provincial departments of health. In this important matter I think it would be well for all of us to recognize that there are circumstances that bear the most objective of considerations.
With regard to the second part of what my hon. friend has said, I can only say that the source of the vaccine in this country at this time is the Connaught laboratories at the University of Toronto, and as a result of arrangements made between the federal and provincial governments in anticipation, the supplies that are being distributed at the present time to selected age groups come from that source. There is at the present time no importation from commercial concerns.
Therefore I think my hon. friend may conclude-and be happy with the reply I gave his leader the other day-that there is no disposition on the part of any government in Canada to deal with this situation in a way that is not in the interests of those particularly concerned.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Does the government intend to implement the report of the P.F.R.A. engineering branch with regard to flood control on the Assiniboine river?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I am not just aware of what my hon. friend is referring to, but I shall look up the matter and give an answer later.
4050	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



CONSOLIDATION OF LEGISLATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marler for the second reading of Bill No. 351, respecting Canadian National Railways, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Thatcher.
Mr. Jean-Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, to conclude what I said last evening, we must revert to fundamentals. Anyone will realize that there is a basic difference between the Canadian National Railways on the one hand and the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other company on the other hand. In the first place, Canadian National Railways are owned by the people of Canada whom we represent in the House of Commons, and all private companies are owned by their shareholders, who can decide about the management of their own companies by virtue of the companies acts of Canada and of the provinces. This distinction is essential, and it is the reason I have insisted so much on parliamentary control over the management of Canadian National Railways.
This Bill No. 351 is a great improvement because it contains many suggestions I have made, and especially those made on April 29. I do not take credit for their inclusion in the bill. I give the whole credit to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and to the government. Since I am precluded, not because of the rules of the house but because of a practice which might be changed when the committee on rules reports, from mentioning the clauses of the bill I cannot refer to each one by number. However, I might say that if my colleagues take the trouble to read the bill they will realize that many important enactments are made concerning the bylaws governing the meetings of the board of directors and the qualifications of the directors of Canadian National Railways with regard to the subsidiary companies.
There is something new that I have not suggested. It is that officers and employees of the subsidiary companies can be appointed to the board of directors of such company. I am opposed to that. I cannot move now that the particular section be changed, but the members of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines may wish to take the matter into consideration when the bill comes before that committee. In my view it would be an error to appoint as directors, and so give the power of control to, any of those gentlemen who are in the management of any one of those subsidiary companies.


That being said, and since in each matter there is a part that is good and a part that is not so good and we have to weigh what is good and what is bad, I would say that in this case this bill is so much better than previous legislation I cannot do otherwise than vote against the six-months' hoist. I shall conclude by saying that the Canadian National Railways are a necessity in this country, because we must have railway competition. The Canadian taxpayer has made great sacrifices to promote the Canadian National Railways, and to give the railway the opportunity to serve the people of Canada at large we must take advantage of this new legislation. If it is not perfect now it is better than it was, and it could be made still better in due course. Therefore, sir, I shall vote against the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher).


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I find myself completely at a loss to understand the furor of opposition by the Conservative party, the Social Credit party and the triumvirate independent party to the second reading of this bill. The Conservative party, the Social Credit party and the triumvirate independent party under the leadership of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) all believe completely in free enterprise.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Do you not?


Harold Edward Winch: No. They are completely sold on the idea that the best interests of Canada and the economy of Canada can be served by wide open competition; and yet, Mr. Speaker, it was most amazing to listen yesterday to speeches on this bill in which they expressed their opposition to such competition. In all their presentations they indicated that they did not want competition, unless of course it was only among companies owned privately. When it comes to competition between a privately owned company and a company owned by the taxpayers of Canada they do not want it.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not true at all.


Harold Edward Winch: Well, sir, if I may make my remarks I shall do so. If my hon. friend does not like them, I cannot help it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I just want you to state the facts, that is all.


Harold Edward Winch: But his facts are not facts at all. Mr. Speaker, I am basing all my remarks on the introductory words of the Minister of Transport when he moved second reading of the bill and the comments made by the

Conservative members, and I include the Leader of the Opposition. I am very glad he is here today, because I intend to refer to his remarks and to the statements made by the members to my left, the Socreds, and the independents.
I have always understood that those who support private enterprise believe in competition. I have always understood that they believe in businesslike methods and efficiency; and if a company cannot stand competition, then it is a case of the devil take the hindmost. That is private enterprise as I understand it.
May I deal first of all with the purpose of this bill, which is what? I cannot understand anyone who believes in private enterprise, based on efficiency and businesslike methods -and especially when it comes from lawyers -opposing this bill. What have we before us? We have a bill which will consolidate in one act of parliament all the operations of the Canadian National Railways. As was pointed out by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton), who is a lawyer, now we have an operation that consists of 65 companies and 25 acts of parliament. On a basis of efficiency and businesslike operation, surely it is in the interests of all that 65 companies and 25 acts of parliament should be consolidated into one act. For the life of me I cannot understand any criticism when it is levelled at a desire to consolidate 65 companies and 25 acts into one act of parliament. To me that is common sense; to me that is efficiency. To my way of thinking it should meet with the acquiescence of everyone, businessmen and legal men alike.
I now want to come to the matter of private enterprise and competition. You know, sir, I was amazed at the speech made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that he is called a brilliant leader of the opposition. I understand that he was-perhaps he is now-a very prominent member of the legal profession. Well, I will not challenge that, but I certainly cannot understand it because I never heard a more confused speech in my life than the one made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke on the second reading of this bill. He wants competition and he believes in free enterprise. My interpretation of his remarks is that he believes in competition and free enterprise so long as there is no competition from a company owned by the taxpayers of Canada.
I want to quote from the remarks made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition, 50433-2561
Canadian National Railways recorded on page 4024 of Hansard. The remarks are to be found in the third paragraph of the second column, as follows:
Let us just see where this goes. If this right is given to the Canadian National Railways, is that an indication that the government is going to do the same kind of thing it does in regard to the C.B.C. and give to the government-chosen agency rights which deny fair competition as between, private enterprise and government agencies? If so. then it must confer the same right on the Canadian Pacific.
Then an hon. member interjected:
They have it.
I am admitting now that I was the member who said, "They have it".


An hon. Member:: You are quite wrong.


Harold Edward Winch: Somebody says "You are quite wrong". The remark came from the Conservative benches. I continue with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition:
As a matter of fact I was going to say that they have it anyway. If this power is given to one railway, what about the Ontario Northland railway and what about the other railways right across Canada from British Columbia to Newfoundland? Every one of those can then demand, and with justice, equality of competitive position with the Canadian National Railways.
I repeat that:
Every one of those can then demand, and with justice, equality of competitive position with the Canadian National Railways.
I should like to know why the Canadian National Railways, owned by the people of Canada, cannot be placed in a competitive position with the other railways in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Haven't they got that?


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend asks, "Haven't they got that?" I am not going to spend time rereading what I read just now, but he should read it for himself. I cannot speak for the other provinces of Canada, but I can speak for British Columbia. The British Columbia electric railway operates in that province, and I have never heard of any Conservative or socred raising his hands in holy horror at the thought of the British Columbia railway taking over the Pacific stage lines which operate not only in British Columbia but on an international basis. They are operating now in Vancouver from the same ticket office and the same station.
I might mention the Canadian Pacific Railway. I cannot remember hearing of a Tory or socred raising his voice in horror in opposition to the C.P.R. owning the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway on Vancouver island, which has taken over through a subsidiary both the passenger and trucking rights on Vancouver island through the purchase of the Vancouver Island Coach Lines and the Island Freight

Canadian National Railways lines. For years they have been operating that subsidiary, and I know that in Port Alberni the station and ticket office of the E. and N., which is owned by the C.P.R., is used by the coach lines and the freight lines of Vancouver island. To my knowledge that is the situation in British Columbia, in the case of this privately owned railway.
Why this opposition on the part of those who believe in equality and equity for private enterprise? Tories to my right and socreds to my left are going to deny to this company owned by the people of Canada the rights enjoyed by private shareholders, many of whom are not even residents of Canada.


Mr. Fulton:: What we want is that they
should not be given more rights than can be given under this bill.


Harold Edward Winch: We will come to that. I am
speaking from knowledge, and the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) should know that as well. However, I notice that he did not speak on the bill or raise that point.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Too many C.C.F.'ers were
speaking yesterday.


Harold Edward Winch: In his concluding remarks the Leader of the Opposition suggested that the bill should be held over until a dominion-provincial conference was called. I know what I am saying is correct because I am referring to his remarks as reported on page 4025 of Hansard of May 23. Here is what the Leader of the Opposition said:
I submit that before this bill is proceeded with there should be another conference with the provincial governments.
I can appreciate that statement, but I am puzzled to know what is the policy of the Conservative group in this house. First of all we have the Leader of the Opposition saying that before this bill is proceeded with there should be a conference with the provincial governments. I checked back on a statement made by another Conservative member of this house which received a great deal of editorial support. I refer to a speech made on May 10, 1955 by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) to be found on page 3647 of Hansard. The hon. member said:
I am suggesting that by dealing with dominion-provincial conferences the executive here, the cabinet, is not fulfilling its responsibilities to the House of Commons itself. This is a place where government programs should first be put forward, not at conferences.
What is the Conservative policy on this? In complete compliance with the wishes of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre the government have brought forward their program in the form of this bill, but then we are


told by the Leader of the Opposition that it should not be done by the cabinet, that the government should call a dominion-provincial conference.
We must realize that the railroads of Canada initially came into being because the taxpayers of Canada granted them rights. The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre does not like this bill because it may cost the taxpayers some money. Many years ago the people of Canada gave the C.P.R. a subsidy of billions of dollars. They were given the right to everything contained in a strip 20 miles wide on each side of the railroad across the Dominion of Canada. On Vancouver island the E. and N., which they purchased, have been given the right to everything on the ground, above the ground and under the ground. The taxpayers of Canada have paid plenty.
The Canadian National Railways were taken over on what I consider was a wrong basis. We cannot do anything about that now, but instead of taking over the roads concerned on a bankrupt basis a capitalist Conservative government of Canada took them over in order to save private enterprise, and the taxpayers of Canada have been paying for it ever since.
Now we have this bill before us. I think the consolidation feature is right, because it brings into one act the operations of some 65 companies and 25 acts. This act, as I read it, is only asking that the Canadian National, owned by the people of Canada, shall now have the same rights as are being exercised by private railway companies in Canada. I cannot speak for all, but I do speak from my knowledge of the British Columbia Electric and the C.P.R. in their operations in British Columbia. Why cannot the C.N.R. have the same rights?
As I read this act the major thing for which they are asking is what the Conservatives and the socreds have always asked, that government operations shall be on an efficient and businesslike basis. If the Canadian National Railways find that it is inefficient and unprofitable to operate a line they ask for the right- which they have not had before, except as a subsidiary company-to be allowed to replace that passenger and freight transportation with passenger bus and truck lines so as to give service to the people who have been served by the railway itself.


An hon. Member:: As a monopoly.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not what the bill states, and you find it in a certain section. I do not believe the cabinet minister would stand up in this house and deliberately give a lie to the House of Commons. The minister stood in

his place only yesterday on the motion for second reading and explained the situation with respect to an application before the board of transport commissioners. He said the C.N.R. were in a difficult position because they wanted to be able to say that towns and municipalities would be served in some other way.
I cannot understand any supporters of free enterprise demanding by their opposition to this bill that the C.N.R. should operate on an inefficient basis. We have a request that they should be allowed to operate on an efficient basis. I also know something about dominion-provincial relations and, unless I am wrong, if it comes to a straight provincial operation on truck lines and passenger lines, they do come under provincial jurisdiction.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not if this bill carries in its present form.


Harold Edward Winch: My hon. friend says no. If that is the case, then I should like to know why two railways that are operating motor passenger and truck lines in British Columbia go before the public utilities commission of British Columbia.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Because they were not under this act. That is the whole point. This act will exempt the C.N.R. from that.


Harold Edward Winch: If my hon. friend from Kamloops is correct then I would ask my hon. friend the Minister of Transport to make it clear by an amendment that they do come under that jurisdiction. But I have read this act and I still believe they do. I do not believe that, in a matter of this nature, we can override strictly intraprovincial operations.


Mr. Gillis:: The bill has nothing to do with it.


Mr. Sinclair:: What you need is advice from a good lawyer.


Harold Edward Winch: Sir, I have tried to present my views on this. I do not say that I agree completely with the entire consolidation and all the clauses dealing with the five changes in the provisions, but I do say this, and I admit it is a complete repetition. I can in no wise understand any member of this House of Commons who objects to any consolidation of acts so you have all the powers in one act.


An hon. Member:: Nobody objects to that.


Harold Edward Winch: We all heard the hon. member for York West, and the fact that they oppose this going through at this time demonstrates that. They did not object-


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not make any remark of that type at all.
Canadian National Railways


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a question of privilege. If the hon. member who has the floor has misinterpreted what the hon. member has said, he may ask the hon. member to make a correction now or he may wait, if the hon. member who has the floor does not acquiesce, until the hon. member has concluded and then he may explain.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, if I have misinterpreted the statement of my hon. friend I shall retract right now, because I want the facts. The opposition to this bill means that they do not desire consolidation. It also means that they do not believe in competition. They are afraid of it.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


Harold Edward Winch: It also means, because of the amendment now before us, that they are not prepared, even those who believe in private enterprise and competition, to support it. I am going to name them again; the Conservatives, the socreds and the triumvirate of independents are not prepared to face competition. They are not prepared, because of the existing powers of private companies, to grant the same right to a company owned by the people of the Dominion of Canada through the government of Canada.
I am going to oppose the amendment which is now before the house. To me it is a back door escape for people who are not prepared to make a decision. It is a method, legal in parliament, of not making a decision which I think should be made at this session. Those are my opinions. Although there are two or three points on which there is some disagreement with regard to this bill, they can be discussed in committee; but the principle of the bill is entitled to receive the unanimous support of the members of this house.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if I could have two or three minutes in which to present my views with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I should appreciate it very much.
I wish to say at the outset that the hon. member who has just finished was speaking through his honourable hat, if he owns such a hat. The fact is that he misinterpreted entirely the reason we object to this bill. I want him to know right off that we are not afraid of competition. We want our Canadian National Railways to be put into the best possible competitive position. We in this party have demonstrated through the things we have done provincially that, in all cases where a crown corporation and a privately owned corporation are thrown into competitive fields,

Canadian National Railways we have tried sincerely to lay down such regulations that they will have equality as to their competitive position. That is the stand we take now.
Here is the way in which we look at this bill that is now before us, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company operates trucks on the highways of the provinces through a subsidiary company which is in every respect subject to provincial laws and provincial regulation.


Harold Edward Winch: And owned by the C.P.R.


Solon Earl Low: Surely. That is all right. If my advice is correct, and I believe it is, the Canadian National Railways want to do the same thing, and I must point out that they can do the same thing. If they want to do it and really carry out that desire, nobody is going to take any exception to it, except for this. If they attempt to operate truck lines under a subsidiary company or companies and begin to cut rates below cost in order to ruin and destroy their competitive trucking companies, then I would object and I would expect every redblooded Canadian to object.
But, Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Canadian National Railways want to go beyond the operation of trucks and truck lines under subsidiary companies owned by themselves. They want to operate their trucking companies under their own name, and they also want to come under the Canadian National Railways Act. At no time has the Canadian Pacific Railway asked this parliament to give them trucking rights by federal statute. That matter intrudes into the provincial field of authority. But the Canadian National Railways have asked this parliament to pass section 27 of the bill now before us, which section is clearly an invasion of provincial rights. Of course my hon. friends of the C.C.F. agree with it because they are centralizers.


Mr. Coldwell:: Oh, no.


Solon Earl Low: 
Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think the members who have spoken for this group have expressed our position quite clearly. However, the hon. member for Peace River has raised a straw man here that I think is not too important. The Canadian National Railways are at present operating a bus service from Kam-sack across part of my constituency to Flin Flon. This service has been introduced in order to meet the competition of the bus companies. This bus line runs across a territory that is serviced by the Saskatchewan government bus corporation. As far as I know the Saskatchewan government has not objected to the operation of this bus line. I am convinced that the Canadian National Railways had to clear it with the Saskatchewan government before this service was inaugurated.


Solon Earl Low: Because they had not this authority to do it without doing so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Even with this section written into the law I think it would still be necessary for the Canadian National Railways-


Solon Earl Low: Not at all.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: -to get the permission of the respective provincial governments that set up standards with regard to the size of vehicles and the speed at which they may travel on the highways. As I see it, it will not give the Canadian National Railways authority to disregard the laws of the various provinces in the country.


Owen C. Trainor: Why not put it in the act?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I think it is taken for granted that the British North America Act gives to the provinces certain jurisdictions.


Owen C. Trainor: What is the objection to putting it in the act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Since apparently in Saskatchewan at least it has been possible to work out arrangements between the Canadian National Railways and the provincial government, which has a bus service over part of this area, I do not see that there

will be any real problem in connection with carrying out all the provisions of this act.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask the
hon. member a question? How would he interpret section 18 of the proposed bill?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could wait until we reach the committee stage.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Alexander Drew: Before the question is put, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the motion now before the house, namely that this bill be not now read a second time but that it be read this day six months hence. I wish to indicate our position in regard to that motion. At the same time I also wish to deal with a series of misstatements which have been made this afternoon, and which indicate the confusion that exists with regard to this measure.
It seems perhaps appropriate that the socialists should be the allies of the Liberals on this occasion. I can think of no more fitting occasion for that alliance to be openly declared.


James Sinclair: And the socreds with the Tories.


George Alexander Drew: Oh, no. The hon. minister is a little bit ahead of himself, as often happens. As far as that is concerned, we stated our own position.
In this particular case I could not help observing the crocodile tears being shed by the hon. member who spoke a few minutes ago, when he felt that it was almost a crime for anyone to question the word of the minister with regard to any aspect of the legislation now before us. The fact is that some of us still reserve the right to discuss these things, and propose to do so. But never in this house, in the comparatively few years I have been here, have I heard so much nonsense wrapped up in so few words. I have never heard such a complete misstatement of facts as that by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: I quoted from Hansard, sir.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; and in quoting from Hansard the hon. member showed his capacity to misunderstand a sentence which he had barely finished quoting. He said those who were opposed to this measure are opposed to consolidation. That is not only nonsense, it is completely untrue. We made it clear that we were dealing with a particular aspect of this bill. He then went on to say that we objected to competition. Oh,
Canadian National Railways my; oh, my! What new apostles of competition are now emerging in this house! Here we have the hon. member for Vancouver South now rising as the exponent of free enterprise.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). Let us keep them clear. I would not want for one moment to confuse the two. I am referring to the hon. member for Vancouver East. The suggestion that we are opposing competition merely indicates that he got to his feet without knowing anything about the subject he was discussing. He went to some length and in a very plaintive tone repeated several times that we are objecting to the Canadian National Railways being given the same powers the Canadian Pacific Railway already has.
Let me read exactly what powers the Canadian Pacific Railway has with regard to road transport. These powers are found in the letters patent issued to Canadian Pacific Transport Company Limited under the Companies Act, and I think it is well to put them on record so those who read Hansard-and fortunately there are many-will understand what nonsense the socialists talk when they try to enter a debate of this kind straddling the fence on free enterprise and efficiency. Here are the actual powers conferred on Canadian Pacific Transport Company Limited by the incorporating act under which they operate:
(a)	1. To carry on the business of transportation of passengers and goods of all kinds by land and water.
2.	To purchase, construct, hire, operate, maintain, repair, let, sell and dispose of conveyances, vehicles and vessels of all kinds drawn or propelled by any power whatever, including wagons, carts, trucks, carriages, automobiles, omnibuses, boats and aeroplanes.
3.	To carry on the business of forwarders, transportation agents, warehousemen and wharfingers and to construct, purchase, lease, hire, use and dispose of wharves, buildings, plant and appliances requisite for such purposes;
(b)	To purchase, rent, take, hold and enjoy lands, wharves, docks, warehouses, offices, elevators and other buildings in Canada or elsewhere to be used for the purposes of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or its steamship connections;
(c)	To enter into arrangements with a railway company or steamships company or other transportation company, and to obtain from such company any rights, privileges and concessions which the company may think it desirable to obtain, and to carry out, exercise and comply with any such arrangements, rights, privileges and concessions.
There are the powers conferred upon the Canadian Pacific Transport Company Limited. The hon. member for Vancouver East says, "But why not let Canadian National
4056	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Railways have the same powers?" He suggests they are just toeing given the same powers in section 27 of the bill now before us. If there was anything in that argument of course it might hold water, but it does not. Let us see what powers the Canadian National Railways have, quite irrespective of section 27 of the bill. These are the powers of Canadian National Transportation Limited under letters patent issued pursuant to the Companies Act, and are the powers under which they are carrying on business. Listen to the similarity to the Canadian Pacific powers. They are:
(a)	To carry on the business of transportation, for hire, of persons, goods, wares, merchandise, mails, property and things of every description, on land, water, and by air, or combinations thereof, by any means whatsoever, except by rail and except as a railway company;
(b)	To manufacture, buy, sell, hire, lease, import, export, operate and deal in vehicles, vessels, aircraft equipment, apparatus, engines, machines, mechanical contrivances or devices of every kind and description, using any form of motive power, which may be required, used or capable of being used in connection with any such business, and all machinery, accessories, parts, appliances, tools, supplies, materials and things required, used or capable of being used in connection therewith;
(c)	To interchange traffic with any railway company by container system or any method deemed desirable, and to furnish all necessary cars, trucks, equipment and apparatus, also to make agreements for the conduct and regulation of such traffic;
(d)	For the better carrying on of the business of the company to carry on the business of warehousemen, warfingers and storers of goods, wares and merchandise of every kind and description.
What could be covered in the way of transportation, Mr. Speaker, that is not covered by that? This is the company that carries on all business other than rail service. This company has full power to buy and sell motor vehicles, aircraft, ships and everything that can be used for transportation outside of railway vehicles themselves, which are covered by the general Railway Act. The situation is that Canadian National Transportation Limited, the subsidiary dealing with these types of transportation, has just as wide powers as the subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company engaged in the same field outside of rail activities. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, far from Canadian National Railways not having the powers the Canadian Pacific has, it has precisely the same powers under a federal act, and can carry on under that authority without having section 27 of this bill.
The thing every hon. member should ask- in this case the hon. member for Vancouver East, as well as other members-is why we are asked to pass section 27. Either section 27 means nothing or it means that some new powers are being conferred over and above


these wide powers I have just read in the act under which Canadian National Railways can buy and sell automobiles, aircraft and ships. It means nothing, or we are not being dealt with in complete frankness by the minister on this occasion. It is one or the other. If this means something more than the right to operate under the wide powers conferred by the federal act to which I have referred, then we are awaiting an explanation from the minister that we should have had long ago.
We should not take section 27 as necessary. Section 27 is not needed, as the hon. member for Vancouver East said, to give the Canadian National Transportation Limited the same powers as the corresponding company of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. It is not needed to give any of the other companies powers they already have, conferred by federal statute.
The Canadian Pacific Company was incorporated in 1872. There have been well over 100 amendments to that act, but they have no such powers today. Why is this power now being conferred upon Canadian National Railways, when it has all the powers to do all the things covered by the descriptive terms I have read to the house? Why does it need this section, unless it is to by-pass the very act that was introduced in the house last year to meet the representations of the provincial governments at the time the government asked the provincial governments to take over the control, supervision and licensing of extraprovincial as well as intraprovincial transport? .
When the hon. member for Vancouver South talks about our seeking to deny competition, he is talking plain, unadulterated rot. I should say the hon. member for Vancouver East. I shall correct that immediately before I cause the hon. member for Vancouver South to rise to his feet, because I would not suggest that the hon. member for Vancouver South would make any such completely factious argument as that which we heard this afternoon. I may disagree with him fairly extensively as it is, but even with that reservation I repeat that he certainly would not say some of the things that have been said this afternoon, even though the socialists are now allied with the government in this rather mysterious demand for special powers for the Canadian National Railways, which have not yet been explained and which need explanation in view of the extremely wide powers they already have.
No, Mr. Speaker; unless this is intended to override provincial authority, let the minister stand up and say that the draftsmanship was not satisfactory and that they

will remove section 27. I pointed out yesterday that this measure purports to be a consolidation. Let us proceed with the consolidation and leave out of it something that has nothing to do with consolidation of the legislation. This is a new section, an unnecessary section, unless there is some hidden meaning.
Perhaps some question may be raised as to why we should even suggest the possibility that there is a hidden meaning. The Canadian National Railways, as a railway organization, is made up of many thousands of people. I am convinced that the rank and file of workers in Canadian National Railways want their company to operate on a basis that will stand the ordinary tests. They want no special favours. I am satisfied that those men also want the people of this country to be told, with complete frankness, exactly what is being done. We have not been dealt with frankly in a number of cases. Just let me illustrate a few.
Hon. members will recall when the manager of the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg was removed because he did not roll out the red carpet quickly enough to suit the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), who at that time did not occupy quite such an important position-that is, in the open, at any rate.


Mr. Rowe:: What would he want now?


George Alexander Drew: At that time we were not dealt with frankly. There is no question about the fact that a very gallant veteran of the last war, a man who had established a fine reputation as manager of one of the largest hotels in this country, was removed simply for the petty reason that it was thought he had not shown due deference to those who were associated with this government and who were visiting that hotel at a very busy time, when many were travelling in this country.
Then there was another occasion when we were not dealt with in complete frankness. We have prided ourselves for a long time because we operate hotels like the Fort Garry, the Chateau Laurier, the Chateau Frontenac, the Vancouver, the Bessborough in Saskatoon, the Macdonald and all the other fine railway hotels right across this country. We have claimed that we had service as good as, if not a little better than, was to be found anywhere. Then the Canadian National Railways, with public funds, proceeded with plans to build a huge hotel in Montreal, where all these trained hotel experts should have been given the opportunity to show their years of experience in management, and what was done? There was a surreptitious deal made with a high pressure United States hotel organization to run this hotel, and we
Canadian National Railways cannot even find out the details of this transaction. No, Mr. Speaker, we have not been dealt with frankly.
We were not dealt with frankly then. There was no excuse for that, and there was no excuse for the removal of Mr. Pitt from the Fort Garry hotel. We did not get the details there. We did not get the whole truth. There was no excuse for what was done in Montreal in bringing this outside company to discredit the experience of Canadians, many of whom are so good that they are the managers of big hotels in the United States. Then we come to this particular case, and we have a section placed before us that is quite unnecessary in the face of the powers possessed by Canadian National Transportation Limited, unless there is a hidden reason. That is exactly why this matter should not be proceeded with until the honourable obligation of this government to deal fairly with the provincial governments is carried out.
The hon. member for Vancouver East ridiculed the suggestion that there be a conference. Perhaps his group were not allied with the Liberals at that time, but a year ago they did not ridicule the suggestion that there be a conference, when the privy council decided that the federal government had full authority over extra-provincial highway transportation.


Harold Edward Winch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not ridicule the idea of a conference. I asked for an explanation of the two points of view of the Conservative party.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a point of order. The hon. member can make his position clear after the Leader of the Opposition has concluded his speech.


George Alexander Drew: In so far as that position is concerned, it will be recalled that the federal government had obtained the authority it wanted over extra-provincial highway transportation. At that time the government did not find it so difficult to bring the provinces together for a conference. After that decision had been rendered in April, the federal government asked the provinces to send their representatives to consider this subject in detail. They met here and this government proposed that in spite of the privy council decision, the provinces should take the full authority and the licensing control of extraprovincial highway transport. The provinces agreed, and to implement that undertaking a bill was presented to this house in June. It was passed and is on the statute books today. It is on the statute books at the request of this government.
If there was any reason whatever last year to call the provinces together to discuss that
4058	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways matter, there is far more reason to call them together now, when this government proposes to introduce a section which will have the effect of giving powers which unquestionably would conflict with those powers that were conferred upon the provincial governments at the request of this federal government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, by all means let us have a consolidation of the acts. If this is really just a consolidation with which we are dealing, let us limit it to a consolidation. There is one other section with which I am going to deal, not extensively but just to illustrate how extraneous matters have been brought into this bill. Section 22 creates an entirely new situation. At the moment the Canadian National Railways may-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Leader of the Opposition will excuse me if I interrupt him again, but I have asked hon. members not to refer to the sections of the bill while discussing second reading. I am sure he can deal with this particular point without referring to the precise section.


George Alexander Drew: Hon. members know there is a section in this bill which provides that the Canadian National Railways will have certain powers in regard to short branch line construction. It is provided that if the line does not exceed six miles in length it may be dealt with by obtaining the approval of the governor in council and filing a plan. The bill also includes a provision that, in any case, if parliament sets aside money for the construction thereof the railway may proceed to deal with it.
Now, that is a very different authority than that which is conferred upon the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific may construct branches and extensions under authority granted by the board of transport commissioners. Under the new provision the Canadian National Railways is going to be allowed to do this by order in council. We know it is a loosening up process. You will recall the restriction that all contracts must be by tender, and provision that in certain cases, if the contract does not exceed $15,000, tenders need not be called. The same principle is being applied here.
The Canadian National are not going to be called upon to go to the board of transport commissioners for approval if the branch line does not exceed six miles in length; they may get permission by order in council. In fact, the railway can construct the line in any case if, tucked away in the estimates somewhere, there is an item dealing with that particular line, even though parliament may not have passed any bill dealing with that extension.


I have not heard any suggestion from any member of the Conservative party that the hands of the officials of the Canadian National Railways be tied in any way in operating on a basis of free competition with the Canadian Pacific Railway or with any other railway in this country. I would be the first to oppose that; I would be the first to oppose any restriction on the liberty of the Canadian National Railways to compete freely with the Canadian Pacific, and why should I not be? It was the Conservative party that brought the Canadian National Railways into existence. I know that during the years that followed, in one of those oversimplifications, the slogan was coined "Competition ever, amalgamation never."
We believe in competition; we believe in competition between government agencies and private agencies. We believe in fair competition. We believe that will be in the best interests of all the people of Canada, because in that way we can have some assurance of efficiency through the competitive methods that make for efficiency in ordinary business operations. But we do not think we should be asked to include in what is a consolidation measure these special sections that have nothing to do with the consolidation, but embody entirely new principles, and vicious principles; for we believe in real, equal competition between government agencies and private enterprise in this country engaged in the same field.
There the situation rests, Mr. Speaker. We cannot move an amendment to clauses at this time. I have entered this debate again to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, and 1 have also taken this opportunity to deal with certain misstatements that have been made here so freely this afternoon.


Harold Edward Winch: Where do you stand on the amendment?


George Alexander Drew: If you will just contain yourself for a moment I shall let you know. I intend to deal with it in my own time, not in yours.
We have stated, Mr. Speaker, that these sections should not be dealt with here. We have stated clearly why this government owes an obligation to consult the provincial governments. They know from their experience last year that this can be done quickly. They know it does not need to hold up the bill, unless there is substantial objection to it. If there is substantial objection to it by the provinces on the ground that it restricts the rights and obligations which this government asked the provinces to assume last year, then it is time we knew that. We should know it before we deal with these clauses.

I said yesterday that at this point I did not propose to move an amendment, because in committee the minister can withdraw these clauses. I hope he will do that unless he is prepared to get in touch with the provinces, who can certainly deal just as promptly with this now as they did last year after the privy council decision affecting this whole question.
There is no reason at all why this legislation cannot be dealt with during the course of the present session, and still have an appropriate expression of opinion from the provinces. To refuse to do this would only strengthen the apprehension that has already been expressed that the government is indirectly trying to change the effect of the legislation passed by this house last year.
I repeat, in view of the almost unbelievable misinterpretation of my remarks by the hon. member for Vancouver East, that we are in favour of consolidation. We want a speedy consolidation which will facilitate the handling of matters under this legislation, but we do not want any new powers conferred which were not discussed with the provinces last year, without those powers being fully disclosed to us. We do not want an evasion of the very responsibilities this government asked the provinces to assume, by any trickery or any lack of frankness in handling matters of this kind in this house.


Mr. Elmore Philpoil (Vancouver South):: The Leader of the Opposition referred to me by mistake several times during the course of his speech. I want to make it very clear that he was referring to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), not to myself, not that I would have any objection to being associated with most of what my old friend the hon. member for Vancouver East said in his speech.
At different times in my life I have had the honour of standing with the Leader of the Opposition, and at times I have had the honour of standing with the hon. member for Vancouver East. For the sake of clarity it should be indicated on the record that the Leader of the Opposition referred to me only once when he said something about having a close look at clause 27. Well, I propose to take a close look at clause 27 when we pass this stage of the bill and deal with it clause by clause.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, and also so there shall be no uncertainty about it, I wish to make it abundantly clear that it was only by inadvertence that I referred to the hon. member for Vancouver South, because in the course of my remarks I was referring to
Canadian National Railways the extraordinary statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words at this time, to make clear once again the position we take in regard to this bill. There certainly can be no question that this party does not object in any way to a consolidation act. We think that is long past due and should be done; but we do object to a great many things that are in the bill before us.
Certainly we have never on any occasion objected to free competition. We have emphasized on many occasions that we think the railways, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, are entitled to compete with the trucking and other transport systems clear across this country. The only thing I have objected to on almost every occasion is the unfair competition that the railways are endeavouring to provide by legislation. It will not be competition; it will be an instrument to destroy their competitors.
We think it will be wrong from a national standpoint for the railways to have such powers over their competitors. They will not be competing with them; they will be strangling them so they will have a complete monopoly of all transportation in this country. That is the thing we object to. We have no objection to this bill in so far as it consolidates railway measures. We have objection to the exceptional powers that would be given to the railways, to the Canadian National Railways particularly, if this bill should go through in its present form.
It would not be necessary, as I indicated yesterday, for the railways to put into effect the agreed charges contracts they now have the legal right to enter into, and that is a very potent weapon in strangling the competition from trucks. Under this legislation they could go much further than that. They could violate all provincial legislation if this legislation is enacted in its present form.
Some hon. members said that when the railway took over some of the bus lines in Saskatchewan they went to the Saskatchewan government and obtained permission to do certain things, and that the railway had to comply with provincial legislation in that respect. Of course they did then, but this bill was not law at that time. If this bill goes through, under clause 27 and clause 18 the railways will not have to ask permission from the provinces. It is the greatest intrusion on provincial rights that I have seen in the 20 years I have been a member of
4060	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways parliament. It is the concern of every hon. member to see that clause 27 is not passed. It should be deleted from the bill entirely. I gave the minister credit yesterday for having one slipped over on him. I hope he is not desirous of having such tremendous powers placed in the hands of the railroad. He has indicated that there are certain parts of the schedule that he wants to change. I think I indicated yesterday that there were some parts other than those contained in the schedule that should be removed. This would certainly apply to clause 27, which should be deleted entirely.
If the minister would get up now and say he is prepared to do that, I am sure a great deal of the opposition would be dropped. Not only should that section be deleted, but the other parts of the bill which refer to transport by motor vehicles should also be deleted.
*
We have an amendment before us. As I said a moment ago, we are in favour of the consolidation, which we think is overdue; but this is a package bill containing not only the consolidation but these other matters which have been slipped in. This practice has become common in the last few years; I do not say on the part of the minister, but it is done intentionally by those who draw up the bills in order that it can be said, as was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East, that we are voting against this consolidation. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are voting against is this unwarranted power being given the railway company to enable it to strangle its competitors, and this invasion of provincial rights.
It would appear that the hon. member for Vancouver East is in entire agreement with this, because he said he was going to support the bill. Then he found he was getting into deep water, as indicated by the questions put to him during the course of his speech, and he began to back-paddle a little. He said he was in favour of the bill except for one or two minor points. When asked what those were he never referred to them, and has not done so yet. I suppose we can take it for granted, since apparently he was speaking for the party, that the C.C.F. are in favour of the federal government overriding provincial legislation in a case such as this. Apparently they are in favour of the centralization of power.
They would not even put up with private enterprise. The hon. member for Vancouver East indicated that he does not support private enterprise at all, and there was no qualification in his statement. I suggest to some C.C.F. members that they be careful when making statements of that kind, because many


of them are making their livelihood from private enterprise, and making a fairly good living at that.
I want to say that we are not opposed to this consolidation, as we believe that all these measures should be brought into one act. What we do oppose, and oppose strenuously, is this extraordinary power being given to the C.N.R. under clause 27. We think it should be deleted. We have no choice but to vote for the amendment because of the package principle which has been followed in connection with Bill No. 351.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the matter of public transportation I do not believe the people of Canada are too much concerned about the straw man of provincial rights which has been raised in this house. I endorse what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he contended that this problem of public transportation must be viewed as a whole, and that we must evolve a plan which will give the public transportation at as low a rate as possible. I think this provincial rights issue is simply a bogeyman that has been introduced.
I was a little surprised that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre should introduce this amendment with the argument which he put forth. If the Canadian National Railways are losing money each year I would imagine, in the light of his attitude in past years, that he would be the last one to oppose any move that would enable the Canadian National Railways to put itself in a position where it could avoid heavy deficits each year. I have every sympathy for the taxpayers of Canada and would like to help them all I can, and I therefore think the Canadian National Railways should be given every assistance in reducing these deficits.
I submit that one of the reasons for the annual deficits of the Canadian National Railways can be traced directly to the Conservative party. I notice that they take every credit for having initiated the Canadian National railway system, but when that was done they did not consider the welfare of the people of Canada. When this system was set up first consideration was given to the welfare of the bondholders of what should have become bankrupt railroads. There have been no more able spokesmen for the C.P.R. in this house than the members of the Conservative party. I notice that the new Conservatives, the socreds, are most anxious to climb on the bandwagon and take up cudgels on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. One would almost

imagine that the Canadian Pacific was going to offer a full slate of candidates of its own at the next federal election.
To speak of free competition in the matter of public transportation is about as unrealistic as to advocate free competition in the distribution of public services such as hydroelectric power. The Canadian National Railways belongs to the people of Canada. Accusations are being made in this house by independents, the Social Credit and the Conservative parties, in connection with certain rights being granted to the Canadian National Railways which they contend would not be good for the people of Canada.
We must remember that the Canadian National Railways must appear annually before the members of the House of Commons. If there is misuse of the powers that have been granted I shall be ready, along with other members of parliament, to attack the minister and the Canadian National Railways for such misuse of power. I say again that if we are honestly concerned over the welfare of the taxpayers of Canada we will do everything possible to enable this railway system to so operate that it can provide transportation for people and goods at the lowest possible cost, and perhaps be able to rid the taxpayers of this annual deficit. We shall examine their operations once a year in democratic fashion, as we have done in years gone by.


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make one correction. It seems to me there should be some relation to facts when we are discussing these matters. The last speaker pointed out that when the Canadian National Railways was put together it was a matter of assembling various lines, and suggested that in doing this the government of the time, which was a Conservative government, overlooked the interests of the shareholders. The real question was not about shareholders but whether the creditors could be paid.
We must remember that since that time the government has forgiven hundreds of millions of dollars of debt due to it. The shareholders so far have been out of the picture, and we really should not bring them in as if in some way they had been badly treated. They have disappeared from the picture, except perhaps in one or two small lines where the shareholders may have got something. In talking about these things we should pay proper regard to the basic factors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry that in spite of the sound and fury in which the
Canadian National Railways Leader of the Opposition indulged, he did not make clear to us how he and his colleagues are going to vote on the amendment which is now-


George Alexander Drew: So that I may remove any concern from the hon. member's mind, I intended that this should go before the committee, and I expressed my hope that the minister would remove these sections. It is certainly my intention to vote against the amendment now before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is good. We now know how the Leader of the Opposition is going to vote. I think he should reconsider the charge made a while ago that there was an alliance between this group and the Liberals across the way. Now he says that when the vote is taken he will be voting along with us. These charges are risky, because what we vote on in the House of Commons is not a matter of alliance among parties but rather we vote on the issues that come before us.
I appreciate the dilemma in which our friends at the south end of the chamber find themselves with regard to a package bill. The hon. member for Bow River indicates that there are things in this bill that he wants; but he must vote for the amendment, which is the six months' hoist, because of his opposition to one or two features of the bill which he does not like. We are all in that position at times. I have been in the position where we have been presented with a package proposition and I had to vote for something I did not like or vote against something I did like, because of the overriding considerations of the measure before us.
On that basis, Mr. Speaker, it seems to us in this group that on balance this legislation should in principle be supported and sent to the committee. In the main it is a consolidation of the many statutes with regard to the Canadian National Railways, and it will make possible a more efficient and more effective administration of that system on behalf of the people of Canada.
I must confess, even if there are one or two minor points about which there is some question, that I am surprised that there should be any number of members of this house who want to do what they can to prevent this bill from being supported in principle, which is the effect of the six months' hoist. I shall not mind that being quoted against us on occasions when we move the six months' hoist to legislation with which we disagree.
Like the Leader of the Opposition, I feel a number of things have been done by the management of the Canadian National Railways which I do not like. I did not like the
4062	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways Pitt affair in Winnipeg, not at all. I still do not like the way in which the Canadian National Railways board of directors sold two Canadian National hotels and two summer resorts. I do not like what has been done with respect to the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal, in that it is being let out for management purposes to the Hilton chain in the United States. I certainly do not like the way employees have been laid off by the Canadian National Railways during the past several months. I had something to say about that yesterday when I read a letter to the House of Commons. Likewise I am bitterly disappointed that it has taken so long for the Canadian National Railways to reconsider the position of their pensioners, particularly those in the lower brackets and, if I may go one step further, I say particularly those whose only pension is $25 a month.
I hope some of these matters will be given more serious consideration than has yet been the case. But, even after one has registered all the complaints he has against the management of the Canadian National Railways, it is still a fact that we want the Canadian National Railways to have a decent and proper charter, which is the purpose of this legislation. For that reason it seems to us that this bill should receive approval by being given second reading, and if one takes that position one must oppose the six months' hoist which is now before the house.
So far as the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Bow River are concerned, far be it from me to defend the Minister of Transport, as too many things he does call for attack as far as I am concerned; but he made a statement yesterday which cut the ground from under a good deal of what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Bow River. He admitted that some change might have to be made so it would be clear that a certain section of the bill did not make all the companies mentioned in a certain schedule works for the general advantage of Canada. He specifically referred to Canadian National Transportation Limited.
The Leader of the Opposition today listed the powers Canadian National Transportation now has, and they seem to be even greater than those that are suggested in the relevant part of the bill. It strikes me that all that is sought is a consolidation of the powers and rights that now obtain so far as the Canadian National Railways are concerned. If our friends to the right and our friends to the left and those to the far left-geographically, not politically, of course-favour consolidation, they should support the bill rather than the six months' hoist.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as this bill consists of a consolidation it is admirable in purpose and necessary for the railway company, but it seems very clear that under the guise of a consolidation of statutes the government intends and intended to bring into effect provisions which in my opinion parliament ought not to accept. The Leader of the Opposition has dealt with those provisions in detail, and I do not intend to cover the ground covered by him. Certainly the arguments he advanced have not been met, and it seems clear to me that one or two sections in this bill are deliberately designed to take the government out of the quagmire in which it placed itself last year when it tried to play both ends against the middle.
First it went to the privy council, it went to the courts, in order to uphold the right of the federal government to control motor transportation. Then, having succeeded, it came to the conclusion that it could not discharge its responsibilities and had an act passed by parliament to remove it from the difficulties in which it found itself. Now again, under the subterfuge of consolidation, it is endeavouring to restore to itself the powers which the provinces had the right to expect under the agreement made at the conference and also under the statute passed at the last session of parliament.
Indeed, in looking over the act I find that seven of the 47 clauses are new and in no way consolidations. In addition to that, there are two major subsections that are completely new. As one listened to the arguments here one might also conclude that consolidation of the statutes in the manner requested by the government is going to solve the difficulties of the Canadian National Railways.


George Carlyle Marler: Who said that?


John George Diefenbaker: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the hon. member at this point. It seems to me that he is getting a bit away from the subject matter to which our attention should be directed. Some latitude has been given. The hon. member will recall that, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke today, he made the statement that with respect to the Canadian National Railways this house had not been treated with frankness, and he presented certain illustrations. Among others he mentioned the Pitt incident, the contract to the Hilton chain and many others.
Carrying on in that vein the hon. member is apparently not making these points matters of illustration but rather a substantial part of his speech. He has dealt with the matter of questions not being answered by the C.N.R. management through the minister and he has complained about delay. He has dealt with the action taken by this government to help settle a strike in 1950. Now he is going to go into the subject of the contract with the Hilton chain with respect to the hotel in Montreal.
If the hon. member wishes to insist on treating these points in this fashion and if he puts up the argument that he is not repeating any of the arguments used by others in debate, and that what he is now saying is completely different or completely new, it will be difficult, of course, for me to invoke standing order 40, subsection 2. I will ask for the co-operation of the hon. member because apparently he has all his notes before him and is prepared to present his views on the subject. I have been listening carefully not only to him but to all those who have spoken since the beginning of this debate today. I have also had the privilege of listening to several hon. members who spoke yesterday on the main motion and again today on the amendment. I fear that at this moment the hon. member is taking us into the area of repetition. I should like him to co-operate with the chair and try to avoid repetition.

Canadian National Railways


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon and yesterday several of the matters that I have dealt with were referred to, and they were referred to without objection from Your Honour. One speaks of co-operation, and I am all for co-operation, sir-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member at this time because he has just said that several points on which he has been touching were dealt with yesterday. That is precisely my point. Standing order 40, subsection 2, reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance and repetition . . .
The language of that section was simplified by the rules committee in 1927. As it read previously, it stated that tedious repetition must be avoided either in respect of one's own arguments or in respect of arguments used by others in the same debate. (See Journals, page 243, Tuesday, 15th March, 1927). That is my point. If the hon. member tells me today that I should allow him to repeat some of the points that I allowed to be referred to yesterday, I am justified in the position that I am now taking by virtue of standing order 40, subsection 2. I am asking the hon. member to touch on other subjects and not to repeat arguments used by others. We have heard about the Hilton contract from the Leader of the Opposition and from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). We have heard about section 27 invading provincial rights from the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Bow River, the hon. member for Vancouver East and the Leader of the Opposition. I think that I, who have listened to all these speeches, am capable of judging what repetition means in this case because I have heard the same arguments over and over. I am merely asking the hon. member for Prince Albert not to repeat arguments used by others or his own arguments.


John George Diefenbaker: With the greatest respect, I cannot understand what Your Honour has in mind. Unless you have a prepared speech, you follow what has been said in the course of a debate, and you take the arguments and either agree with them or reject them. What I am trying to place before the chamber is that this consolidation is a mirage if it is to be considered as settling any of the difficulties of Canadian National Railways. This consolidation is a meaningless piece of work unless these problems I have spoken of are to be met by parliament. Surely the fact that somebody else may have mentioned one or the other does not deny me the right to refer


to these arguments in support of the contention being advanced that the bill in its present form is merely a back door method on the part of the government of interfering with provincial rights which were to be respected under the agreement of June, 1954, as reinforced by a statute of this parliament.
As far as the present bill is concerned, and this is the point I am making, the problems facing the Canadian National Railways-the deficit, the aroused feelings, the lost morale on the part of these worthy employees-are not going to be solved in any way by a document such as this which holds out no hope of meeting the serious situation in which Canadian National Railways finds itself today. I mentioned hotels, and Your Honour says they should not be referred to. I have to be parliamentary, but no more inexcusable piece of work has ever been done by the railway company and its directors than the disposal of four Canadian National Railways hotels at a price far below what could have been secured if ordinary business principles had been applied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why were they disposed of at all?


John George Diefenbaker: Why dispose of them at all, my hon. friend says. I repeat that, but apparently repetition of actual facts and desirable conclusions is looked upon with a certain amount of suspicion. I repeat what I have said. The bill in its present form is merely a means whereby the government, having agreed to measures that on the face of them gave every appearance of a sincere desire to preserve and protect provincial rights, is seeking by the back door method to bring in a section which, as it now stands, will permit Canadian National Railways to override provincial authority and give them a field of authority above that conferred upon the provinces last year by an act of this parliament passed in June of 1954.
Sir, what is needed today is not a consolidation of statutes, although that is helpful. What is needed is an attitude of mind upon the part of those in authority on the Canadian National Railways that will bring about a restoration of morale among the railway employees and give them that impetus and desire to assist they had at one time but which has been torn from them by the attitude of those in charge of Canadian National Railways within the last several years. As far as the consolidation is concerned, there will be no argument about it whatsoever, but I ask the minister to say when he replies why, under the guise of consolidation, he brings in by a back door method sections which designedly contravene everything declared as

an abiding principle one year ago and which will not have the effect of improving the administration of Canadian National Railways but will have the effect of undoing that which was done with such expressions of sanctity last year when a bill was brought before the house and ultimately translated into legislation.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) made the statement that we have a committee of parliament which will permit us to examine. That does not meet the situation at all. As far as the minister is concerned, let me say to him that it has been more difficult for parliament to get information expeditiously than it was in the past. Assurance has already been given that the bill will go before a standing committee of the house, but parliament has a right to ask on this occasion that there will be some realization on the part of Canadian National Railways and those in charge of its operations of what the little man on the railway says today. For some reason the encouragement he should be receiving is not being provided, and the opportunity to expand and develop the business is being denied him by methods which he believes to be detrimental to the company that he honours and that we honour. I am opposed to the six months' hoist and I say that so far as the sections having to do with consolidation are concerned they necessarily should be accepted. But after the bill has been considered by the committee and the minister has given further consideration to the sections that in our opinion are and will be detrimental to the operation of the railway an opportunity will arise on third reading to ascertain what is the will of the majority in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: May I go over the point I raised a moment ago with the hon. member for Prince Albert because I want to make sure that not only he but other hon. members will not misunderstand me. When I rose the first time to ask the hon. member not to repeat some of the arguments that had been advanced, I was asking his cooperation at that moment. It was because of his later remark to the effect that I had allowed reference to some points to which I was denying him the right to allude that I felt justified in elaborating on the question of repetition.
I do not wish to encourage hon. members to repeat either their own arguments or those used by others, but may I say that if the rule is not enforced as regularly as perhaps it should be it is because, as hon. members will realize, it is one that is very difficult to administer. How can you tell
Canadian National Railways if a member is repeating until you have heard him, and once you have heard him he has completed his repetition and therefore you cannot ask him to swallow his words. Therefore the only thing the Speaker can do is to ask hon. members for their co-operation, and that is what I was doing with respect to the hon. member for Prince Albert.
Whenever a debate lasts a certain length of time, it is almost inevitable that in the latter stage of the debate these repetitious arguments will occur. The words may not be exactly the same but the ideas are quite similar, and that is precisely why the rule exists. Once all arguments on a given subject have been presented, hon. members should decide the matter by the putting of the question. That is the spirit of our rule. One should not abuse freedom of speech by repeating one's own arguments or arguments used by others in a debate. I do not think one should extend the freedom of debate in this house by claiming the right to repeat over and over again arguments that have been used by others. The rules are to the effect that one must be free to debate and to present all the arguments that are pertinent to the subject, and then the matter should be brought to a decision by a vote. Tlys is the spirit of our rules.
Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the main motion carry?


Mr. Argue:: Will you call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The house will now consider private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Weaver for the second reading of Bill No. 376, to authorize Trans-Prairie Pipelines, Ltd., to construct, own and operate an extra-provincial pipe line.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat different pipe line bill from the ones we have been accustomed to in recent years. According to the explanatory note:
The purpose of this bill is to authorize TransPrairie Pipelines, Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of the province of Manitoba, to construct, own and operate an extra-provincial pipe line or pipe lines.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, when one starts to speak on one of these private pipe line bills one misses the former member for Fraser Valley who always took an active part in these discussions.
This bill is entirely different in its structure from the pipe lines that we have been considering since the passage of the general Pipe Lines Act. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) pointed that out very clearly last Friday when he spoke on this bill. The bills that have come before us as private pipe line bills were in effect bills granting charters to incorporate companies. In those Gills was a long list of provisions similar to the provisions contained in practically all of the private pipe line bills we have discussed since the introduction of the general Pipe Lines Act. We in this group view this bill with certain suspicions although things may turn out better than we expect. This bill simply authorizes a company chartered under the laws of Manitoba to enter into the pipe line business. There are no further details as to the area it intends to serve, who will be the directors, what will be the capital or as to the many other provisions which are spelled out in other pipe line bills we have discussed.
We are very interested in knowing why there should be this short form of bill. The other bills which came before this house were to some extent the result of lengthy debates in the house by members of all parties, particularly those on this side, who were anxious to protect Canadian interests in the development of natural resources and to see that Canadian requirements, particularly with

respect to the distribution of gas and oil, were met prior to the requirements of anyone outside the country.
The other companies were aware of the discussion that had taken place, they were aware of government policy with respect to the building of pipe lines for the distribution of gas and oil, and were willing to comply with the established procedure in order to have their bills come before this house in a form following the common practice. They were willing to come before the committee and state what they had in mind, what their intended developments would cover, and on several occasions when requested by members of the committee, particularly the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), who has been most active in this type of debate, they agreed to amendments to their bills in order to meet specific objections by opposition members, and on some occasions by members on the government side.
We cannot understand the reason for this short-cut type of bill. We are afraid it may be the commencement of a breakdown of the practice which has been established during recent years in connection with private pipe line bills. We have only the bill in front of us on which to form an opinion, but in our view it can mean several things if adopted in its present form. It certainly would appear to provide for very little control over the development and building of pipe lines. Second, it could mean the breakdown in protection for the public which has been built up after considerable effort both inside and outside the house. Third, it could possibly destroy the opportunity for the parliament of Canada to satisfactorily develop a national policy with respect to the development and distribution of gas, oil and petroleum products.
For these reasons we in this group feel we shall have to oppose second reading. We feel the bill is unsound in principle, in form and structure. We feel we must do this unless the sponsor can assure the house that this company will be agreeable to amendments being introduced in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines which will meet the objections raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and this group and thus place this bill on a par with other private pipe line bills that have come before this house. If the sponsor of the bill can assure the house that these objections will be met in full then I think this group can support the motion for second reading.


Mr. Weaver:: I will be quite willing to agree to meet the objections raised by hon. members when the bill is in committee.
Private Bills


Harold Edward Winch: Are we going to hear from the hon. member?


George Dyer Weaver: I can assure the house that the company is quite willing to agree to amendments in committee that will meet the objections raised by hon. members.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have just one or two observations to make with respect to this bill. Today we discussed other pipe line bills, more particularly in the committee, and at that time we were given much more information than we have been given in connection with this bill. As this bill is so short it is quite possible that many factors may be involved which would be discussed in full in the committee. For that reason I do not feel that we can particularly support this bill until such time as it comes before the committee because we have too little knowledge of what the bill purports to provide in the way of benefits to those to be served by Trans-Prairie Pipelines, Ltd.
If I may be so bold, I would suggest that the government consider the necessity of having some uniformity in bills of this type. New oil and gas discoveries are being made from time to time and there is a direct need for information being given before we are asked to vote on a bill as brief as this one. The hon. member sponsoring the bill has told us that the company will be willing to accede to the request made for revision, and I have no doubt that certain requests will be made for revision of this bill. However, I do not see why we should leave so much to chance; I cannot see why we should not know just what the company has in mind in order that we can consider a bill such as this with confidence.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Mary Matilda Getto Paquin.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Ruth Nourse Tomlinson Wilson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Joseph Henri Marcel Giguere.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 385, for the relief of Edith Isabella Bond Brown.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Yolande Joos Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Norva Florence Lemon Farley.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 388, for the relief of Freda Marie Johnston Storey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 389, for the relief of Jack Beattie Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
4068	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act
Bill No. 390, for the relief of Florence Mary Ann Meakin O'Ranski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 391, for the relief of Theophile Kulczycki.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 392, for the relief of William Michael Grayburn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 393, for the relief of Katharine Leitner Bouchard Frankenburg.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 394, for the relief of Clara Gaetan Milot Fullerton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 395, for the relief of Lily Shenker Silverton.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 396, for the relief of Alsye May Lissemore Masterson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 397, for the relief of Sylvia Knel-man Wiseman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 398, for the relief of Sara Beiss Stein.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 399, for the relief of Veronica Vera Bordenuik Reidt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 400, for the relief of George Gerald Melville Scally.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 401, for the relief of Joseph William James Tanney.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 402, for the relief of Aline Mail-loux Simoneau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 403, for the relief of Margaret Violet Oswald Nicol Maclver.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of Irving Uman-sky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 405, for the relief of Veronica Forrester Rose Kennedy.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 407, to incorporate the Canadian Union Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists.-Mr. Croll.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 379, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of making part of my speech on the second reading of this bill on Friday, May 20. At that time I dealt mainly with history and made reference to certain sessional papers which had been tabled in days gone by, in response to questions I had asked showing my longstanding interest in the question as to whether or not cabinet ministers should be at the same time directors of private companies. I also invited hon. members to read the very interesting debates on this question which took place in the House of Commons in 1921


and 1922. I made reference to these debates of 1921 and 1922 both for their own sake and to support my contention that this matter is not one that has arisen in the public mind only recently but rather one that has been the concern of members of parliament and the concern of public men for a good many years.
I indicated at the close of my remarks on Friday that I would make reference today to certain practices connected with this subject matter. I must say quite readily that I have not been able to ascertain that any country where the situation is similar to ours has legislation of the kind proposed in my bill, making it a statutory provision that ministers not hold directorships in private companies. Particularly I must say that there is, as far as I can ascertain, no such legislation in the United Kingdom or in the United States. However, hon. members are aware of the practice in the United Kingdom which in more recent years in particular has been quite definite in that, as a matter of routine and as a matter of practice, ministers do not hold directorships in private companies. They exercise a very scrupulous practice in relation to private legislation that comes before the parliament at Westminster. Then, too, all of us are aware of what happened recently in the United States in the case of Mr. Charles Wilson, who found it necessary because of public opinion to divest himself, not only of any authority he exercised by way of directorship, but also of his holdings in a very large corporation in that country, before taking a post in President Eisenhower's cabinet.
I cite these examples freely admitting that they show that there is no legislation along this line, but also showing that there is a very strong feeling in countries like ours that cabinet ministers should not be directors of private companies.
I should like to say a word about the practice in our own country, particularly with reference to the most important member of the cabinet. I am not referring only to the present situation, but to the situation across the years. As I understand it, previous to Sir Wilfrid Laurier there were prime ministers who held directorships in small firms, but Sir Wilfrid Laurier gave up all but one small, shall we say, family directorship. In the case of the prime ministers we have had in Canada since that time, they have divested themselves of any and all directorships they might have held. That was the case with Sir Robert Borden; it was the case with the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen; and it was the

case with the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King. I understand that the late Lord Bennett-he was Mr. Bennett at the time- gave up his directorships at the time he became the leader of the Conservative party in 1927. In the case of the present Prime Minister, as can be seen by reference to sessional paper No. 160-B, tabled on February 11, 1948, in response to questions of mine, he was sworn of the privy council on 10th of December, 1941, and five days later resigned all of his directorships. The sessional paper to which I have referred lists those 11 directorships which he resigned immediately after becoming a member of the cabinet. Of course, that was a long time before he became prime minister, but subsequent sessional papers have indicated that the present Prime Minister does not hold any directorships.
In other words, so far as the prime ministers of Canada are concerned, it is an accepted practice that in their view they should not be directors of private companies while they hold that very high office. Now, in view of my admission that I have not been able to find legislation comparable to my bill, the question arises-and it is a fair one-why ask for legislation; why not leave it, as the Prime Minister suggested, to the conscience of each individual cabinet minister?
First of all I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that things have changed a good deal since the early days when the Senate and House of Commons Act was first put into effect and when it was felt that the only kind of relationships that could exist between the people and the government in a business sense were in the terms of contracts or small offices that might involve emoluments. Things have changed considerably, particularly in this day when the government is involved in so many things in our economy and particularly in view of the change in respect of income tax and succession duty legislation. There are all kinds of ways today in which there is contact between private corporations and the government which were not the case in the earlier days of this country. I submit that on that score this whole question should be reassessed.
I have read a great many times, as other hon. members have done, and with a great deal of interest, the independence of parliament provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act. As hon. members know, squarely in the middle of the Senate and House of Commons Act there are ten or a dozen sections which make it a matter of statute that no member of parliament is to hold, while he is a member of parliament, any job under the crown to which any emolument is attached, no matter how small that
Senate and House of Commons Act job or that emolument might be. It is also made statutory that no member of parliament may have any contract with the government. No member of parliament may sell anything to the federal government, nothing whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, as strongly as I can I make the point, that matter is not left to conscience. It is not left to my conscience or to the conscience of any other individual member whether we should try to get some little job under the government while we are members of parliament or whether we should try to get some contract with the government. It is laid down by statute that these things shall not be done.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of cabinet ministers the situation is even more important and more crucial. If it is not left to the conscience of individual members of parliament whether or not they do things that might compromise the independence of parliament, I submit that it should not be left to the individual consciences of cabinet ministers. I suggest that there should be regulation there as well. I suggest there should be a statutory provision so that it will be crystal clear that no cabinet minister can have any other duty or obligation which can conflict in any way with his full-time responsibilities to the Canadian people as a cabinet minister.
As I say, I have read with considerable interest the independence of parliament provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act. I have also examined with some interest what the attitude of parliament has been across the years towards these provisions. Hon. members may know these facts but even if they do, they will not mind my recalling them to them.
There was an occasion when no less a person than the Speaker of the House of Commons was obliged to resign his seat in the House of Commons and to resign his speakership at the same time because he violated one of the independence of parliament sections. He happened to be the first Speaker under a Liberal regime. I hasten to add that in the examples I shall give in a moment I shall be quite fair; I shall name instances where both Liberals and Conservatives ran afoul of that particular law. In this case it was Mr. Speaker Anglin who represented a constituency in New Brunswick and who edited or owned a newspaper down in Saint John. I believe the name of it was the Freeman. It turned out that that paper carried some federal government notices or paid advertisements, and the committee on privileges and elections felt that procedure was a violation of the independence
4070	HOUSE OF
Senate and House of Commons Act of parliament provisions in the Senate and House of Commons Act. As a result, Mr. Speaker Anglin was obliged to resign. Some time after the session of 1877 he ran in a by-election, was re-elected and came back to the House of Commons and was again elected to the Speaker's chair.
I may say that the late Mr. Anglin's re-election as Speaker in 1878 was not without an extremely acrimonious debate. I invite hon. members who are interested in our past as a parliament to read particularly the real "knock-'em-down and drag-'em-out" oratorical battle that took place between Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, who was then Liberal prime minister, and Sir John A. Macdonald, the leader of the Conservative opposition. Sir John objected strenuously to Mr. Anglin's even being seated back on the floor of the House of Commons before a Speaker had been elected, let alone his being elected as Speaker of the House of Commons. There may have been other occasions, but certainly on that occasion the result of that debate was that there was a recorded division as to whether or not Mr. Anglin should take the chair in 1878 as Speaker of the House of Commons. All of that fight and all of that furore was over the incident to which I have referred, namely the appearance in the Saint John Freeman of certain notices or advertisements inserted there by the federal government. The insertion of those notices was regarded as a violation of the independence of parliament provisions.
Let me come on down the years a bit, Mr. Speaker, and remind the house that in 1932 there was a Mr. Jones in the House of Commons. That was not my present colleague of course. This was Hon. George B. Jones who was the then Conservative member for Royal. He turned out to be the principal partner in the firm of Jones Brothers which had sold certain merchandise to the Indians, who were wards of the federal government. As a result of investigation in that case Mr. Jones resigned, although he too was re-elected. Similarly in the early part of this century there was the case of the then Liberal member for Glengarry, Mr. J. T. Schell, who, it was found, sold crates worth $5.50 to the dominion government. The matter was referred to the committee on privileges and elections. In his case he was able to satisfy that committee that this had been done without his knowledge, and he was not called upon to resign.
From their knowledge of history probably hon. members are more familiar with certain events that took place in 1915, during world war I. At that time certain matters were


referred to the committee on public accounts. As a result, two Conservative members of parliament-Mr. Foster from Kings, in Nova Scotia, and Mr. Garland who represented the constituency of Carleton-were obliged to resign. Mr. Foster was involved in some war contracts rather directly. In the case of Mr. Garland, it appears that he was one of the proprietors of a drug store here in Ottawa; and the record indicates that it was a boy working in his store who made to the federal government certain sales out of which he made a considerable profit. Mr. Garland was held responsible for this action.
If I may say so, to put it in language that will be understood, when I read in the Hansard of 1915 the things that Sir Robert Borden said about Mr. Garland and Mr. Foster, both of whom were his own members, I was reminded of what the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said when the case of Mr. Dewar, the former member for Qu'Appelle, arose in this house a few years ago. In other words, on all of these former occasions as well as in the case of the former member for Qu'Appelle-perhaps that case is a little bit different, although it included an involvement of a kind with a contractor who had relations with the government-in all these cases the house took an extremely serious view of the situation, and in all cases where the prime minister came into the picture, right across the years as leader of the house, whoever he was, Liberal or Conservative, he took an extremely serious view of any of these steps that seemed to involve a violation of the provisions of the independence of parliament sections of the Senate and House of Commons Act.
If we as a House of Commons have taken such a serious view of these things which, when we look at them, seem to be rather minor, should we not take an equally serious view of what I am concerned about in this bill that I present to parliament, namely the matter of cabinet ministers being directors of private companies.
When I began my remarks on Friday I said-and I ask the Prime Minister and others to remember it-that I raised this matter as one of principle. I do not raise it for the purpose of making an attack on a particular cabinet minister. Nevertheless I am going to mention something in relation to a particular cabinet minister because his case is, I think, a rather scandalous example of a bad practice. But I must say to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the person whom I hold responsible, the person whom I think the house has to hold responsible for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) continuing as a director of the

Guaranty Trust Company of Canada is the Prime Minister who said very clearly in the house the other day that he felt the matter should be left to the conscience of each individual cabinet minister. That is what I think is wrong. It is that as a principle which I am attacking.
I ask hon. members to listen to one or two sentences I want to read from the annual report of the Guaranty Trust Company of Canada for the year 1954. Incidentally, there is no question about it, on page 2 of the report the Minister of National Revenue- and that title is given to him in the report- is listed as one of the directors of the company. In this same annual report there are of course a number of propaganda or advertising paragraphs urging people to do business with the company. One of the paragraphs is entitled, "Administration of Estates", and reads in part as follows:
Guaranty Trust Company of Canada makes an ideal executor or administrator of an estate.
I skip a few sentences, and then I read this:
Each estate is in charge of a senior trust officer, supported by the advice and guidance of the executive officers, directors and local advisory boards . . .
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, once upon a time a Speaker of the House of Commons had to resign because some government notices appeared in a paper that he owned in Saint John, New Brunswick, but today the Prime Minister says it is all a matter of conscience when he has a colleague who is a director of a company which is administering estates, a director who, according to that company's advertising, gives his guidance and advice to that company's clients in such matters as succession duties. Yet, the same person sits on the other side of the table as Minister of National Revenue levying those succession duties. How can one be on both sides of the table at the same time?
I said a moment ago that I mention this only because it strikes me that it is a scandalous example of a bad practice, but the person I think we all must hold responsible for the continuation of this practice is the Prime Minister who, as he will readily admit, has taken the responsibility for laying down the principle that these things should be left to the conscience of individual cabinet ministers. I think that day has gone. I think the time has come when, if it is not left to our consciences as individual members of parliament whether we maintain the independence of parliament required by the Senate and House of Commons Act, the same statutory provision should be there so far as cabinet ministers are concerned.
Senate and House of Commons Act
As I say, I present this as a matter of principle. I present it as something that for my part has been a matter of long-standing interest. I present it as something that has been the concern of parliament right across the years. I hope very serious consideration will be given to it. I do not know what is going to happen to my bill. I know what happens to most bills that are introduced from the opposition side of the house. They do not get along very well the first time, but still it is true that across the years good ideas introduced on the opposition side of the house do have their way of being accepted in one way or another, and I hope that the principle I am presenting to the house in this bill will sooner or later be accepted, and sooner rather than later.
As for the Liberals, they of course can vote either way so far as precedent is concerned. I pointed out the other day that in 1921 most of the Liberals voted for a bill having the same effect as mine would have but in 1922 practically all the Liberals voted against a resolution to the same effect. In the case of the Conservatives, back in 1921 and 1922 most if not all of them voted against any statutory provision of this kind. Nevertheless I think that the Conservatives would do well to read what Arthur Meighen said on those occasions. In fact he was almost prophetic at one point where he said that the time might come when something along this line would have to be done. I have not checked with Arthur Meighen to find out, though he could be seen by those who are close to him, but my suspicion is that he who in 1921 and 1922 did not want this kind of legislation but wanted it crystal clear that no cabinet ministers should hold directorships, might say that if after all these years this kind of thing is still going on, the kind of thing to which I have alluded by reference to the annual report of the Guaranty Trust Company of Canada, it would appear that there is no solution to it but to bring in legislation to make it clear that being a cabinet minister is a full-time job.
I will be quite happy if the Prime Minister will make the kind of announcement that will make this legislation completely unnecessary. I do not need to spell out what the terms of that announcement would be. Perchance as he thinks the matter over he will agree with me that, rather than leaving it to the individual consciences of cabinet ministers and rather than leaving it as a responsibility resting upon the conscience of the Prime Minister alone, it might be better to have parliament make the decision. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I think we would be true to the best traditions of parliament, and we would be true to the concern of those who have

Senate and House of Commons Act gone before us in this place right back to 1867 if we would give very serious consideration to what is involved in the principle of the bill.
As I pointed out, long ago it was felt that any individual private member who did anything to compromise the independence of parliament should resign his seat, and that course has been followed on a number of occasions. I suggest that the position of cabinet ministers is even more important, and I hope that very serious consideration will be given by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet and by all members of the Liberal party, the Conservative party and the other parties in the house to what I suggest is a very important proposition.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I quite realize that we have had this afternoon a historical recitation mixed in with a form of innuendo of which I am quite sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was quite unconscious. In reciting the tales of bygone offences against the independence of parliament provisions he cited on every occasion, as I recall it, offences under the act which were specific in the sense that the statute forbade them but in addition all were offences in which the person concerned was in fact, or at least in theory, profiting financially.
At no time throughout the 40-minute speech he has just concluded has he made any such reference with respect to any present instance of that kind, and I repeat that in order that the hon. member will agree with me that he is speaking generally at the moment for the purpose of amending a statute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not only happy to agree with that statement but I think, in view of my agreement, the minister should not impute to me the throwing out of innuendoes.


Walter Edward Harris: I am glad to do so because, as I said in my opening remarks, I am quite sure the hon. member was perhaps unaware of it, but listening to his remarks from this side-and I do not want this to be an argument-the cases he cited were not cases in support of the proposition he was making. I have made my point and, as I said before, I am sure my hon. friend did not mean to put the matter in that light. I will therefore make the obvious remark that there is a distinction to be made between offences under the independence of parliament provisions and what is being suggested here. What is being suggested by this amendment is that members of the cabinet shall not engage, either directly or indirectly, in any other activity, be it honorary or active, because do-

ing so would not be desirable in the interests of the public service of Canada and not that, in effect, the minister himself may be profiting by the activity in any improper manner.
Since my hon. friend agrees that there is no such suggestion in this case, I would turn my attention to the amendment itself. The amendment is to the Senate and House of Commons Act. It purports to lay down by statute a bar against certain persons being members of the cabinet. On that point I want to ask my hon. friend if I am right in two deductions I have made from the wording of his amendment. The first is that he has excluded from the operation of the amendment persons who would be directors or connected in any official capacity, if you will, with a company incorporated under a provincial statute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: For the purpose of laying this matter before parliament in the form of a bill, I kept it as simple as possible by not having too many aspects to which people like the minister might object. For that reason, I deliberately limited it to companies incorporated under federal statute.


Walter Edward Harris: Very good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I knew there would be strong objection if I had included companies incorporated under provincial statutes.


Walter Edward Harris: I assumed that was what my hon. friend meant to do by the wording of his amendment. There is just one other question. The house will forgive me if I adopt this somewhat unorthodox approach because I want to understand what is in my hon. friend's mind at the moment. In the final lines of the paragraph we have this, that certain persons shall not be eligible, in effect, to be members of the Queen's privy council for Canada and ministers of the crown. I take it from that there may be persons, members of the Queen's privy council and not members of the cabinet, who may thereby remain directors of any company incorporated under a federal statute?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are two of them in the house right now, on the front benches of the official opposition. There are people like Sir Anthony Eden and Sir Winston Churchill, who are members of the Queen's privy council for Canada, more or less on an honorary basis. I thought this provision should extend only to those who are actually cabinet ministers. If the minister has any more questions, perhaps we could turn this into a press conference.


Walter Edward Harris: I have no other questions. I assumed this was what my hon. friend had in mind. There is a distinction, of course,

which is easily drawn to the attention of the house, and that is that in the mind of the hon. member it appears to be in order and proper that members of the ministry should hold directorships, and presumably other forms of active participation, in the management of the affairs of a company, so long as that company is not incorporated by this parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not a fair statement.


Walter Edward Harris: Then, under the Companies Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think this form of questioning is not only out of order but is highly unfair. I would be prepared to go further, Mr. Speaker. I put my bill in its narrowest terms knowing full well that if you ask for too much in this house people like the minister pick out all sorts of technicalities that are supposed to invalidate a proposition. I am quite prepared to go further, if that is what the minister wants. The minister will recognize that what is set out in this bill is a principle, and he cannot get away from it even by this kind of cross-examination.


Walter Edward Harris: I had concluded my crossexamination, Mr. Speaker, and I gather my remarks were not acceptable. The hon. member talks about a principle. What is the principle? The principle is surely the protection of the public service. I do not understand how my hon. friend supposes that a director of a corporation incorporated not by this parliament or under the Companies Act of Canada, would be in a position where he could carry on his activities under a provincial statute, if you will, and not offend the principle that my hon. friend is trying to assert.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister be willing to amend my bill and include companies incorporated under provincial statutes?


Walter Edward Harris: My intentions are going to be made clear in due course. I wanted to point out to the house, and I think I have, that there is no principle here based on what I judge to be the real purpose of the amendment. My hon. friend, of course, is trying to take the position that he is doing something which would improve the public service of Canada. Yet he supposes that on these treasury benches there could be two ministers, one of whom before he was sworn in was a director of a federally incorporated company and who would have to divest himself of that obligation, and alongside of him could sit another person who was a director of any number of provincially incorporated companies and there would be no objection to that.
Canadian National Railways


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is the minister's only objection, we can amend the bill very quickly.


Walter Edward Harris: I am only referring to my hon. friend's definition of his principle. I have yet to find a principle if he would permit that kind of conduct.
Would you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marler for the second reading of Bill No. 351, respecting Canadian National Railways.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we in this group support this measure not only because it is necessary for the operation of our nationally owned railway and because it is a tidying up of existing legislation, but also because it gives to the Canadian National Railways, as I understand it, the right to compete with the Canadian Pacific Railway on an equal basis. Certainly, if we are to expect from our nationally owned system a railway that will compete successfully with the privately owned system, we should be prepared to give it all the powers that the Canadian Pacific Railway now is able to exert in the transportation field.
We in this group particularly expect from our nationally owned railway system not only service as efficient as that from the privately owned railway but in fact a better service, a service that meets the needs of the Canadian people more adequately than that given by the privately owned railway.
In its operations the Canadian National Railways should, as I hope they do, look at the general economic well-being of the nation, and should not be governed solely by economy considerations. I am sure the Canadian National Railways do not like to show a large deficit year after year; but I believe more important than whether or not the Canadian National Railways may show a deficit is the kind of service that they may be able to provide to Canadians generally. Certainly, I believe that adequate service to the Canadian nation by the C.N.R. is more important at any given time than a C.N.R.

Canadian National Railways balanced budget. Since the Canadian National Railways is a nationally owned system, it might be cautious in laying off large numbers of employees, because by doing so it merely adds to the general employment difficulties of the nation. When the government is responsible, as it is, for full employment, we would not want the railroads doing anything that would unduly add to that responsibility.
We naturally understand the position of the C.N.R. in wishing to modernize its railway and to economize to the greatest possible extent. But I cannot help having full sympathy for those who find themselves displaced, and particularly the case mentioned the other day by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In the main we look to the nationally owned railway system for the provision of service. I for one do not like to see any large and substantial whittling down of that service in an attempt to balance the budget of the C.N.R. I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) grinning. I do not think it is any worse for the C.N.R. to have an unbalanced budget than it is for the whole Canadian nation to have a nationally unbalanced budget as we have this year. Either one may be more in the interests of the nation at any given time than a precisely balanced budget.
Members of parliament, certainly those from the prairie areas, are having brought to their attention, more frequently in recent weeks and months, instances of a severe curtailment of railway service. My information may or may not be correct; but I have been informed that while the prairie area has been one of the main areas in which some services have been reduced, yet the main objective for reduction of services could shift from that area to another area.
I have said that we all like to see a balanced budget, yet I cannot help but sympathize with the people in those areas who suffer a cancellation of services or a reduction of services. I have obtained from the board of transport commissioners the record of reduction of train services and the closing of stations, at least as far as maintaining a station agent is concerned, since January 1, 1953. I find that in the province of Saskatchewan alone in 1953 there was a reduction affecting 19 trains and 9 lines in that province. The next year there was a reduction of service by only two trains on one line. In this year to date there has been a reduction of train service on 7 railway lines. This means that in the period from January 1, 1953, to the present there has been a reduction in service on 17 lines. This compares with a reduction of service in the same period on 5 Canadian Pacific Railway lines. There may

be reasons to explain the much larger number of C.N.R. lines that have had train service reduced, but certainly we expect from our C.N.R. as few reductions in our train service as possible.
I hold in my hand a table entitled "Removal of Station Agents in Saskatchewan granted since January 1, 1953". It says that on the C.N.R. in 1953 station agents at 3 points were removed; in 1954 station agents at 11 points were removed; and in 1955 to date station agents at 3 points have been removed. I believe in every case a caretaker has been substituted for the services of the station agent. But, as the minister knows a caretaker does not accept C.O.D. orders, and of course he is not able to transmit telegrams, and in fact can only give to the people in that community a very limited service compared with the service given by a station agent.
I have had brought to my attention a further unwarranted reduction in train service that is being contemplated by the C.N.R., namely, a proposed reduction in its present daily passenger service between the city of Weyburn and the city of Regina. This follows a cancellation of the passenger train service between the city of Weyburn and the town of Radville in 1953. The people in that area are very concerned about the reduction in train service. The mayor of the city, Mr. J. H. Stav-ely and the chairman of the chamber of commerce, Mr. D. Mann, have met with railway officials and have placed before them the position of the people in the area around the city of Weyburn and in the Radville district.
As I have said, we can quite understand the C.N.R. wishing to save as much as possible through cutting down railway services; but surely there is more to be considered than merely balancing the budget. It is true that the C.N.R. has applied for a trucking franchise along the Regina-Weyburn route in order to substitute a trucking service for the reduced services as far as freight and express are concerned. Communications I have had oppose this move. In fact it would be an unnecessary duplication of service.
Since as a nation we must maintain our railways, to the extent that freight traffic is removed from the railways by the railways themselves and placed in a trucking seivice, we the people of Canada are paying for two types of service. It is true also that as a nation, or as a province, we have to maintain our highways. Therefore, it is in the national interest that in so far as possible a national transportation policy should be adopted that

will permit our railways to provide the very best service and protect the general interests of the Canadian public.
Until we have a national transportation policy we are going to have more and more uneconomical competition between our trucking and railway lines. Trucking services, altogether apart from those operated by the railways in direct competition with the railways, will take away from them much of their traffic and the nation as a whole must maintain the rail services and therefore must pay for the maintenance of the railway right of way and at least reduced railway services. The nation as a whole must pay for the highway services and maintain the highways.
I am hopeful that the government will adopt a national transportation policy which will prevent further curtailment of the services that the railroads have provided and not make it necessary for the Canadian public to bear the cost of the duplication of services.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest and I think considerable attention to what has been said by the various hon. members who have participated in the debate on this bill. I think without exception all hon. members who have participated in the debate approve of the principle of the consolidation of what I might call the Canadian National legislation. However, one or two members have said that under the guise of consolidation or under the subterfuge of consolidation other things were being done in the legislation now before the house.
I do not think that those terms aptly describe what has been done because when I look back on the proceedings in connection with this legislation I find that the principal changes to be made were set forth in the resolution itself which made it perfectly clear that the purpose of the legislation was not only to consolidate the existing legislation but to make five particular changes. When I made a statement at the resolution stage of the bill I drew that to the attention of the house. Likewise when I made a statement on the second reading I endeavoured to point out the five changes which this legislation would bring about so far as Canadian National Railways was concerned.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) taxed me with a lack of frankness with regard to this measure and I want to say right away that I plead not guilty to that accusation. I think I have made it perfectly clear that no attempt is being made by calling this measure a consolidation to embody in it additional legislation of which the house has not had the fullest notice. During the course of my remarks at the resolution and 50433-257i
Canadian National Railways second reading stages I made it quite clear what purposes the government had in mind in bringing forward this legislation at this time. I should like to deal particularly with the powers which it is proposed to give to the railway company in the matter of what I might term highway transportation. In that connection I said yesterday, as reported on page 4021 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National Railways, through its company, Canadian National Transportation, Limited, has very comprehensive highway powers; but it is not intended to give such comprehensive powers to the Canadian National Railways. As will be found by reference to the bill, it is intended only that the parent company shall have powers in conjunction with or substitution for a rail service.
In order to particularize the type of transportation services to which the bill was intended to apply, I then went on to say:
This is designed primarily in order to regularize the pickup and delivery services in the metropolitan centres, and to give the company corporate powers to enable it to provide trucking or bus services in cases in which rail line abandonment would not be permitted by the board of transport commissioners, unless a formal undertaking with regard to road transport were submitted.
During the debate at the resolution stage when dealing with services in substitution for rail services I explained the position of the railway company very fully. I do not think I have anything either to add to or subtract from the two statements to which I have just referred. I think they set forth fully and frankly the exact powers that we wish to give to the Canadian National Railways.
If it had been the sinister purpose of the government to enable the Canadian National Railways to exercise the extensive powers it has through its subsidiary companies I believe it would have been possible to have made use of the legislation to which the Leader of the Opposition referred yesterday and this afternoon, the Motor Vehicle Transport Act which was passed last year. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition read to the house the extensive powers of Canadian National Transportation, Limited, and I was glad that I had said yesterday that it was not our intention to declare that these works should be for the general advantage qf Canada. There is no intention whatever on the part of the government to broaden the already broad powers which the subsidiary company possesses and to which the Leader of the Opposition referred this afternoon.
I should like to emphasize that the reason we wish to give these powers to the railway company is that they are in fact exercised by the railway company and not by the subsidiary. Pickup and delivery services of the

Canadian National Railways railway company are carried out by the railway company itself and not by the subsidiary in the principal metropolitan centres. I understand that that is not the practice of the Canadian Pacific Railway. As I said yesterday, it is proposed to regularize this situation by giving the railway company the corporate powers necessary for that purpose. When I presented the resolution, I said, as reported on page 3198 of Hansard of April 26, 1955:
There is no suggestion either that in granting this power the railway shall be free from the necessity of complying with the requirements of provincial governments so far as provincial laws apply to the operation of motor vehicles owned by the company.
There is no intention on my part of going beyond what was said by me during the resolution stage or yesterday on the second reading, though it may perhaps disappoint some hon. members of this house who I gather would like to see the very broadest powers in the matter of highway transportation vested in the Canadian National Railways. I had thought, and it had been so represented to me, that the powers in the matter of highway transport contained in the bill were subject to considerable restrictions, first of all, in the enumeration of the powers itself, and, second, by the use of the expression "in conjunction with or in substitution for rail services." It was believed, and quite honestly I shared that belief, that this was a restriction of the highway transportation powers which it was proposed to give. But, after listening to what has been said by hon. members during the course of this debate and the representations that have been made to me since the bill has been made public, I have come to the conclusion that the bill itself does go beyond the limits which I had set forth when the resolution was presented. For that reason I should like to supplement what I said yesterday with regard to the amendment which we proposed to meet.
I might perhaps sum up as briefly as I can the amendment that I contemplate in order to meet the limitations which I had in mind, so that the bill will conform entirely with what I said, both in the resolution stage and yesterday. I said first of all yesterday that it was proposed to amend the bill so that the declaration that the railway or other transportation works of the company are works for the general advantage of Canada should not extend to the companies listed in part III of the first schedule to the act. Part III of the first schedule includes of course, as I said specifically yesterday, Canadian National Transportation, Limited. In the same sense, it was never my intention that
[Mr. Marler.l
the declaration contained in the bill to the effect that the transportation works were works for the general advantage of Canada should extend to cover the highway transportation activities of the Canadian National Railways, under the section of the bill by which it is proposed to give them power in this matter.
Finally, because I believe the matter should be abundantly clear, I would also propose that the powers which would be granted to the company should be exercised subject to provincial legislation applicable to persons generally.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you realize that the effect of the amendments that I contemplate is to give to Canadian National Railways the corporate power to operate motor vehicles in connection with its pickup and delivery services and moreover to exercise similar powers in the case of the abandonment of rail lines where the supplying of bus services or truck services in lieu of rail services is made a condition of the order of abandonment granted by the board of transport commissioners.
In effect that would put the railway company in the position of having the corporate powers to carry out these activities and leave it in the position in which it is at present of requiring it to conform to provincial legislation so far as the carrying on of these operations is concerned.


George Alexander Drew: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but do I understand that it is now his intention to incorporate in the amendment a specific provision that the powers conferred upon the Canadian National Railway Company by section 27 will be subject to provincial legislation in regard to highway traffic and the setting of tolls and regulation thereof?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer the question in reverse, I would say that I do not attach any importance to the provision with regard to charging tolls for the services, and I would be quite prepared to see it disappear without any hesitation, because I do not believe it is at all essential. So far as the other power is concerned, the power to own and operate motor vehicles under section 27, it is intended that it be exercised subject to provincial legislation applying to persons generally.


George Alexander Drew: Again I do not wish to interrupt the minister, but I think we should be clear on this. The minister has said "it is intended". I would point out that it is not a matter of what is intended; it is what the act says. I have asked a fair question. Does

the minister propose to introduce an amendment which will specifically declare that the Canadian National Railway Company in operating such services as are covered by section 27 will be subject to provincial regulations, licensing and toll rates?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was already perfectly clear from what I have said, but if the Leader of the Opposition does not feel my answer was sufficiently categorical I wish to say it is my intention definitely to propose an amendment in that sense. I hope the Leader of the Opposition is satisfied that this is the kind of categorical answer he would like to have.
Now, I wish to emphasize particularly that there is no intention whatever to make use of the act to which my hon. friend seemed to attach so much importance both yesterday and this afternoon, the act respecting extraprovincial motor vehicle transport. If it had been our intention to make use of that provision, probably most of this debate would have been quite unnecessary, because it would have been possible under that act, if we had in mind the sinister purposes which have been attributed to us, to make use of section 5 of the act and enable Canadian National Transportation, Limited, to exercise the very full powers which it now has. But nothing has been further from our minds, and we have no intention whatever of doing it.
Mr. Speaker, one final word. The Leader of the Opposition this afternoon spoke about the C.P.R. powers respecting branch lines. I will agree wfth what he said, so far as he went. In other words, he made it perfectly clear that Canadian Pacific Railway was in a general sense subject to the provisions of section 183 of the Railway Act, which requires the approval of the board of transport commissioners where a branch line exceeds six miles. He seemed to have forgotten the fact that that applies, not throughout the whole length of the C.P.R. mileage, but that it has the right under its charter to construct branches off its main line of any length west of Callander, Ontario, without the approval of the board of transport commissioners.
In the legislation which is before the house it is not the intention to grant similar powers to the Canadian National Railways. It is intended, as I have said both at the resolution stage and yesterday, to give it the power to build lines not longer than six miles in length without the necessity of parliamentary approval.


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

James Garfield Gardiner: the second reading of Bill No. 352, respecting the inspection of meat and meat products entering into international and interprovincial trade.


Mr. Charlton:: Does the minister wish to make a statement?


James Garfield Gardiner: In rising to move the second reading of Bill No. 352, an act respecting the inspection of meat and meat products entering into international and interprovincial trade, I may say that experience over the years has brought us to the conviction that where we have made provision in acts of this kind to enact measures with regard to interprovincial trade as well as intraprovincial trade, we have run into difficulties whenever these measures have been brought before the court.
We have been advised that at this time amendments should be made in this act for the purpose of removing some of the doubtful sections of it. The main purpose is in order to provide for changes which have taken place. The act as it now stands provides for the regulation of the inspection of canned foods such as fruits and fish. Fish are now being taken care of under an act under the fisheries department and therefore that is not required. It is the intention to bring in a general standards act which I hope to bring forward immediately following this particular bill, in order to take care of the other matters which will be removed.
This bill provides for an act dealing specifically with the health inspection of meat and the sanitary inspection of premises and equipment in plants engaged in interprovincial and export meat shipment. Legislation in that respect has existed since 1907 under the Meat and Canned Foods Act, which act deals also with the grading and inspection of any canned foods including fish. Certain minor amendments were desired in the meat inspection legislation to provide for inspection fees to strengthen the authority of the act with respect to plant sanitation requirements and health supervision of imported meats and meat products.
As the provisions of the present act relating to meat inspection have no relation to the provisions with respect to canned fish, fruit and vegetables, the government consider that the occasion would be appropriate to introduce a bill for a separate act having to do with meat inspection. The bill does

Meat Inspection
not in substance differ materially from the meat inspection provisions of the Meat and Canned Foods Act. It provides that meats or meat products shall move interprovincially or for export only from establishments which meet prescribed conditions with respect to sanitation and in which all meats and meat products have been inspected and passed for health. It provides also that imported meats shall be subject to inspection on a basis similar to that prevailing in Canada. It is proposed that when the required regulations have been made under the new legislation, the corresponding regulations under the Meat and Canned Foods Act can be revoked.
I should like to move second reading of the bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think much discussion is necessary on this bill. As I understand it, it is simply taking out the meat inspection part of the Meat and Canned Foods Act and putting it into a separate bill. That is my understanding of it. Of course, as the minister said, import restrictions for imported meat products are to be taken under this bill now.
This bill has been in use for many years. It is a wonderful thing for the protection of the consuming public in that all plants having to do with interprovincial or international trade must be inspected by inspectors of the health of animals division. Confidence in a product makes for higher consumption of the product and naturally, in many cases, increases the price to the producer of those various products.
As to many small plants across the country which are not now under inspection, there is some justification for believing that it might be a good idea if, in co-operation with the provincial and municipal officials, there could be some way of utilizing the services of existing veterinary inspectors in various localities across the country in order to see that these other small abattoirs and killer stations come under some kind of inspection similar to that provided in this bill. They are, of course, under inspection now by municipal authorities. But I regret to say that there are some cases in which that inspection is not satisfactory. Some cases have been known where meat has been sold over the counter when it was not fit for human consumption.
I think something could be worked out. I think there has been good co-operation between most of the provincial governments and the federal authorities along that line. By working through the provincial governments and the municipal authorities I think something could be worked out along that line. I wonder whether the government has ever 
given consideration to that matter or whether they would give consideration to something along that line.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill may I say that I think perhaps the matter of meat inspection is something that needs to be made uniform. The question that occurred to me is whether or not the present standards have been found to be sufficiently comprehensive to cover the situations arising in different parts of Canada. I believe it is the intention of the minister to introduce another bill called the standards act under which the standards will be established so that the inspection set up under this bill can be directed by standards which will be uniform throughout the whole of Canada. In the general trend of business today, with Canada taking her place as the leading food manufacturer, I think this kind of legislation is a necessary and a good thing.
I should like to have from the minister a statement as to whether he expects that this legislation will result in a large increase in inspection staff over what he already has under the present act, namely the Meat and Canned Foods Act. What steps have been taken to co-operate with the various provinces with a view to getting the inspection uniform? There is provincial inspection of small abattoirs. I understand this has to do largely with canned goods. But the matter of inspection and of having uniformity will be a good thing for Canada. On those two points I think we can support the principle of the bill.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Interpretation.
Mr. Palleil:: This is the interpretation section, Mr. Chairman. I gather that much of the interpretation of the bill will depend on the use of the words in this section. I refer the committee to the definition of inspector as it appears in paragraph (b):
(b)	"inspector" means a person appointed or designated as an inspector pursuant to section 7;
I would refer the committee to section 7. I do not find any person designated as an inspector in that section. There is an inspector referred to but not designated. Again, in paragraph (c) we find this wording:
(c)	"meat product" means
(i)	an animal carcass.
(ii)	the product or by-product of an animal carcass, and

(iii)	a food product containing any product or by-product mentioned in subparagraph (ii), prescribed as a meat product for the purposes of this act;
I point out for the committee's consideration that, before this act could have any teeth, the meat product would have to have all three of these particular characteristics. I suggest that it was not the intention that this bill should mean that the product must have all three characteristics.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am sorry, I was interrupted by a suggestion of an amendment and I did not hear what the hon. member had to say. I wish he would repeat it, if he does not mind.
Mr. Pallet!: I was merely referring to the definition of "inspector" in clause 2 (b) as being a person appointed pursuant to clause 7, and in clause 7 there is no designation of a person as an inspector. Then in clause 2 (c) there is a definition of "meat products", and items (i), (ii) and (iii) are set out and are joined by an "and" which would indicate to me that for a meat product to come within the definition in this clause it would have to have all three characteristics. I certainly do not think it was the minister's intention, although I do not know, that in order for a meat product to be so classified it would have to have all three characteristics.


James Garfield Gardiner: In so far as the first suggestion is concerned, clause 2 (b) reads:
"inspector" means a person appointed or designated as an inspector pursuant to section 7.
Clause 6 and not 7 provides for the appointment of inspectors and clause 7 says that an inspector may at any time enter any place and so on. The inspector does those things. Under clause 6 (2) the minister -can designate any person as an inspector for the purposes of the act, and then clause 7 goes on from there.
Mr. Pallet!: But clause 7 is the one referred to in clause 2 (b), not clause 6. If it means clause 6 I suggest it should say clause 6.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes. The inspector is
appointed under clause 6.
Mr. Pallet!: Should not clause 2 (b) refer to clause 6 instead of clause 7?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think so. I will check on it in the meantime while we are going through the others, but I think the hon. member is correct.
Mr. Pallet!: Then in clause 2 (c) I think you should add after subparagraph (ii) "and/ or" rather than simply "and".
Meat Inspection


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the wish of the committee that clause 2 stand for the present?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think you had better allow it to stand and I will have that checked.


Mr. Bryce:: Is the whole of clause 2 going to stand?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Clause 2 has been
allowed to stand.
Clause stands.
On clause 3-Export and interprovincial movement of meat products.
Mr. Pallet!: In clause 3 the word "prescribed" is used in several instances. Prescribed by what, by regulation or by the act?


James Garfield Gardiner: In what line?


John Cameron Pallett: In line 6 it says "complied with prescribed conditions." In line 9 it says, "was slaughtered in prescribed manner". In line 10 it says, "was inspected as prescribed before and after slaughter." In line 12 it says, "the meat product conforms to prescribed standards". In lines 17 and 18 it says, "packaged and marked as prescribed." In line 19 it refers to "prescribed evidence that the meat product conforms to prescribed standards", and at the end of the paragraph it refers to "inspection in prescribed manner". Who will do the prescribing?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 3 carry?


Mr. Green:: No.


An hon. Member:: In the prescribed manner, yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will read it and see
what it says. It reads:
3. (1) No person shall export out of Canada, or send or convey from one province to another, any meat product unless
(a) the meat product was prepared in an establishment that
(i)	complied with prescribed conditions, and
(ii)	was registered and operated in prescribed manner . . .
I do not think there is anything to misunderstand about that.


John Cameron Pallett: Who does the prescribing?


James Garfield Gardiner: The conditions are prescribed in the regulations. There is nothing in the act which prescribes the conditions. They are prescribed in the regulations which the governor in council is given the authority to make. Section 4 says:
(1) The governor in council may make regulations for prohibiting the carriage to a destination outside the province in which it was received of a meat product unless . . .

Meat Inspection
It goes on prescribing again, but the regulations are made by order in council.


John Cameron Pallett: I agree that clause 2 (f) says that "prescribed" means prescribed by regulation of the governor in council and the governor in council is given certain authority to make regulations but he is not given authority to make the regulations found in clause 3. I appreciate that under clause 2 (f) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulation of the governor in council, but authority is not given under clause 4 to make the regulations referred to in clause 3.


James Garfield Gardiner: Subclause (f) of clause 2, which we have allowed to stand, states that "prescribed" means prescribed by regulation of the governor in council, and clause 4 provides for that.
Mr. Pallet!:	With respect, clause 4 does
not give authority for the governor in council to pass the regulations that are referred to in clause 3. Certain authority is given, but not to the full extent.


An hon. Member:: It is in clause 5.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is fully covered by clause 4. The regulations are provided for in clause 4.
Mr. Pallet!: I may be wrong but it has always been my understanding that the governor in council can only pass regulations the authority for which has been given in some act. I suggest that authority is not contained in the measure for the regulations mentioned in clause 3.


An hon. Member:: In clause 5.


James Garfield Gardiner: Clause 4 and clause 5.


Solon Earl Low: I think you could regulate anything under clause 5.


James Garfield Gardiner: They both give the power to make regulations.


John Cameron Pallett: Well, I have done my part to try to prevent the minister getting into trouble.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am simply pointing out that we have had legislation on the statute books in the same form since 1907, and so far as this particular matter is concerned we have simply followed what we have had since that time. We have operated under it all this time without any difficulty.


George Alexander Drew: Since this question has been asked, how, for instance, under either clause 4 or clause 5 can the governor in council pass a regulation governing the type of evidence that is to be given as provided by clause 3? I can see nothing in clauses 4 or 5 relating to that.


James Garfield Gardiner: The kind of evidence that will be given will be based on the regulations.


George Alexander Drew: But it mentions prescribed evidence. Under what part of clauses 4 or 5 is there any provision by which the governor in council can make regulations defining the type of evidence that would be prescribed evidence? I am referring to subclause 2 (b) of clause 3.


James Garfield Gardiner: Subclause 2 (b) reads:
the importer has obtained and produces prescribed evidence that the meat product conforms to prescribed standards.
Let us assume he imports it from the United States. The prescribed regulations in the United States are practically the same as our regulations, and evidence would have to be submitted that is the case before the product would be allowed to be distributed in this country. That has always been a condition of our actions up to date. Meat products brought in from another country and sold in this country have had to conform with our regulations here, although they were probably not stated just as specifically as in the present legislation.


John Alpheus Charlton: They have to conform to the regulations here, Mr. Chairman, but do they have to bear a mark of inspection from the country of origin?


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, they have had to for some years. I cannot state the exact year when the United States conformed to our regulations or we conformed to theirs, but as my hon. friend knows we have veterinarians who inspect the products and animals that are going into the United States in order to see that they conform to their regulations. It is the same coming the other way.


John Alpheus Charlton: What about the Argentine, for instance?


James Garfield Gardiner: It would be the same. Whatever comes from there has to conform to our regulations. It does not matter where it comes from.


Mr. Lennard:: How do you know it is properly inspected?


James Garfield Gardiner: We inspect it at our boundary if it has not been inspected.


William Scottie Bryce: I should like to ask the minister if this provision covers turkeys moving from one province to the other?


James Garfield Gardiner: Turkeys?


William Scottie Bryce: Would this provision cover the movement of turkeys from Manitoba to Ontario or from Saskatchewan to Quebec, something like that?


James Garfield Gardiner: It includes all meat and meat products moving from one province to another.


William Scottie Bryce: What I was anxious to know was whether turkeys raised in Manitoba and British Columbia and moved east are subject to a change of grade in that movement? Is the federal department responsible for the grading once they cross the provincial boundary?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, the provision in this bill covers any meat or meat products moving from one province to another. Those products have to be prepared in certain plants that are properly inspected and the animals themselves have to be inspected to make sure that they meet certain health conditions. Then, those products can move into the other province. Now, what regulations are in the province when the products arrive, I cannot say and I cannot be certain that we will be responsible for those.


William Scottie Bryce: I am anxious for the minister to tell me whether his department will grade the turkeys that I produce in Manitoba for shipment across a provincial boundary. Will you department grade them A, B, C?


James Garfield Gardiner: Just a moment until I make sure. Yes, all meat products are covered by this bill. I was just looking to make sure that the standards bill did not cover poultry as a separate item from other products.


William Scottie Bryce: I want to appeal to the minister to devise some means of assuring that, when a farmer sells his turkeys and gets an A, B or C grade, that grade will be carried right through to the consumer. It is only fair that if a man sells a C turkey it should be sold to the consumer as a C turkey. Merely by crossing the international or provincial boundary, it should not be possible for the turkey to get a higher grade. I hope the minister will see to that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I am not just so sure that we have the authority to see to that. My friend said something about crossing a provincial or international boundary. Well, when these products get over to Britain, for example, we have inspectors there to make sure that the products arrive in Britain in the proper condition. However, I am not so sure that we can be certain as to how they are going to be sold in the stores all over Britain.


William Scottie Bryce: I know there are enough lawyers in the civil service to devise a law to protect the A, B, C grades which the farmer receives for his poultry, and make sure they are carried right through to the consumer.
Meat Inspection


Mr. Yuill:: So far as the grading of turkeys is concerned, the grades are already definitely established. You cannot, by any stretch of your imagination, call a grade C bird anything but a grade C bird. There are certain characteristics that are native to that particular grade. I do not think there is anything to worry about. I have bought and sold a good many tons of poultry in my day and I never had any difficulty in establishing grades. There is only one possibility and that is that when you are buying you may have a tendency to lose a grade or have a certain shrinkage of grades by the time the product gets to the final packers at the packing plants or marketing boards. I think that the grade will hold right across the board from Alberta or British Columbia down to the maritimes. There are certain recognized standards and I believe they are uniform across the board. I am very happy to see this legislation introduced because I feel it is a good thing. I have had years of experience in the meat business and I know there has been a lot of meat shipped and sold under conditions that were anything but satisfactory. I believe this is a definite step in the right direction.
There are other things that I feel should be taken into consideration. I do not know whether or not this bill applies to fish, but I believe it would be advisable if there were a closer scrutiny of the quality that is sold under brand names. I have had occasion to buy fish particularly that was not what was designated on the wrapper. If they are going to put meat in cans I think the same thing should apply. In general, I am in agreement with the bill as presented.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Regulations.
James Garfield Gardiner: There is an amendment to
clause 5.


Mr. Gregg:: I move:
That section 5 be amended by adding the word "and" at the end of paragraph (g), by deleting paragraph (h) and by re-lettering paragraph (i) as paragraph (h).


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the amendment carry?


John Alpheus Charlton: Not quite so fast; I did not catch the significance of that amendment. Apparently it is to add the word "and" after paragraph (g), was it?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is to add the word "and" at the end of paragraph (g), deleting paragraph (h) and re-lettering paragraph (i) as (h).


James Garfield Gardiner: Paragraph (h) is left out.

Meat Inspection


John Alpheus Charlton: Paragraph (h) would be automatic; it would not be necessary to prescribe a class or kind of meat that was unfit for human consumption. Apparently paragraph (g) would exempt any person or meat product from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this act. Would that apply to local butchers, individuals killing animals for their own consumption or for sale on the local market? Would it apply to anyone else?


James Garfield Gardiner: The regulations now provide for that, and that is because we have no control over that sort of thing when it is done provincially.


John Alpheus Charlton: Where it is not to be sold outside of the province, you have no control?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is right.


John Alpheus Charlton: Then the paragraph just means that anyone who is selling locally is exempt from this bill?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
On clause 8-Seizure.
James Garfield Gardiner: I have an amendment to
clause 8 which reads as follows:
That clause 8 be amended by deleting subclause 4; by renumbering subclause 5 as subclause 4: by adding the word "and" to the end of paragraph (a) of the new subclause 4; by deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b) of the new subclause 4; and that the semicolon after the word "section" at the end of paragraph (b) be changed to a period; and that paragraph (c) of the new subclause 4 be deleted.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I so move.


John Alpheus Charlton: I think we had better have
a definition of this amendment before we pass it.


James Garfield Gardiner: Perhaps we can have it
read as amended.


Frank Exton Lennard: It would not be any clearer then.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Are you asking
the chairman to read it as amended? I would assume that there is no necessity to read paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which have not been changed. The present paragraph 4 will come out and paragraph 4 will now read:
The governor in council may make regulations (a) respecting the detention of articles seized under this section and for preserving or safeguarding any articles so detained; and
(b) respecting the disposition of articles forfeited under this section.


John Alpheus Charlton: I have a question with
respect to subclause 2 (b) of clause 8, which reads:
Meat products and other things seized pursuant to subsection (1) shall not be detained after
(a)	the provisions of this act and the regulations have, in the opinion of the inspector, been complied with, or
(b)	the expiration of 90 days from the day of seizure, or such longer period as may be prescribed with respect to any meat product or other thing,-
So far as I am concerned there is some confusion in this wording. It says: "the expiration of 90 days from the day of seizure or such longer period as may be prescribed." In one place it says that it shall not be detained after 90 days, and in another place it says: "or such longer period"-


Paul Joseph James Martin: As prescribed by regulations.


Mr, Charlton:: Why not leave it open; why mention 90 days?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, of course, it is better
to have some definite time. There has to be some special reason for lengthening the time.


John Alpheus Charlton: Ninety days does not mean
a thing.


Frank Exton Lennard: There has been a lot of
thought put in on this bill.


John Alpheus Charlton: The paragraph says that
it shall not be detained after the expiration of 90 days; then it goes on to mention "or such longer period".


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


John Alpheus Charlton: Therefore, the "90" does
not mean a thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: The time is 90 days unless authority lengthens it.


John Alpheus Charlton: You might as well have 10
in there.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the amendment carry?


Frederick George Hahn: I am not at all sure that I am satisfied with the deletion of subclause 4. I say that because two or three years ago a well known cat and dog wholesaler on the Pacific coast had beneath his cat and dog food label a canned product which apparently contained some food that we were sending over to Europe for human consumption. Many of the labels came off those particular cans. I do not know whether this happened, but an unscrupulous merchant might be willing to take advantage of the fact that we were sending food to destitute people to sell some of that cat and dog food for human consumption. Subclause 4 is the type of regulation that is

required in Canada. In an instance such as the one I have described I am not satisfied that some merchants might not take advantage of the fact that a label had come oil a can of cat and dog food, or that a mistake had been made in the labelling machine, and sell this cat and dog food for human consumption.


James Garfield Gardiner: The subclause that is taken out reads:
No person shall sell or have in possession for sale a meat product that is unhealthy or unfit for food.
That is the same provision that is contained in the Food and Drugs Act of the Department of National Health and Welfare. Paragraph (c) reads:
Respecting the marketing, treatment or disposal of meat products that are unhealthy or unfit for food.
That is also covered by the Food and Drugs Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not better, but just as good administration.


John Alpheus Charlton: You would not have jurisdiction in that case anyway. This paragraph does not mention exporting out of the province. It is just a blank paragraph. You would not have any jurisdiction anyway, in two of the cases.


James Garfield Gardiner: This is taken out by request because it is already provided for in the Food and Drugs Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
William Scottie Bryce: Who will be the inspector? Will it be a veterinary surgeon or somebody appointed by the government?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have two kinds of inspectors; we have a veterinary inspector and a lay inspector. They are all appointed by the civil service commission.


Solon Earl Low: Were there amendments to clause
2?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention to move an amendment to clause 2?


James Garfield Gardiner: We are looking for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are just having a caucus.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of National Health and Welfare is giving free legal advice.
Agricultural Products


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, after our caucus we have decided that the words "section 7" in clause 2 (b) be changed to "section 6". Clause 2 (b) reads:
"inspector" means a person appointed or designated as an inspector pursuant to section 7.
It should read "pursuant to section 6" because the inspectors are appointed under section 6. I move the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Pallet!: What about the definition of "meat product"? Are you leaving that as it is?
James Garfield Gardiner: I think it is all right as it is and my legal friend agrees with me.


Frank Exton Lennard: That does not say that it is right.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Why should this be under agriculture at all? Would it not more properly be under the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


James Garfield Gardiner: We have just been taking out the sections that should be under the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


James Garfield Gardiner: that the house go into committee on the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish national standards for agricultural products and to regulate international and interprovincial trade in agricultural products and to provide that the governor in council may make regulations for the licensing of dealers to deal in any agricultural products shipped from or to a place outside the province in which such dealer carries on business, and for the issue, cancellation and suspension of such licences, including the prescribing of fees for the issue thereof.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, at the present time there are five statutes prescribing national standards and grading requirements for various agricultural products. These statutes are the Canada Dairy Products Act, 1952; Fruit, Vegetables and Honey Act, 1952; Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1952; Meat and Canned Foods Act, 1952; and the Maple Products Industry Act, 1952.

Agricultural Products
The purpose of the new act is to provide acceptable, uniform authorities for establishing grade standards and to perform the grading and inspection for all agricultural products previously covered by five separate acts administered by the Department of Agriculture.
The new general act is patterned after the Canada Dairy Products Act enacted in 1951 which has proven satisfactory for dairy products. It provides authority for establishing substantially the same regulations as now exist but is considered to have the purposes and intentions more clearly defined and restricted to the established and accepted field of federal jurisdiction specifically related to grade and quality standards for agricultural products.
The act will provide as in the past for the actual grading of certain products by federal graders, and for others, the application of the established grades and standards by the trade with subsequent checking of the applied standards by federal inspectors and detention until they are made to comply with the official standards when found necessary.
The provisions of the act will apply where the products enter into interprovincial or export trade, or where, as a result of legislation on the part of a province or the voluntary action on the part of an individual, the product bears a grade name established pursuant to this act. Compulsory grading of a product moving intraprovincially will therefore depend upon action by the provinces.
In addition to defining standards and carrying out the grading and inspection operations, the act provides as in the past for regulatory services with respect to such matters as packaging, marking and shipping of products, operation of grading establishment and dealing in products exported from or imported into a province.
It will be noted by the hon. member for Selkirk that what he was talking about is really provided for in this legislation.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the minister has given us a good explanation of what is to come in the bill which is to cover the legislation now to be found in five different acts. I do not think there is need for any general discussion until we have the bill and see what it actually contains. However, there are a few remarks I should like to make at this time.
I am not saying that it is not a good idea to have farm products graded, but the fact is that while everything a farmer sells is sold under grade not many of the articles he buys

are sold in that way. There are many consumer products sold across this country which are not graded in any way. They are supposed to be marked, but the contents may not be fully graded. For instance, you cannot tell by looking at a shoe whether or not the sole is all leather.


An hon. Member:: Or cardboard.


John Alpheus Charlton: You have to try to grade such an article yourself at the time you purchase it. I think it would be good business on the part of this government to see that other products are sold to the consumer under grade.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I was very much interested in the comments made by the hon. member who has resumed his seat. He may not be aware of the fact but he is advocating some social planning. He does not want to interfere with free enterprise, but under free enterprise we have some inferior products being marketed. I am all for that, but that really is not why I rose to speak.
About 20 years ago we had quite an extensive inquiry into price spreads and at that time it was found that consumers were at the mercy of many of the canning and processing companies. I had hoped that before now we would have a more uniform standard in Canada so that if you bought a can of vegetables marked "choice" you could expect a choice product. However, we do not seem to have made very much progress in getting uniform standards to apply to all preserving or canning companies in Canada.
When the people where I live sell their wheat it is subject to very rigid standards. Those who sell pork products must sell according to grade. As the hon. member for Selkirk has pointed out on a number of occasions, when a hog is one point lower than a certain standard the farmer must pay a heavy penalty. It is not unreasonable to ask that those engaged in canning or processing should observe certain standards.
Those of us who come from the west are in the habit of buying apples which are carefully packed and labelled. When you buy a fancy grade you know that when you open the box you will find exactly what you expect. But when we come to Ontario we find that unless we buy British Columbia apples we invariably get some inferior apples regardless of the price we pay. It seems to me that, if the farmers in one section of Canada are expected to produce a product according to fixed standards, the Minister of Agriculture should be able to report more progress than he has in seeing to it that in all parts of

Canada those who produce agricultural products would be encouraged to produce a uniform product, and those who are engaged in canning sell choice quality products in cans that are labelled "choice quality". In standard or choice canned goods, whether canned in the east, in the west or in the central part of Canada, there should be goods of similar qualities. At some time before the bill is passed I should like the minister to indicate what progress is being made in seeing that products which enter into international and interprovincial trade should measure up to standards which are applicable to all parts of Canada.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the resolution will require long discussion. Certainly when the bill is brought up for second reading we shall have much fuller discussion on it, but it seems to me that this would be a good chance to ask the minister if his proposed bill does provide some protection for livestock dealers in Ontario who have for years past been victimized by dealers in this way, that these dealers will pay a certain rate for feed grain and when the feed is delivered they find it has been adulterated and they have got an inferior quality. Quite a number of complaints have been registered in this house against that sort of thing, and unfortunately the blame is placed on the western farmer rather than on the unscrupulous dealer who is doing that sort of adulteration. I believe that a good deal of that is being done, not only in Ontario but also in British Columbia.


An hon. Member:: It is not the farmer's fault.


Solon Earl Low: It is not the farmer's fault at all; that is well known. But I am wondering if the measure which is contemplated by this resolution does make provision for regulating that sort of thing.


James Garfield Gardiner: As my hon. friend knows, grain marketing is not under my department; it is under the Department of Trade and Commerce. The wheat board, which handles this product, operates under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and so does the board of grain commissioners, and all the grading of grain and everything associated with that is under the board of grain commissioners and does not come under this bill. This bill deals with dairy products, fruit, vegetables, honey, livestock and livestock products, maple products, meat and canned foods. Those are covered by the five acts which are now being brought under this one.
Agricultural Products


Solon Earl Low: I listened very carefully when the minister read his list of matters which the act is supposed to cover, and I did not hear him mention grain and feed grains. That is the reason why I asked the question. It seems to me that, though the wheat board has control of the marketing of grains and though the wheat board comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce, it would be possible to have a measure brought in by my hon. friend's own department that would cover the licensing of dealers as he contemplates licensing dealers in other products, so that inspection and checking could be carried out perhaps through powers delegated to his inspectors from the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James Garfield Gardiner: Unfortunately the condition is exactly the same in connection with the grain as it is in connection with the apples. My hon. friend from Mackenzie was speaking about buying apples in Ontario and buying them in Saskatchewan. We do not grow apples for sale in Saskatchewan. They grow a few in his part of the country, but very few apples are grown for sale in Saskatchewan. About the only person who grows them for sale, that I know of, is the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, who does not happen to be here tonight. So we buy our apples from outside the province, and all the apples we get are more or less under the control of the federal authority. The grading and inspection and that kind of thing are more or less taken care of. For example, here in the province of Ontario, I drive to Toronto and on the way back I see a stand at the side of the road and I stop to buy a pound of apples. I look at them to see if the grade suits me. But there is nothing we can do in this parliament to regulate that kind of trade. That is intraprovincial trade. When we try to regulate that by means of an act, the act, when it goes to court, is declared ultra vires. One of the reasons why we are putting through this legislation at the present time is to take out of the act some of those provisions that are in now which, if it ever came to court, would result in one or other of the five acts here proposed being thrown out and declared ultra vires.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: With regard to canned vegetables produced in Ontario and sold all over Canada, is it not possible to enforce the regulations so that they would be up to standard?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are covered by regulations which are provided for in this act.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It seems to me that there is a wide variation among the products put up by different canners in Canada.

Agricultural Products


James Garfield Gardiner: I think that the bill really provides that the product has to be properly described on the wrapper that is on the package. If it is not properly described on the wrapper that is on the can or package, then action can be taken against whoever is responsible for that, the person who is selling it at the last point of delivery or the person who sold it to him, whichever is declared to be the case.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder if the minister could have a uniform standard set for all over Canada, so that a product labelled "choice quality" would be the same in British Columbia as one would find in the maritimes, for fruit and vegetables which are canned and which go into interprovincial trade?


James Garfield Gardiner: They are all graded uniformly and have been for years, but I quite agree with my hon. friend that when you buy a can of peas, for example, one can does not necessarily taste the same as a can put up by some other packer. I think that is what he has in mind, namely, that when you buy a product thinking it is grade A or whatever the top grade is, you ought to get a product that is always the same. I agree that in some cases you do not. Nevertheless it is described and comes within the qualifications that are put on the grade of the product. All the products are graded when they go into interprovincial trade or into international trade, but they are not necessarily all graded by us.


John Alpheus Charlton: Since the hon. member for Peace River has brought up the matter of grain going into Ontario, perhaps if the minister would look up his regulations he may find that they now have jurisdiction over mixed feeds. Some of the grains coming in could not be called mixed feeds; they could be called mixed seeds; but surely there is some way to regulate the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: There are regulations with regard to shipping in wheat seed and feed grains, and people can be prosecuted for breaking those regulations.


John Alpheus Charlton: That is with regard to seed grain.


Solon Earl Low: Am I to understand that it would be possible for some sort of breaking of the federal law governing the kind of thing I have mentioned and about which many dealers in the far western provinces have complained for years? If the matter cannot be handled under the Department of Agriculture, would it not be possible to have some measure brought in, say, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that could regulate the grade?


James Garfield Gardiner: I am neither a lawyer nor a constitutional lawyer, but we have been dealing with this thing now for 20 years. My understanding is that when grain is shipped from the west to, let us say, Goderich or any other point in eastern Canada, it is shipped there and delivered to the individual who bought it. The transaction that took place between that individual and a farmer in Ontario is an intraprovincial transaction and the government of the province of Ontario or the legislature of Ontario can and do take action to regulate that kind of trade that takes place after that. Through the grading of grain in the west we can control what it is that is delivered to the person at any particular point. But after it gets to that point and is being delivered outside of there, whatever action is provided for is provided for provincially. If we attempt to deal with it we get into trouble.


Mr. Huffman:: In view of what the hon. member for Mackenzie has just said with regard to the quality of British Columbia apples, I wonder how he can claim such high regard for B.C. apples that were recently found to be so inferior in Scotland. I believe that commodities grown and canned in southern Ontario are without peer. They will claim the attention of particular purchasers.


Mr. Tustin:: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Mackenzie. I realize immediately that when he buys canned goods he does not even look at the label. There are three grades of canned vegetables, namely standard, choice and fancy, which is the best grade. Not only are these canned goods all inspected and graded but most of the products that go into the cans are graded before canning. Today in Ontario, under the Ontario marketing act, these products are graded when they go to the factory. I hear some of my hon. friends over to my left laughing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is empty laughter.


George James Tustin: There is a staff of inspectors in Ontario and in the rest of Canada working under the Department of Agriculture. These inspectors go to these factories and inspect these goods frequently. But the point is this, and I come back to it again. There are three grades. If you buy the standard grade, you get the poorest quality. But if you want a real good grade, you buy the fancy grade. That is why there is such a great difference in the quality of the product. If you are going to buy canned goods, always look at the label and know exactly what you are buying.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not intend to enter into any discussion as to the relative merits of grades of agricultural products in Ontario as compared with agricultural products in any other province. I think this resolution now before us could be extremely important if the legislation introduced in fact carries out the suggestions made in this resolution. The resolution reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to establish national standards for agricultural products and to regulate international and interprovincial trade in agricultural products and to provide that the governor in council may make regulations for the licensing of dealers to deal in any agricultural products shipped from or to a place outside the province in which such dealer carries on business, and for the issue, cancellation and suspension of such licences, including the prescribing of fees for the issue thereof.
I suggest that this resolution is sufficiently broad in scope that it should contain all of those resolutions and all of the powers that have been suggested from time to time by the farm organizations of this country when they have asked the government to establish legislation that would be governed by a board of livestock commissioners.
Some reference has been made to the Canada Grain Act and to the board of grain commissioners. Faulty and inadequate as that legislation may be, nevertheless it is vastly superior to any legislation we have had to date in Canada dealing with interprovincial and export trade in other agricultural products. While it is true that a feeder in Ontario may not be definitely certain as to the quality of the feed product when he buys it from a commercial organization, nevertheless if that farmer is able to purchase directly from the wheat board a quantity of grain which has been graded according to the standards of the Canada Grain Act and which has the stamp of approval of the board of grain commissioners, that feeder is assured of getting a quality product.
The trouble is not with the regulations under the Canada Grain Act. The difficulty is mainly not in the standards established under the Canada Grain Act. The difficulty is that so far the government has failed to adopt legislation that, with respect to feed that he purchases from a dealer, will guarantee to the eastern feeder the same standards as those that are provided for in the Canada Grain Act. I should like to see the government establish a board of livestock commissioners that will have the power to do all of the things mentioned in this resolution and additional things. I should like to see the standards that are set up for livestock and other agricultural products taken right back to the producer so that when the producer delivers a carload of beef to a packing
Agricultural Products
company he is certain to obtain for that beef the grade and the price for that grade that may be finally approved by such a board of livestock commissioners.
In the legislation that is adopted I think it is important not only to see to it that proper standards are set up but to see that the benefits from those standards shall accrue to the producer. I should like to see this legislation carried even another step forward. I should like to see a national livestock marketing board or some type of national livestock selling agency so that the producers themselves may have some control over the buying and selling of their products. Certainly the resolution we have before us this evening is the type of resolution that would be of great benefit to the producers if properly enforced.
I am glad that the government at this time is consolidating acts so that the public may know what power the government has and what legislation it is actually using. When the minister is considering consolidation of acts, he might look at his act which is entitled "An act for the support of the prices of agricultural products during the transition from war to peace"; another act entitled "The Agricultural Products Board Act"; and a further act entitled "An act to provide for the marketing of agricultural products in interprovincial and export trade". That is a series of acts that certainly in many ways duplicate and overlap and it is a series of acts which, I may say incidentally, are little used. I therefore think it is a step in the right direction that the legislation is being consolidated. I should like to see the government go one step further and establish a board of livestock commissioners such as that suggested by the hon. member for Yorkton in his resolution under "Notices of Motions", to be found at page 15 of today's order paper and which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into early consideration the advisability of appointing a board of livestock commissioners in Canada for the purpose of regulating and controlling the assembling, grading, transporting, marketing and exporting of livestock and livestock products, and that such board should include adequate representation appointed on the recommendation of the producers' organizations.
If the resolution before us tonight were expanded to include the proposition advanced by the hon. member for Yorkton I think we would have legislation that would not only be more effective but legislation that has been requested by our many farm organizations.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.

Yukon Quartz Mining Act
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 411, to establish national standards for agricultural products and to regulate international and interprovincial trade in agricultural products.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, chapter 301 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, and to make provision by means of a new act for all substantive rights relating to quartz mining in the Yukon, including the rights to stake and acquire mineral claims and leases, and to provide for certain modifications in the administration of the law.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, the legislation to which this resolution relates is of an unusual character in parliament. Legislation on mining is normally provincial and a matter of provincial jurisdiction, but so far as the territories are concerned most matters of a provincial character are handled by the respective commissioners and councils. There is an exception though in the case of matters relating to natural resources. The natural resources of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are held by the federal government in the same way as the resources of the western provinces were held by the federal government before 1930. The resources of the soil and subsoil in the territories were originally governed by regulations established under the Dominion Lands Act which was passed in 1872 and which was replaced by the Territorial Lands Act in 1950.
There are two exceptions to the general coverage of the Territorial Lands Act. They are the Yukon Placer Mining Act which governs placer mining in the Yukon, and the Yukon Quartz Mining Act which covers quartz mining in the Yukon. The Yukon Placer Mining Act was passed in 1906. It was the governing act for placer gold development in the Yukon following the Klondike rush ten years earlier, and it still governs placer mining for gold near Dawson and elsewhere. There is no intention to modify the Yukon Placer Mining Act at this time.


The Yukon Quartz Mining Act was passed in 1924. Prior to that time quartz mining was governed by regulations under the Dominion Lands Act, as all mining in the Northwest Territories is now governed by regulations under the Territorial Lands Act. The act of 1924 simply put in statutory form the regulations in force at that time. It provides no authority to make general regulations and there has not been any overall revision in the 31 years since it was passed.
But conditions have changed considerably since 1924. The development of the Yukon is proceeding at a steadily increasing pace. Conditions of mining and prospecting have changed, and there is no doubt that the act has become out of date in respect of many of its provisions which are of importance to mining in the Yukon. Some of the clauses in the present act are not capable of proper interpretation. Some others do not take into account many improvements that have been devised in recent years in the field of mining legislation, and some others are not as favourable to mining development as more advanced clauses existing in the legislation of several of the provinces.
In the intervening years since 1924 we have been shown a great many defects in the provisions and operation of the act. Revision is required, I submit, if unsatisfactory and out of date provisions are not to have a deteriorating effect on the development of the Yukon. The legislation contemplated by the resolution before the house is to achieve that revision. The original intention two years ago was to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act entirely and to have quartz mining in the Yukon placed under the Territorial Lands Act, the same as mining in the Northwest Territories. It would have meant almost no statutory provisions and everything would have been covered by regulations of the governor in council.
A bill to achieve that purpose was placed on the order paper at the session of 1953-54, but it became clear then that there was considerable opposition in the Yukon to this course, and of course the hon. member for the Yukon did voice that opposition very strongly. The opposition was mainly to the abolition of statutory provisions. It seemed that most of the prospectors in the Yukon did not wish to have the entire regime, including substantive rights, subject to control by regulation. Because of that opposition and differences of opinion it was decided that the best course would be to have an impartial and expert examination of the situation by a qualified man with wide experience in mining in Canada. I took the

advice of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I discussed the matter with various interested persons, including the hon. member for the Yukon, and I asked Mr. George Edward Cole if he would serve as commissioner. Mr. Cole has been in the mining industry in Canada for 53 years. He worked in the British Columbia, Ontario and Manitoba mining fields. He had overseas service from 1915 to 1919. In 1928 he was appointed chief inspector of mines for Manitoba and in 1930 was appointed director of mines for that province. He retired from that position in 1945. From 1941 to 1945 he was president of the association of professional engineers of Manitoba. He is a past president of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Mr. Cole interviewed most of the people in the Yukon who are interested in mining, as well as the mining people elsewhere in Canada. He spent some weeks in the Yukon and looked thoroughly into the whole situation. As I say, he discussed it with a number of people, including the hon. member for the Yukon, who has always shown a special interest in mining in his territory. Then, he submitted his report to me on June 18, 1954. I believe it is a very good report and has clarified the position considerably. When I was in the Yukon last summer I discussed the report personally with many of the mining and prospecting interests there. After these discussions, after studying the mining laws of the various provinces, and after thoroughly studying the report, I became convinced that Mr. Cole's recommendations were basically sound. The Cole report has, therefore, formed the basis of the new legislation to be introduced by this resolution.
Now, Mr. Chairman, since the Cole report forms the basis of the legislation I feel that the best course to follow would be to outline the recommendations which the report contains. I believe, however, this would be a good point to move the adjournment of the debate before I deal with the various points made.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: We shall continue tomorrow with the business that I indicated on Friday night.


Howard Charles Green: When the minister announced the business of the house on Friday last, I asked him about the government notice of motion on the order paper providing for the establishment of a committee on atomic energy and research. At that time he replied he was not in a position to say when it would
Business of the House be put on for debate, but he would try to answer on Monday. The minister said nothing about it last night nor tonight.
I point out to him that on February 3 of this year the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Macleod, as found at page 795 of Hansard, stated:
-it is the intention of the government to propose a committee to study atomic energy as well as research generally.
Then, on March 29, the government placed on the order paper a motion to set up this committee. That is almost two months ago, yet we have no word as to when the government proposes to proceed with the setting up of this committee. I point out to the minister that he is hoping to get this house prorogued by the end of next month. I believe the time has come when the government should take steps to set up this committee, and I would ask the minister when it is proposed to move the motion.


Walter Edward Harris: All that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has stated, Mr. Speaker, is quite correct. I feel I should point out, however, that what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said on February 3 was that we would propose a committee. Consultations were had after that with interested persons and the personnel obtained. Then, on March 29, a motion was put on the order paper. I believe everyone recalls that the minister concerned left for Australia within five or six days thereafter and only returned on May 5.
Since that time I have not found it possible to call this item, having in mind the fact that we have legislation on the order paper and we are still attempting to get legislation into the hands of the committee. I gave consideration to this a week ago, and at that time it did seem to me that if we hoped to bring the session to a close reasonably soon it would be necessary for the committees to complete their work rather than adding to their work. For that reason it seemed to me that, unless there was an urgent need for this committee at this session, it would be desirable not to call it. Now, this particular committee is not one that can be dealt with in one, two, three or four meetings or even in as many weeks. In the past there has been serious and leisurely consideration of these very important matters. On past occasions the committee has travelled outside of Ottawa, and I would expect it would if it were set up now.
Under the circumstances, I do feel it would not be desirable to proceed with this motion, unless as I have said there are reasons I have

Business of the House not been informed about why we should proceed with it at the present time. However, if hon. members feel there are reasons I would be glad to hear them and consider the matter further later this week.


Howard Charles Green: During the session last year we were given to understand that a committee on atomic energy would be set up this year. This is a field in which there have been rapid developments in the last year. We now have intimations from members of the government that atomic energy is to be used for peacetime purposes and that private industry has been invited to participate. I think the minister is quite wrong when he intimates there is no hurry about this question. I suggest that this is one of the questions about which parliament should be informed. The purpose of having such a committee was to help keep members in touch with this development.
I urge upon him that the government proceed without any further delay to get the committee set up and at least get the work started. I think we could finish the work on atomic energy before the end of this session.


Walter Edward Harris: As I have said, I will consider all the representations that are made. I am informed that what my hon. friend says in the latter part of his remarks is not so, and it would not be likely that the atomic energy portion of the work of the committee could be completed in any reasonable time. However, I shall be glad to consider it and discuss it with him and any other members who may be interested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With regard to the business for tomorrow, do we go on with Friday night's list from the point we had reached or do we pick up any of the items that have been moved up a stage or two in the meantime? I think it may be more satisfactory if the minister would tell us, one, two, three, what he has in mind for tomorrow?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not know what my hon. friend has in mind. I have not been in the house for the last hour and a half.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have been making good progress in your absence.


Walter Edward Harris: Fine; I shall stay out from now on. I understand that we are dealing with the Yukon Quartz Mining Act. Then, we have the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Blind Persons Act. I am delighted to know that my hon. friend thinks they will all be completed before six o'clock tomorrow night. In that event, I shall provide a further menu by saying that if hon. members will consent we will then take the estimates of the departments of post office and agriculture. If, however, there should be a debate on the motion to go into supply, I will indicate some matter of legislation for the remainder of tomorrow. Thursday and Friday we will take post office and agriculture.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question related to the matter of third reading of Bill No. 352 and second reading of the other bill in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. Those are the things we did while the minister was out.


Walter Edward Harris: What does my hon. friend want to take up tomorrow?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not asking for anything but information. However, perhaps we can straighten it out tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 25, 1955