1955-05-18

QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
t-33 aircraft crashes

Mr. Balcom:: Are preparations intended for intravenous or muscular administration analysed by the food and drug branch of the national health and welfare department before being released for sale to the public?


Mr. Robertson:: Section 13 of the Food and Drugs Act requires that samples of all batches of organic arsenicals (arsphenamine, dichlorarsphena-mine hydrochloride, neoarsphenamine, oxo-phenarsine hydrochloride and sulpharsphena-mine) be not distributed until the Minister of National Health and Welfare has indicated
that each batch is not unsafe for use. Each batch is analysed or biologically tested before being released for sale.
In addition, parenteral products controlled under section 12 of the act may not be sold until the minister is satisfied that the premises, in which the drugs mentioned in schedules C and D of the act are manufactured, are suitable and that the processes and conditions of manufacture are satisfactory to produce drugs that are safe when properly used. Schedules C and D include insulin, vaccines, sera and antibiotics.
Factories manufacturing these products are carefully inspected and samples are tested from time to time. Several batches of any new products added to any manufacturer's list are tested before being released for sale to make sure they are safe and samples are taken at intervals thereafter for test.
All other parenteral drugs are spot checked for safety and identity. Conditions under which these drugs are manufactured are also being checked by the food and drug inspectors.


TEESWATER, ONT.  POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: 1.	Has any work been done on the site purchased for a new post office building in Teeswater, Ontario?
2.	If so, what type of work?
3.	Have plans been made for erecting a post office on the above mentioned site?
4.	If so, what size and type of building do such plans call for?
5.	When do such plans call for completion of the building?
6.	Will there be living quarters in the post office building for the postmaster?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Plans have not yet been prepared.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Answered by No. 3.
6.	Answered by No. 3.


INCOME TAX BRANCH, WINDSOR, ONT.
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	In what building in Windsor, Ontario, are the local offices of the federal income tax branch located?
2.	Are these premises rented, or is the building owned by the federal government?
3.	If the building is owned by the federal government, from whom was it purchased, and when?

Questions
4.	Who were the agents for the vendor or vendors in connection with the selling of this building to the federal government?
5.	What price did the federal government pay for this building?
6.	How much money has been spent by the federal government (a) on repairs and improvements to this building; (b) on upkeep and maintenance thereof, since the date it was purchased?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Building located at corner of London and Elm streets, Windsor, Ont.
2.	Government owned.
3.	Expropriated from the Sandwich, Windsor and Amherstburg Railway Company on April 23, 1952.
4.	No agent.
5.	Original building was expropriated on April 23, 1952, for $68,481.25, and a contract was awarded in June, 1953, to the Foundation Company of Canada, Ltd., London, Ont., for $484,248.03, for addition and alterations.
6.	(a) $759.35.
(b) $53,898.31.


PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How much did the land and expropriation of property cost for the new government printing bureau building?
2.	What was the cost of legal fees for such transactions?
3.	Who were the law firms that handled these transactions?
4.	What was the cost of furnishing?
5.	What was the cost or estimated cost of landscaping?
6.	What will be the total cost?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	$545,080.37 (cost to date for site on which the building is erected).
2 and 3.
Jacques Bertrand	$	883.35
Francois A. Binet	 4,390.32
J. Ludovic Blain	 1,388.55
Pierre Desrosiers	 183.40
Rodrique Farley	 1,531.10
Roy Fournier	 3,221.68
Lucien Grondon	 250.00
Arthur Labbe	 1,355.00
Andre Lesage	 4,500.79
Fernand B. Major	 1,362.50
James A. Millar	 729.35
Romeo Pigeon	 40.00
Alexandre Tache	 74.30

4.	Requisitions have not yet been received by the Department of Public Works for furnishing the building.
5.	Estimated cost-$150,000.
6.	Total estimated cost-$14,000,000 (exclusive of furnishing).


SALE OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, OSHAWA, ONT.
Mr. Starr:: 1.	Have tenders been called for purchase of: (a) the old post office building in the city of Oshawa; (b) the old customs building in the city of Oshawa?
2.	If so. what tenders, if any, have been received?
3.	Who were the tenderers?
4.	What were the prices offered by each person tendering?
5.	Have either or both of the buildings been sold?
6.	If so, who was the successful bidder and what was the purchase price?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	(a) and (b)-The old post office building and the old customs building together with land on which they stand having a frontage of 82-5 feet on King street and 140 feet on Wellington street in Oshawa, Ontario, were reported surplus to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation and advertised for sale with offers to be in the hands of the corporation by April 29, 1955.
2.	None.
3.	Answered by No. 2 above.
4.	Answered by No. 2 above.
5.	Answered by No. 2 above.
6.	Answered by No. 2 above.
FISHING VESSEL INDEMNITY REGULATIONS, P.E.I. Mr. Malheson:
Under the fishing vessel indemnity regulations:
1.	How many fishing vessels, by counties of Prince Edward Island, are insured?
2.	What amount of premiums has been paid?
3.	How many insured vessels have been lost?
4.	What amount of indemnity has been paid?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1. No. of vessels insured at April 30, 1955-
Kings	 27
Queens	 23
Prince	   43
Total	 93
2.	Total net premiums paid to April 30, 1955-
Kings	$ 311.05
Queens	 252.70
Prince	 688.46
Total	$1,252.21
3.	No. of vessels lost to April 30, 1955-
Kings	
Queens	
Prince	 2
Total

4.	Indemnity paid to April 30, 1955-
Kings	
Queens	
Prince	$960.00
Total	$960.00



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon Wesl):: 1.	Has an inventory of army stores and equipment at Camp Ipperwash, Lambton county, been made since 1945? If so, when?
2.	Have any deficiencies in military stores and equipment been ascertained?
3.	If so. what are the particulars and what is the amount of loss?
4.	Has any of such loss been recovered?
5.	If so, what are the particulars and from whom was recovery made?
6.	Has any investigation been made by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police since 1945?
7.	If so, when, and have any charges been laid as a result of such investigation?
8.	Has the responsibility for such deficiencies been fixed?


Mr. Blanchette:: Return tabled.


CF-100 AIRCRAFT
Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	How many C.F. 100's have been produced?
2.	How many Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons in Canada have been equipped with C.F. 100's?
3.	Have any auxiliary squadrons been supplied with C.F. 100's? If so, how many?
4.	If not, will auxiliary squadrons be equipped with C.F. 100's?


ATOMIC ENERGY FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES
Mr. Argue:: 1.	What countries have requested scientific information from Canada on the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes?
2.	To what countries has Canada offered scientific information on the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes?
3.	What charge, if any, does Canada make for
the provision of (a) information:	(b) necessary
materials, for such development of atomic energy?
4.	What general fields does such information cover?


GOVERNMENT REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS- GUARANTY TRUST CO.
Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	In connection with the purchase of property by the federal government or any agency thereof, since January 1, 1950, did the Guaranty Trust Company of Canada at any time act as agent for the vendor or vendors?
2.	If so, what is the date and description of such transactions?


SELKIRK WHEAT
Mr. Argue:: 1. How many bushels of Selkirk wheat had the Department of Agriculture in 1954, for (a) its own 1954 spring seeding requirements; (b) available for sale?
Inquiries of the Ministry
2.	How many bushels, if any, were sold (a) in time for seeding in 1954; (b) too late for seeding in 1954?
3.	How many bushels of Selkirk wheat, if any, did the department have on hand after the 1954 crop was seeded?
4.	How did the department dispose of this surplus seed?
5. How many bushels of Selkirk wheat is it estimated are available in 1955 for seeding purposes?
6.	How many acres is it estimated will be seeded to Selkirk wheat in Canada in 1955?
7. How many bushels of Selkirk wheat have been exported to the United States since July 1, 1954?



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider 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.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Alberi):: In
welcoming the Secretary of State for External Affairs back to the house, I should like to ask him whether he is prepared to give a general outline of his visit to NATO and also whether in his opinion events of recent days in the U.S.S.R. are indicative of a more hopeful international attitude?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there may be a suitable opportunity in the near future to report on the NATO council meeting and other developments of recent weeks, and I would be glad to take advantage of the opportunity if it should arise.
As to the second part of the question, all I would say is that we have ground, as the result of recent developments, for some satisfaction and, indeed, some optimism, but no

Inquiries of the Ministry ground for exultation or no ground for believing that we have yet reached the end of the period of the cold war. My own view is well described by the phrase that has been used by the President and the Secretary of State of the United States, namely that we can be cautiously optimistic as a result of recent developments.
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roseiown-Biggar):
Could the defence estimates be expedited so the minister might make a statement on the NATO meeting in connection with those estimates? I notice he said he would do so at an early opportunity if that opportunity should arise.	.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING RELEASE OF 16 POLISH WAR VETERANS
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has just returned I shall not ask him for an answer today, but I wonder whether he would be prepared to make a statement tomorrow with regard to representations to the government of the U.S.S.R. respecting the release of the 16 heroes of the Polish underground movement who were arrested, spirited away to Russia and detained there from 1945 on, and whose terms of imprisonment appear to have expired now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs in my absence, has been looking into this matter. I believe he can make at least an interim report on it now, if that is agreeable.


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend will recall that when he asked this question the other day, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the petition to which he directed attention had not been received. On Tuesday last the petition was received. A delegation presented the petition, and included in that delegation was the daughter of one of the soldiers whose whereabouts concerns us all.
I assured the delegation, on behalf of the government and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the government of Canada would give the matter its sympathetic interest and follow through with the closest attention.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if, having regard to the fact the government of the United States appears to have made representations or presented a note on this subject already

to the governments of the U.S.S.R. and Poland, the Canadian government will consider parallel action?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I may say that consideration is being given to all aspects of the problem. We want to act in a way that will be the most effective.


REQUEST FOR MEETING OF UNITED STATES-CANADIAN CABINET COMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the concern in this country that United States trade policies may endanger Canadian markets, will there be another meeting at an early date of the United States-Canada committee of cabinet ministers in order to discuss trade problems?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): This session of the parliament of Canada is drawing to a close and the session of the congress of the United States is drawing to a close, so I believe it would be difficult to arrange a meeting at this time. As soon as both legislative bodies complete their work I hope we can arrange a meeting.


Mr. Drew:: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is announcing the prospect of early dissolution of this parliament?


SASKATCHEWAN-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FEDERAL AID
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Can the Prime Minister state whether or not the government has decided to consider the recent storm and flood damage in Saskatchewan a national emergency, and if so what assistance is it prepared to give?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): On Monday three members of the Saskatchewan government were here and met three of my colleagues and myself. We had a conference that lasted something over an hour and a half, during which they left with us some briefs and surveys that are being analysed now by our officials in the light of what was done in cases where the federal government did make contributions toward reparation of damages that had been caused by like occurrences.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplementary question? Are the P.F.R.A. officials engaged in making a survey of the situation so as to place the government in full possession of the facts?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Officials of the P.F.R.A. have been submitting, I will not say daily but quite frequently, reports on the examinations they have been making ever since this unusual storm took place there, and they are continuing to do that.


CIVIL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is a question I intended to ask a bit earlier, but I did not do so. Has the minister investigated why, on the occasion of the sighting of unidentified aircraft recently on the west coast, it is alleged that Canadian civil defence authorities received no word of it although warnings were flashed widely throughout the western United States as far south as California? Does this failure to notify Canadian authorities signify a lack of co-operation between United States and Canada in civil defence?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend was kind enough to give notice of his intention to ask this question. I might say that the matter has been investigated, and in no circumstances could it be concluded that there is not the fullest collaboration between the civil defence authorities of both countries.
The situation to which my hon. friend directs attention arose out of an error in judgment on the part of a civil defence official in California. There was in fact no justification for the action he took, and his government has said so.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the fact that in answering a question in my name, in which I asked for the names of the firms paid to act as distributors for the national film board during 1954, he has given a page and a half by way of explanation as to why certain things could not be told-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: My question is that when I asked what these firms paid for the privilege of distributing these films, the answer the minister gave was that it cannot
18, 1955	3879
Inquiries of the Ministry be stated what firms were paid. These firms are all paid to act, and I want an answer to my question. I might say this information was given to me a year or so ago, and the year before that, and I think I should have it for this year.


Mr. Speaker:: The usual procedure when one has a complaint to make about an answer received is to deal further with it when the estimates are under consideration. The hon. member is entitled to ask a question at this stage. However, he is now reading part of the answer he has received which is not to his liking. At this stage I suggest to him that he is not allowed to present any argument, any more than is necessary to get his information from the government. He has asked one question and he should await the answer, and not recite the answer he has already received and comment upon it at this time.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The answer I have here is the second answer I have received. I put the question on the order paper in one form and then, in order to try to get the answer, I put it in another form; and now I get an evasive answer. I do not think I should wait until the estimates are before the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must not forget that at this stage of the proceedings he must be satisfied with whatever answers he receives.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Even if he complains about the answer he receives, unless as a result of his comments he obtains a more satisfactory answer, there is certainly nothing the house can do about forcing a cabinet minister to give an answer different from that which, upon his responsibility as a minister, he has decided to give. If the hon. member wishes to debate the point, however, he may do so when the estimates of the minister's department are before the committee. That is the point at issue between the hon. member and myself. He has of course the right to discuss this answer which, in his view, is not satisfactory, but he is discussing it at the wrong time. That is the only point.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, with deference may I point out that Your Honour has raised a point that is in fact distinct from that which arose out of the form of the question itself. Your Honour has placed before us the fact that we must accept answers that are given. I would point out to Your Honour that the hon. member stated that on earlier occasions in successive years he has received answers

Inquiries of the Ministry to questions in the same form, but that now he is denied similar information.
Since it appears that we are becoming increasingly bound by precedent, I do not think a precedent of this nature should be established by simply ignoring what would occur if this were allowed to pass. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if a form of question that has been customarily answered is not answered now on the ground that this information should not be given, it is appropriate that the point be raised, because otherwise we simply close off sources of information. Since we do not know when estimates are likely to come up it might deny to the whole house, the government side as well as this side, information we should have for further debate.
I would ask Your Honour to reconsider the point you have just made, having regard to the fact that this in itself can become something in the nature of a precedent.


Mr. Speaker:: The only precedent I could find was a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lemieux, in which he had asked an answer to be given because the one that had been produced had no relation at all to the question that was asked. In this instance the hon. member says the answer he has received is evasive. See Debates, volume II, 1925, April 6, 1925, ruling by Mr. Speaker Lemieux, pages 1916-7.


An hon. Member:: It may be.


Mr. Speaker:: It may be. That is a matter of opinion and of debate. At this moment there is nothing one can do, at this stage of our proceedings, by way of complaining about it.


George Alexander Drew: Since the point has been raised, might I point out that what I was directing my remarks to was not the question of whether it was evasive. I immediately concede that that is debatable. What I am pointing out is that the hon. member has said that the question sought information which had been given in reply to similar questions in earlier years. Now he is confronted with the answer that this information will not be given. That, Mr. Speaker, suddenly changes the procedure which has been accepted and followed. To let that pass without challenge in some way would be closing another door to the type of information I believe hon. members are entitled to receive.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels that his rights have been encroached upon, then he must deal with the matter on a question of privilege. On the other hand, if at this stage of the proceedings he merely wishes to ask questions to further elucidate the answer he has received, he is entitled to do so. Beyond

that, as far as I am personally concerned at this moment, there is not much else I can do.
The point may be more complicated than I can perceive at the moment. I shall look into the remarks of the hon. member and also the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, and if need be I shall clarify or modify the remarks I have made. Generally speaking, questions asked on the orders of the day are to be brief and of an urgent and national character. Whatever answers ministers feel free to give must be accepted as the answers. Even on questions on the order paper, if the minister says "No, I cannot answer this question", the question is answered.
On earlier occasions I have given the precedents with respect to that, and if necessary I shall give them again. But the particular point that has been raised by the hon. member, by way of complaining about the return received, which he feels is not complete-well, that is a different matter. I shall go into it further, and if necessary I shall give a ruling on it.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect to the point raised earlier by the hon. member for Peterborough and pursued by the Leader of the Opposition, I should like to refer them to citation 137 of Beauchesne's third edition, which appears at page 67 and reads as follows:
When the orders of the day are called by the Speaker and before they are read by the Clerk Assistant, it is the practice sanctioned by usage but not by any positive rule for members to make personal explanations or ask questions of the government in reference to . . .
Then down approximately at the middle of that citation I read the appropriate section:
. . . or in respect to delay in obtaining returns or to the incompleteness of certain returns brought down under the order of the house; . . .
And so on. I think that is part of the case with which we were faced today. If hon. members look further in the same edition at citation 307, they will see the following:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.



MONTREAL NEUROLOGICAL INSTITUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question

to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the tremendous contribution made by the Montreal Neurological Institute to human well-being, will the government consider the plea made by Dr. Wilder Penfield at the recent annual meeting of the institute for the government's contribution to be put on an endowment basis to assist this institution in its great work?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend did not give me notice of his intention to ask this question. I am not complaining on this score, except that I shall say to him what I have said before about the question of notice. It would give me an opportunity sometimes to give I will not say a more detailed but a more effective reply.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take your time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As my hon. friend knows, the government does give the neurological institute of Montreal an annual grant for operational purposes. In addition, under the national health program we have provided

I am speaking now from memory-well over half a million dollars worth of equipment. Then in addition there was slightly under one million dollars for construction of additional hospital beds. So I think the government, representing the people of Canada in this house, has evidenced its great interest in the very important institute which Dr. Wilder Penfield directs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister take a look at the statement made by Dr. Penfield at the annual meeting of the institute last week and perhaps report further on the matter when we reach his estimates?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if he will table the white paper on defence as soon as possible so all members may have it for study well in advance of consideration of the defence estimates, and if he can say when he might be able to do this?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The preparation of the white paper on defence is now complete and it is in the hands of the queen's printer. I am unable at the moment to indicate when it will be available 50433-245
Inquiries of the Ministry for tabling. However, I expect to table it in time to give hon. members sufficient opportunity to study its contents before consideration of the defence estimates by the house.



TAXATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has received a brief from the motor car dealers' association of British Columbia asking for his consideration of their request for a refund of the excise taxes paid on cars in stock on April 5? Would the minister say whether he will be able to give further and favourable consideration to this admittedly difficult problem, and whether he is able to hold out any encouragement to that association?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: I received briefs not only from the British Columbia motor car dealers' association but from the national body, I think from all the provincial bodies, and from quite a number of individual dealers. Of course we accept these representations along with all others and give them our best consideration.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Consideration is always welcome, but how about encouragement?


Walter Edward Harris: Encouragement is a word which I think is used on every occasion by this government as to its intentions with respect to the Canadian economy.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Encouragement is also-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is making a supplementary comment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No, it is a question.



REPORTED RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What comment does the minister care to make on the report in today's Toronto Telegram that he is resigning from the cabinet on October 23?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if there is a report that I am resigning from the cabinet,
I suggest that any such report should come from myself. I am not aware of any report of that kind.
(Translation):



FEAST OF THE ASCENSION-SUGGESTED ADJOURNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the Prime Minister propose to recommend the adjournment of the house at six o'clock this evening until Friday on the occasion of the feast of the Ascension tomorrow, a religious feast of obligation observed by at least 45 per cent of the people of Canada who are Catholics?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister intends to let the house proceed as it has done in past years with regard to religious feasts which are not observed by all the members of this house and which, according to the traditions of the house, have not required adjournment.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I just directed a question which I think of great importance to the Prime Minister and to which he was kind enough to reply. However, while that reply was given, the member for Russell (Mr. Gour) twice uttered the word "hypocrite", which I request him to withdraw.


Mr. Gour (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I did not say he was a hypocrite.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member thought he heard an expression the hon. member for Russell has just said he did not use.


Joseph-Omer Gour: Not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe then that that statement should simply end the matter which the hon. member has raised.


Joseph-Omer Gour: I never used that word.

(TPTti [DOT]



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: May
I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in connection with the explosion of the nuclear device off the west coast of North America. Was Canada consulted in that regard, in connection with the location or any other feature of the explosion?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I understand we were informed of that matter. I think that my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare may be able to give more information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian government was informed and representations were made by the Canadian government in connection therewith.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 259, to amend the Railway Act-Mr. Marler- Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Apportionment of cost of protection, etc.
Mr. Small:: Mr. Chairman, when the bill was before the house for first reading and subsequently for second reading, some question was raised with regard to the limitation that was submitted as one of the recommendations; I refer to the limitation of $7 million. Reference was also made to the recommendation as to maintenance, where they recommended that $200 be allowed for maintenance for each protection, and also to the matter of rules and regulations with regard to the enforcement of warnings and signals.
While these matters were touched upon, they were not sufficiently emphasized. When the bill was before the committee these matters were brought to its attention, but likewise it did not see fit to implement the recommendations particularly those regarded as restrictions on the amount that was to be given each year, namely $5 million. At page 91 of the report we find this:
It would seem desirable at the same time to prevent money accumulating in the fund if for any reason the normal rate of activity in grade crossing projects remained below the available resources in the fund.

This was implemented in the report. On page 116 the recommendation is brought forward for adoption:
Until parliament enacts otherwise there should be an appropriation of $5 million instead of the present $1 million, to the fund each year from April 1, 1954, with a proviso that where on April 1st in any such year there is an uncommitted balance of more than $2 million in the fund the appropriation for that year should be such sum as with the uncommitted balance will amount to $7 million.
When this matter was before the committee the minister gave the reasons for it and while-


Mr. Marler:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the remarks the hon. member is making apply to clause 3 of the bill, not to clause 1. In fact the section he has just read is subparagraph 5 of clause 3.


Mr. Green:: With regard to the point of order which has just been raised by the minister, Mr. Chairman, may I point out that on the first clause of the bill, by the practice of this house, general discussion is allowed. The hon. member for Danforth is merely carrying out what is the custom.


The Chairman:: Order. It is true that we allow a general discussion on the first clause of a bill, and if that is what the hon. member is doing of course I will not interfere. On the other hand, I invite the co-operation of hon. members in conducting a discussion at the most appropriate places, and if this can be discussed more appropriately under clause 3 perhaps that might be done.


Robert Hardy Small: I was trying to make a general statement. I had three points to raise, and I thought it would be permissible. My comments will not take very long anyway.


George Carlyle Marler: I shall not raise any further objection.


Robert Hardy Small: I was talking about a limitation of $7 million being placed on the fund. The minister thought it was not advisable to adopt that recommendation. The engineers were present at the committee and outlined the grade separation program. There were 65 on the list at that time, 11 of which were urban and were considered of major importance, the remainder being rural. With such a program in front of them it would not seem that the limitation would have any effect for probably four, five or six years, and therefore there would not seem to be any particular reason for pressing the point. On that ground we do not think it is necessary. I think the operations under the fund will use up the $5 million every year, and it will not be necessary to put the $7 million restriction into effect.
50433-245J
Railway Act
Then there is the question of maintenance. The board recommended that a $200 limit be established on contributions from the fund for the maintenance of any particular protected crossing. Recommendation No. 4 on page 116 of the report is as follows:
Contributions should be permitted towards the annual cost of maintenance and operation of automatic signals installed at crossings after the amendment comes into force, the contribution in respect of any one crossing not to exceed for any year the actual cost for that year nor exceed $200.
As a result of its investigations the board was of the opinion that some consideration should be given to the maintenance of grade level crossings where protective devices had been installed. But for some reason or other, possibly because it was too expensive, the government decided that such maintenance was not necessary. To give the committee some idea of what the board thought about the matter I should like to read the following from page 72 of their report:
At the same time the maintenance of roads and streets under municipal control has been growing more onerous. Without revenues derived from the automobile industry or highway traffic, the municipalities have acquired heavy new responsibilities which, unless outside assistance is obtained, must be met from their general tax rates . . . Such costs of construction and maintenance of municipal roads and streets are a substantial burden on the municipalities.
They go on further to point out, as was mentioned in the debate, that the average maintenance cost per year for rural crossings was $560 and for urban crossings $865. Therefore an amount of $200 for each protected crossing would not seem to be out of place. However, as the years go by the amount will pile up, and I suppose the government in its wisdom thought it would be a good thing not to act upon this recommendation at the present time. But the municipalities are the ones who are going to have to bear the burden, and they are not going to be helped to any extent. Their situation is set out quite effectively in the last paragraph I read from the report. At page 100 of the report the board went on to say:
Because of the fact that the assumption of a share of the annual maintenance costs by the fund would create a continuing liability, we believe that any steps in this direction should be most carefully considered.
I presume that is the reason for the government's action. The report goes on to say:
Nevertheless we feel that the cost of maintenance has been and will undoubtedly be increasingly a deterrent to grade crossing protection projects, particularly where small or financially weak municipalities are concerned. An expenditure for a capital improvement requires to be voted but once, and can be undertaken when the means are seen to he available. Maintenance expenditure, however, is in the nature of an overhead or fixed cost which may increase as general costs increase and cannot be amortized. For some municipalities

Railway Act
it may be entirely out of the question to pledge future tax revenues in this way. The railways position is similar.
I believe the government should give consideration to this charge upon the municipalities because, as has been pointed out all through the board's report, the burden of meeting the cost is quite heavy and that is the reason the municipalities want assistance. We went along with the increase in the fund from $1 million to $5 million, though we thought it should have been considerably extended so as to cover the maintenance of protected crossings. I believe the government should make a concession there and allow something to help relieve the burden imposed upon municipalities. At page 101 of the report the board goes on to say:
For these reasons, it would seem in order that the fund assume some share of the maintenance costs, since a good proportion of these wili be incurred as a result of the proposed extended a d to new projects in the coming years. We wouW recommend that a fixed amount of $200 be tne contribution from the fund toward annual mam-tenance and operation charges only on automatic lig "is installed at crossings after the date this provision takes effect.
From the language used by the board it is apparent they were quite confident the government would adopt their recommendation. I continue:
Where maintenance of such in:^^the^otal the amount contributed would be only the total amount actually spent on maintenance. The re Tainins maintenance costs would be apportioned "ccordmg to principles already laid down or previous practices of the board.
Notwithstanding that the committee has not seen fit to implement that recommendation I think it would be wise for the government to at least take another look at the matter and reconsider its attitude because on its own admission it is going to be a burden upon the municipalities. I do not think it would put too great a strain on the fund if a contribution of $200 for maintenance were granted. On principle the municipalities are entitled to some consideration.
I come now to the point which I consider the most important. It has to do with the rules and regulations for the protection of the public at level crossings. This subject covers a very wide field, including not only transportation but also industry. There are accident prevention associations to protect workers, notwithstanding that the workers may be indifferent and do not feel that the rules are necessary. Nevertheless the mounting accident toll in industry is such that precautions have to be taken to do something even for people who do not want anything done for them. In other words, after .a fatality has occurred in an industry, on the
fMr. Small.]
highway or at a grade level! crossing,, the burden falls upon the taxpayers- It is not only the persons killed or injured who; suffer; their families suffer also. Therefore all regulations tha-t are laid down for the prevention of accidents have more in mind the protection of the families and the resulting drain upon some treasury or other.
When the question was before the committee even the railways recognized; its; importance, and the fact that something should be done to see that the regulations were enforced. They asked that some penalty be imposed upon those who disregard signals at grade level crossings. Devices are installed at crossings for the protection of the public and a lot of money is spent for that purpose, but then we do not take any measures to see that the signals are observed. In fact there is no penalty to make- people observe them. It would be helpful, even if the- penalty were only small.
The railways also emphasized the effect on the morale of their engineers and firemen who are involved in accidents. They can see the accident is going to happen, and they cannot do anything to stop it. The railways claim it has a devastating effect on their operators, and therefore the people using the highways and level crossings should be made to realize they must observe the warning signs. A request was made that teeth be put into the regulation by the imposition of a $25 fine, and I feel that is a good suggestion. I believe the government should give some consideration to. implementing that recommendation made by the Canadian National.
I could go further and emphasize the portions of the report dealing with observance of the regulations. Mention is made on page 45 of the advance warning signs which are a matter of provincial and municipal responsibility. The report reads:
As to the advance warning signs to be used, this is a matter for which the provinces and municipalities are primarily responsible. Under today's traffic conditions they are almost indispensable but the board has no authority to require the erection of such signs by the provinces or municipalities and the applicability of the fund limited to improvements at crossings.
This is a matter that concerns the railways, and I feel that we should be sufficiently interested to see that some form of assistance is given or some means found to enforce upon the people using the highways the observance of these signs. An accident is not always the railway's fault. Then on page 107 of the report we find this:
Nevertheless the widespread concern with the problem of reducing or preventing grade crossing accidents is ample justification for the establishment of informal advisory committees. For the

time being, these should be on a provincial basis. Apart from the difficulties of working through a large national body, provincially organized committees would permit a great deal of the necessary preliminary work to be done more expeditiously. By this means, municipal and other representatives would become more quickly conversant with the general aspect of the problem and the particular needs within their own province and what actions could be undertaken to meet these needs.
I believe that part oi the report is particularly applicable at the present time. In the future there will be dominion-provincial conferences at which this matter can be considered. It is a matter of public relations and the education of the public. The thing that brought this to my attention was the receipt in the mail the other day of the program for a national highway safety conference to be held in Ottawa from May 24 to May 26. Would it not be a fine move on the part of this government if such legislation were enacted, or some tacit understanding given that this legislation would contain a clause providing a penalty for disregarding railway signs. The good roads association is sponsoring this safety conference, and many other organizations are greatly interested in it. The fact that a conference is being called is, I believe, a good sign.
The program for the fourth plenary session of this conference mentions reports of delegate divisions on proposals for implementing a Canadian highway safety program and recommendations for continuation of the national highway safety conference. These organizations are greatly concerned, because highway safety vitally affects them. I believe the fact that there are public bodies so much concerned about this that they would like to have something done about it is a good start.
I am not criticizing the minister because nothing has been done. Everyone seems to have the same attitude toward the prevention of accidents. It is all right as long as it does not cost any money or cause any trouble. As soon as you enter the realm of a financial undertaking, then they more or less try to evade any responsibility. This program for the national highway safety conference is a good start. Probably the minister would be in accord with the aims of that conference. If the sponsors of the conference were smart they would have the minister there to address them.
In view of the fact that a start has been made on the establishment of a committee on a national basis I believe the government would be well advised, through the transport commission, to enter into some kind of arrangement with them as to the best means
Railway Act
of implementing legislation that would give effect to these regulations concerning level crossings.
Those are my general comments on the deficiencies of this bill as it has been presented to the house. We are not critical of the government's proposition, but we feel a vast improvement could be made if some consideration were given to the three points I have mentioned.


Mr. Ellis:: On several occasions, Mr. Chairman, I have made comments on this bill. I do not wish to go over any of the material that was discussed earlier, but I do feel that the evidence given before the committee indicates the need for further action toward the elimination of level crossings in Canada. I do feel that the evidence submitted by both the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National indicates the need for greater emphasis on grade separation projects.
In the committee the Canadian Pacific representative gave us a table showing maintenance and operation costs of railway crossing protection devices during the year 1954. When one considers the relatively high expenditure each year on the maintenance and operation of these protective devices, one must consider just what we get for the dollar that is invested in those types of safety devices.
The report of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada has given us information concerning the number of accidents at crossings protected by automatic signal devices. We do know that in a seven-year period the accident frequency at crossings protected by automatic devices was 4-9 per year per hundred crossings. There was an accident frequency of 1-2 accidents per year per hundred unprotected crossings. It would seem that even though we spent money and the railway companies spent money on the construction and maintenance of automatic signal devices, they have not been altogether effective in reducing the accidents. We know there is a heavier flow of traffic across these protected crossings, but we have to consider the amount of money we are spending to protect these crossings. When we consider that in the light of the number of accidents I think it is quite obvious that we might be further ahead, from the economic standpoint, if we laid greater stress on grade separation projects.
In the committee I asked the Canadian National engineering expert about the life span of a subway, and he replied that it was something in the neighbourhood of 75 years. The maintenance cost of subways is relatively low, particularly in the earlier years. I hope

Railway Act
the government does not feel that this problem is solved with the passage of this bill or that it has discharged its obligations in connection with level crossing protection in Canada. I feel that the type of information we received in committee points to the fact that this is merely a start, and hope the government will pursue this matter and next session will go further toward the elimination of level crossings, particuarly through grade separation projects. The hon. member for Danforth mentioned one matter that was discussed at some length in committee, having to do with safety devices at level crossings. It is one thing to build a protective device of some kind but it is quite another thing, of course, to have people pay attention to it. The representative of the Canadian National Railways was quite concerned about the fact that even if the railway company did erect protective devices, many of the travelling public would ignore them; and perhaps to some extent that is why we have a relatively high accident rate at protected level crossings.
The Canadian National Railways were most anxious that parliament should amend the Railway Act to make it a criminal offence for the driver of a motor vehicle to cross at a protected crossing when a signal is in operation. Since the subject has been raised by the hon. member for Danforth, while there might be some question from a constitutional standpoint as to the competence of parliament to amend the Railway Act to cover the matter in question, I would point out that in my own province of Saskatchewan we have in our vehicles act the very provision which I believe the railways are anxious to have placed in the federal legislation.
Section 134 of our vehicles act in the province states, in part, as follows:
(2)	The driver of a vehicle approaching a level railway crossing shall, when any signalman, any automatic signal or other safety device indicates the approach of a train, bring the vehicle to a dead stop, and shall not proceed until the signalman, automatic signal or device indicates that it is safe to do so.
(3)	The driver of a vehicle shall, before proceeding over a level railway crossing on the approach to which a sign indicating danger, or stop sign, is erected, whether or not a train can be seen or heard approaching the crossing, bring his vehicle to a dead stop at the danger or stop sign and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so.
As was pointed out by the representative of the Canadian National Railways, and from what I have learned in conversation with friends of mine who are railway engineers, perhaps the toughest part of an engineer's job, when approaching a level crossing, is

when he sees a car approaching and does not know until the very last second whether the car is going to stop, or whether the driver will be so rash as to try to cross the tracks before the train reaches the crossing. Not only would we be doing something to eliminate accidents, we would be making railway engineers much happier if we were to have a uniform provision of the kind I have indicated.
Since in committee we did not decide whether the provincial or the federal government was competent to deal with the matter, I would ask the minister to make an investigation to learn whether it is possible to make such amendment to the Railway Act, perhaps following in form the act we have in Saskatchewan.
I believe this bill is good, as far as it goes. There can be no doubt that the increase to $5 million meets with the approval of all hon. members. However, I do not want the minister or the government to feel that the acceptance of this measure deals with the problem completely. In my view this measure only scratches the surface. While we support the bill wholeheartedly, I am hoping that at some future time the minister will And it possible to bring forward legislation to extend this principle.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to thank the hon. member for New Westminster for allowing me to speak in his place at this time. This afternoon I shall place before the committee an example of a grade crossing which, right today, illustrates in a practical fashion the weaknesses in both principle and detail to be found in Bill 259, now before us. While my observation will be directed to the first clause in the bill, I shall have some comment to make concerning other clauses.
In advance of making any comment, I think it might be well to place before the committee certain facts to show the relationship between the measure before us and the circumstances I shall set out. Apparently after consultation between the board of transport commissioners and the Canadian National Railways a decision was reached to make certain changes at a grade crossing in the town of Ingersoll, Ontario. The crossing in question is where the Canadian National Railways main line intersects provincial highway No. 2. Hon. members are no doubt aware of the fact that provincial highway No. 2 in Ontario is perhaps one of the busiest, if not the busiest, in the province, serving as the main link between Windsor and Montreal.

There is of course a great deal of traffic over this highway. Much of this is in the form of transport and truck vehicles, but there is also a large amount of tourist traffic in the summer months. In the past this crossing in Ingersoll has presented a great traffic hazard and has been the cause of many traffic jams. Some days it takes more than half an hour to make the crossing at this point.
I appreciate that in the past there has been some considerable difficulty. However, at the present time the highways program in Ontario is making headway, with the result that a new highway known as No. 401 is under construction, running parallel to highway No. 2 which, it is expected, eventually will take the place of that highway. I believe a portion of the new construction will be open for use this fall, by-passing the cities of London and Woodstock and the town of Ingersoll. I have taken some time to state the background, because it has a bearing on what I shall say later.
It appears that in the past this level crossing has been altered several times, and contributions to that end have been made from the fund. I shall not waste the time of the committee by stating details in this connection. However, I should like to read some paragraphs from correspondence which has taken place concerning this crossing, and which I believe tell the story very well. I would refer first to a portion of a letter dated May 2, 1955, from what appears to be the legal department of the Canadian National Railways. There is some uncertainty in my mind concerning the signature on the letter, and it occurs to me that the person here named may also be legal counsel for the board of transport commissioners. Perhaps the minister will enlighten us on this point.
This letter is addressed to E. R. Hopkins, secretary of the board of transport commissioners. It bears the file number 5087 and refers to "Protection at Thames street, Ingersoll, Ontario". The letter says, in part:
With reference to your letter of February 17 last concerning protection at the above crossing, wherein, after an inspection by the board's engineer it was recommended that electric lights be installed on each of the present gate arms with a stand-by battery-
Then it proceeds to refer to previous improvements made at the crossing. At a later point the letter states:
Conditions at this crossing are much more favourable and it is recommended that automatically controlled short arm gates with flashing light signals and bell be installed in lieu of the present mechanical gate as shown on drawing-
Railway Act
Then follow certain letters and figures identifying the drawings to which reference is made. It continues:
Also enclosed herewith is detailed estimate showing the cost to be approximately $17,350 with an estimated annual maintenance cost of $825.
It is considered that this type of protection constitutes an improvement made desirable by increased highway traffic, and it is therefore submitted that a contribution of 40 per cent of the cost be made from the railway grade crossing fund and the balance of the installation costs be assessed equally between the town and the railway company. It is further submitted that the cost of maintenance be shared equally by the municipality and the railway company.
I should now like to refer to a letter which was sent to the secretary of the board of transport commissioners by the solicitors for the town of Ingersoll, dated May 12, 1955. The pertinent part of the letter reads as follows:
The municipal council of the corporation of the town of Ingersoll have carefully perused the proposed undertaking and they wish to object to such undertaking on the grounds that the share of the expenses allotted to the corporation of the town of Ingersoll on its 30 per cent basis would appear to be $5,205 and it would also appear that the annual maintenance cost of same to the town of Ingersoll would be $412.50 according to the proposal submitted to the board of transport commissioners.
The town of Ingersoll is of the opinion that the protection given this crossing in the past by way of gates has been satisfactory; also the new super highway No. 401 which will pass within one mile south of Ingersoll when it is opened in about a year's time will considerably diminish the traffic which now passes through our town on Queens highway No. 2.
May this letter be deemed a formal protest on behalf of the corporation of the town of Ingersoll to such an undertaking.
I wish to refer to a third letter. It is addressed to myself by the solicitors, Messrs. Start and Marshall, of the town of Ingersoll. The pertinent part reads:
Dear Mr. Nesbitt:
We are enclosing herewith a copy of the letter received by the town as an enclosure from the Canadian National Railways to the board of transport commissioners. We are also enclosing herewith a copy of our letter to the board objecting to this undertaking by the town in view of the cost of same to the town. The total estimated cost of installation is $17,350 and it is proposed that this be paid for as follows:
Share from grade crossing fund-40 per cent, $6,940.
Canadian National Railways share-30 per cent, $5,205.
Town's share-30 per cent. $5,205.
It is estimated also that the annual maintenance cost will be $825, and this will be assumed equally by the railroad and the town approximating $412.50 each annually.
Here is the situation, Mr. Chairman. I imagine the minister has never heard of a situation like this before. The municipality is objecting to the improvement in protection of the grade crossing. This must be the one case

Railway Act
in a thousand, but it exists nevertheless. This town does not want it for three reasons. The first is because of the cost allocation; second, the maintenance allocation; and third, it is entirely unnecessary because when the new highway is opened in the fall there will not be any traffic problem on this railway crossing since the traffic, which is the main objection and the main cause of trouble at the crossing now, will be very largely eliminated by the opening of a new highway.
The comments I should like to make are as follows. First of all there is the apportionment of costs. When Bill No. 259 is passed the apportionment will be 60 per cent to the grade crossing fund, 25 per cent to the railway, and 15 per cent to the municipality. Yet this letter indicates that the cost will be on the old basis of 40 per cent, 30 per cent and 30 per cent. This will make a very considerable difference. If this crossing protection is proceeded with against the wishes of the town of Ingersoll, at least it should be made very clear to the town that the apportionment will be on the new basis and not on the old. I do not believe any orders have yet been given.
This is a situation that will come up in a number of cases where it had been decided to build these crossings before the passage of the present bill. The minister might give us some assurance that any of these grade crossings that are contemplated and have been authorized at the present time will have their costs apportioned on the basis of the amendments to the act before us at the present time. I say that because it would make the following difference in this case.
If the apportionment as suggested in the present amendments were used, the grade crossing fund would have to pay $10,410 instead of $6,940. The railway's share would be $4,337.50 instead of $5,205, and the town of Ingersoll's share would be $2,602.50 instead of $5,205. I hope when the minister makes his remarks later on he will be able to give us some assurance on this point.
There is one other matter in connection with the apportionment that I am a little curious about. It has to do with clause 265 (2) (b), which reads as follows:
In the case of reconstruction and improvement of a grade separation at a crossing, 30 per cent of such cost or $150,000, whichever is the lesser.
In the particular instance to which I am referring no grade separation is contemplated. It is merely a change in protective devices. It is not a grade separation. However, it is not quite clear to me why in the case of reconstruction and improvement of a grade separation the fund can provide only 30 per cent instead of 60 per cent, as is proposed in

this bill, or 40 per cent, as was done before.
I do not quite understand the principle behind that. I hope we may receive some enlightenment later on.
The question of provision for maintenance has been mentioned by the hon. member for Danforth. Bill No. 259 does not contain any provision for maintenance of those grade crossings out of the fund. As has already been mentioned, apparently this has been recommended to the government by the board of transport commissioners. It can be said that this provision for maintenance was not put in the bill, but it is hoped that the bill may be amended so the board can make certain allowances in some instances, because a great many of these municipalities, particularly the small ones, are heavily overburdened with taxes. Every hon. member knows that, and there is no need for me to go into the matter any farther. As I look at this bill I still think the government might improve it a little and provide for the maintenance of the grade crossings out of the fund.
The last thing I should like to mention has puzzled me a little in the past few days, and also other hon. members. I am wondering how the federal parliament by an act, namely the Railway Act, can force municipalities to pay for the construction and maintenance of grade crossings against their will. Such legislation, on the face of it at least, seems to be ultra vires, since it is an invasion of property and civil rights, specifically reserved to the provinces.
However, I believe two similar cases have gone to the privy council, which have decided the matter. The first case was that of Toronto v. the Canadian Pacific Railway, reported in 1908 Appeal Cases, page 54. The other case was that of Toronto Railway v. City of Toronto, 1920 Appeal Cases, page 426. I might say a summary of the judgments in these cases was that legislation by parliament imposing, in effect, charges upon persons benefiting from railway improvements to provide for the expenses of such improvements was upheld. The provisions, challenged because they imposed burdens on persons peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the province, were held, nevertheless, to be intra vires as being ancillary to the main purpose.
I do not think the question arises in this case of whether or not municipalities are emanations of the crown in the right of the province because I think that is clearly not the situation. Municipalities are clearly persons created by the provinces. Perhaps the minister might agree with the point that if

the provincial governments, who are in control of provincial highways, were ordered by the board to contribute to the cost of construction of grade crossings, the provincial governments would be perfectly within their rights' to refuse to do so. However, I would be interested to hear any comments the minister would care to make in that regard.
The two cases I refer to were not exactly in point with respect to grade crossings. Even on general principles the privy council and other courts in Canada have frequently distinguished on the facts. I am not entirely satisfied yet that this legislation is not ultra vires.
I should like to suggest one or two thoughts to the minister and I would be interested, as I said before, to hear his comments. The questions that arise in my mind are, first, are grade crossings for the sole benefit of the municipality in which they are constructed? In many cases are not adjacent municipalities benefited, and should they not be assessed? How about provincial highways? The particular situation at Ingersoll to which I have just referred is not a matter of local traffic at all. The traffic here is mainly through provincial traffic from centres such as Toronto to London and Windsor. Those centres are benefited far more than the town of Ingersoll, which is being assessed. I think allowance should be made for this, if not at this time then in future legislation. In any event it seems to me unfair.
I know the principle has been recognized that the municipality should pay a certain portion of the cost of these grade crossings. It seems to me unfair that the municipality should be asked to pay anything. I know it will be said that the municipality benefits from the grade crossing. This is quite true, but I submit that the railroad and the grade crossing fund should bear the whole cost.
First of all there is a practical reason for this. The federal government provides funds for the railways, at least for the Canadian National Railways, and for the grade crossing fund. The federal government has greater means of raising revenue. As everyone knows, the municipalities have only limited means of raising taxation, and they are already overburdened with education and local road costs. It does not seem exactly logical or reasonable that the municipalities should be forced to help pay for the construction of grade crossings.
It is true that there is benefit to the municipality, but we must remember that the problem is created by the fact that the railroad is there. If there were no railroad there would be no need for a grade crossing 50433-246
Railway Act
and there would be no traffic problem at that particular point. I know it is certainly said that the municipalities benefit from the railways, which is quite true, but that should be considered more on a national basis. I believe consideration should be given, if not at this time then in the future, to further reduce if not extinguish completely the amount the municipalities have to pay.
I recognize that the government has considered the matter, and also that under the new apportionment of costs the municipality will pay must less than it had to pay before. We all appreciate this, but I think it should be carried a little further. After all, it is the position of the railroad tracks which creates the traffic problem.
I think I have said all I wish to say on this matter, but I shall conclude with one observation. The town of Ingersoll in the county of Oxford does not want this improved grade crossing protection, but I can assure the minister that the citizens of that county would be most grateful if the board of transport commissioners would divert their attention from Ingersoll to the Creditville crossing, seven miles east of Woodstock, where a grade crossing is badly needed.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, this bill was considered at length in committee, and it is unfortunate that the report of the committee is not available so hon. members could be thoroughly acquainted with what was said during the discussion of the bill and its various aspects. It may be necessary to repeat what took place at that time, and thus some of the work already done will be lost.
We in this group support the main spirit of the bill, that is that additional funds be made available for the elimination of grade crossings. I think that is the general spirit in which everyone accepts the tenor of the bill. However, as I pointed out in the committee, this bill is not a complete answer to railway crossing deaths. It will help materially to cut down the number of accidents, but we are going to have accidents at railway crossings whether we have overpasses or underpasses and spend millions of dollars in erecting various types of signals.
There are other factors to be taken into consideration, more particularly the lack of caution on the part of many motorists. The automatic signals we have today definitely are not the answer, nor is the overpass or the underpass. People deliberately commit suicide by means of excessive speed, because they freeze at the wheels of their cars, and because of other human factors. Then there are the mechanical factors to be considered, as well as weather and other conditions. While this

Railway Act
$5 million we are setting aside for the grade crossing fund will be of material benefit, we cannot look forward to it cutting out all accidents.
The hon. member for Oxford during his remarks indicated that he felt there was a constitutional question involved in this first clause, under which the board is to fix the share of the cost to be paid by the municipal district. I agree with him in that respect. The hon. member cited two cases in which there was some question of illegality, but it is not established in my mind that this bill authorizing the board to apportion a share of the cost to the municipal district is completely intra vires.
The municipality is a creature of the provincial government and has authority vested in it as such. We are dealing here with a board which receives its authority by federal right. I question very much the right of any board constituted under federal authority to exercise this power on a municipal district which receives its power by act of a provincial authority.
We should examine this very closely. As is indicated, the town of Ingersoll, which the hon. member mentioned, seems to feel the same way about it. It does not want this particular overpass or underpass, which would indicate that it should not be forced upon the town unless it agrees to it.
On examining the bill further I notice that no provision is made for the construction of overpasses or underpasses in connection with new roads. I cannot understand the reason for this, because in the building of new highways, such as the provincial governments are building today, at times it would be better to spend a few thousand dollars extra in order to build a road along a route where it might be possible to use a natural underpass or overpass, as the case might be, whereas at the present time under the present system whereby no money is set aside to assist in the building of such a crossing, the provincial authority would take the easier route for the road and say, "Well, it is simpler; we will save a couple of hundred thousand dollars or a few thousand dollars". But that saving in itself would not be sufficient to build the overhead pass or the underpass.
I think something should have been set aside in the bill that made it possible to contribute something to it, and that is not included. We feel that the provincial government possibly, the federal authorities, the municipal governments and the railways should bear the cost of these crossings to a lesser or greater degree, depending upon the

location and other factors and that a fixed sum should not be set aside for municipal participation.
There are certain factors that we require educating in. For instance, we need uniform road signs leading to railway crossings. There is no such thing in the dominion. I would suggest that possibly a certain part of this sum should be set aside for that purpose, in order to discuss and to discover the feasibility and the possibility of having a national system of road signs wherever there are crossings.
Then we should have a uniform law that might be passed in respect to approaches to railway crossings. X think the hon. member for Regina City mentioned this too. The province of Saskatchewan has some enabling legislation, I believe, and the province of British Columbia has legislation governing this matter. But there are in Canada provinces which do not have any such regulations. I would say that we would be well advised to see if it would not be possible to incorporate within our act, through agreements with the provincial governments, provision that there should be uniformity of regulation pertaining to speed and other factors, road signals and on roads leading to crossings.
As to motor vehicles approaching railway crossings, in the table that was given us in committee by the Canadian Pacific Railway I find they have, for instance, eight different types of protective signals.
People who come from other parts of Canada are not too familiar with all of these types. I can well remember in the early thirties when, in making a trip through the southern part of the United States, I came to the city of Reno. It is true that I happened to note this wigwag affair but I had never seen one before. I did not know what it was there for.
I had seen no railway sign such as we have here in Canada at this place. You can imagine my amazement when a train sped before the car at that moment.
That is an indication of the type of thing with respect to which I feel we should try to gain uniformity in this country.
Among the various types of protection that have been set aside by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and apparently approved by the board are automatic bells, automatic danger signals, automatic wigwags, automatic flashing lights, automatic gates, manual mechanical gates, manual electric gates, and manual flashing lights. The numbers of them range from four in the case of the automatic bell to 270 in the case of the automatic flashing light. I know that we have uniform railway crossing signs at or before we reach

each of the crossings, possibly. But this white and black sign may not be efficient. It certainly does not appear to be sufficient or we would not have as many accidents at railway crossings as we have at the present time. For that reason I think it would be important that we should set aside part of this fund to make it necessary to have one uniform type of indicator to let the people know when they are approaching an automatic signal at a railway crossing or one that might be even manually operated. Certainly we should not have as many as eight different kinds.
In order to assist further in this matter I would also propose that we should set aside possibly a sum equal to what we have here for this railway crossing fund in this bill for the purpose of educating our high school students in the proper way of driving, the recognition of signals, and the traffic laws as they exist in the country.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for the bill and for the remarks that have been made by the various members of this group on the resolution and on the second reading. There is no doubt about it that the passage of this legislation will assist in the improvement of a number of dangerous railroad crossings in Canada. However, even when this legislation is in effect the great majority of railway crossings will be unaffected and there will be a great number of danger spots left as they are at the present time.
The present railroad crossings are, generally speaking, marked with the usual signs, namely the white cross with the black lettering "Railroad Crossing". From my experience-and I am speaking from experience in the interior of British Columbia where you often have a motor road coming onto a track on a sharp curve and things of that sort-this type of marking is totally insufficient.


George Carlyle Marler: Does not the hon. member think that the type of marking is something that pertains to provincial responsibility?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I was just going to deal with that matter.


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry for interrupting.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I recognize that that matter is, to some extent, a responsibility of the provincial or other authorities. But with very little expense, by the use of road reflectors and the use of larger signs-signs well back from the crossings with reflectors on them-I think a great deal of the present hazard could be removed. I recognize the fact that in order to do this, co-operation 5(1433-246*
Railway Act
would be required between the several authorities, federal, provincial and municipal.
I am rising, Mr. Chairman, because I am particularly concerned with this aspect of the question, namely the multitude of unprotected crossings which will not be affected by this bill. At very little cost I think that we can improve the situation as the result of co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments and the railways concerned. I think that co-operation could be stimulated to quite an extent if the board of transport commissioners would insist on an improved standard of signs and markings at these crossings in general. If they improved their regulations, I think there would spring up from that action the cooperation between the various authorities which is necessary to give effect to their wishes.
I want to support what was said by the hon. member for New Westminster. I think we need uniformity in railroad signs across Canada. I think that is where there is a necessity for co-operation between the various authorities involved, inbluding the companies.
Before sitting down I want to say also that I believe a great deal can be done to prevent the number of accidents we have by an educational campaign particularly in the high schools of this country. I think that is an aspect of the situation that has been overlooked. If we are able to make our people conscious of the dangers that exist through fast driving at these crossings and can make them conscious of the signs that are erected and of the care that must be taken to recognize them, I think something can be done in that respect. I think that we are not doing sufficient, as the result of co-operation between all the parties concerned with regulations from the board of transport commissioners, to do what can be done so easily at little cost in order to reduce greatly the hazards at many crossings that will not be affected by the terms of this legislation possibly for years to come.
(Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, it is with a feeling of genuine satisfaction that I rise at this moment to take part in the discussion of this bill whereby it is sought to increase from $1 to $5 million the amount allocated each year for the protection of grade crossings.
It means, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and the government have at last realized that the human resources of this country are the ones that need the greatest measure of protection,

Railway Act
because in safeguarding our human resources we are safeguarding at the same time the future of our whole country.
However, I am a little puzzled when I consider the percentages that will be contributed by the three public bodies concerned, namely the federal government, the municipalities and the railway companies.
If I correctly understand the terms of the bill, 60 per cent, provided that amount does not exceed $300,000, will be contributed by the Canadian government, whereas a contribution of 25 per cent is asked of the municipalities and an amount of 15 per cent of the railways.
I want to point out right away that the railway contribution seems to me inadequate and unreasonable, considering the fact that the Canadian Pacific, for instance, operates right across Canada, or just about, except in the maritime provinces, and is reaping colossal profits. As far as the Canadian National is concerned, it is difficult to say as much, as every year it has to face a very considerable deficit, which is met by the taxpayer. This means that Canada's contribution will exceed 60 per cent, as the percentages allocated to the national railways would obviously have to be paid, and would certainly not be met, because, for a number of years, the national railways have operated in the red.


George Carlyle Marler: It is not so.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The minister can surely not state that, last year and the years before, the Canadian National Railways did not operate at a loss.


George Carlyle Marler: Does not the hon. member remember that the Canadian National had a surplus in 1953?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Yes, but, Mr. Chairman, as the saying goes, one swallow does not make a summer.


George Carlyle Marler: Do not go beyond the truth.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I am not at all going beyond the truth when I state that every year, or nearly so, the Canadian parliament is usually requested to make good the deficits of the Canadian National Railways. That is why I come to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that the greater part of the contribution that should actually be made by the Canadian National Railways will once again be paid by the government and, therefore, by the Canadian taxpayers.

In support of my argument, may I be permitted to draw attention to the condition prevailing more particularly in the city of Quebec. The municipality of Quebec is being asked to contribute 25 per cent of the cost of those improvements. No account is taken of the fact that Quebec city, like all other Canadian municipalities, gets only approximately 10 per cent of the total taxes collected, because the federal government gets the major part of the taxes paid throughout the country; yet, this city is being asked to pay 25 per cent of the cost of doing away with grade crossings, which are quite numerous, as you will find out, Mr. Chairman, when I give a list of them.
I believe that the municipality of Quebec is unable to pay such an amount, because the situation in Quebec city is undoubtedly one of the worst as far as the railway right of way is concerned.
One must not forget also that the city of Quebec has already made its contribution. Some will say it was a long time ago! However, Quebec city did give a million dollars in 1870 toward the construction of the Canadian Pacific line linking Quebec, Montreal and Ottawa. Later, it gave $400,000 toward the construction of the Lake St. John line of the Canadian National Railway system-
(Text):	.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a point of order. The hon. member is telling us now about the connection of the city of Quebec with the early railroad history of Canada. I think it is a most interesting subject but I do not think it has anything to do with the bill we are now discussing. I would suggest he talk about the subject matter of the bill and not the financial condition of the city of Quebec.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: On a point of order, I am not speaking about the financial situation of the city of Quebec. In this bill we are asking the municipalities to pay at least 25 per cent of the cost for the elimination of railway crossings in Canada. I do wish to say, as I said in French a few minutes ago, that the city of Quebec has in the past already contributed its share toward the construction of certain railways, and as far as I know the city of Quebec is not in any position today to participate to the extent of 25 per cent of the cost in the elimination of railway crossings. That is the only thing I

was saying, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think there is any point of order in that.
(Translation):
As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, the city of Quebec has done its full share and is not in a position, as far as I can see, to do more. I wonder why there should not be an increase of barely 15 per cent in the percentage which the railways are called upon to contribute in order to allow the municipalities to benefit from the elimination of grade crossings which, particularly in Quebec city, constitute a constant menace to public safety and a general traffic nuisance. It must be said, too, that they hamper the city's development since they literally plug up a number of its streets.
Which part will be reserved to Quebec city out of this total amount of five million dollars? This question makes me wonder a little. I wonder, as a matter of fact, if Quebec city would not simply be forgotten should it be unable to put up the percentage required of it?
I might recall here something that was said once by a representative of the railways. I will read this sentence which may be found in the brief presented jointly by the Quebec chamber of commerce and the city of Quebec to the board of transport commissioners, on February 3, 1954. This official representing the railway companies said, on May 13, 1953, at a general meeting of the study group on elimination of grade crossings in Quebec city:
(Text) :
Our company is absolutely satisfied with the present genera] layout of its railway facilities in the city of Quebec and I believe, not a single dollar will ever be made available for their relocation or even for making any study or plan to that effect.
(Translation):	*
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that grade crossings in the city of Quebec, as I said a moment ago, are a constant menace to public safety as well as a traffic nuisance, besides being prejudicial to the development of the city. They spread out from one end of the city to the other, starting in the county I have the honour to represent in this house and ending in the next county, that of Quebec East.
I see in this brief for example-I was already aware of that situation of course, for I believe I am familiar with my county-that every day a great many Canadian Pacific trains, passenger trains, freight trains or shunting engines, run on those tracks which cross the city from one end to the other. As I said a moment ago, they are a menace
Railway Act
to public safety, a traffic nuisance and an impediment to the development of Quebec on account of the noise and the smoke they make. That is why, too, certain wards such as St. Sauveur, St. Malo and St. Roch, are dirty and blighted with falling real estate values.
The presence of this trackage prevents the opening of a great many thoroughfares which would be required for the development of the city of Quebec. Among these thoroughfares, are the following streets: St. Roch, St. Dominique, Mgr. Gauvreau, Sagard, Laberge, Chapel, Letellier, Baulac, Church, Caron, St. Anselme, Langelier Blvd., Chevrier, Rigaudville, Recollets, St. Ambroise, Carillon, Renaud, Bigaouette, St. Luc, Courcelette, Garagonthier, that is 22 traffic arteries in all. It also prevents the building of a large boulevard at the end of these thoroughfares, which would ease the east-west traffic, according to a general town planning program for the city of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, would the minister be in a position to tell us in a few moments if this amount of five million dollars will be largely spent in areas most affected or whether it will merely be used to eliminate a few grade crossings here and there throughout the country? Representing as I do one of the Quebec city constituencies, may I be allowed to ask the minister to use his influence in order that a fairly considerable amount be voted soon, so as to demonstrate to the people of Quebec city that the government really intend doing something, first of all, for public safety, and then to prevent a large number of our people from falling into desperate circumstances because of unemployment. This woud be a profitable source of jobs and I would certainly not be slow in thanking the government should they decide to do something along this line. Before bringing these few remarks to a close, Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to ask once more what it was my privilege to ask for here last year, namely that in the event of a start in the elimination of grade crossings in Quebec city, the construction of a new station just outside the city, at St. Sacrament boulevard, be undertaken concurrently in order to relieve traffic congestion.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few remarks I wished to make. I made them I think in an objective spirit and once more I urge the minister to take into consideration the plight of one of the cities where the problem is the most acute in the country. Quebec city has

Railway Act
too many level crossings, a danger to public safety. Only last year, at the Marie de l'lncarnation street crossing, a terrible accident took place. Let us make sure that such large amounts which we vote be used above all for the safeguarding of our most precious asset, human life.
(Text):


Owen Lewis Jones: I am not going to speak at length, Mr. Chairman, but there are one or two points I should like the minister to clear up. Doubt has been cast by both the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for New Westminster on the legality of the enforcement clause in section 262. After a number of years of experience in municipal life, I am afraid that I must agree with them. I, too, doubt the enforceability of the clause if the municipality cared to fight it. I should like the minister to clear that up.
In the first place, I should like to know if municipalities are consulted officially before any steps are taken to authorize the disposal of the level crossing. Is an agreement reached between the municipality and the board of transport commissioners and the railway company or are the words in this clause to be taken literally that the order of the board is binding and enforceable against the municipality. If that is the case I should like to ask the minister if the municipality has a right of appeal to any court of law or merely to the board of transport commissioners. Perhaps the consent of the municipality would make legal enforcement a possibility. Frankly, I question the wording of the clause as it is. There should be some words there to correct the wrong impression that it gives as it now reads.
There are thousands of unprotected level crossings in British Columbia, and owing to the nature of the program that is being advanced it is obviously going to take many years to eliminate the bulk of them. I know of several dangerous crossings in British Columbia at which accidents causing death have taken place, but so far nothing has been done about them. What I should like to know is, has the transport board a system of arranging priorities for the removal of these dangerous crossings? If they have a system, how do they arrive at the priority of a given crossing? In arriving at priority, do they wait until some accident occurs or they are informed by some municipality; or have they their own system of checking annually all level crossings in Canada? I know that an
[Mr. Dufresne.l
annual check would be necessary in British Columbia, because some of the crossings are in locations where the moisture is excessive and the growth is wild. What may be clear one year may be hidden by the growth of young trees in the following year. Is there a system of making checks to follow the growth of trees, or is it just a haphazard, hit-or-miss system, under which when they have the money they do something to satisfy the one who is kicking loudest?


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure of serving on this committee. Witnesses were called and examined thoroughly. Simple lines of questioning were followed by lay members on the committee, but the legal minds examined thoroughly.
I do not forget the thoughts I had in mind when the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra questioned the witnesses. I said to the person sitting next to me that if this bill could stand up under that kind of questioning-and it did-it could stand anything. I always like to hear the hon. member question witnesses because, while he is a Conservative, he is honest and sincere in his questioning, and what he does is appreciated. Anyone who reads the report will surely agree with me that the bill should be passed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, after all this flattery from my friend from Fort William, I scarcely know what to say. However, I do agree that the bill was discussed thoroughly in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I believe we always try to carry on our discussions thoroughly in that committee.
For many years the question of grade crossings has aroused keen interest in the House of Commons, and it was as a result of that interest that the board of transport commissioners was requested to investigate the whole problem of railway grade crossings and to bring in a report. Hon. members know that the report was brought in about a year ago; in fact, to be specific, it is dated May 10, 1954. The legislation we are now considering follows that report.
I suggest we should bear that in mind, because the result is that the measure now before us is unlikely to be amended in the near future. It is presented as a result of the report, and in another year, or perhaps two or three years, there will not be the authority of a report behind any amendments which may be introduced by the government. For that reason I think we should be careful to see that the bill we are now passing is complete.

It is a matter of regret that there are two points with which the bill does not deal. I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member for Fort William when he suggests that all the defects were remedied in committee.
The first point which in my view should be covered has to do with the grade crossing fund being made available to assist in the cost of maintaining and operating safety devices to be installed from now on. There was a clear recommendation from the board of transport commissioners on that point. I refer of course to paragraph 4 of the recommendations which is in these words:
Contributions should be permitted towards the annual cost of maintenance and operation of automatic signals installed at crossings after the amendment comes into force

That applies to installations made from now on. It continues:
-the contribution in respect of any one crossing not to exceed for any year the actual cost for that year nor exceed $200.
The minister dealt with this subject when he spoke on March 17. He pointed out that all the money should be used for new grade separations, or for improvements to old ones, and that no moneys should be set aside for costs of maintenance and operation. Then he added this, as it appears at page 2135 of Hansard:
Perhaps I should add that if we become convinced at some future date that this would be a useful addition to the powers of the board in respect to the fund we would be quite prepared to consider it.
The evidence we got in committee from the railways on this point was very clear. The Canadian Pacific Railway filed a table showing that in 1954 the cost to them of maintaining and operating highway crossing protection devices was $452,033.


George Carlyle Marler: That was not for maintenance alone, was it?


Howard Charles Green: The amount for maintenance was $179,227 and that for operation was $272,805, making the total of $452,033 I have mentioned.


George Carlyle Marler: I think that amount included sums paid to operators of manual protection devices, did it not?


Howard Charles Green: My understanding is that this was the total cost to them of maintaining and operating these highway crossing protection devices. And, mind you, they were not paying the total cost, because a proportion of that cost was paid by the municipalities, except in the case of automatic danger signs where the railways paid 100 per cent. In connection with automatic bells they paid 80 per cent; for automatic wigwags, 62-5 per
Railway Act
cent; for automatic flashing lights, 52-8 per cent; for automatic gates, 66-2 per cent; for manual mechanical gates, 64-7 per cent; for manual electric gates 65 [DOT] 0 per cent and for manual flashing lights, 61-1 per cent. The difference was paid by one municipality or another or, in certain cases, possibly by a province.
These costs represent the costs of protecting level crossings, and are costs just in the same way as the amounts paid for grade separation projects. I cannot see why some assistance should not be made available from the grade crossing fund.
One result of the failure to give help in maintaining and operating these devices is that the municipalities will hesitate to make application for warning devices. The hon. member for Oxford has given a very good example today, when he tells us that the town of Ingersoll does not believe it should have to pay half the cost of maintaining and operating certain safety devices. I cannot understand why the minister and his department failed to implement that particular recommendation in the legislation that we are considering this afternoon.
The other point which I believe should have been included in the bill was based on a request made by the Canadian National Railways. Mind you, the Canadian National Railways have never been very forward in making suggestions about legislation to the committee. In most cases the Canadian Pacific Railway has to do the leading in requesting changes and, of course, the Canadian National Railways benefit by whatever changes the Canadian Pacific Railway can bring about as a result of the representations. But in this particular instance, the representative of the Canadian National Railways made a very clear-cut recommendation to the standing committee. He pointed out that there is no penalty clause in the railway act under which a person who has failed to pay attention to a safety device installed on the order of the board can be prosecuted. In other words, he was not referring to devices which have just been installed by the railway without an order, but to devices that the board of transport commissioners have ordered installed. He said that attempts had been made to prosecute people under the reckless driving provision of the code, but without success. The Canadian National Railways found itself unable to take adequate proceedings against a person who failed to heed those safety devices. He recommended that there should be a subsection written

Railway Act
into the Railway Act. It would be subsection 2 of section 416, and would read as follows:
Any person who, in using any highway crossing at rail level for the purpose of passing on foot-
It has wider application than over a motor vehicle; it applies also to foot traffic. I continue with the proposed subsection:
-or in any vehicle along such highway across the railway, disregards signs, signals, or other protective devices erected or otherwise provided by the company pursuant to order of the board, is liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty not exceeding $25.
The first clause of section 416 provides a penalty for a person who walks across a railway instead of going over a foot bridge, where there is a foot bridge in existence. I do not think there can be any doubt that if clause 1 is within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament, the proposed clause 2 would also be intra vires.
The representative of the railway said that if this provision were written into the law he believed it would help to cut down the number of accidents. I believe there was considerable support in the committee for this submission but the minister declined to accept such an amendment and of course it was not written into the act.
The final disposition of the proposal was that the minister would write to the different provincial governments asking them if they had any objection to there being a provision of the kind suggested written into the Railway Act. I do not intend to go any farther with this matter today, but I urge upon the minister once more that he accept this recommendation which was made by the Canadian National Railways and was supported by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
None of us likes to see more penalty clauses written into legislation. There are, of course, many, many penalty clauses of all kinds facing every Canadian every minute of the day that he or she is awake; but here is a suggestion which fits in with the purposes of the grade crossing fund, namely, to cut down accidents at level crossings. I do submit that the suggestion could very well be accepted by the minister and the government.
(1 ranslation):


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to answer the suggestions of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne). He spoke at some length about the situation in Quebec city, which is known to me, as I have often travelled by rail to Quebec. But I must say that in order to

improve the existing situation in his city, it would be best to vote in favour of the measure which is now under consideration.
This legislation will put at the disposal of the municipalities willing to undertake projects of this kind-which are needed in the city of Quebec-much more considerable amounts than the latter was able to get under the act now being amended.
(Text):
I should like to try to deal summarily with the principal matters which have been raised during the discussions this afternoon. I think the first and perhaps the most important point mentioned is the increasing of the annual contribution from $1 million to $5 million. I think there has been in the minds of several members of the committee the thought that it would have been desirable to have provided a larger sum than $5 million. In that connection I should like to quote a paragraph from the report of the board of transport commissioners, which will be found on page 59 of the printed report, in which they say:
It is our considered opinion that a program of these proportions would represent the maximum amount of use of the fund grants at this time, and that any attempt initially to carry out a larger annual program would be subject to several objections:	(1) the additional financial aid from the
federal government would necessarily be applied to less urgent projects, and the value of the projects relative to other types of expenditure would be less; (2) as long as the grade crossing program remains a co-operative one-and we are strongly of the view that it should so remain- an expansion of federal grants without regard to the ability of other parties to finance their share would either cause an unwarranted strain on railway or municipal finances or leave a certain portion of the available grants unused; (3) apart from financial and economic limitations, there are also limitations of skilled labour, engineering personnel, equipment and similar items to be considered. Even on the program which we have suggested, we are not assuming an adequate supply of these factors will always be on hand.
I think that paragraph gives a very convincing reason why a larger sum than $5 million was not recommended by the board. As hon. members know, the bill, in that respect at least, embodies the recommendations of the board itself.
Another point on which I should like to touch, Mr. Chairman, is the concern expressed by the hon. member for Danforth with regard to the provision that if the uncommitted balance in the fund at the end of any year exceeds $2 million, then the appropriation for the ensuing year is to be reduced accordingly. I think if hon. members will examine the report of the board they will find that that provision was suggested by the board so that there would not be an accumulation of uncommitted funds in the

grade crossing fund. I think it will be perfectly obvious to all who think about it for a moment that if there are uncommitted funds in the grade crossing fund it will be because there are no projects before the board which it is willing to approve.
The hon. member for Regina quoted some figures with regard to the number of accidents at protected crossings and contrasted them with the number of accidents at unprotected crossings. From those figures he drew what seemed to be an unwarranted assumption that because the accident rate at protected crossings was greater than at unprotected crossings we should re-examine the whole question and lay greater emphasis on grade separations.
I think the hon. member has failed to realize that one reason why the ratio of accidents at protected crossings is higher than at unprotected crossings is that the volume of traffic is substantially higher and therefore the possibility of accident much greater.


Alfred Claude Ellis: May I point out to the minister that I mentioned specifically the fact that the accident rate was due to the greater volume of traffic.


George Carlyle Marler: Then probably we are in agreement as to the cause, although perhaps not as to the assumption or inference that ought to be drawn from these statistics. At all events I do not think there is any real difference of opinion between the hon. member and me. I think we are probably agreed that at the heavily travelled crossings it is desirable, where possible and where finances permit, to have grade separations rather than automatic or mechanical protection.
At the same time I do not think that we should overlook the fact that protection is highly important. I think the board believes that it is just as important to provide protection at level crossings, particularly where the volume of traffic is not of heavy density, as it is in the case of urban municipality crossings. I suppose that inevitably the provision of flashing lights, bells and short-arm gates will continue to be the basis of any protection program carried out by the board.
I should like to reassure hon. members, particularly those representing rural constituencies, that it is certainly not the intention of the board, if one may judge from what is said in their report, to concentrate their expenditures strictly in the urban areas and overlook the important advantages that would accrue from establishing protective devices at what I might refer to as grade crossings in rural areas.
Railway Act
A good deal of stress has been laid by hon. members on the desirability of embodying in this bill a provision for a penalty for those who disregard signs which are placed by order of the board of transport commissioners.
I should like to repeat what was said by the board because similar representations were made to it during the course of the inquiry. I should like to quote from page 69 of the report as follows:
Other suggestions, more closely allied to motor vehicle operation, including those of an educational nature respecting public observance of grade crossing signs and protective devices, compulsory speed reduction and compulsory stopping of vehicles under certain conditions, and the strict enforcement of prescribed highway safety regulations were placed before us.
These are matters not within the jurisdiction of the board but, nevertheless, they are of interest to the board and might usefully meet with the attention of the provincial committees herein elsewhere suggested, as they constitute a part of the overall problem of highway accidents concerning which there is a rapidly amounting national awareness.
As some hon. members have pointed out, when this bill was before the standing committee, counsel for Canadian National Railways suggested that an amendment be made-I think the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra gave the substance a few moments ago, if not the text, of the proposed amendment-and then suggested to the committee that if there was legislation of this nature it would be possible for the railways to prosecute persons who disregarded protective signs.
I must say that I have not been wholly convinced as to the sincerity of those statements because if there had been a desire on the part of the railways to prosecute offenders there were already several statutes on the books of several of the provinces of Canada under which prosecutions might have been laid. It was not necessary that they should prosecute solely for reckless driving. This afternoon one hon. member referred to the legislation in Saskatchewan and I had occasion the other day to refer to the legislation in Nova Scotia. Section 117 of the motor vehicle act of Nova Scotia reads:
Whenever a person driving a vehicle approaches a highway and railway grade crossing and a clearly visible or positive signal gives warning of the immediate approach of a railway engine, train or car, it shall be an offence for the driver of the vehicle to fail to stop the vehicle before traversing such grade crossing.
There is similar legislation in British Columbia. I think the fact that there is this legislation demonstrates two things. First, that if the railways desire to prosecute there is legislation available in many of the provinces under which action can be taken

Railway Act
and, secondly, the fact that this legislation has been adopted by the provincial legislatures shows that this is a subject which comes properly within the purview of provincial legislation dealing with highways. For these reasons I think the board was quite right in indicating in its report that this was a matter to be dealt with by provincial legislation and not by an amendment to the Railway Act.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred to a section of the Railway Act, I think it was section 416. I do not believe that the principle embodied in section 416 is comparable to what we are talking about. The existing provision relates to persons passing on foot across the right of way and I do not think that this is a matter of dealing with the right of way part of the highway. Clearly this is legislation which refers to the movement of vehicles on highways and it should be dealt with by the provinces.
The hon. member for Oxford spoke about a crossing in the town of Ingersoll. Perhaps that case will give me an opportunity to answer another question at the same time. 1 think the situation is simply that the correspondence which the hon. member read emanated, as I understood it, from the Canadian National Railways and representatives of the town of Ingersoll. I would think that the proper course for the town of Ingersoll to follow would be to take up the matter with the board of transport commissioners. I have made inquiry and am informed that it is not the practice of the board to make a mandatory order to force a municipality to carry out works of protection which they are unwilling or unable to do. So that, Mr. Chairman, in the case of Ingersoll, if the town authorities will communicate with the board of transport commissioners, I am sure that any representations they may make will be considered sympathetically by the board.
At the same time I should like to say just this further word. The question has been raised with regard to the constitutionality of the provision under which the board of transport commissioners may assess a portion of the cost of a grade crossing protection or a grade separation project upon a municipal corporation. It seems to me that it should not be overlooked that this is a provision that has long been in the Railway Act and I thought, if I understood the hon. member for Oxford correctly, that it had actually been the subject of a decision by the privy council which settled the question quite positively in affirming that this was legislation competent to the federal parliament. Consequently I do not think we should attach too much importance to the views of those who now seem to have some doubts on the constitutional

aspects, inasmuch as the privy council has already rendered its judgment.
I think there is perhaps one other important subject upon which I should touch, namely the question of the costs of maintenance. I should merely like to remind the committee that the recommendation of the board was that, as to future projects, a contribution towards maintenance costs up to $200 in any one case might be made. As I said earlier, during the discussion of the resolution or on the second reading of this bill, this was the only recommendation of the board which we did not feel we should accept. But as I indicated at the time, and as I think I repeated before the standing committee, if experience shows that we should reconsider this aspect of the question, we shall be glad to do it in the light of the new provisions concerning the grade crossing fund.
I should like to emphasize the fact that it is only a matter of $200. I doubt very much, particularly in the examples which have been cited today, if a contribution of $200, of which the municipal share would probably be proportionately one-half, would determine whether a municipality would or would not accept responsibility to participate in providing protection or grade separation. At all events, Mr. Chairman, I will repeat what I said before. If experience shows that this provision would fill an urgent need, we shall be glad to reconsider our decision not to recommend it to parliament at the present time.
I should also like to emphasize the fact that the principal beneficiaries from this proposal would be the railways. The individual municipality itself would not benefit by any substantial amount. The benefit would accrue principally to the railways. I think hon. members will appreciate that the other provisions of the bill afford much more substantial relief to the railways. I do not think they should complain too strongly that with respect to future projects the costs of maintenance are not going to be absorbed by the grade crossing fund, even with the limitation of $200.
I think the only other point that I should deal with is the question of priorities which was raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. As I understand it, there is no system of priorities. Each of the projects that are submitted to the board is examined on its own merits. Each is approved. There is not a long waiting list which has to be reviewed at the end of the year. The board realizes that the only way in which we can make genuine progress towards the solution of the problem is to deal with meritorious projects as they come before the board and

not to wait in order to establish a long list of priorities either as between one province and another or as between one project and another.
Mr. Chairman, there is only one final word I should like to say and it is this. I do not think anybody believes that, by voting $5 million to the grade crossing fund, we are thereby going to solve the problem of accidents at grade crossings. I think that the trouble can be ended only when the education of the public is complete and when people-drivers in particular-realize the dangers of crossing a railway without taking adequate precautions. The fact that so many accidents take place at protected crossings certainly shows that there is a need for much more care on the part of the drivers than is exercised at the present time. I suppose we shall only solve the problem ultimately when drivers generally have assumed a greater degree of care in driving their cars and when, at the busiest crossings, we are able to construct grade separations instead of protective devices.
After the full discussion we have had on this bill I hope it will now be possible to adopt it so as to enable the board of transport commissioners to make grants from the fund and to start with this larger sum of money towards making greater progress in solving the grade crossing problem.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. Would the minister care to comment on whether or not it might be recommended to the board of transport commissioners that, where you have one of these grade crossings benefiting more than one municipality directly, or as in the case of the example I cited this afternoon'-I refer to the town of Ingersoll-where the provincial highways are benefited more than the municipality, it might be possible that the expenses the municipality must pay could be allocated among more than one municipality or, in some cases, between a municipality and the provincial government.


George Carlyle Marler: I think the answer to that question will be found in the very first clause of the bill which clearly gives the board the power to order what portion of the cost is to be borne respectively by the company, any municipal or other corporation or person in respect of any order made by the board, and so on. I cannot see anything which precludes the board from ordering that the costs of a given project should be borne by one or more municipal corporations. When the benefit is going beyond the confines of a single municipality, I understand that it is their practice to discuss with the province
Canada Elections Act
concerned the possibility of provincial contribution. I think the hon. member will agree that each case must rest on its own merits and that, as I think I said in the standing committee, the wider the discretion which the board has in determining the apportionment of the cost, the more likely it is that they will be able to render substantial justice to all concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Elections Act including provision for an increase in the salary of the chief electoral officer.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.


Roch Pinard: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the resolution, which is very simple, is twofold. In the first place the resolution calls for the putting into effect of the recommendations made by the standing committee on privileges and elections which, through its chairman, tabled a report on the 29th of April. The draft bill attached to the report contains the changes in the act. I might say that none of these changes is of a very serious nature. The committee held quite a number of sittings. Recommendations were made to the committee by different departments of the government, by members of the house and by other organizations.
The second part of the resolution concerns the increase in the salary of the chief electoral officer. The bill to follow the resolution will contain provision for such increase so as to enable the chief electoral officer to receive remuneration comparable to the status of a deputy minister which he holds under the statute.


Mr. Palleii:: In rising to speak on the
resolution I do so with very limited experience of the elections act. However, I had a very enjoyable experience as a member of the standing committee on privileges and elections. I was very much impressed with the conduct and actions of the chief electoral officer. I felt the answers he gave to the

Canada Elections Act
questions asked and the presentation he made before the committee certainly indicated that he was non-partisan in his conduct so far as any matters relating to elections are concerned. With reference to the proposed increase in pay, if the man is worthy of his hire, and I certainly think he is, he is entitled to the increase suggested by the Secretary of State.
I believe the committee might have gone a little further in making recommendations, particularly so since certain sections of our country are becoming more built up and are faced with the problems of increasing population. I have some specific suggestions. The first one is that the hour of closing of the polls might be advanced to seven o'clock instead of six o'clock. I make this suggestion because in the more built-up areas where people live in one area and work in another some miles away they leave before the polls open in the morning and return after they close at night. I fully recognize the act provides that every employee must be given time off to vote by his employer, but I suggest the fact of the matter is that most employees do not take the time. Perhaps they are not aware of the provision in the act. The extension of the voting period by one hour would overcome the difficulty. The problem has already been dealt with by the province of Ontario where the hour of closing of the polls has been extended to seven o'clock to accommodate people in the suburban ridings. One might say that it is a problem of suburbia.
My second suggestion is that the advance poll might embrace a wider group of citizens, and again the province from which I come has already taken action in this regard. Contrary to the suggestions put forward by one of the government members on the committee, I suggest that voting is primarily a right and not a privilege. It may also be a privilege to vote but it goes further than that and is a right. I think the right should be extended to all persons, and if it is necessary for a person to be away from their own district on voting day for some reason I think they should have the right to vote at an advance poll. People could take advantage of the opportunity to vote. There would be no great rush of persons wanting to vote ahead of time but people who are conscientious about their duties as citizens could exercise their franchise. I make this suggestion to the Secretary of State so that an amendment may be incorporated in the act before the next election.
The act provides that there shall be a statutory day of voting, Monday. I think this matter can bear investigation. We wish everyone to have the opportunity to vote.

We want them to be able to consider carefully the candidates for whom they are voting, and we must also recognize that women are taking a more important place in the affairs and life of the country. All of us no doubt have worked on election days and we know what happens when you call for a person to take them to vote and they are in the middle of doing a washing. They rush out, perhaps vote rather hurriedly, and rush back again. By fixing a statutory day we are perhaps losing the vote of some women who are busily occupied on Monday which, after all, is washday. I suggest that the removal of the provision fixing Monday as election day might be considered in order that the act might be more flexible.
Again, the custom is developing throughout the country of people taking long week ends. Maybe they return on Monday morning and they want to go to work immediately. They do not have the opportunity to properly assess the situation on a Monday. If elections were held on some other day than Monday I suggest to the Secretary of State that probably a greater percentage of voters would go to the polls.
I also suggest there should be some provision in the act to prohibit the holding of elections in the months of July and August. Many people are not at home at election time in the holiday months, and it is too much to ask people who work hard 50 weeks of the year to deny themselves the right to their holidays. While the franchise is dear to us, nevertheless it is asking a little too much of people to expect them to return from their holidays to vote. I suggest the Secretary of State might consider that matter with a view to changing the legislation.
I do not know how my next suggestion could be incorporated in our present voting system. The matter would perhaps require considerable study. At the present time representation in the house is not in any way in accordance with the popular vote. In the 1953 election the government members received 2,819,813 votes out of a total of 5,701,963, or less than half the popular vote. The fact that they received less than half the popular vote is not represented in any way by the number of seats they hold in the house. They have a quite extraordinary majority of seats which they won with less than half the popular vote. I am not suggesting the answer. I merely point out the situation to the house and the country as a whole. The fact is that the people who are governing the country and who have such a vast majority of seats actually received less than half of the votes cast by the people

who voted at the last election. I would suggest that to the minister for any consideration he wishes to give it. With these remarks, and with the added support and commendation of the electoral officer I mentioned at the outset, I conclude.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like first of all, Mr. Chairman, to join with the Secretary of State and the hon. member for Peel in the tribute all of us are happy to pay to the fairness and efficiency with which the chief electoral officer, Mr. Nelson Castonguay, carries out his duties. I am sure we all agree with the Secretary of State that, having voiced these tributes so often, it is good to have the opportunity to express these tributes in the more concrete form which has been suggested by the Secretary of State.
As had been pointed out the purpose of this resolution is to forecast the introduction of a bill, which I take it will be substantially along the lines of the draft bill recommended by the committee on privileges and elections. That draft bill can be found in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, April 29,	1955.
Although the draft bill is rather voluminous, containing some 90 pages or more, we all recognize that for the most part it involves technical changes. Indeed, to a large extent they are changes that have been suggested by the chief electoral officer as a result of his experience with the general election of 1953. In so far as there are any changes of substance involved in this proposed legislation, we have the knowledge that they were worked out and agreed to by the members of the standing committee on privileges and elections.
Other members have made or no doubt will make suggestions as to additional improvements which should be made in the Canada Elections Act at this time. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come when our federal law respecting elections, the Canada Elections Act, should be tightened up with regard to election expenses and particularly with regard to the reporting of election expenses. I am aware of the fact that this subject is touched upon slightly in the draft bill, but only slightly. There is a suggestion in the draft bill that the amount of money a candidate himself may expend in the course of an election, which at the moment is fixed at $1,000, be fixed at a limit of $2,000. This change is to be made in section 62 of the Canada Elections Act.
I regret that, as yet, we have not heard that there is to be any change in section 63 or any of the other sections relating to election expenses and the reporting of those
Canada Elections Act
expenses after the election is over. As hon. members are aware, in 1949 there was before this house a bill which was introduced by the hon. member for Quebec South. This bill dealt with the whole question and suggested, in concrete and specific form, changes that would tighten up the election act with regard to election expenses. As most members are aware, I made a suggestion to him the other day that he might consider reintroducing that bill at this session. I hope he will give serious consideration to that suggestion. The bill was based on the lengthy experience he has had, and it arose out of legislation that was considered at a time when he was a member of the cabinet. It seemed to me that the hon. member for Quebec South had some very useful suggestions in that bill introduced in the first session of 1949.
I would remind the Secretary of State and the members of the house generally, that that bill seemed to meet with general approval in 1949. In fact, it not only passed first reading in the usual perfunctory manner but it passed second reading with just as much speed. There was no discussion at all. After that, it went through the committee of the whole in about a minute or two if one can judge from looking at Hansard. However, for reasons that were not given, it was not proceeded with any further at the 1949 session.
What is the situation at the moment with respect to the reporting of election expenses? The Canada Elections Act. says that all candidates in a federal election must, on their own behalf and through their official agents, report their election expenses. There are forms on which this is to be done, and it is supposed to be done within two months after the candidate in each constituency has been declared elected. Despite that fact I have in my hand sessional paper No. 3-C, which was tabled on Wednesday, January 13, 1954, in reply to certain questions which I placed on the order paper. It indicates that at that date there were 133 candidates in the general election of August 10, 1953, who had not yet filed their election returns as at January 13, 1954.
May I make it clear that these 133 did not include any elected members. It appears that all the members who were elected on August 10, 1953, took the precaution to obey the law and see to it that their election expenses were reported within the proper time. But there were 133 defeated candidates who did not bother to meet that provision; at least they had not done so by January 13, 1954. I find that nothing was done about this illegal practice. I use that word advisedly because, according to one of the sections in

Canada Elections Act
the act, section 63, subsection 8, it is an illegal practice to fail to carry out the requirement that election expense returns be filed.
I notice also that according to a certain subsection of section 81, which can be found on pages 229 and 230 of the green book entitled "General Election Instructions for Returning Officers", there are certain penalties to be applied to those who commit corrupt practices or illegal practices. Let me make it clear that the failure to turn in one's election expense return is not listed as a corrupt practice but rather as an illegal practice. The maximum penalty for an illegal practice, as set out in section 81 is that such person, during the five years next after the date of his being so reported, convicted, ordered or found guilty, shall be incapable of being elected to or of sitting in the House of Commons or of voting at any election of a member of that house or of holding any office in the nomination of the crown or of the governor in council.
Now, it is one of my complaints that although there are these 133 persons who committed an illegal act in that they did not file their expense returns nothing has been done about it. Apparently it is difficult to impose this penalty on them, to deny them the right to run again within five years, or to vote at any election within five years, because certain technicalities have not been carried out. They would have to be reported in a document to Mr. Speaker, and it would have to be indicated that they had been heard on their own behalf; and it would have to be declared that they were persons who should be expressly disqualified, as therein provided.
But it just so happens that, although these 133 persons were not reported directly to Mr. Speaker, in the terms set out in the act, they were reported to the House of Commons in sessional paper 3-C which was tabled on Wednesday, January 13, 1954. And I find that among these 133 persons there are some whose names are known to certain people. For instance, there is a gentleman named Mr. O'Reilly who was the Liberal candidate in Hamilton West. There is Mr. Montgomery who was the Liberal candidate in Lanark. There is the name of Mr. Roland Angers who was the Liberal candidate in Chicoutimi, and that of Mr. Henri Courtemanche who was the Progressive Conservative candidate in Labelle. There is the name of Mr. Eric Wilfred Balcom, not the hon. member for Halifax who sits in this House of Commons, but who, I understand, is a relative of that hon. member, and who was the Liberal candidate in the constituency of Digby-Annapolis-Kings.

There is the name of Mr. Leonard Francis Hodgson-just to pick a name at random- who was the Social Credit candidate in the constituency of Nanaimo; and there is Mr. Patrick Sheehan O'Dwyer who was the Liberal candidate in Yorkton. There is the name of Mr. George Black, the Progressive candidate in the constituency of Yukon. And there are other names to a total of 133 persons reported to the House of Commons, but not technically reported to Mr. Speaker.
May I say another word about this information that was reported to the house.


William Alfred Robinson: I wonder if the hon. member would assist me. The resolution is in very general terms, but I understand the changes have been considered in the committee. I have been leafing through the bill and have not yet found any reference to the matter the hon. member is discussing. I wonder if he would help me in that respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be glad to help you, Mr. Chairman, in two ways. First of all I would point out that the hon. member who preceded me was permitted to make suggestions as to changes which should be made at this time in the Canada Elections Act, when it is being amended. Like him, I am making suggestions as to changes which should be made. I think as a matter of fact I am a little closer to the proposed legislation than was the hon. member who preceded me, because there is in the draft bill-which I admit is not before us, but to which reference has been made-at least one change in the matter of election expenses.
I am suggesting that we should act further at this time in the matter of election expenses, and with respect to the reporting of such expenses, so far as our federal legislation is concerned. And if Your Honour is looking for the reference, I suggest that it occurs in the draft bill where reference is made to section 62 of the act.


William Alfred Robinson: I have noted the clause in the bill, but I find that it deals with the subject of personal expenses of a candidate. It does not deal with the matter of reporting those expenses at some later time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the expenses of the candidate is one of the items required to be reported. But even if it were not there at all, I suggest that what I am doing is on all fours with what was done by the hon. member who preceded me, and what was done by hon. members who spoke on the last item of legislation before us, when suggestions were made as to other matters that should be dealt with when legislation is before us.

Canada Elections Act
I am urging that at this time the whole matter of the way in which the act spells out how election expenses should be reported should be tightened up. As all members are aware, at the present time even the document to which I have been referring would not come normally to the table of the House of Commons. Under the Canada Elections Act as it now stands we are required merely to report our election expenses to the returning officer in the local constituency. He is required to retain that document in his possession for a period of six months. During that period of six months anyone can go and look at the document simply by paying to the returning officer a fee of 20 cents. At the end of six months he either destroys the document or returns it to the candidate or the official agent.
So far as the law is concerned, election expense returns are never sent to any central place. They are never scrutinized by the chief electoral officer or by any other officer or authority of any kind to determine whether or not the law has been complied with by those filing the returns. I remember one occasion some years ago when I was a defeated candidate going to the returning officer in the constituency and asking to see the return of the hon. gentleman who had defeated me. This was at a time when it cost 10 cents, not 20. I put down the 10 cents and the returning officer got out his receipt book, preparing to make out a receipt. But then he said, "Oh, I am not going to take 10 cents from you. I have been a returning officer for 20 years, and this is the first time anyone has ever asked to see one of these returns".
I recite that incident only to point out how little attention is paid to these election expenses returns, because they simply stay with the local returning officer for a period of six months, at the end of which time they are either returned to the candidate or they are destroyed.
The hon. member for Quebec South made a suggestion in his bill, which came before us in 1949, which was to the effect that these returns should be sent to the chief electoral officer, and that he should have certain authority to check through them and to report to the Speaker of the House of Commons in those instances where anything was irregular or where returns have not been made according to law.
The only reason we have had after the last two elections documents of the kind to which I have been referring is because I happened to put questions on the order paper. As a result of that the chief electoral officer sent out a letter to all the returning officers
asking them to send in such information as they had, so that he could compile this return for the House of Commons.
It is my view that there ought to be some more adequate machinery for checking these returns, to make absolutely sure that the law is complied with right down the line. In recent weeks, and particularly in recent days, there have been many stories and comments in the press about election expenses. Some of these have been on the beam, some have been cynical and some, I think, have been quite unfair, particularly to those who try to obey the law. However, not only do we as members of parliament, and those who ran against us but who were not elected, have a stake in this, but I think the whole country, with its interest in democracy, has a stake in this whole question of election expenses being put on a much more satisfactory basis than they are at the present time.
As Your Honour pointed out a moment ago, a slight change is being made by the bill which it is expected will be founded upon this resolution. But I do not believe that change helps the situation at all. As I understand it at the present time there is no limit on the amount of money that can be spent in an election campaign. The only place where a limit is imposed is that the candidate himself must not, personally, spend directly more than $1,000. But if he wants to contribute $2,000 or $100,000 to the campaign, he can do so. But at the present time any amount that he wants to contribute in excess of $1,000 must be turned over to his official agent, and the official agent must pay the bills. The only change being made is that the amount that the candidate can spend personally is being raised from $1,000 to $2,000. I doubt if many members in this house are interested in that change; we do not spend that kind of money personally. But it raises the whole question, Mr. Chairman, as to whether there should not be some limit on the total amount that can be expended in an election campaign and indeed whether there should not be some restriction on the sources from which contributions could be received.
This latter question has been dealt with in legislation in years gone by, which was abolished. The former question, namely, placing a limit as to the amount that can be expended in any campaign, was the subject matter of Bill No. 7 introduced by the hon. member for Quebec South in 1949.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, all of us have a stake in this question. All candidates at election time, whether they are elected or defeated, have a stake in it. The country as a whole, with its concern for democracy, has

Canada Elections Act a stake in this matter being made more satisfactory than it is at the present time. I urge very strongly that consideration be given to this matter and I would like to see the government introduce legislation along these lines.
Even if the matter was not discussed at the meetings of the committee on privileges and elections, and even if this bill goes through, the government could have that committee meet again at this session or next session to see if something could not be done about this matter, or possibly the hon. member for Quebec South might reintroduce his bill, to give the house a chance to show its support for it, as we did in 1949. In any case, all members will recognize that the time is ripe -indeed I urge that the time has come-for action on this important question of election expenses.


Mr. Poulioi:: Before the resolution is carried I have a few remarks to make. The first remark I intend to make is that this bill has been studied by a parliamentary committee of this house, and the members of the committee took care to scrutinize all the proposed amendments contained in the report which was published on April 29 in the Votes and Proceedings.
I was very pleased to listen to the hon. member for Peel. I am sure that he will follow the traditions of his predecessor who who was an excellent member and very popular with his colleagues.
With regard to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I always listen to him with the deepest interest. He made some interesting suggestions today, but as one who has taken part in more elections than he has, and is perhaps not so insistent on the formalities, I shall tell him what is my experience with regard to reports of election expenses. In the first place, he suggested that the amount to be spent in an election should be curtailed or limited. It cannot be done because sometimes election expenses run pretty high, and there is nothing to hide. At the present time the system which has been in force for a long time is excellent. What is being done? There is an election agent who makes his report. There is the member who makes a report of his expenses, and the whole thing is left with the returning officer for six months. Anyone has the opportunity to go to the returning officer, who is well-known in the community, and examine the reports. If they do not, it is because they are satisfied with the way in which the election has been carried on. It is obvious. I will tell that to my hon. friend. Instead of blaming the constituents when nobody goes to
IMr. Knowles.]

the returning officer to check the report, he should realize that it is because everybody in the constituency is satisfied with the way in which the election has been carried on by the candidate. This is my experience; not only my experience but also that of my opponents. I do not know where they got their funds. One made a report, the other one did not. Where did he get his funds? I do not know. I won the election. I did not bother about the poor fellow; I left him to cry about his defeat.
We must be generous in such circumstances. I made my report. The report was published in the press, according to law, and it was left with the returning officer for six months. One of my opponents made a report which I looked at, but which I did not check. The other one did not make a report. If I had complained about it to the returning officer everybody would have thought me mean. They would have said, he has won his election and he is making a martyr of the poor fellow who was defeated. I submit these considerations to my hon. friend. He will understand them very well.
I tell him that even if quite a lot of money was spent on an election the election may have been conducted honestly. For instance, take loud speakers. How much do they cost? They cost on an average $750 for an election. It is an honest expenditure, but it runs pretty high. The cost of radio is pretty high. It is $15 for 15 minutes at the smallest stations. In larger stations it may run up to $60 for a quarter of an hour. It is a lot of money. Then there is the literature. There is no frank during an election. You have to pay for the stamps; you have to pay for the errands; you have to pay for all of that. It is all legitimate expenditures.
I am greatly surprised that the committee has not authorized the candidates to rent cars on election day. There would be nothing immoral or unethical in sending a car for somebody or paying for it. At the present time we have to beg our friends for cars or ask them to pay for a taxi driver. It makes no sense. If the friends of a candidate contribute toward his election there is no reason why he should not hire cars on election day to make it easier for the electors. There is nothing wrong in it. In my experience it is just to be nice, because very often when a taxi is sent to bring someone to vote and the elector asks who is sending the taxi and you say "so and so", sometimes he laughs and votes for the other side. Who can control the vote of one who goes to the polling booth in a limousine or in a Ford car? Sometimes electors want to ride in a nice car. I think that is only proper because that is the day when they are masters of the situation. It

is only natural that they should want to be well taken care of. Why should we be hypocrites and say that no member pays anything to provide driving accommodation so that the electors may vote? There is nothing wrong in that. It is not purchasing votes; it is not infringing upon their liberties; it is simply giving them a chance to observe the law with the least effort. I do not see anything wrong about it and I am sorry the law does not take this into consideration. There is something much more serious than what the hon. gentleman has said, and I say that in the friendliest way.
As a rule elections are carried on honestly. I believe that all members of parliament representing all groups have been elected honestly according to the constitution and the practices of the country which have existed for so long. I say that, not only about hon. members on this side of the house but about all my colleagues.
What I think is more important is the way in which the right to vote is granted and to whom. The committee did an excellent job when it refused to accept the proposal by an employee of the Department of External Affairs that all the employees of that department located outside of Canada should have the right to vote. The right to vote is important and in this I am in accord with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that it should be given only to those who will use that right within the boundaries of the country.
I stated before the committee that the right to vote which was given to our soldiers was a privilege. That right which was given to members of the forces stationed outside of Canada was something out of the ordinary, it was a tremendous privilege. Why should we grant it to civil servants or to the wives of soldiers stationed outside of Canada? It is enough to give it to the soldiers without giving it to their wives, who most of the time know nothing about the business of the country.
They could be asked, who is the Prime Minister of Canada, who is the Leader of the Opposition, who is the Minister of National Defence and they would be unable to answer. Yet they are to be qualified to vote. Many of them have never been in Canada and yet they would be qualified to express their opinions about Tom who is a Liberal candidate, Jim who is a Conservative candidate, Paul who is a C.C.F. candidate, and another gentleman who is a Social Crediter.
Canada Elections Act
What do they know about it? Simply because this tremendous privilege is given to members of our armed forces does not mean that the same privilege should be given to their wives who are not familiar with Canadian politics. There should be an end to that. The committee did a splendid thing when it refused the suggestion of the representative of the Department of External Affairs to grant the same right to members of that department who were stationed outside of Canada.
When I saw the judge advocate general and this gentleman from the Department of External Affairs appear before the committee I felt that what they wanted was a Cook's tour around the world to visit all places where soldiers were stationed or where members of that department were to be found. I was surprised to hear from the chief electoral officer that only one-third of the soldiers actually vote. Why give the vote to their wives? The committee said "no" when the gentleman from the Department of External Affairs made his fine suggestion.
What scandalized me was that when I told him he was not well enough prepared to appear before the committee one of the members of the committee was shocked. He could not understand that I should say that a civil servant was not well enough prepared to appear before the committee and give the information asked for. He had worked on this proposal for two years but he was unsuccessful and he will not have his Cook's tour. But the judge advocate general will have his Cook's tour as the opportunity to vote is to be given to the wives of soldiers. In the one case it was refused, in the other case it was granted. I do not see why the judge advocate general should be granted this Cook's tour.
The best way to have an honest election is to teach people how to vote. The proportion of those who vote will then be much larger. There are some reasons why people do not vote. They may be sick, they may have to be away. It is better to have a smaller number of voters who vote right in Canada than to have a larger number who vote by power of attorney or by correspondence. How can it be checked?
These are considerations that I leave with the committee of the whole. I congratulate the minister upon the way he left the committee free to decide by itself what it thought was the best thing to do. I join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in what he said about Mr. Oastonguay. He was most informative when before the committee

Canada Elections Act
and was always ready to answer. He deserves this increase in salary which is being provided.
I can remember when his father received only $4,000 for doing all this work at a time when a son of a former prime minister received $10,000 for doing nothing. I was the one who protested and I succeeded in having the salary of the father increased. I am glad that the son is following in the traditions of his father.
I can tell my hon. friend that from my long experience I can say that I have not seen anything wrong in the way elections have been carried out, and hon. members who sit here as well as those who sat in the
ten previous parliaments have nothing to be ashamed of for having been elected to the parliament of Canada.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the estimates of the Department of Labour, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Agriculture. That will be the order of business for Friday should they not be disposed of tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 19. 1955