1955-06-14

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Again?


George Alexander Drew: Yes, again, as one hon. member opposite comments. A few days ago I raised a question about an announcement being given to the press with regard to a most important matter affecting all hon. members of this house and their responsibilities as members, and also indicating that it was a departure from the practice adopted only the day before by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) when he did announce in this house certain important changes. I am not proposing to discuss the merits or otherwise of the proposal then made that this should stand until the estimates of the Department of National Defence were under consideration.
Yesterday it was announced that the estimates of the Department of National Defence would be discussed on Thursday, the day after tomorrow, and this morning all of us who have read the press have seen a statement issued by an unnamed official of the Department of National Defence discussing in detail a subject which the government has refused to discuss here. I would point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) did not welcome the suggestion that this should have been discussed here at that time. Here this morning is not some casual comment by any member of the press but a report by the Canadian Press giving in quotes a statement issued yesterday by an official of the Department of National Defence in regard to General Simonds' retirement.
If a statement was to be made by the Department of National Defence, as members of this house we had the right to know it and we have the right to know who the official was who gave this statement which is given in quotes in the press today. I would hope that the Prime Minister would also tell us whether that official spoke with the 50433-300
authority of the government, as well as giving us the name of the official who has placed on record a statement which was obviously intended to affect the course of the discussion on Thursday when the estimates of the department come before us.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member ascertains who the official is, I shall be glad if he will let me know. I do not know. I did not know that the statement was going to be made, and I deprecate these statements attributed to high officials or to official or semi-official sources without disclosing the identity of the one who is communicating the information. I do not think that is a proper course to be followed, and it seems to me that the newspapers themselves would be better advised if they did not take the responsibility of reporting disclosures of that kind when the person making the disclosure is not willing to disclose his own identity. Now, I cannot add any more. I do not think these statements should be made. Had I heard that one was proposed, I would have discussed it with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and I am sure we would have agreed that it should not be made. I was curious, as was the hon. gentleman, to know who had made such a statement, and I shall endeavour to find out. If I do, I shall inform the hon. gentleman; and 1 hope that, if he finds out who made it, he will inform me.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out, of course, that I have not the same facilities as the Prime Minister to get that information, but I would also point out to the Prime Minister, in case he is not aware of it, that this was issued in the form of a statement handed to the press.


Mr. Pickersgill:: How do you know?


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister will be able to ascertain very easily who did that. I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that he deprecates this practice. The Prime Minister has already indicated that it disturbed him, as it disturbed me, as there is a definite attempt to affect the course of the discussion on Thursday.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was one other matter the hon. gentleman mentioned, that just the day before the announcement was made of the retirement, at some time in the future,

Tariff Negotiations
of the chief of staff, there had been a statement made in the house about another officer. The hon. gentleman will remember that this statement was made in response to a question that had been put, I think, on the Friday, and the minister had promised to make it. The hon. Leader of the Opposition himself asked me for a statement about it. My reply was that the Minister of National Defence and I had discussed it and that the Minister of National Defence was going to make a statement. Whenever we are asked for information, we do our best to supply it, but it has not been the practice to announce in the house the appointments of deputy ministers, though they are made by order in council. It has not been the practice to make announcements in the house of changes in command in the defence department, but whenever there is any question asked about them we endeavour to supply full information.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, 1 would point out that I had asked for that information, and it was because I had asked in the house for the information that I was surprised to see a statement appearing in such detail in the press this morning. I understand that it is not in nearly as complete detail as the statement which was actually handed out. Since the Prime Minister has indicated his desire to answer questions, at this time I am asking the question as to who the official is that issued this statement to the press, and under whose authority.



TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS AT GENEVA-TABLING OF DOCUMENT SHOWING CONCESSIONS

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members I wish to make an announcement about some tariff negotiations which have recently been concluded in Geneva. These negotiations have been carried out under three headings, first, for the accession of Japan to the general agreement on tariffs and trade, second, to give effect to the desire of some other countries to renegotiate certain increases in tariff rates bound under the general agreement; and third, to renegotiate increases in certain Canadian tariff rates which are bound to other countries under the agreement.
I am tabling a document showing the concessions on both sides and the withdrawal of earlier concessions resulting from negotiations. This shows the concessions to the exchange by Canada with Japan and the United States. It also sets forth the compensation given by the United States for the

withdrawal of the concession on flshsticks. My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) announced on June 2 changes in the Canadian tariff resulting from the renegotiation of two items which had been bound by Canada. In order to give a complete picture these are also mentioned in this document which I am about to table. The results of our tariff negotiations with Japan, and some related negotiations with the United States, will not become effective before the end of the summer. In general, the changes involved are not very extensive from our point of view. With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the document which I now table be published as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable to the proposal of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of document referred to, see appendix, pages 4808-09.



SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to present the second report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house, in both English and French.
The report of the special committee on procedure which I have just tabled contains quite a number of minor changes in the rules and the practice of the house. It also contains several quite important changes in the rules. In order that hon. members may have a ready reference to what has been recommended, perhaps a short statement might be useful.
1.	It is recommended that the house sit on Friday mornings from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and adjourn at 6 p.m. Otherwise, the hours of sitting remain the same and the weekly working hours are the same as at present.
2.	There is a new provision for the answering of starred questions on Wednesdays, namely, it is proposed to devote up to one hour on Wednesdays to answering questions orally. Questions may also be answered in writing; and returns and other papers tabled as at present, except that they are to be deposited with the Clerk and they will be shown as at present in the Hansard or Votes and Proceedings.
3.	The principal changes consist of restricting the length of speeches in committee to 30 minutes; and restrictions on the debate on

the address in reply to the speech from the throne; the debate on the motion to go into committee of supply and of ways and means; and on private members' days.
4.	The debate on the address is limited to 10 days, with provision made for voting on subamendments and amendments on the sixth and ninth days.
5.	Six motions to go into committee of supply are to be made on Mondays and the debate is limited to the two days of Monday and Tuesday, with provision for voting on amendments not later than 8.15 p.m. on the second day. However, if the full two days be not taken on any motion, there is provision for adding the unused time to subsequent motions. The Speaker shall leave the chair without question put for the purpose of going into committee of supply on Wednesdays as well as on Thursdays and Fridays as at present.
6.	The budget debate is limited to eight days, with provision for voting on the subamendment and the amendment on the fifth and seventh days; on all other motions when going into committee of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without question put.
7.	Private members' days are limited to the first six Mondays and the first two Thursdays after the conclusion of the debate on the address, but any of these Mondays may be used for a supply motion; and if so used, the private members' days will be deferred.
As I have said, there are a number of incidental changes both in rules and practice, having in mind that this is the first revision of the rules of any consequence in many years.
I should like to advise the house that this report is unanimous. I think I may say that the report is the product of hard work on the part of members of the committee. Special credit is due to the members of the subcommittee consisting of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), assisted by the Clerk and the second clerk assistant.
I beg leave to advise further that all members of the committee feel that the report ought to commend itself to the house.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: move:
That the second report of the special committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the procedure of this house, presented this day, be now referred to the committee of the whole for consideration at the next sitting of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hansard Index

Walter Edward Harris: That the report of the civil service commission respecting the organization of the staff of the House of Commons, laid on the table of the house on Friday, June 10, be now approved.


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


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Before it is adopted, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if the person who has been in charge of the index for some time will be the head of the body of people who will look after the index. I have no grudge against anybody but, as I have said before, I remember the time when we received an unbound copy of the index for the whole session 15 days after prorogation or 15 days after the house had adjourned for a long period of time. While your predecessor performed your functions, Mr. Speaker, I made many protests about the lateness of the delivery of the Hansard index to the members. I had the vocal support of some members, and finally, after numerous protests, we received a copy of the index. If it was done right for a number of years under a different staff, there is no reason now for such a delay. I wonder what improvements there will be in the organization so far as the making and delivery of the index to Hansard is concerned.
I took the trouble to telephone the printing bureau, and I was told it was not the fault of the printing bureau that there was delay in receiving the index but it was because they had not received the copy on time. The work must be done daily and members should have the opportunity to consult the index daily. The work was done by two ladies in the first place and was done very well. I remember that when I needed information about the date of a speech or the date of an answer to any question I could go to the Hansard office and get that information at once. Naturally the cards could not be taken out of the office but we were able to examine all the cards there and find the information right away. The work was well done. I hope that under the new arrangement the work will also be well done.
With regard to research, I am not strong for that for the very good reason that I have done my own research and my parliamentary work for 31 years without the assistance of any bureaucrats and any people with long hair and big goggles. I have done my work myself. If there are new members who come

Hansard Index
in and who want to make extensive research they have only to go to the library where the staff is most competent and most obliging. They have been most helpful to me, even under most difficult circumstances. At the moment they have only part of the books in this building that belong to the parliamentary library. They get them from the supreme court library and they give them to us. They are most helpful. I have never heard any complaint from anyone in the library when I asked them to find some reference book for me.
What can happen under the new system? We will have the intelligentsia preparing members' speeches. We will have doctors of philosophy, Ph.D.'s, etc., etc., preparing fine speeches like the ones we have heard from the opposition on the Defence Production Act. There will be quotations from all sources, unknown to the majority of people and interesting no one. They will quote Cripps, Morrison and everyone; there will be no end to it. This suggestion, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to interrupt the hon. member to inform him that he is under a misapprehension. There is no intention, nor is it part of the work contemplated to be done by this branch, that speeches will be prepared for hon. members. The only help that will be given will be to help hon. members find quotations in Hansard, and to prepare the index.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, sir, for the information.


George Alexander Drew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I have no desire to interrupt the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) whose observations from long experience are always valuable and interesting, but are we to understand that a debate now takes place on the motion? My understanding was that the debate is deferred. If one hon. member is going to conduct a debate at the moment, then of course that would precipitate a debate which I thought was going to take place on another occasion.


Walter Edward Harris: I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) is confusing the motion with the motion concerning the rules. This is a motion with respect to the reorganization of the staff of the house as a consequence of a report of the civil service commission.
May I just answer at this moment questions which have already been asked by the hon. member for Temiscouata. His protests on many matters have often borne fruit. One of the purposes of this motion is to provide for a reorganization of the staff so that the
[Mr. Pouliot.l
index work may be done more quickly and be of more value to hon. members. That is the sole purpose of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister for what he has said. I want to bring to your attention, sir, that if we have a competent staff to prepare an index that is understandable and that is complete, there will be no use in anyone conducting research to tell a member how to use the index. Anyone who is elected to the House of Commons is supposed to be intelligent enough, even if he is not a graduate of any university, to know how to use an index and how to use a reference book.
We have reference books here, and the first one is the Parliamentary Guide which is supplied to all members. It is up to date, and it is a very useful book. It gives us an opportunity of knowing all about the accomplishments of each one of us. We know all sorts of interesting things, the things that members think most important to write in their autobiography. Our autobiography is like a conversation with a member. It tells about his wife and his children, where he was born, where he has been to school, how long he has been mayor of his community and so on. It is a book that is easy to look at.
And there is another document which is very important, and that is the plan of the house, because it indicates the constituency for which each member sits. Then, if you have the parliamentary guide and the plan of the house you know that Mr. So-and-So, in the background, Mr. John Doe, is the distinguished member for this constituency, of this province in Canada. You have the Parliamentary Guide and you know all about his accomplishments about which you want to be informed. The same applies to the senators and high civil servants.
Then, there is Votes and Proceedings which tells us about the accomplishments of the house on the preceding day. Then we also have Orders of the Day, which are the agenda of the present sitting day. How many members read it, I do not know. But they are made available to us, and are graciously put on our desks.
Then there is Hansard. Hansard is a confused mass of statements that are impossible to find unless there is a good index, and that is why I appreciate the index very much.
Then there are other books which are read by no one, but which are most interesting. Sometimes I read them, because I am quite sadistic in that I read books no one else reads. Then there are departmental reports, thick books. I presume anyone who knows how

to read and write can see those books and find out what he wants to know about any department of government.
And there are the Public Accounts, which complete the reports of the departments; because in the reports of the departments the names of civil servants are not mentioned, and the numbers of positions are not mentioned. We find that information in the public accounts. That library is at the disposition of all of us, and it is in both languages. Those who do not know English may use the French copy, and those who do not know French may use the English; and then everybody can be happy.
It is the finest organization. No company, no other organization has it. What is the use of having research people to embarrass members by putting wrong ideas in their heads, and making them false doctors, a lot of them. Imagine what the house will be like when we have doctors in the house, doctors in all sorts of sciences, who would prepare speeches. It is done, actually, to a certain extent. But imagine what it would be like if each member were supplied with someone who would take him by the hand, just the same as Virgil took Dante to visit the inferno.
Well, sir, I am all for the simple life. I am for simplicity in dealing with my fellow members. When I have something to say to a member, I ask him. Even if his autobiography is not complete, I will write to him to ask him on what precise day he was born.
I shall not insist any more upon it. But I do not believe in the streamlining of parliament and in the rationalization of parliament. We have lived together quite happily for a long time without all these frills and I hope that we will become more simple-mannered and use the old ways of discussion. By the way, I want to congratulate all hon. members upon having done so well and I do not see how they can do any better with the assistance of Ph.D's, beards, long hair and black goggles.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to add just a
brief word. I am glad to support the motion for the adoption of this report. Like other hon. members I welcome any improvements that are being made which may make it possible for us to receive the index to Hansard sooner than has been our experience of late. However, in view of the implied criticism there is in that remark, both when it was made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and in my repeating it, my
Private Bills
purpose in rising at this time is because I think there should also be on the record a word of high commendation for the thorough job which has been done in recent years by those responsible for the index. I share the regret that it has taken so long for us to get it and I am glad to know that as a result of these improvements we will get the index sooner. But like other hon. members, I frequently consult the index to Hansard across the years, and I want to say that the last index, even though we had to wait for it, is the most thorough job of indexing to Hansard of the House of Commons I have yet seen.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 454, to incorporate Canadian Premier Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Mc-Ilraith.
Bill No. 455, for the relief of Marian Douglas Jodrey Wallace.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 456, for the relief of Elie Cha-botar.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 457, for the relief of Evelyn Robert Hurst Watson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 458, for the relief of Sidney Robert Allen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 459, for the relief of Cecil Brooks. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 460, for the relief of Jeanne Jacqueline Content Brown.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 461, for the relief of Eugene Theodore Mantha.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 462, for the relief of Marilyn Irene Darner Brophey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 463, for the relief of Dorothea Josephine Forbes Chaffey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 464, for the relief of Violet Ruby Baxter Williamson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 465, for the relief of Nicole Emile Dardano.- -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 466, for the relief of Ruth Steir-man Levine.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 467, for the relief of Pearl Raicek Rutwind.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 468, for the relief of Lorraine Bennet Favreau Williams.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 469, for the relief of Robert Irvin Morrow.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 470, for the relief of Phyllis Lilian Buck Beatty.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 471, for the relief of Barbara Louise Bartlett Broadbent.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 472, for the relief of Ronald Eli-kum Bessey.-Mr. Hunter.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Bill No. 473, for the relief of Margaret Francis Kennedy Bailie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 474, for the relief of Anna Cibula Reynolds.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 475, for the relief of Mary McKinnon McEachran Coolon.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 476, for the relief of Joseph Ar-mand Jacques Phaneuf.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 477, for the relief of Julia Hut Lutterman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 478, for the relief of Evelina Dixon Taylor.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 479, for the relief of Frances Marguerite Beaudin Karibian.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 480, for the relief of Claude Fer-ron.-Mr. Hunter.


[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. Would the minister care to comment on the report that information regarding atomic energy reactors is to be released from the security list and can he say in particular in what way this will expedite the use of atomic energy in Canada for peaceful purposes?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will be making a statement on this matter within the next two or three days.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Battlefords):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has a decision been arrived at with respect to sending Bill No. 449 to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and, if so, will an opportunity be given to the Canadian Trucking Association to appear before that committee?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: The matter is still under consideration.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of Bill No. 328, respecting unemployment insurance.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, this bill has had exhaustive consideration by the standing committee on industrial relations and also by the committee of the whole on Friday last. On both occasions members of this group indicated their disapproval of some half dozen amendments which are being made to the act, meanwhile agreeing in general with the provisions set out in Bill No. 328. However, having attempted on several occasions to have the bill amended in various ways and having met with little success in any of our suggestions we now arrive at the third reading of this bill after which in effect it will become the new Unemployment Insurance Act.
I think it would be well if all hon. members of the house were to consider the basis of the fund administered by the commission under the authority of the Department of Labour and to consider for a moment that in the main this fund is built up through contributions by employers and employees. True, there are also contributions from the tax revenues of this land; but generally speaking about 85 per cent of the money in the fund is placed there through contributions by workers of this country and the employers who give them work.
The one requirement of Bill No. 328 to which we took the most objection was the reduction of the maximum benefit period from 51 to 30 weeks. In considering this bill it was brought out by the government and by the government supporters that the bill comes into effect on October 2. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is not a measure about which there is any great urgency. The government, by its own wish, has deferred the effective date until the autumn of this year, presumably so that it will be in plenty of time for whatever may occur in the coming winter season.
It is also provided in the bill, with particular respect to this section to which we have taken exception, that there shall be a transitional period of some three years, during which time those workers who have built up by their contributions a sizeable fund will not suffer by reason of the reduction to the 30-week period, a period which has now of course been extended to 36 weeks after the representations which were made by the members of the committee and by members of this house. I think we might very well ask ourselves why it was considered necessary to reduce these benefits to 30 weeks and now to 36 weeks. It should not have been because of the drain on the fund, although in the introductory remarks which the minister made and which were repeated on different occasions there was reference

to a drain on the fund. But I would point out that the actuary's own figures do not indicate that any such drain is anticipated. As a matter of fact, I quoted figures when we were considering this bill in committee of the whole on June 10. At that time, having pointed out the figures which I had taken from the report of the actuary, I made this observation, which I should like to repeat. This is on page 4626 and 4627 of Hansard of June 10, 1955:
It is my opinion that after these new provisions have been in effect for a year the fund will be even healthier than it is today. I base that opinion on the fact that, from the actuary's own calculations, there is every expectation of a net profit.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to explore for a few minutes the possible thinking which resulted in the reduction of this maximum period. At page 4626 of Hansard I quoted from the report which had been made by the commission, in which these words appear:
In view of the high percentage of claimants who do not use the long period ... it was considered justified to reduce the maximum period of entitlement to 30 weeks.
It was considered justified, so the report said. I should like to ask hon. members in this house to consider just what constitutes that justification. Was it monetary considerations? I think not, because, as has been shown and as I have referred to the actuary's report, there was no substantial drain anticipated on the fund. Now that the period has been increased from 30 weeks to 36 weeks, by the minister's own admission, the number of claimants who will be cut off from the additional period are 1-75 per cent of all claimants. So there can really be no justification from the monetary standpoint. Was the justification one of ease of administration? Well, possibly. In fact, I might go further and say that probably that had as much to do with it as anything.
The fact that a certain number of people could be eliminated from benefit at a definite time would probably thin the ranks of those seeking benefits and likewise of those seeking employment. But in any of these considerations, did the human element enter in? I do not think we can say other than definitely not. The human element did not enter into the consideration of the reduction to 36 weeks, as it now stands. True enough, as has been mentioned in this house and in committee, the minister made reference to the forthcoming conference which will seek to establish between the federal and provincial authorities some responsibility for relief payments to those persons who are unemployed and employable and not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. I repeat the
Unemployment Insurance Act word "relief", which has been bandied around -"unemployment relief". I say once more that the average person who has been employed over a period of time cannot qualify for unemployment relief, unless he has first of all used up whatever funds he may have saved and liquidated his more liquid assets and in turn used those up. Then, when he finally has become destitute, he may be eligible for unemployment relief. In my estimation this is not good enough. The fact that even 1-75 per cent of claimants could benefit for an additional period is quite sufficient justification, to use the term used in the report, for reconsideration of this point.
I had a letter, which came to my desk just this morning, from a worker in Toronto who asks some very pertinent questions. He points out that when in April a certain number of people are cut off from supplementary benefits they are told that after they have the required number of contributions to their credit as shown by the stamps placed in their books, they will once more be eligible for benefits. He asks a very pertinent question: How does one go about getting these benefits? How does one go about securing jobs when one is told repeatedly at the unemployment insurance offices that there are no jobs? How can one take a realistic view of the advice which is given to workers out of employment, cut off from supplementary benefits, that they should secure work and accumulate sufficient contribution indications to permit them to qualify again, when the very office which tells them to secure employment knows it cannot supply them with jobs? This situation becomes progressively worse as the worker becomes older. This worker who wrote to me also draws attention to the fact that after 14 days, if the claimant has not appeared at the unemployment insurance office, he is stricken from the list of those seeking work. It is assumed that he has found employment. Hence the statistics of persons seeking work are reduced by the number of people who have lost heart and have given up applying at the national employment service for employment. Then the newspapers spread the glad tidings that things are not as bad as they were, and that they are greatly improved. I admit that at the present time things are greatly improved and I am mighty glad of it; but I still say that there are a great many of these people who have lost heart because they could procure no employment at the national employment service and who, instead of wasting hours standing in line when they know the case is hopeless, have gone out on their own to find whatever work is available in order

Unemployment Insurance Act to earn a little bit of money, whether they do it in employment which is insurable or not.
The minister himself must have been aware that hardship would ensue from these regulations. Speaking in the house the other day, as reported at page 4647 of Hansard, he had this to say:
The hon. member for Hamilton West may say, "Well, you put that in, hut you are not quite sure. You just want to have a trial run".
Then the minister said this:
X will agree that this is a cautious and conservative-with a small "c"-step; I will admit that at once. But it is a cautious and conservative step just to make sure that these people the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been referring to will not suffer any hardships during that period of time. If they do suffer hardship, then we will do something about it.
Hence the minister himself has anticipated that there may be hardship arising out of this change in the act. In the remarks which he made at that time, following on those which I have just quoted, he referred to the fact- which I mentioned a few minutes ago-that 1 [DOT] 75 per cent of claimants will be all that could be left out now that the period has been increased to 36 weeks. Then he goes on, and in this I may say he picked up my own phrase which I had used on two or three occasions, namely "a trial run", to say once more:
This is a cautious, conservative trial run for the next three years. Before that three years is up the act will certainly be gone over very carefully.
But I should like to draw the attention of this house, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that even if the act is gone over very carefully, opinion will be weighted against the 1 [DOT] 75 per cent of claimants for the reason that we shall then have this 36 weeks' limitation in the act which will by then have been in force for three years and will be one which it will not be easy to change. I draw attention further to the fact that this 1-75 per cent of claimants who will be cut off after the 36-week period will be the very ones who will be in the most dire need of benefit.
I make a plea to this house to consider the fact that, while under our system of government it is true that the majority rules, it is also true that it is our duty as members of this house never to forget that one of the reasons we are here is to protect the rights of minorities. The fact that there are so few who are expected to be affected under this change in the act is all the more reason why they should not be thrown into the discard.
I maintain what I said before, Mr. Speaker, namely that the government is not sure, the minister is not sure and the commission is
[Mrs. Fairclough.j
not sure. It is a case of the blind leading the blind. I do not like this reduction. At the very start when we were at the resolution stage and when an indication was given to us that this reduction would be made, I said we would fight this proposal to the very last ditch. I hope I was wrong when I said we would fight it; I hope that the acting minister will acquiesce-as was indicated the other evening in the house that he possibly might- and restore this period to 51 weeks. Let the transitional period be one in which they will consider whether there should be a reduction, not one in which they will consider whether or not the period should be restored to its previous level.
Mr. Speaker, I plead for this 1-75 per cent of claimants. I once more draw attention to the fact that the fund belongs to the contributors, at least to the extent of 85 per cent; and even those contributors are among the taxpayers who contribute the other 15 per cent. It is their fund. It has not been shown that there will be any drain on the fund. Even if there were, in my estimation it is for this house to consider how that extra expenditure can be met. There is no relief for the workers despite the plan to share unemployment relief with the provinces. There is to be considered the uncertainty of this government with regard to this particular clause; as shown in the reduction from 51 weeks to 30 weeks and then to 36 weeks; and the establishment of a transitional period "if there is hardship," in the minister's own words. The act does not go into force, as I said before, until October 2. This is not a bill which needs to be rushed through because of imminent problems. We can take all the time we need to consider this particular point. The government is in no hurry to put the bill into effect. Apparently, judging by its own effective date, it is trying to get it into effect only before next winter. Therefore, having regard to all of these points, I move:
That Bill No, 328 be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of reconsidering clause 48 (1) (a).


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, at this time, on third reading, I do not think it is necessary to go into a long debate on this bill. It is a bill that has had fairly thorough examination. I think most of the members in the house who felt responsibility for it-I refer to those who were on the committee-have already put on the record their opinions and ideas with regard to the bill. In view of the move to refer the bill back to committee of the whole, it is rather unfortunate that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is not here. During the course of the

discussion in the standing committee the particular section dealing with the period of 51 weeks was pretty thoroughly chewed over. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) moved that the period of 30 weeks fixed in the original bill be changed to 36 weeks, indicating that the Minister of Labour was perhaps inclined to be a bit flexible about the matter. At that time the members of this group put themselves on record with regard to the question of 51 weeks. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) moved an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Spadina that the period of 51 weeks should be continued instead of having a period of 36 weeks. We tried to get an amendment.
Despite the fact we were reasonably sure the period was going to be 36 weeks, when the members of the committee were drafting their final report they left the matter open. We said that further consideration should be given to expanding the period beyond 36 and up to 51 weeks. Therefore the hon. member is not moving anything new. Several different motions were made in the standing committee and then there was the recommendation in the committee's report.
Of course our position is that we will vote for the amendment. It is the kind of bear trap that you have to vote for, considering the circumstances in which the amendment is moved, regardless of whether it is good, bad or indifferent. But I should like to say as briefly as I can that while my hon. friend's argument capitalizes on the unfortunate unemployed, I have yet to hear a suggestion from that group as to what might be done about the matter. Unemployment insurance is not an end in itself, and does not bring about any finality under the present scheme of things. That is clearly recognized in the United States, and they are doing something about the matter.
As I have pointed out a good many times, the government does not make employment or create unemployment in the field in which my hon. friends are arguing or in the field where this legislation is designed to help, not to cure. As I have said before, there is the question of technological advances and automation in every industry in the country from fishing right through to the appliance plants. There is not an industry in Canada, or in North America for that matter, that is not going through that process and will continue to do so. As the production machine is perfected and more and more labour-saving devices are used, you are going to have more and more unemployment.
This type of legislation is not going to change the situation. As I said before, it is 50433-301
Unemployment Insurance Act not an end in itself that will take care of unemployment in the future. It is merely a supplementary piece of legislation that eases the burden for a given period, and that is all it is.
I think we in this house should come down to earth and try to show employers that they have a social responsibility as well as economic authority. Having a social responsibility, they are going to have to devise ways and means of taking care of human beings who are displaced by machines. That is the road ahead. It is not good enough to say that we are going to pass the Unemployment Insurance Act. That will simply give the man or woman unemployed a certain number of months of unemployment insurance, and then if there is not employment for them they will be on the road. That is not good enough. There has to be something in addition to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I think the United States is on the right track. The employers and the unions in the case of General Motors and Ford have worked out a means whereby the employees will have a pay envelope 52 weeks of the year.
The guaranteed annual wage as worked out by Ford and General Motors is merely a supplementary wage to unemployment insurance. They are linked now. Unemployment insurance supplements the guaranteed wage up to the figure that has been arrived at through the processes of their collective bargaining machinery. That is something to which thought must be given in Canada. We must not simply keep on thinking in terms of embarrassing the government by making a motion to amend a completely inadequate piece of legislation so far as unemployment is concerned. It is only a stop-gap, merely a palliative. It is a patch on the hull of the old ship that is pretty well scuttled today when you think in terms of the 1930's or even the 1940's. We are not living in that kind of world any more and we had better begin to recognize it.
I do not say that the guaranteed annual wage can be brought about in any industry overnight. There are many industries to which I do not think it is adaptable, but it is something about which we have to begin to think. Employers will have to share their equal responsibility in the field of unemployment because we cannot help the new gadgets that are coming into use. If you examine every industry in the country over the past ten years you will see the same trend. One-half the number of miners in the United States are producing twice as much coal as was produced ten years ago. That is true right along the line. It is true of the appliance industry, the automobile industry, every

Unemployment Insurance Act industry in the country, even agriculture. The fishing industry is being mechanized today. The old type of fisherman is disappearing from the waters and is being replaced by trawlers.
We have to begin to think in terms of those in the field of employment accepting a social responsibility for those replaced by machines. As far as I can see there are only two ways you can do it. First of all, we will have to think seriously about the question of a supplementary payment from the employer while the employee is out of work. The second is the question of a reduction in the hours of labour. Responsible people in the labour movement who have watched the technological trend over the past 50 years have recognized that sooner or later something has to be done with regard to a reduction in the hours of labour if the maximum number of people are to have employment and man is to derive benefit from the introduction of machines.
These are two practical considerations that I think we must face. We will vote for the amendment, but it is only a gesture. Everybody in the house could vote for it. We would all prefer to see a period of 51 weeks rather than 36 weeks, and the cost would not be so great. If it is going to be 36 weeks rather than 51 weeks there will be a wider area of unemployment. There is no doubt about that. Men are going to cease receiving benefits that much sooner and become a charge on the municipalities. We pointed that out. I got a sore throat doing it. The federal and provincial governments are talking about some formula to provide unemployment relief. The word "relief" should never be used.
As far as the government of Nova Scotia is concerned, I know they are not thinking in this way. A few days ago the premier of that province stated' that as far as he was concerned the government would not go along with anything that suggested a return to the conditions of the 1930's. He said that if the federal and provincial governments are going to spend money to relieve the unemployment situation it should be spent in such a way as to create jobs. I think he is going to insist on that when he comes to the next conference, and I hope he does. So far as the resources of that province are concerned, there are things that need to be done. If money is to be available on a contributory basis as between the different governments, let us develop these resources and put people to work rather than have them rot on relief. But as I said before, there is no use in just talking about these things and paying lip service to them.


I want to point this out. Previous to the adoption of this act, there was a regulation that prohibited any supplementary payments from unemployment insurance to a plant that had a guaranteed annual wage. This regulation is dead. It died when this act came into force. I am glad the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is piloting the bill at the moment. He comes from a town that is close to the border, a town where this guaranteed annual wage is going to be a live issue within the near future. I have known him a long time, and I know the minister is just as realistic in so far as the annual wage is concerned as I am. I know that he will use his influence to see that regulation is not re-enacted. This question of supplementary payments, in so far as the unemployment insurance commission and industries in this country are concerned, should be left open until such time as some formula is worked out. They had to do it in the United States, and we may have to do it here to face up to this question of unemployment.
Unemployment is not seasonal any longer. Largely it is a product of improved machinery and plant. As they improve, we are going to have more and more unemployment. The group about which I am concerned in this 36 to 51-week period is the older men. They are being pensioned off at 65 years of age, and what pensions! If we had been smart in this country, and do not make any mistake about it, I advocated this 30 years ago, we would have had a decent industrial pension plan on a contributory basis in every plant in Canada. But in the early years that was resisted by employers. Today in some industries we have pensions that average about $35 per month at 65 years of age. Hundreds of the men who are being laid off at that age are just as fit for work as they were 15 years before. When they get that pittance of a pension, they register for further employment, but they are over 40 and they cannot find employment in industry.
I want to make this point very clear. It is the policy of every industry in this country today not to hire men over 40 years of age. This arises out of the fact that, too late, they have put in contributory pension plans and when a man is over 40 they do not want him in that plan because he is not going to pay into it long enough to provide for the amount he will get when he retires. We have to realize that these are factors. In my judgment this group is the product of the machine age. They are being thrown out at that age because of the shortsightedness of both governments and industries across this country. I never believed that the people who

pioneered the labour movement in this country had any more brains than anyone else, but 30 years ago I was saying a lot of the things outside of this house that I am saying here now. Year after year since the industrial revolution there have been improvements in machinery. The only answer I could ever see was something along the lines of the guaranteed annual wage, a shortening of the hours of labour, and instead of the piecemeal industrial pensions that we have today, which only create problems, there should be a national retiring allowance on a contributory basis for everybody in this country.
In this way we could provide a decent pension for people who are retiring at 65 years of age. It could be made uniform to cover everyone in the country. Several million dollars a year in expenses could be saved because of the duplication in administration from plant to plant, and that sort of thing. The machinery to handle a national retiring allowance is set up now in the form of the annuities branch. There should be one payment such as we make now under the old age security plan. Take it out of taxation, and make the pension adequate. No one in this country will object to that, least of all those who can see the end of the road at 65 and who have never made enough money to enable them to save very much. They would be saving if the matter were handled in that way.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have taken more time than I intended. When I get thinking of this kind of problem, I run on and on. I should like to say we will support this amendment, and I trust that during the period between the passing of the bill and October 2, the effective date, the government can examine the report of the committee in respect to this particular amendment and see if something cannot be done to prevent a widening of the area of unemployment until such time as there is a formula worked out whereby other legislation may be able to handle the problem.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: We in this group intend to support the amendment. Of course, as we have stressed time and again, unemployment insurance is not a solution to unemployment. I recall that during the last election the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stressed the fact that international tension was lessening and as international tension lessened the defence expenditures could be reduced and the standard of living in the country would rise. Yet today, we find that the situation is in many respects quite serious. It was very serious last winter. Whilst unemployment has lessened somewhat 50433-301J
Unemployment Insurance Act now, you would nevertheless expect that in the month of June employment would be at its peak. There should be practically no problem of unemployment.
The big problem, as we see it, is that we have built up this tremendous productive capacity which enables industry today to turn out goods at a considerably greater rate than the people of the country are able to consume them, not at a faster rate than the people want to consume them but at a faster rate than they are able to consume them because they lack the wherewithal to buy them. In spite of the fact the people of Canada today are going into debt at an exceptionally fast rate in order to acquire the goods they want, we are not able to maintain an effective demand for our production. I mention the fact we are going into debt at a heavy rate because charge accounts and buying on the instalment plan are up around the figure of $1,800 million. In addition to that, people have gone into debt under the National Housing Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and various other acts to the tune of several hundred millions of dollars.
In spite of the fact that in order to buy the goods they need people are going so heavily into debt, we are still unable to maintain an effective demand for our production. Consequently, when industry is unable to sell its total production and is forced to curtail its production, it helps to expand unemployment. We feel therefore that whilst unemployment insurance is necessary to help provide assistance to those people who are unemployed, nevertheless it must be the responsibility of the federal government to provide a greater degree of employment in this country. We feel that one step should have been to reduce the sales tax which would have helped to expand the purchasing power of the people. We feel the government should take full responsibility for all assistance to the unemployed-and in this I include assistance to all those who are not receiving assistance under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Further, we feel the government should be prepared to institute national projects to take care of those who are unemployed and cannot be absorbed by industry. It seems a fantastic situation to find throughout this country, where there are so many services required, such large numbers of unemployed, and to find that in these circumstances the government is not prepared to put projects into operation to provide those services the people require. I should imagine one could go into any community anywhere in Canada and find services required by the people.

Unemployment Insurance Act
We have large scale unemployment, and yet the federal government refuses to take the steps necessary to provide those services. In the west we need irrigation projects; we are still short of roads, and we have many level railroad crossings. Yet we have this unemployment problem, one that would disappear overnight if the federal government were prepared to give the necessary financial assistance to the provinces and the municipalities to provide these services.
Then we come to agriculture. We believe a sound program of support prices would help expand the purchasing power of the farmer, and would help also to provide a market for the products of the eastern manufacturer. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) pointed out in his budget speech that the recession, if one may so describe it, was due largely to a drop in farm income. By increasing farm income through adequate support prices we would help to maintain the domestic market.
Then, we feel the federal government is falling down badly in the matter of international trade. Through its pig-headedness on the question of the acceptance of foreign currencies, we are allowing the United States steadily to take our markets from us. And until such time as we are prepared to compete with nations such as the United States on the terms I have suggested, we will continue to lose markets.
Let me say in closing that while we will support the amendment and while we realize the need for strengthening the Unemployment Insurance Act we believe this is not a solution to the problem at all. The solution is in finding ways and means of giving employment to the people.


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, rising at this time to say a few words on this bill, I do so to support the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair dough). At the outset may I point out to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that this amendment is the result of sound and logical reasoning, and a view shared not only by this party but also, may I point out to him, by the workers in Canada and by the labour leaders who have the welfare of the workers so much at heart.
The new bill is a good one, and has many acceptable features. Certainly it is more understandable than the old act. The Progressive Conservative party is in favour of this new measure, with one exception, and that is the exception covered by the amendment which was moved this morning. The reduction from 51 weeks to 30 weeks has


again been amended to 36 weeks. That alone proves that the reduction to 30 weeks was not based upon any sound reasoning. This is borne out by the fact that reconsideration has been given to the matter, and it has been amended to 36 weeks. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason why it should not remain at the old maximum of 51 weeks of benefit. If it did it would offer a safety valve for a time when serious unemployment might occur in Canada.
It could be argued that after 36 weeks anyone who was still unemployed would receive the benefits of unemployment relief. To my mind that is not the answer because it would not compare by any means with the $30 a week provided in the bill by way of unemployment insurance. It would be far short of that amount.
It is argued that with maximum benefits at 51 weeks there might be the possibility that during a serious time of unemployment the insurance fund would become impaired. If we look at the fund from 1942 to 1955 we find that at no time was it seriously impaired. We see that it has increased gradually at the rate of about $70 million a year, with one exception when in one year it increased only to the extent of $30 million. To my mind, therefore, there is no danger of serious impairment of the fund, even if the maximum period of 51 weeks were placed in the act.
For these reasons I feel the clause should be reconsidered and the amendment should be accepted by the government and placed in the new measure. This to my mind is very important. It has been urged by labour leaders and workers, that there seems to be no sound reason why it should be reduced. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) himself stated in committee that in the past only a very small percentage have availed themselves of the full maximum of 51 weeks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak for just a few minutes. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has pointed out, we shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West. It deals with what we feel is one point in the revised act where a retrograde step has been taken. There are quite a number of places where we feel forward steps should have been taken, but which the government has failed to take. In this instance, however, it is our view that a backward step has been taken, and we deplore it as strongly as we can.
We interpret-and I am sure we are correct in this-a vote for this amendment to refer the bill back to committee of the whole for

the purpose of reconsidering clause 48(1) (a) as support for the proposition that the maximum period of benefit should continue at 51 weeks. Obviously, therefore, those who vote against the amendment to refer the bill back to committee for the purpose of this reconsideration are satisfied that it should stay at the figure of 36 weeks, a figure which was inserted when we were in committee of the whole. So far as we are concerned, that is not good enough.
I need not repeat the arguments which have been made. It is sufficient to say, in brief, that we feel that this is unfair action against older men who are retired, particularly in view of the abundant evidence that these men are genuinely in the labour market, which is one of the conditions upon which unemployment insurance is based.
We feel also that there is real force to the argument, since we do not know what is ahead in terms of unemployment, that it would be better to provide insurance protection during a longer period of unemployment so that benefits would be drawn as of right, rather than on any relief basis. We have protested from the beginning and shall continue to protest to the end against this reduction from 51 to 36 weeks, and I hope that even yet the government will give favourable consideration to our protests.
In addition to this retrograde step being taken by the government, we also find fault with the same government for its failure to take certain progressive steps which we feel should have been taken at this time. It is not my intention even to list all of the progressive steps that should have been taken because I wish to pinpoint the one which I feel is most important, that is the need for the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to cover periods when workers are unemployed because of illness.
We had a partial step in that direction two years ago when provision was made for the worker who has gone on unemployment insurance benefits to continue to draw his benefits even though he becomes ill, but it is still the case that a person who loses his job and becomes ill before he qualifies for benefits does not draw unemployment insurance benefits. It is also still the case that there is no provision for a worker to draw unemployment insurance benefits when he has to leave his work because of illness, no matter how many years he may have been paying into the unemployment insurance fund.
Let me make it quite clear that all of us who argue for this extension recognize that it would increase the cost; let me make it
Unemployment Insurance Act quite clear that those who speak for organized labour are ready to agree that labour should pay its share of that increased cost of this type of coverage which is long overdue in this country. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) pointed out, this was being argued for and sought by labour people many years ago, long before unemployment insurance came into this house. I have pleasure in reminding the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who is in charge of the third reading of this bill, that he argued for health insurance and sickness benefits as being needed in the total picture when he spoke on the unemployment insurance bill back in 1940. Of course at that time he was just a private member.
I deeply regret that this revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act is being completed without some change to extend coverage to workers unemployed at a time of illness. I am still curious as to what consideration was given to this matter, as to how far that consideration was carried, and where it stopped. The reason I refer to consideration having been given is that we learned when we were in the committee on industrial relations that some computations had been made by the actuarial people as to what would be the additional cost of paying unemployment insurance benefits to workers laid off because of illness. It is pretty obvious to me that at some level when this revision was being considered a plan including sickness benefits was worked out, but also at some level, I suppose a higher level and maybe right at the top, that idea was killed.
I think it is most unfortunate that that happened. I am sure that many if not all members of the house agree with me that one of the lacks in this legislation, one of the lacks in our social legislation generally, is the absence of protection for the income of our working people when that income is lost because of illness. I hope that it will not be long before we will have that kind of protection, either by way of further amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act or as part of an over-all nation-wide health insurance scheme which I am sure the minister who is in charge of this third reading would like to present to the house at the earliest possible moment.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South pointed out that in the matter of unemployment more is involved than unemployment insurance. He pointed out the responsibility which rests on industry and business generally. In that same vein I would point out that when we deal with social legislation

Unemployment Insurance Act much more is required than unemployment insurance and the other bits and pieces of social legislation that we now have. We need an over-all social security program providing against unemployment; providing against loss of income due to illness; providing for health coverage; providing adequately for old age and for all other contingencies.
Once again I make an appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to put up a harder fight in the cabinet for these things than apparently he has been doing lately in view of the fact that he has not brought in any new legislation for quite some time.
As both of us from this group who have spoken have indicated, we shall support the amendment before the house because we feel that the maximum period for unemployment insurance benefits should be continued at 51 weeks. We also contend that coverage of our workers when they are unemployed due to illness should be included in this legislation.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I want to say only a few words in regard to the amendment before the house to refer this bill back to the committee of the whole house. The adoption of that motion would not have the effect of delaying the application of this bill in any way. There would be no need to go into the numerous details which have been discussed already while the bill has been under consideration. There were certain proposals put forward which the committee decided not to adopt in presenting this bill to the house and it is not my intention now to review those. I simply mention them to indicate that there are certain details we would wish to have included in this bill.
The present amendment deals simply with the question of the time during which benefits shall apply. The reduction to 30 weeks was proposed without any adequate supporting information. The statement that supported it was simply that it was being done in view of the high percentage of claimants who did not use the longer period. They then went on to say that it was considered justified to reduce the maximum period of entitlement to 30 weeks. The fact that it has been decided to extend it to 36 weeks is an indication that those supporting the government recognized that there was no foundation for reducing it to 30 weeks. We do submit that there is no foundation, that there is no evidence to support the reduction from 51 weeks. We want to see the 51-week period restored and that is the purpose of this amendment.

Without in any way suggesting that all the things that we would desire to see in this bill are now included in it, we do wish to emphasize that we want this bill passed; we do not want it held up. We do not want any motion that would have the effect of suspending the application of the act which will not come into effect in any event for some little time. However, we do want this longer period of benefits. Therefore I hope that hon. members on both sides of this house will support this amendment which has the declared purpose of extending the application of the act to 51 weeks.
The very fact that the government has said that there is such a high percentage that would not make claims is in itself the very best argument for retaining the 51 weeks which applied before. We submit that that argument of the government is conclusive. We submit that no statistical information has been given which would suggest any reason why this should not apply.
We have indicated over and over again that we would prefer to be discussing means by which employment can be increased rather than unemployment; nevertheless we must recognize that unemployment is a reality. We must recognize that there are many people unemployed for whom the 51 weeks is a necessary feature of this act unless there is to be hardship. We strongly urge that there be a free vote on all sides of the house to give effect to our recommendation in this respect.


Mr. Goode:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn).


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
International Rivers INTERNATIONAL RIVERS



PROVISION REQUIRING LICENCE FROM GOVERNMENT OF CANADA TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN ANY IMPROVEMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: May I inform hon. members of the committee that this bill was considered in the standing committee on external affairs and that certain amendments to the bill are to be found at pages 605 and 606 of Votes and Proceedings of Friday, May 20.
On clause 1-Short title.


Mr. Green:: Is the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources making any statement?


Mr. Lesage:: The only statement I could usefully make at this time, I believe, is to say a word of praise for the chairman and the members of the committee on external affairs who have made a thorough study of the bill that was referred to them and also of the subject matter which is an extremely important and difficult one. I repeat that the members of the committee deserve the praise of the members of the House of Commons. The study they made was certainly thorough. A number of witnesses were heard. The minutes of proceedings and evidence cover 530 pages of print. I will not attempt at this time to repeat what was said and done in that committee. I believe that the committee has done a good job. It has reported the bill with amendments which can be found in Votes and Proceedings of May 20. The report was unanimous except that the hon. member for Peace River, on his behalf and on behalf of his colleague from his group, the hon. member for Fraser Valley, reserved his position. I do not believe that at this time there is anything I could usefully add.


Howard Charles Green: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. When the committee rose at one o'clock we had been discussing clause 1 of the bill as amended in the standing committee. Shall this clause as amended carry?

International Rivers


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, while the bill is couched in general language so that it could have effect in respect of any river flowing from Canada into the United States, the main river system which has been discussed both in the house and in the standing committee on external affairs has been the Columbia river system in British Columbia and the northwestern United States. For that reason my remarks today will be centred on the Columbia river basin and the problems that have arisen in connection with it. The Columbia is of about the same importance as the St. Lawrence river system in so far as power developments are concerned. These two great rivers rank second only to the Mississippi river system on the North American continent. From that fact hon. members will realize just how important this system can be.
We were told in the standing committee that about three-fifths of the power potential of the Columbia river system is in the United States and comes entirely within the jurisdiction of our friendly neighbour. One-fifth comes under the jurisdiction of Canada alone, and the last one-fifth consists of power which can be developed in United States plants by reason of storage of water on the Columbia river system in Canada. The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is approximately the situation.
The Americans have developed their portion of the Columbia river system to a much greater extent than the Canadians. They have a great dam and plant at Grand Coulee, another large dam and plant at Bonneville, and various other power developments on the system in their territory. One result has been the establishment of a great aluminum industry in the state of Washington, another the atomic energy plant at Hanford, Washington. There has been great power development in the northwestern United States based on the Columbia river.
The Americans are now in the position where the easiest way for them to get additional power cheaply would be by storing the waters of the Columbia river and its tributaries in Canada and regulating the flow through power plants in the United States. In that way they would get greatly increased quantities of power at a very cheap rate. That is the reason the Kaiser interests were willing to build a $25 million dam in Canada at the foot of the Arrow lakes near a town by the name of Castlegar. If they had been allowed to do that they would have given the British Columbia government ownership of the dam, even though it cost $25 million,
[The Chairman.]
but of course the Kaiser companies were to get from the plants on the American side part of the power produced by the storage of this water in Canada.


Jean Lesage: I should like to ask the hon. member where he heard that the dam was to be given to the British Columbia government.


Howard Charles Green: Pardon?


Jean Lesage: Where did the hon. member hear that the dam was to be given to the British Columbia government? That is not in the agreement.


Howard Charles Green: It is not really material to my
remarks.


Jean Lesage: I know, but I wanted to correct the record.


Howard Charles Green: It was my understanding that eventually the British Columbia government would get title to the dam.


Jean Lesage: But there is nothing in the agreement to that effect. I just want to correct the record.


Howard Charles Green: I think perhaps the Kaiser deal is not very material at the present time.


Jean Lesage: No.


Howard Charles Green: I am merely making a general introduction to my further remarks. On the Canadian side of the border there has been practically no development of the Columbia river for power purposes. There have been a few city power plants, and the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company has plants on the Kootenay river between Nelson and Castlegar. It has another large plant on the Pend d'Oreille near Waneta. The British Columbia power commission, which is a governmental body, has a power plant at What-shan on the Arrow lakes, and I believe another in east Kootenay. But there has been very little development of the Columbia river in Canada compared with the developments that have taken place in the United States. It is because of this difference that we are now faced with the fact that the Americans are very keen to have the use of the Columbia river waters in Canada for purposes of storage and regulation so they can get greatly increased amounts of power from their own plants at a very cheap rate.
When the British Columbia government announced that it had made an agreement with the Kaiser interests there was a good deal of consternation at Ottawa, for since 1944 the international joint commission had been working on a joint reference from the Canadian and United States governments

instructing them to study the potentialities of the Columbia river system in its entirety.
Down through the years the dominion officials and the British Columbia officials have worked in the closest co-operation. I can quite understand why there was annoyance here when it appeared that an agreement had been made between the British Columbia government and the Kaiser interests. Mind you, I believe there is a good deal to be said on both sides. But in any event, last fall when this agreement was announced a very bitter dispute developed between the two governments. There were harsh words used by members of the provincial government, and there were equally harsh words used by members of the dominion government. In order to stop this Kaiser deal, the dominion government introduced the bill we are now considering, Bill No. 3. At that time, it was known as the international rivers act, but I believe the committee has recommended that the name be changed to the international river improvements act which, as a matter of fact, describes the bill much more accurately than the original title.
The party to which I have the honour to belong, the Conservative party, took the position during the debate on the resolution preceding this bill and on second reading that we would reserve our right to take a stand for or against the bill until after it had been considered by a committee. We urged, and I think we were the first ones to do so, that this bill be sent to a standing committee for study. We had in mind the wisdom of hearing evidence from both the dominion and provincial officials, and also of giving the people of British Columbia an opportunity to learn from the press and over the radio what the dispute was about. Even more particularly, we had in mind that if the Columbia river system in Canada was to be developed that could only be achieved by co-operation between the two governments. It was quite obvious that this development would never take place unless the two governments started once again to co-operate as they had been doing until this Kaiser deal came into the picture.
Eventually our suggestion was accepted and the bill went to the standing committee on external affairs. The committee had many meetings, and it heard many witnesses. Today I should like to pay tribute, in the first place, to the chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard). He and I do not always agree, but I thought he conducted the affairs of that committee in an excellent way. A great deal of the credit for the success which the committee has achieved must go to him. Then, too, I should like to pay tribute to the members from other parts
International Rivers
of Canada who sat on that committee. Here they were, hearing evidence day after day at great length about a river system in British Columbia of which they knew nothing. Many of them had never been west of Toronto. Perhaps I should not say that; perhaps I should say Winnipeg. In any event, it must have been very difficult for them to follow the evidence. However, they stuck with the committee throughout and they deserve great credit for the manner in which they considered this bill.
There were several amendments made in the committee and today I propose to refer briefly to four of them. One of these amendments was made to section 7, and that amendment took out of the operation of the act irrigation systems and improvements in those rivers which were designed for domestic or sanitary purposes. It would have been unthinkable in British Columbia to have the irrigation systems in the Columbia river and its tributaries under licence control from the dominion. It would have been intolerable.
I think it would almost have been grounds for civil war in that part of Canada! In any event, the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) saw the objection and clause 7, paragraph (c), has been recommended to the house. It has the effect of exempting improvements of that kind from the operation of the bill.
There was also a clause written into the bill making it clear that provincial laws would apply to these international river systems except where such laws were repugnant to this particular bill. This is now clause 10 of the bill and it reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything in this act an international river improvement shall be subject to the same laws to which it would be subject il it were a river improvement within the legislative jurisdiction of the legislature of the province in which it is situated except in so far as such provincial laws are repugnant to this act or the regulations.
That was a beneficial amendment. Then, in the new clause 11 there was a further amendment providing for an annual report to parliament. This change also was all to the good. There were several other minor amendments, but the fourth amendment to which I shall refer today was the deletion from the bill of what was originally clause 9. Clause 9 read as follows:
All international river improvements heretofore or hereafter constructed, and not excepted from the operation of this act, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
That was the clause that upset the British Columbia government more than any other part of the act. They argued, and I think correctly, if that clause remained in the bill it had the effect of nationalizing the two

International Rivers
main drainage basins in British Columbia. In the first place, it affected the Columbia river system which takes up the whole southeastern part of the province, and in the second place the territory in northwestern British Columbia which is drained by great rivers like the Taku and Stikine and some others which flow through the panhandle of Alaska. Because they happen to flow for a few miles in Alaska before they reach the sea, they become subject to the terms of this bill. I read from page 19 of the British Columbia government brief where they deal with this point in the following words:
In effect, this bill and what may be done under it is wide enough to nationalize the two major drainage basins of the province of British Columbia, and far from being a measure providing for control by negation it is, in the opinion of the government of British Columbia, a bill by which the national government without provincial consent is enabled to develop and utilize certain of the water resources of our province . . .
The main argument in the committee between dominion and provincial government officials had to do with the effects of leaving this clause 9 in the act. Fortunately, in the final analysis, the dominion agreed to drop that clause and I hope thereby paved the way for full co-operation between the dominion and the province of British Columbia in the development of this Columbia river system now and, in a few years' time, the systems of rivers which flow through the panhandle of Alaska.
At this time I suggest to the government that it be very careful about using this power to declare works of any kind as being works for the general advantage of Canada. It seems to me that the fathers of confederation never intended that the dominion government should use that particular provision of the British North America Act to take over a whole group of improvements in any part of Canada. I think they meant to have it there as a reserve power to be used very sparingly where some particular work was obviously for the general advantage of Canada.
The provision is contained in section 92 of the British North America Act, which gives the provinces their exclusive powers. That section reads:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated.
Then the section goes on to enumerate a number of subjects, one of which is as follows:
10. Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes-

And then we come to the type of work lifted out of the provisions of section 92. Subsection 10(c) is as follows:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
It is obvious that in the case of this bill the dominion deliberately inserted clause 9 to make sure that if it did not have jurisdiction otherwise, because the water flowed over the border, it would in any event have power by using this declaration. I think it was a mistake to do that; and I am glad the minister saw fit to consent to the deletion of that clause from the bill.
That is a rough sketch of the changes made in the bill when it was before the standing committee on external affairs. Now that these changes have been made-and I presume they will be accepted by the house-the Conservative party is glad to support the bill. We realize some amendments may be suggested while the bill is in committee of the whole, and of course we would want to feel free to consider any such amendments. But as it stands at the present time we are prepared to support it.
However, we would repeat the warning we gave in the earlier stages of the debate, namely that there must be co-operation between the two governments if this Columbia river system is to be developed adequately. Bill No. 3 gives the dominion licensing control over all the works on any one of these river systems which affect the flow of water over the border. That is a very wide control. To a degree the dominion is stepping in and taking control over the improvements on these rivers. Yet at the same time it appears to be expecting somebody else to put up the money to build such improvements.
I suggest that is a weak position.
It is true that the dominion has spent several million dollars on surveys of the Columbia river system; but essentially the picture today is that the dominion government will be able to say, "You cannot erect an improvement on this international river" -or some other international river. Yet it is not going to put up any of the money to help build that improvement. I think that policy must be changed. The time has come when the dominion government must either contribute to the construction of some of these river improvements or, at the very least, place its credit behind the provincial government that is proposing to go ahead with the development. The dominion can raise money at much lower rates than any of the provinces, with the exception of

Ontario and Quebec. I believe the time has come in Canada when we must have a joint investment policy for the development of these great resources. These are developments which are in the nature of public utilities, and the dominion should be ready to place its credit behind some of these developments.


Mr. Brooks:: We want that on the Saint John river, too.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, the Saint John river development is another very good example of a case where there must be help from the dominion. At the meeting of the premiers held here in April that was one of the subjects agreed upon for discussion at the forthcoming meeting this fall. It was described as public investments and natural resources development. The Conservative party feels the time has come when there must be a joint investment program adopted by the dominion.
The dominion must take one other step. It must negotiate quickly with the United States government for a treaty covering downstream benefits. It is obvious that there is going to be water stored in the Canadian part of the Columbia river system. It is also obvious that that water will increase the production of power in United States plants. The very fact that the water is stored and regulated means that the Americans can develop more power, because it means that at low water there will be more water flowing through their plants than there has been in the past.
We believe that the dominion must move at once to negotiate a treaty covering downstream benefits. General McNaughton dealt with that in his evidence before the committee, when he said this:
In order to protect the interests of Canada in the case of the construction of reservoirs in Canada which benefit projects downstream in the United States it will be necessary therefore, in advance of construction, to enter into a treaty or agreement precisely defining the amount and form of recompense to Canada for the natural resources of Canada contributed to the project.
The minister himself said something to the same effect when he spoke in the house about a month ago. I believe it cannot be questioned that there must be a treaty negotiated with the United States. I have before me the report of a statement made by the minister, as it appears in the press of May 21. Premier Bennett of British Columbia had suggested a summit conference between the governments of the United States, Canada and British Columbia. The Minister of
International Rivers
Northern Affairs and National Resources made a statement in reply, and the newspaper article is as follows:
"Summit conferences must be preceded by detailed studies", Lesage said. "It will be better to continue discussions between these two groups of experts and try to work out either a formula, or else to lay down principles on downstream benefits. We might then have high level talks when we have reached some degree of agreement."
The federal minister said he had emphasized in his recent Vancouver speech that the first requirement for international co-operation in the Columbia is American agreement to the principle that Canada must share in downstream benefits accruing to the United States through development in Canada.
Unfortunately time is running out for the negotiation of a treaty of that kind. We were warned of that by General McNaughton in the committee. One of the particular developments in British Columbia is ready to be gone ahead with and I refer to the Mica creek project. This involves the construction of a huge dam about 100 miles north of Revelstoke on the main line right at the top of the bend of the Columbia river. It is estimated that that dam and power plant will cost about $245 million. General McNaughton agreed that it could be proceeded with right away, and the British Columbia government is also in agreement that the project should go ahead. The Americans are anxious to do it; the Americans are sitting there now with the money ready to build that dam and power plant. All they want is the word to go ahead.
Some of us feel that if we invite the Americans into our country to build that project, even though they say it will become the property of the British Columbia government, we should make no mistake about it, if they build that project they are going to have a great deal to say about what is to be done with the power. Canada will be put in an impossible position if it allows that situation to develop.
We had placed before us reports which had been submitted to the Americans in connection with various developments that could take place on the Columbia river. One of them was to the effect that the Mica creek project could be developed by a group of utility companies in the United States known as the Puget Sound utilities council, which consists of the following five utility organizations: Seattle City Light, Tacoma City Light, Puget Sound Power and Light Company, Snohomish county public utility district No. 1, Chelan county public utility district No. 1. They are quite prepared to put up the money to build this Mica creek project.
Mind you, they will be able to do that because they will have behind them the

International Rivers
credit of the United States federal government. This project is ten times the size of the Kaiser dam project which would cost only $25 million. If this plan is gone ahead with we will have United States federal government money building the Mica creek dam and power plant. This report contains some other significant statements as follows:
The Mica creek dam on the upper Columbia river in British Columbia, proposed for joint construction by council utilities, is by far the most significant storage development possible in the northwest. It would impound 10*5 million acre feet of usable storage for power production in British Columbia and the United States. Furthermore, this project is unusual in that it has a minimum of conflict with other interests. Some road relocation would be required but no conflict would be created with local economies such as large towns, farming communities or other important domestic improvements. There would be no railroad relocation, nor any problem of anadromous fish passage. This reach of the river is not navigable.
Then there is this further paragraph:
The Puget Sound utilities council has discussed the following proposal with representatives of Canada as one possibility, among others, that might be considered.
(1) Council utilities, at their own expense, would construct a dam on the Columbia river near the mouth of Mica creek at the estimated cost of $250,000,000. Although the council would finance the project, the province of British Columbia would own it.
The premier of British Columbia has been negotiating with these people even since the meetings of the standing committee on external affairs. In the committee I asked the attorney general whether it was the policy of the British Columbia government to have the Americans develop the Mica creek project. The questions and answers begin at page 347 of the proceedings but I shall not bother to read the introductory comments. At the top of page 348 I am reported as asking the attorney general:
Is your government adopting a policy of that kind?
I was referring to having the Americans come in and build the Mica creek project.


Hon.   Mr. Horner@: No, I would say that there is no policy of that kind by the government of British Columbia.
We have seen press dispatches reporting that the Puget Sound utilities council representatives have been in Victoria discussing this question with the premier, with Mr. Sommers, minister of lands, and Mr. Bonner since the meetings of the committee. On May 3 the premier of British Columbia is reported as follows:
The premier added that federal government interference on the Kaiser dam proposals at Arrow lakes had prevented the B.C. government from entering similar arrangements for the building of a big dam at Mica creek.
fMr. Green.]
The cost of the Mica creek project has been estimated as high as $275,000,000.
"The Kaiser dam was only a part of the project," the premier said. "These dams would be built without cost to us and we would get the cheapest power in the world."
Do you mean," he was asked, "that the same American financing arrangement would have been used on the Mica creek development?"
Certainly," he said, "and it has been delayed by the federal government.
The situation is that we Conservatives believe that that project should be built by Canada, by the dominion and the British Columbia governments working together. We advocate the adoption at once of a joint investment policy for projects of this kind. It might be that a Columbia river authority could be set up to do this work with the financial credit of the dominion and the province behind it, but that is a matter of detail. The main point is that Canadians must undertake this work.
In the final analysis there is going to be about one billion dollars spent on the development of the Columbia river system in Canada. This is one of the biggest developments in our whole nation, too big and too important to be handled by those outside the country. This is a great opportunity to strengthen this nation and we believe it can be done by co-operation between the two governments.
Finally we would like to emphasize again the need for a national energy policy and the setting up of a national energy board in Ottawa or some governmental authority of that type. One reason why this dispute arose between the dominion and the British Columbia governments was that here in Ottawa there were half a dozen different groups of people dealing with this question. We had General McNaughton and the international joint commission, and this matter was rather far removed from their regular job. General McNaughton took the initiative in this matter and if it had not been for him I hate to think what the position would be at the present time.
I have nothing but praise for the conduct of General McNaughton in his actions in connection with this problem. We had the international joint commission as one body here dealing with this question. Then we had and still have the minister's water branch in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. We have the Department of Trade and Commerce. Of course, they are in everything under the present minister. We need expect nothing else than to have their finger in every pie around Ottawa, and they were in this pie as well. The economic adviser for all these projects is Dr. John Davis of the Department of Trade

and Commerce. Then for pipe lines we have the Department of Transport, which has no experts at all to deal with such questions. Then we have the board of transport commissioners with some jurisdiction also in regard to oil and gas pipe lines.
Here in Ottawa there is confusion in the directing of efforts to settle this problem. We believe Canada will never have a national energy policy, will never have a proper policy for the development of these sources of energy, until we have a national energy board. I made this argument on February 25, and I have no intention of going into it in any greater detail at the present time, but I merely sum it up by saying this. Water power, oil, gas, uranium and coal are the five great sources of energy in this country. Canada is fortunate in having all five of them. They will make this nation one of the great nations of the world if good leadership is given here in Ottawa. Once again we urge upon the dominion government that it take steps at once to set up a national energy board for the purpose of studying these various questions and formulating a national energy policy and of having a group of trained men who could implement the policy once it had been adopted by the government.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important measure occasioned by the need to ensure the sound and satisfactory development of international rivers in Canada. The rapidly increasing demand for power and the publicity surrounding the terms of this legislation have almost overnight caused many Canadians to realize the great and increasing value of our water resources and the need for this type of legislation to protect them, in so far as international rivers are concerned.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said, the discussions in the previous debates and in the committee centred very largely in the proposed developments of the Columbia river, and naturally so on account of the proposals by the provincial government at that time to permit the Kaiser Corporation to build a dam at the lower Arrow lakes. Now, this legislation is of particular concern to my constituents because they all happen to live in the Columbia river basin, as do the constituents of the hon. members for Kootenay East, Okanagan Boundary and Okanagan-Revelstoke. On that account I have received a large number of resolutions and briefs and hundreds of letters from individuals. I have received resolutions and briefs from municipalities, trade unions, farmers' institutes, women's institutes, chambers of commerce, engineering groups and, as I said before, a large number of individuals, who passed these resolutions and wrote these briefs and sent
International Rivers
letters to me because they were very seriously concerned about this whole matter and interested in developments with respect to this legislation.
Many of my constituents have followed very closely the proceedings in this house in connection with the bill and the proceedings in the committee on external affairs when this measure was being discussed. I must say that the work of the committee on external affairs was in my opinion unusually interesting, owing to the importance of the bill and the evidence presented by various witnesses and the focusing of the attention of the committee on the proposed developments in the Columbia river basin. To the people of my constituency, as I said before, it was especially interesting because of its relation to the proposal for the building of a dam on the lower Arrow Lakes.
I must, in fairness, like the previous speaker, congratulate the chairman of the committee on the very fair and efficient performance of his duties under circumstances which at times required quite a high degree of tact, fairness and the consideration of various points of view. There is no question about it that certain members of the committee had very strong views with respect to this legislation and its application. The chairman's arrangements for procedure, the agenda, and the hearing of evidence were very fair, in my opinion, to all parties concerned. Personally I think the chairman is to be congratulated on the way in which he carried out the expressed wishes of the committee in seeing that all provincial governments were notified of the meetings of the committee and that they had the opportunity to make representations.
The first witness to appear before the committee was General McNaughton whose knowledge and grasp of the problems relating to the development of international rivers greatly impressed the members of the committee. There is no question about that. Without a doubt, General McNaughton will be recognized in Canadian history as the architect of the draft plans for the wise development of the Columbia and other international rivers, and the prime and first advocate of the principle of downstream benefits in Canada. The committee recognized this in its report, and I think I should place on record part of that report:
Your committee was favourably impressed by the work performed to date by the chairman, members and officials of the Canadian section of the international joint commission concerning the elaboration of projects for the over-all development and maximum use of hydro-electric power to be derived from the Columbia river basin and the possible use of the Kootenay and Fraser rivers in relation thereto.

International Rivers
Your committee also approves of the stand taken by the chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission for the protection of Canadian interests, in its dealings with the members of the U.S. section of the commission.
The members of this house and Canadians generally owe a debt of gratitude to General McNaughton for the way he has applied himself to the great river development problems that are facing Canada at the present time and for his vigorous defence of Canadian interests and Canadian rights on all occasions.
The committee also heard Mr. Varcoe, the deputy minister of justice, on the constitutional aspects of the bill, and Mr. M. H. Wershof, of the Department of External Affairs, on international law in relation to the bill. I think it is fair to say that the committee gained a great deal of valuable information from both these witnesses.
Then the committee heard the Hon. R. W. Bonner, attorney general of British Columbia, who presented the brief for his province. Whatever our opinions concerning the views presented, it must be admitted by members of the committee that Mr. Bonner was a skilful witness who presented his government's case to the best possible advantage, particularly his government's objection to clause 9 in the bill as sent to the committee originally. I can well appreciate that objection. According to my understanding of Mr. Bonner's evidence, it was possibly the major objection that his government had to the bill and did create certain fears in the minds of the members of his government.
As I said before, the committee made arrangements for all provinces to be notified that representations would be heard by the committee if they saw fit to attend. There were representations from only two provinces. In the first case the minister of agriculture in the government of Saskatchewan, while he agreed with the principle of the bill, was concerned as to whether the intention of the Canadian government to insist that a licence be obtained under this act applied to the thousands of small domestic and irrigation projects built and to be built for farmers on the prairies, and suggested that the bill be amended to clarify this section. In response to that request the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources proposed an amendment which was recommended by the committee and which was satisfactory to the minister of agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan.
Then Mr. Bonner, on behalf of the government of British Columbia, took particular exception to clause 9 of the bill which, as I said before, made it possible to declare
[Mr. Herridge.l
all international river improvements not exempted from the operation of the act works for the general advantage of Canada. I could well appreciate the fears and the concern over this section. It is a very strong section. After careful consideration of Mr. Bonner's representations the minister recommended to the committee deletion of this clause from the bill. I think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is to be commended for his spirit of compromise and his willingness to meet the legitimate fears of any province concerned. I think in the two cases where amendments arose as to this matter, he showed a spirit of compromise and a willingness to do what he could to meet these fears and yet at the same time not affect the protection of the national interest in these international rivers.
After the minister had proposed his last amendment, he was congratulated by members of all parties in the committee on his consideration of representations made for amendments to the bill and on his willingness, as I said before, to allay the fears which certain sections of the bill created in the minds of the representatives of the provincial governments concerned.
At this stage I think I should say that the evidence given by the officials of the water resources branch of his department was of great assistance to the committee. I think these officials should be particularly mentioned because, as a matter of fact, all the mass of data that we had the opportunity to deal with, including all the engineering data placed before the committee, is entirely the result of the work and the technical experience of the engineers of the water resources branch of the minister's department and the engineers of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and the Department of Public Works. I think the evidence indicated that there has been going on for the last ten years a thorough and complete survey of the Columbia river basin.
Mr. Chairman, we consider that this bill lays the foundation for the development of international rivers in Canada as the result of federal-provincial co-operation which we hope to see develop in the future. The people of British Columbia, particularly the residents of my constituency, are, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said, greatly interested in seeing the development of the great projects, such as the Mica creek dam, that have been mentioned during this discussion.
Speaking in this house as far back as February 22, 1949 on behalf of this group and presenting the policy and views of this group

in respect of this matter, I urged the establishment of a Columbia river basin authority. I am going to do something that I think the late Hon. Ian Mackenzie did on one occasion; I am going to quote myself. I am going to read from Hansard of February 22, 1949, page 775.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is from a good authority.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is an excellent authority. I read as follows:
My second suggestion is that consideration should be given by this government to the development of the water resources in the basin under public ownership in co-operation with the government of British Columbia. I am recommending the establishment of a Canadian Columbia river basin authority, and in support of that proposal I should like to quote from the minutes of a committee of congress which sat in 1933-34 to consider this question and which reported with respect to the United States portion of the Columbia river basin as follows:
This is an extremely interesting quotation from a committee report in the United States dealing with the development of the Columbia river basin in the United States.
"We believe in private enterprise-in the expectancy of rewards for honest endeavour, labour, initiative and daring-in the things that have made America great. But some things are too big for private enterprise, and the Columbia river is one of these."
I trust that this suggestion will receive serious consideration. A most favourable situation exists with regard to the public development of the main stem of the Columbia because there is little private interest investment to consider in connection with the development of the potential 2,900,000 horsepower.
I mention that to indicate the interest of this group in the establishment of a Columbia river basin authority five or six years ago and our interest in the development of power as a result of public investment.
To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this was the first suggestion made in the House of Commons for the establishment of such an authority and it captured the imagination of large numbers of people in British Columbia. As the result, after making that speech I had 10,000 copies printed and distributed at various points in British Columbia and over 200 in the United States and I was obliged to send several dozen copies to people interested in developments in London, England. Hence it will be seen that there is great interest in the development of this region.
So far as my own people are concerned, as I said before they are greatly interested in this matter. We have had local committees meeting and discussing the bill, the proceedings in the house and the minutes of the external affairs committee. As a matter of fact, for me it was quite an expensive undertaking. I suggested that anybody who wanted to get a copy of the minutes of the external affairs
International Rivers
committee should write to me. It has cost me something over $200 to date, as the copies of the minutes cost 35 cents each. In any event, I was glad to do it because these people were extremely anxious to be kept informed about the question and that is the main thing in matters like this in a democracy. Anyway, as the result of these committee meetings and interest the movement which I have the honour to represent in Kootenay West has published a little book entitled "Dam the Columbia" selling at 15 cents a copy, and it is selling like hot cakes in the interior of British Columbia. If there are any hon. members opposite or members of the Social Credit group who would like a copy of it, I shall be glad to put their names down and to see that they get one.


Mr. Patterson:: Who wrote it?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A group of persons working inside the C.C.F. As usual it is an extremely sound document indeed.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It could not be if it is
inside the C.C.F.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There is overwhelming
evidence to prove the value of public power development, and 1 want to conclude on that note. I was noticing recently that, according to the Tennessee valley authority director of information in the United States, $429 million of the taxpayers' money was invested in the Morse-Hell's canyon-plan, the government borrowing at about 21 per cent.
Over the past 21 years of operation the margin has amounted to an average of 4 per cent return on the net average power investment, which is about double the cost of money to the government during that period.
What an excellent example that is for our federal and provincial governments to follow; I refer to the example of the Tennessee valley authority.
According to testimony by this same gentleman, there was a 200 per cent increase in local industry as the result of the development of the Tennessee valley authority as against the meagre 75 per cent increase in industry in New England under free enterprise control of power in the same period of time. After the Tennessee valley authority was established, 1,600 new, privately owned industries were set up in a region where private industry electrical experts testified previously no progress could be made with power development. The result of the Tennessee valley authority development was a 500 per cent increase in per capita income in the region, flood control, forestry and agricultural aid, and general economic improvement.

International Rivers
The success of the Ontario hydro commission demonstrates what can be done with respect to these public power projects. It has meant a great deal to industry and agriculture in Ontario. As the result of its public power policy the government of Saskatchewan is now electrifying the majority of the farms in that province, farms that would have remained without light and power if they had been left to the mercy of private power developments. In addition, the British Columbia power commission, established under the coalition government of Premier Hart, has brought power to thousands of people in the interior of British Columbia who would be without power and electric light today if it had not been provided by the publicly owned power facilities of the British Columbia power commission. What an opportunity the Columbia river developments provide for the British Columbia power commission, working in co-operation with the federal government.
However, Mr. Chairman, in Canada and the United States the opponents of public power development continue to be active. In this connection I want to quote very briefly from the remarks of former President Truman when speaking at Portland on the Pacific coast last week. Unfortunately, under the present Republican government of the United States there is a great tendency to revert to private power development and to undermine the good work of public power development on the Columbia, in the Tennessee valley, on the Missouri and other rivers.
Former President Truman was speaking in this connection at Portland and was dealing with the Columbia at that time. I will say that former President Truman, as was former President Roosevelt, was always a strong advocate of public power development in the United States. I was interested in this article because it indicates what is happening south of the line in the Columbia river basin and what might have happened in Canada and could happen if some people had their way. The article reads:
In his prepared speech Mr. Truman asserted that "selfish interests" with public lands and public power as their targets had been "more subtle and, for that reason, more dangerous" during the last two years.
"Pious in his pretensions and aided by experts in propaganda", the former president said, "the modern day raider insists he is fighting for private enterprise, local rights, regional rights and state rights. But he always winds up by taking over the people's rights."
The former president charged that during this period "there has been an attempt to becloud the basic concept that our great rivers are a federal responsibility."
"A number of people," he went on. "have been trying to make us believe that the federal interest

in our river systems is an encroachment on the rights of the states and local governments."
We have heard that sort of talk in this country.
"There have been a lot of crocodile tears about how the federal government is setting up a power monopoly and breaking down states rights-and how the time has come to get the federal government out of the river business. The development of our rivers must be planned-it cannot be opened as a grab bag to private interests to pick off the best revenue-producing dam sites at the expense of future generations." . . .
Of the methods of the "raiders" he said further that "if you have an agency like the southwestern power administration, selling power at a low cost to rural co-operatives, the technique is to rewrite the contracts in such a way that the co-operatives will have to go out of business."
Or, he went on, "if you have a new source of publicly-financed power coming into being, like the St. Lawrence project, they try to give the power to the private companies to distribute without any guarantees in the public interest. If you have a great plan for an entire river basin, like the plan for the Columbia, which is only partly built", he said, "then the technique is for the federal government to give up the crucial dam sites and get the federal power commission to turn them over to private power companies for piecemeal exploitation. This will block the future growth of the whole system and prevent existing dams from turning out as much power as they could."
When this bill is adopted by the house it will prevent that sort of thing happening in Canada, and will ensure the sound development of our international rivers in the national interest.
Finally, I want to bring to the attention of the committee again that the Columbia river basin is rich in natural resources. There is an abundance of land, forest and mineral wealth which provides great opportunities for industrial and agricultural development if we harness the water resources of the region. Experience has proven this can best be done under public ownership, and to the great advantage of the public in general.
Therefore to this end, on behalf of this group I again strongly urge the establishment of a Columbia river basin authority, after the fashion of the successful Tennessee valley authority, and a program of public investment as the result of federal-provincial co-operation that will provide power for the development of our natural resources and also provide, as the years go by, the flood protection so necessary on many parts of this river. The party I have the honour to represent advocates the development of Canadian natural resources for Canadians first, and believes the bill provides a sound foundation for the development of international rivers in Canada to the advantage of this dominion. We trust that, on the sound foundations laid by the bill, there will be erected an enduring

structure of federal-provincial co-operation in the future development of our international rivers.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to say a few words on the bill before us, may I first of all say that I agree with the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in his words of congratulation to the committee for the splendid work done during the many sessions when the bill was under study and consideration. We appreciate many of the changes that have been made, especially the deletion of clause 9 and the excepting from the regulations of the various irrigation projects in the interior and elsewhere in British Columbia.
I am not going to deal with the measure at great length. I have spoken about it on previous occasions. I expressed what I thought then, and I am going to tell you I have had no reason to regret any statement I ever made during those speeches. I still feel with regard to the bill as I did on those former occasions, although it has been modified to a considerable degree.
I was particularly pleased in reading the reports of the proceedings of the committee to note that the minister expressed a real feeling of co-operation. We hope that will continue, because we know it is necessary in order to develop the many projects representing about 50 per cent of the potential power of British Columbia covered by the bill. I was also impressed by the fact that the evidence presented before the committee proved that many of the claims made by those supporting the bill in the earlier debate were irresponsible and ill-founded. However, that is all in the past. As I said, I am not going into that further.
The federal government is determined to carry on with its plan to impose its authority, and like all good Canadians living in the province of British Columbia I shall abide by the law. However, I have a few points I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, and possibly certain questions to ask. I would ask that they be clarified, perhaps not individually as they are brought ap but some time before this debate is concluded. I shall try to be brief and concise in presenting these questions, so the minister will have no difficulty in discerning what I am trying to get at and in formulating his answers.
First, what will be the status of British Columbia licences in so far as international rivers are concerned? Is it planned that the licence fees for federal licences under this bill shall be only nominal? I expect the
International Rivers
minister is going to say, read clause 10. I have read clause 10, Mr. Chairman, and the first part of it is wonderful. In fact when I first read it I said that was in effect a cancellation of this whole bill. Then I saw the words, "except in so far as such provincial laws are repugnant to this act or the regulations." Those words could be interpreted rather widely. There could be regulations made under this act which would make any act of the province of British Columbia repugnant to it.
In that connection, is it intended to make regulations that will be at variance with the British Columbia water rights legislation, and so destroy it? Another thing about which I should like clarification is the status of the projects in operation. I can refer to three of which I know at the moment. There is the Whatshan project and the Spilli-macheen; those are both British Columbia power installations. Then we have the large Consolidated Mining and Smelting installation which I believe is known as the Corra Linn dam. Will these projects be automatically licensed? It seems rather unusual to have legislation of this kind made retroactive, and I am wondering what the answer will be in this case.
We have heard something about downstream benefits, Mr. Chairman, and this is a very important question. It is the problem which is presented as the reason for introducing this Bill No. 3. I admit it is a very important problem; but if it is going to be the basis on which the whole development of the Columbia is to take place is it not fitting that it should be the first problem upon which all parties concerned are satisfied? The parties concerned are, of course, the province of British Columbia, the government of Canada and the government or official representative of the United States of America.
Recently I was glad to see that the premier of British Columbia had called for a top level conference to discuss this matter. Immediately our own minister in charge of this department made a reply by way of the press. He said he did not think that was the right way to go about it, that the idea was premature. I referred to the splendid spirit of co-operation which had been evidenced by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I am beginning to wonder if this long distance fight is still going to be carried on via the press of this country.
Speaking of downstream benefits, I have heard it said that this principle has never been recognized by the United States. I think

International Rivers
that is an incorrect statement. I believe we should give credit to the British Columbia government for gaining the first recognition of the value of downstream benefits in their dealings over the Kaiser dam, which I had not intended to mention. In the proposed contract the United States recognized that such a thing as downstream benefits existed, and they were prepared to pay British Columbia for what they were receiving by way of increased power. Whether or not these payments were in accordance with actual value I am not going to argue at the moment. But I am going to say that the British Columbia government established for Canada and for the international joint commission the right of Canada or the right of any province to downstream benefits in the United States.
As a further argument that this conference should be held at once, I am going to refer for a moment to the matter of Mica creek. Mica creek is a very important project to the people of the interior of British Columbia. We would like to see it started at the earliest possible moment. No one in this house can say that if and when that dam is built the United States will not receive the same downstream benefits they would have received had the proposed Kaiser dam been put into operation. If we intend to get speedy action on the Mica creek dam, as I hope we will, then we must have speedy action at this top level conference of the three parties most vitally concerned in order to consider the whole problem of downstream benefits. We have heard also of co-operative plans for the development of the Columbia basin. I am pleased to say that the hon. member for Kootenay West is the father of that idea, and I will give him credit for it. In connection with that development, Mr. Chairman, I am going to suggest that we have a top level board, and by top level I mean government representatives of the two parties most vitally concerned, the government of Canada and the government of British Columbia.
At the moment surveys are being made and some plans are being formulated, but it is not being done at the top level. It is being done by what I would call junior engineers and junior assistants. We have been told that there are groups with all kinds of money at their beck and call awaiting the development of the Columbia basin. Whether or not that is going ahead in the near future, of course, is more or less conjecture; but I am confident that the government of British Columbia did have plans whereby this great Columbia basin would be developed in the near future. If we are now going to have something which will slow up that development, and throw a monkey wrench, if you 
will, into the private development of this great basin, then I am going to suggest that we have immediate action by the government of Canada in announcing a program to replace the program which the province had planned. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. I believe that where any plan or any project is stopped, it is up to those responsible for the stoppage of that program or project to bring in an alternative.
These are the points I wanted to outline. I am sure the minister will be able to clarify these various matters that bother me and, perhaps, bother a great many other people in Canada. The attitude of the government should be made known at once so the uncertainty in the minds of people in British Columbia and throughout Canada may be put at rest.


Jean Lesage: 
Howard Charles Green: What is the policy with regard to licensing of United States firms which are willing to come in and build such projects? I cited the United States report which indicated that the Puget Sound public utilities council was prepared to construct the Mica creek dam and power plant. Is it the policy

International Rivers
of the Canadian government that the Mica creek project can be built by a United States concern of that kind?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, we have had no application or request as yet. Any application or request that is made will certainly be considered on its merits. Among the factors which will be considered are the principles that have been outlined this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Howard Charles Green: I had hoped that it would not be a case of the government considering these principles, particularly the principle that these projects should be built by Canadians; I had hoped that that was already the policy of the government, and that it would not agree to having a project such as the Mica creek project built by the Puget Sound utilities council or any other United States company. Surely after all the discussion there has been on this question the minister is in a position to state what government policy is in this regard.


Jean Lesage: It all depends upon what the hon. member has in mind as to the building by some utility organization in the United States. If it is the provision of capital for a Canadian concern, that is one thing; but if it is a case of a contract to build by Americans with American control of the Mica dam, that would be another thing. We certainly are not in favour of such a development as would leave the control of waters to the United States. That was one argument we had against the Kaiser dam project, because it would have given control of the regulation of the water to a United States corporation.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows that the Puget Sound utilities council is definitely in the field to build the Mica creek dam.


Jean Lesage: No, I do not know that.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows there has been this discussion by that body, which has made no secret of it. They are willing and able and anxious to build that project. What is the attitude of the dominion government with regard to such a plan?


Jean Lesage: I understand that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked the attorney general of British Columbia the same question when he was before the committee, and the attorney general said there had been no approach to his government. In spite of that, I understand from what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has said this afternoon there have been reports in the newspapers that Mr. Bennett was having

some dealings with them. I do not know anything about that, as the federal government has not been approached.


Howard Charles Green: I am not asking the minister about what Premier Bennett is doing; I am asking him whether the dominion government has a policy with regard to the construction of this project by the Puget Sound utilities council or any other United States organization.


Jean Lesage: I do not believe I should be involved in a discussion of what the eventual policy of the federal government is going to-be, based on a set of facts of which I know nothing. I certainly have not had occasion to discuss with my colleagues the implications of a possible application by a group of interests in the United States. If ever there was a hypothetical question, that is one.


Mr. Byrne:: Has the minister had a formal request from the premier of British Columbia to arrange what he calls a meeting at the summit over this Columbia basin business?


Jean Lesage: No. I forgot to answer one question asked by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. The hon. member wanted to know if downstream benefits would be discussed at the summit. The question of downstream benefits involves not only the Columbia river basin but all international rivers in Canada. Downstream benefits affect not only Canada; they affect the United States as well. They represent an international problem which applies not only in many provinces of Canada but in various states of the United States.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Is the minister under the impression that General McNaughton is prepared to recommend the Mica creek development at this time? I believe it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who suggested this afternoon that General McNaughton was recommending that the Mica creek project be proceeded with at this time. My impression was that he was prepared to proceed with it only when the engineering had got sufficiently far along to determine whether the diversion from the Columbia into the Fraser was feasible. Is that the impression of the minister?


Jean Lesage: The hon. member is right.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, I have here the question and answer on that point, at page 96 of the proceedings of the standing committee on March 10. I asked General McNaughton the following question:
Q. I understood you to say yesterday that some of the works Included in this plan could be proceeded with at the present time without any injury to the full development of the plan as the

years go by. Could you tell the committee what works you had in mind as being possible at the present time?
A. One of the works we had particularly in mind, when I said that some of these works as a result of our studies are beginning to show up as works and projects that would certainly be included in any plan which we would recommend, is Mica.
Q. It could be proceeded with at once?
A. Yes, sir, subject to one condition and that is Jf for some reason or other we found it not practicable to divert the water around which we would take at Mica for downstream benefits, we would have to have a treaty on downstream benefits.


Jean Lesage: That is the point.


Howard Charles Green: The provincial attorney general also said that the province felt they could go ahead with Mica at the present time.


Jean Lesage: The proviso made by General McNaughton is certainly the one which was pointed out to us by the hon. member for Kootenay East. As I understood it, he said we would have to know first if it would be possible to have the diversion, what the effect of the dam would be on the diversion or vice versa. That is the way I understood the question.


Howard Charles Green: I asked him a further question. This diversion of the Fraser river may take a good many years to work out. There are many people in British Columbia who are not in favour of the diversion because they are threatened with floods.


Jean Lesage: That is another question.


Howard Charles Green: It is serious.


Jean Lesage: It is certainly serious. We are spending a quarter of a million dollars on the study of the question.


Howard Charles Green: My next question was this:
Q. Are there any other works you included in this plan which could be constructed now?
A. The economic aspect of these things is very important, not only as regards the works themselves, but as to the timing of the works. We are not, unfortunately, in the happy position of knowing our costs in other places in the system as we are at Mica, and we are working just as fast as we can with additional consulting engineers to get ourselves in that position.
Q. In effect the only project which you would say now you would be able to proceed with at once is the Mica creek project?
A. That is right.


Jean Lesage: The engineering.


Howard Charles Green: I asked General McNaughton:
In effect the only project which you would say now you would be able to proceed with at once is the Mica creek project?
He gave the clear and unequivocal answer: "That is right". Now does the minister wish to modify that today?


Jean Lesage: Could I be told what the page is?
International Rivers


Howard Charles Green: Page 96.


Mr. Philpoit:: Surely the point there lies in the answer the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra himself read a few minutes ago, where General McNaughton made it very clear that this Mica creek project should be gone ahead with, but not until there was an international treaty governing downstream benefits. That is the point of the whole thing.


Howard Charles Green: General McNaughton has
recommended that there be a treaty on downstream benefits. If hon. members remember, I point out today the great urgency in negotiating a treaty of that kind. I should like to ask the minister whether this government has yet taken any steps which would lead to the negotiation of a treaty concerning downstream benefits.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I have suggested the matter to the members of the international joint commission, and I understand that General McNaughton will insist at a coming meeting of the commission for a study of the matter.


Howard Charles Green: Does that mean the minister has informally told General McNaughton we would like to have discussions in the international joint commission about a treaty on downstream benefits? Is that all it amounts to?


Jean Lesage: I made a public statement in the presence of Governor Jordan, the United States chairman of the commission. Then I asked General McNaughton to raise the question. I discussed the matter with Mr. Jordan himself and with General McNaughton, but I do not feel I am at liberty to report these conversations.


Howard Charles Green: Have no steps been taken to deal with the United States government itself, as distinct from having the international joint commission consider this question?


Jean Lesage: As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I believe we need the opinion of the members of the international joint commission on the matter. These gentlemen of the international joint commission have been dealing with this question for years now, and certainly they are best prepared to deal with a matter of this kind. Before governments can discuss the matter, certainly as far as we are concerned we want it to be discussed by the persons whom we consider to be the experts in the matter on both sides of the border.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean that he wants the Canadian and United States members of the international joint commission to discuss this question first, or does he

International Rivers
mean that he wants the Canadian members of the commission to discuss it among themselves and then recommend to the Canadian government what the Canadian government should do?


Jean Lesage: I mean a discussion in the international joint commission between the Canadian members and the United States members, in order to see if it will be possible to find a general formula which will be applicable on both sides of the border and all along the border for downstream benefits; and if it is not possible to find a definite formula, establish at least a set of principles, in order of priority, from which a formula could be devised in each case which would be workable.


Howard Charles Green: Then what course will be followed after these members, Canadian and United States, of the international joint commission have discussed the principles? Is it the intention that a treaty then be negotiated between Canada and the United States?


Jean Lesage: The international joint commission Reports to the governments, and whenever we have a report from the international joint commission on this matter, which I hope will be in the not too distant future, it will be studied by the government and then a decision on policy will be taken.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I was just going to ask the minister, is it not essentially the prime function and purpose of the international joint commission to study and deal with these questions and make recommendations to the respective governments?


Jean Lesage: That is being done all the time. That is the policy which will be followed in this case. The international joint commission in these late weeks has been very busy with the St. Lawrence seaway, especially with the Ontario water levels, but I hope it will be possible in the near future to take up the whole question of downstream benefits.


George William McLeod: In connection with that, as I understand it the top level experts of the international joint commission are going to study this matter of downstream benefits, and are going to make certain representations to the national government. Then action will be taken to draw up this treaty.


Jean Lesage: I never said that.


George William McLeod: In view of the fact that British Columbia is vitally interested in this question, I should like to know if there will be any representation by the government of British Columbia through any experts they

want to delegate to take part in these discussions of the international joint commission over downstream benefits.


Jean Lesage: I understand that the engineers of the water branch, as I believe it is called, of the British Columbia department of lands and forests are in constant touch with the engineers of my own department. As a matter of fact, I believe some engineers of the provincial department are members of the engineering committee on the Columbia river. But I repeat that this question of downstream benefits is one which goes beyond the basin of the Columbia. If a formula is found or, in the absence of a formula owing to the impossibility of finding one, if some principles are laid down, these will apply beyond the boundaries of a province. They will apply all along the boundary both in Canada and in the United States, on both sides of the border.
I am sure sufficient publicity will be given to the matter so that if any interested parties have representations to make, in due time they will be received. But let us have one thing at a time. Here we are asking the international joint commission to study the question of downstream benefits. That is one thing. Let us have a report and see what the report is before we decide on the next step.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to take any part in this debate, but as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has so obviously missed the point I think it is well to point out one or two things.


Howard Charles Green: Be sure you set me straight. I shall be glad to hear it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The hon. member read a section of the minutes in which General McNaughton said we could proceed with the Mica creek project but that timing was of the essence, shall we say. Those are not his exact words. I am not quoting; I am simply paraphrasing. When he said that I think he showed, without putting it into words, the value of the over-all survey, and more particularly the survey on which we are this year spending some $260,000; that is the survey to determine whether the Columbia may be diverted economically and feasibly into the Fraser river system for development of that water here in Canada.
For some time discussions have been going on in the international joint commission as to downstream benefits, and whether Canada may expect to receive benefits for water stored on our territory. When General McNaughton made his presentation before the committee he showed quite conclusively that we may store sufficient water in Canada.

to double the power output of the Columbia system in the United States. That is a tremendous amount of power, and it is certainly of tremendous value to the American people.
As recently as April 5, 1955, the international joint commission met, I note from the minutes, in open meeting in Washington. At that time General McNaughton gave almost the identical summary of the project of the whole development of the Columbia basin to the international joint commission over which Mr. Len Jordan-I believe he is Governor Len Jordan-was presiding. After hearing all of the evidence Mr. Jordan summed up General McNaughton's interpretation of the value of the water stored and the possible value of the storage for downstream benefits. I should just like to quote in order to show that Len Jordan has missed the point by almost as wide a margin as has the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. Summing up, Len Jordan said this:
And, also-if I am wrong, I hope you will correct me-it seemed to me that you ascribed some new value to storage which I am not able to see.
I agree that regulating the flow, the flood flows of a river, has certain beneficial effects. I will point out, though, that the mere act of storing water does not increase the quantity of that water. Nothing new has been added.
Then this is the crowning achievement of the statement:
As a matter of fact, by the very storing of the water you lose by the depletion occasioned by evaporation.
If that is the value put by the United States section of the international joint commission on the 16 million acre feet of water we may store in Canada for regulated flow into the United States turbines, then I say it is quite essential that we have some firm understanding as to how we may develop our water resources here in Canada before we go into negotiations with United States authorities to determine what downstream benefits they are prepared to pay.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand it, the difficulty is this. Once the Mica creek project is put in, then you automatically have the storage and the Americans automatically get the benefits. It is important to get this downstream benefits question settled quickly. I think the big difficulty that is going to arise is delay. In the meantime you have the Americans offering this $245 million to build the Mica creek project. I do not think the dominion government can just sit here and take a great deal of time about getting this part of the work done.
Certainly if that course is followed there will be further trouble between the dominion
International Rivers
government and the government of British Columbia, and that is something that we should all like to avoid. I think everybody in this committee realizes that the problem can be solved only by co-operation between the two governments.
Frankly I am a little bit disappointed that the minister has said this afternoon that he has merely asked the international joint commission to look into this question of downstream benefits. The minister cannot say whether or not Canada proposes to negotiate a treaty with the United States government. The commission has been considering this question for a long time already.


Jean Lesage: No.


Howard Charles Green: Certainly the Canadian members have been considering it for a long time.


Jean Lesage: That is different.


Howard Charles Green: I am surprised that the dominion government has not yet made up its mind whether it is going to be necessary to negotiate a treaty with the United States government about downstream benefits.


Jean Lesage: That will depend on the report. Let us be logical.


Howard Charles Green: The minister knows what General McNaughton's opinion is.


Jean Lesage: We are talking about the international joint commission.


Howard Charles Green: In his evidence before the committee General McNaughton said that some agreement about downstream benefits should be negotiated. The minister said that himself. I read a press dispatch in which he said that himself, namely that the first thing that ought to be done was to negotiate a treaty covering downstream benefits.


Jean Lesage: That is not what I said. I said there should be an agreement.


Howard Charles Green: That is what the minister is reported as having said. That was his excuse for not having a conference at the summit, as requested by the British Columbia premier.


Jean Lesage: It was never requested by them.


Howard Charles Green: I only know what was in the press. There has been a great deal of talk in the press in both directions on this question. That has been one of the unfortunate features. Apparently today we are in the position that the dominion government has merely asked the Canadian members of the international joint commission to see that talks are held by the commission as a whole

International Rivers
concerning the question of downstream benefits. The dominion government does not yet know what it is going to do, what is the next step, whether or not there will have to be a treaty between Canada and the United States. Is that an accurate summary of the situation at the present time?


Jean Lesage: I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has enough imagination to guess how agreements with other countries are arrived at. First of all we have to sound out the opinion in the other country. We have to know if an agreement is possible. Then, after we know if an agreement is possible, we have to discuss with them the form the agreement will take. The best way of learning whether an agreement is possible on the question of downstream benefits is for the Canadian members of the international joint commission to ascertain the opinion of the United States members and see if it is possible to arrive at some kind of formula or, in the absence of a formula, some kind of principles that can be laid down. After we have the answer to that it will then be possible to sound out the United States government in order to know in what form the agreement should be written. It seems to me that is logical, and I cannot go any further.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, in taking part in the deliberations of the committee this afternoon may I say I have noticed there have been quite a number of expressions of appreciation to various individuals and groups, and first of all I should like to join in those words of appreciation. The government has shown a willingness to accept certain amendments which, I suggest, make the bill in many respects a much different bill from the one originally presented to us. Comparing the one originally presented to us with the present bill we can readily see that substantial changes have been made.
I am sure all members of the committee who have taken even a cursory glance at the proceedings of the standing committee on external affairs will be well aware of the fact that the measure received careful and diligent study in that committee.
On the one hand there were those who felt that the measure was essential to the proper development of resources in the national interest. On the other hand there were those who were convinced that it was not only unnecessary but was a violation of the rights of the provinces in respect to these matters. Although I fully appreciate the position in which the chairman found himself as he

endeavoured to maintain peace and order, I must say there were times when he, as chairman, was inclined to be overly loquacious, and there were times when I would say he evidenced rather a political bias.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Before the hon. member goes further I think I should point out to him it is an established rule of practice of the house that even when a committee has reported, members can only discuss or criticize the conduct of the chairman of the committee on a substantive motion brought forward for the purpose. Perhaps the hon. member will not mind my enlarging on that by pointing out that if that were not the case we might have grave difficulty in ever getting anybody to assume the responsibilities involved in the chairmanship of a committee.


Mr. Wylie:: On a question of privilege, I listened to the hon. member for Kootenay West this afternoon and all he did was praise the chairman.


Jean Lesage: If you do not want to approve you have to keep quiet.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: That is quite all right; but when someone disagrees with the chairman-


Jean Lesage: That is the rule.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: -or with certain things that have been done, I think that should be stated in the house as well.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I think the hon. member for Medicine Hat has raised a point which has some merit; but at the same time, I am bound by the rule applying only to criticism of the conduct of a chairman. Perhaps nobody likes to raise a point of order when other members are being complimentary, and I think that is why objection is never taken to complimentary remarks made about chairmen from time to time even though the remarks are of a personal nature. But to get back to where I started, I have to advise the hon. member that criticism of the conduct of the chairman as such is not in order.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not intend to say very much more about it. Possibly what I have said is sufficient. It is not my intention to outline the amendments that were proposed and accepted by the government. These have been very well covered by previous speakers. Nor will I take the time of the committee to place on record certain aspects of the evidence which I had previously intended to refer to at this particular stage of discussion of the bill. I still am of the opinion, however, that the

government is entering a field it has no business to enter and is claiming prerogatives outside its jurisdiction. I do not think I am the only one who feels that way.
During one of the first meetings of the committee it was agreed that notices would be sent to the various provincial governments stating that the bill was then before the committee, and expressing the thought that if they cared to send a delegation or make representations by letter that would be quite acceptable. The replies received were placed in the proceedings, and in reading them we find that some provincial authorities were not too happy with the purposes outlined in the bill. For instance, a reply was received from M. A. Patterson, attorney general of the province of Nova Scotia, which is found at page 31 of the proceedings of the committee. It is addressed to the chairman of the standing committee, and reads:
Retel March 2nd to Premier Hicks while I believe the constitutional validity of the proposed act is questionable I do not feel that the present is the proper time nor your committee the proper forum for the making of representations.
That is part of the telegram received from the government of Nova Scotia. We all understand and are well aware of the reaction of the government most concerned about the bill, the government of British Columbia. When notice was sent to the premier of that province the invitation was accepted and the committee was notified that a delegation would be sent to present a brief on behalf of the provincial government.
Then we find on pages 268 and 269 of the proceedings a communication from the premier of the province of Quebec, one paragraph of which reads as follows:
The government of the province of Quebec considers that the proposed federal legislation and the amendments in question are contrary to the rights and prerogatives of the province and that they constitute serious encroachments in the most important field of natural resources belonging to the province, particularly with reference to hydroelectric developments.
It will be seen that the views expressed by members of this group in the first debate on the measure were not just those of the individuals who expressed them, but also the opinions of some of the provinces. So I would submit that even after granting the concessions which have been granted, this government is still going beyond its rights in putting this bill through the committee. The authority for the type of development referred to in the bill covers an area composing over 22 per cent of British Columbia, and involves over 50 per cent of the hydro potential. We can readily understand, therefore, why the province is so jealous of its rights in connection with these matters.
International Rivers
The other day the hon. member for Eglinton referred to the fact that the people of Ontario would not look kindly on any endeavour to take control of the hydroelectric developments of Ontario. At the time I just wished the hon. member for Eglinton had been as ready to defend the particular project we have been discussing as he was to defend the project he was discussing at that particular time. We find that if this bill goes through not only the authority but also the responsibility will rest upon the federal government. They have chosen to set themselves up as the authority to license these particular projects. Now, I would feel that the responsibility is theirs to see that the province or provinces have access to the necessary capital to develop the resources for the good of the people of our country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the picture of the possibilities of the development of the Columbia river basin as given by General McNaughton is almost staggering to the imagination. However, even though General McNaughton could not imagine himself being wrong about anything, it might be possible that some other authorities in some other governments could possibly be the repositories of at least a modicum of knowledge. I am not suggesting, of course-at least right at the moment-that General McNaughton is wrong. But I would like to suggest that even although to most of the government he is infallible, there may be the possibility that in some respects he may be slightly wrong.
In discussing this measure in committee the hon. member for Peace River, the leader of this group, tried to present the difficulties with which we were confronted in endeavouring to assess the effect of this particular measure and all that was involved in it. He called attention to some of the basic differences between General McNaughton and his advisers and the government of British Columbia and their advisers. I should like to refer to one particular instance at page 350 of the evidence of the committee. At the time Mr. Bonner was the witness, and we find this paragraph at the bottom of that page:


Hon.   Mr. Bonner@: One of the questions which is uppermost in the minds of the provincial government in connection with the Castlegar dam is that the 3 million acre feet which it is proposed for storage should not be in excess of the 18-5 million which is noted on table 7 on page 71 of the proceedings of this committee. In other words, there is shown in that schedule to be for operation of turbines at full rate speed in a period of storage in a minimum year 18,500,000. The 3 million which is in contemplation for lower Arrow lakes is not, as I am advised, to be considered over and above that 18,500,000 but rather is to be included in it. That is one of the premises under which the matter is being approached by the government of British Columbia.

International Rivers
That is something which we must insist upon for the proper development of the Columbia.
Then we turn to page 491 where the hon. member for Peace River was questioning General McNaughton. After reading the quotation which I have just read, the hon. member for Peace River said:
Now, the question then that I ask you first is this: You do not agree that the 3 million acre feet contemplated for lower Arrow lakes storage is contained within the 18.500,000?
A. No, sir, I most emphatically do not.
What right had General McNaughton to interpret something Mr. Bonner had said when Mr. Bonner made the plain statement that this was the premise from which the government was working? General McNaughton comes along and says that is not so. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, we ought to consider some of the evidence submitted by General McNaughton. We ought to take a second look at it, because I think some of those statements were rather irresponsible for a man in his position.


Jean Lesage: Why did you not cross-examine him, then?


Alexander Bell Patterson: What was the use of trying?


Jean Lesage: You never uttered a word in the committee.


Alexander Bell Patterson: What was the use? The government supporters took everything he said as gospel, and if anybody disagreed with that then they were entirely wrong.
The second observation I wish to make has to do with the suggested diversions of flood waters, especially of the flood waters of the Columbia into the Fraser. I understand there is another diversion from the Kootenay into the Columbia and then from the Columbia into the Fraser. This is for the purpose of hydroelectric projects on the Fraser. This question was raised both here and in the committee. In view of the great issues involved and the reports which continue to circulate, I suggest that the matter be given exhaustive study to determine beyond any question the effect any power developments on the Fraser may have upon the multimillion dollar fish industry on the Pacific coast.
I refer to the evidence that was given in this connection in the committee. At page 41 we find General McNaughton continuing with his statement, and he says:
This proposal has been considered by the fisheries experts, and they welcome the possibility of providing the Vancouver area with the power it needs, without at the same time having to put in a lot of high dams up which the fish cannot go. There is no objection to those proposals from the fisheries point of view, but discussions are going on.

On page 119 we have a further statement by General McNaughton:
Now, as regards the development itself and the danger to fish, and particularly the danger to the small fish going down, to which General Pearkes has referred, the danger becomes most important when you get to dams which have heads running above 200 feet. Up to 200 feet it seems, from the information which has been collected, that with reasonable arrangements the mortality of young fish is not prohibitive.
Then at page 120 we find this:
When it comes to these very high dams the thing which seems to kill these fish is not so much the machinery but the change of pressure. Our fisheries people are adamant in saying where fish run we must not have 400 foot dams and the like.
There are those who have expressed views on the effect of hydroelectric development on the fisheries. I read a report in the Vancouver Sun of Saturday, June 4. This is the Ottawa report by Stanley Burke. In this particular article the Minister of Fisheries is reported to have said that he could not make up his mind whether or not to be alarmed. Well, I suggest he had better make up his mind. The article goes on to refer to the fact that salmon rivers in the United States and Russia have been destroyed by hydroelectric development. It says that 8 per cent of salmon fry coming downstream are killed going over dams, and that 30 per cent are killed going through turbines. The minister went on to say that every alternative must be explored before damming of the Fraser is resorted to, including atomic energy.
Then I would refer to an article appearing in the Vancouver Herald of Saturday, April 23, bearing the heading "Reid Warns Dams will Kill Salmon Industry: Fish must be Protected against Obstacle Course".


Jean Lesage: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see that the hon. member is completely in order because I recall we heard exactly the same quotations in another debate when the estimates of my department were under consideration. The particular item was the quarter of a million dollars for the study of the diversion of the waters of the Columbia river. So I suggest we did have a debate on this very point, which is only remotely related to any clause in the bill before the committee today.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I have had difficulty understanding and hearing the minister, because he turns his back when he talks.


Jean Lesage: I address the Chair.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Well, I could not hear you. However, I do suggest that what I am saying is relevant to the subject before us. Perhaps the article is too pointed, or something.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think perhaps we might clarify the situation. I am not ruling that the hon. member for Fraser Valley is out of order, because this discussion has ranged so far afield that now the subject under discussion is connected with international rivers in almost any particular. It would be very difficult for the Chair to rule anyone out of order without being somewhat unfair.
I would ask hon. members, however, to give serious consideration to the fact that we are not discussing whether or not the British Columbia power commission or some other organization shall or shall not undertake water diversion or build improvements which may or may not affect the fishing industry. We are discussing whether or not certain powers should be given to the dominion government in connection with permits to build such improvements on rivers.
I think the hon. member for Fraser Valley will agree with me that I am entitled to ask him to make his extraneous remarks with reference to fisheries and other matters as brief as possible in order that the principle of the bill, as against some distant results or actions which might be taken thereunder, will be discussed at this time.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I did not think my remarks were extraneous. We have been voting and spending money to carry on surveys, and this is part of the project under discussion. If I am wrong in assuming that this is relevant to the matter, then of course I must bow to the ruling of the Chair.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am not stopping the hon. member, but I am pointing out to him that there is no project under discussion, if I may use his own words. There is a bill under discussion. In the discussion of that bill both here and in the standing committee we have discussed a great many projects, including the possibility of the diversion to which the hon. member has referred. That is why I am not ruling him out of order.
I do suggest to him, however, that he might co-operate with the Chair and the committee by making as brief as possible references which I am sure he would find difficulty in connecting with any particular clause in the bill, in order that we may discuss the principle of the bill itself.


Alexander Bell Patterson: We had earnestly hoped
that the government would have withdrawn this bill entirely. We have been disappointed in that, and it looks as though we will have to make the best we can of it.
As I have said, we appreciate the amendments which have been proposed and accepted. However, I still feel, as I have 50433-302i
14, 1955
Dominion-Provincial Conference already stated, that the government is going beyond its authority, and that this is just another step in a program of centralization of authority. In so doing it has overridden the principle of provincial autonomy which we appreciate so much in Canada.
The minister clarified some points when replying to the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke. He read at length from his evidence before the committee regarding the existing installations, but after reading it all he failed to say definitely that the government was going to license those installations automatically.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Chairman, I must interrupt again. What the hon. member has said is completely contrary to the facts. After I had quoted what I said in committee I said they would be licensed automatically.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Quite correct; we all heard that.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Thank you. The question of conferences was raised by the hon. member for Kootenay East. He asked if the provincial government had as yet made any contact with the federal authorities. Well, I do not feel that is the responsibility of the provincial government. I believe it is the responsibility of the federal government to carry on from where they left off. The provincial government had plans made and projects outlined. The federal government stepped in and said no. Now we feel it is the responsibility of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources to make proper contacts and arrange for these discussions that, we trust, will lead to some semblance of understanding and some projects which will be in the interests of the people of Canada.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry?


George William McLeod: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It is now five o'clock, and we shall proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE   FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN RELIEF FOR EMPLOYABLES  ANNOUNCEMENT RESPECTING MEETING

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, if I may have the indulgence of the house to revert to motions, I would like to inform hon. members that

Private Bills
I have now heard from the ten provincial governments, and it has been arranged that the meeting to discuss federal participation in relief for employables will commence here Monday morning at 10.30, and will continue on Tuesday if necessary.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 416, to incorporate Consolidated Pipe Lines Company.


Howard Charles Green: May we have an explanation?


Harry Peter Cavers: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate a pipe-line company under the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act. I think all members are aware of the fact that if any company desires to engage in the operation of a pipe line which crosses an interprovincial or the international boundary it must be incorporated by an act of parliament pursuant to the provisions of the Pipe Lines Act. After the bill has received third reading the matter must be referred to the board of transport commissioners, whose duty it is to investigate and inquire into the capitalization of the company, the need for the pipe line, the course it will follow, and so on.
Several bills of this type have been presented to the house this session, and it seems to me this bill follows closely the other pipeline bills that have been presented. I have compared the provisions of this bill with the provisions of other pipe-line bills, and it seems to me that it follows the usual pattern of the bills that have been presented. Probably the most important clause in the bill is clause 5, which follows the wording of similar clauses in other pipe-line bills. I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to clause 6 of the bill, which contains the following proviso:
Provided that the main pipe line or lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil shall be located entirely within Canada.
It is the intention of the incorporators of this company that this pipe line will be located entirely within this country and will not at any time enter the United States. The names of the applicants appear in clause 1 of the bill, and they constitute a well-balanced group of engineers, petroleum products specialists and contractors who are familiar with the financing, construction and operation of pipe-line projects. They do not intend to compete with large interprovincial lines; what they have in mind is the gathering up of the production of small wells in order to make these natural resources available to local communities.
IMr. St. Laurent.]
Were the gas and oil to be transported by truck or by railway tank car it would prove a most expensive procedure, and by establishing a pipe line the transportation can be carried out in a most inexpensive manner. The applicants propose to construct a pipe line to cross from the easterly part of Alberta to the westerly part of Saskatchewan. If the bill is given second reading I intend to move that it be referred to the proper standing committee where more detailed information can be provided.


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

Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 453, to incorporate Baudette and Rainy River Municipal Bridge Company.


Howard Charles Green: May we have an explanation?


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, for a great number of years it has been the desire to have a bridge across the Rainy river which would connect the town of Rainy River in Ontario with Baudette in Minnesota. This bill comes from the Senate and provides for a toll bridge. Hon. members will recall that during the present session we had another private bill incorporating a company which intends to erect a bridge at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, to connect with Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. Hon. members will find that this bill is similar in form to that one. After the requirements of the bonds that will be provided by United States capital are met, the bridge itself will be owned by Canadian and United States public bodies.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, June 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the Canada Grain Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Tucker.
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth occasion on which this bill has been up for debate. Since the subject matter of the bill has been given a most thorough discussion in the house and before the agriculture committee I am hopeful that we may have a vote at this time. When the

bill was before the house last Friday the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) moved an amendment which, if passed, will kill the principle of the bill.
The purpose of introducing this bill is to restore to the producers in western Canada what I consider to be a fundamental Canadian right, namely the right to do their business with the elevator of their own choice. Year after year, in parliament and before the agriculture committee, members of the C.C.F. and representatives of western farm organizations have been endeavouring to get the government to do something to solve this problem and restore this right to western farmers.
Last session we thought something might be done when the minister promised to implement a car cycle at local points, but nothing came of it. Then we hoped that as a result of the further agriculture committee meetings this year this problem would be solved. Instead we have before the house a report which turns over the distribution of box cars to the Canadian wheat board without in any way providing that the farmers be given the right to deliver grain to the elevators of their own choice.
Then only last Friday the hon. member for Rosthern moved in amendment that the bill be not now read a second time but that instead the house reaffirm a paragraph taken from the report of the agriculture committee, naming the wheat board as an agency for the distribution of box cars. That is another attempt to avoid the issue. That is raising another phony excuse following a great many other phony excuses we have had in the past. I went over the many excuses advanced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when I spoke last Friday. I was about to mention the last excuse he used, namely that the bill before the house was not constitutional. With regard to constitutionality the minister said, as reported on page 3756 of Hansard of May 13, the following:
The government has been advised to the contrary, not indeed with respect to this particular bill but with respect to other proposals for allocation of box cars which would govern competition between elevator companies.
We had the wheat pools before the agriculture committee advancing a solution to this problem. It was never suggested, to the best of my knowledge, before that committee that such a proposal was not constitutional. As a matter of fact I made a request that there should come before the agriculture committee a witness from the justice department to say whether or not this proposition was constitutional. No such witness was brought before the committee. I am therefore
Canada Grain Act
confident that this proposal is constitutional in every way. As a matter of fact, it is demonstrated now that the government has the constitutional power because the power to distribute box cars is being placed in the hands of the Canadian wheat board. So the excuses about constitutionality will in fact not stand the light of day.
This battle for the restoration to farmers of a fundamental right is not a new battle. It has been going on intermittently for 50 years. At various times producers have demanded what they believed to be a just right in the marketing of their grain. They have been refused from time to time by the government in power, but farm organizations and farmers continued to keep pressure on the government until a solution was obtained. Even though the government may refuse to solve this fundamental problem at this time, nevertheless farm organizations will continue to demand a solution. Pressure will build up, and some day the government is going to have to solve this problem.
The farmers of western Canada, in the words of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, are fighting mad that a fundamental right they have enjoyed for 50 years has been taken away from them. The fact that thousands of letters have come to members and to the government this session demanding a solution and that the government has done nothing will not discourage the producers of western Canada. There will be further letters; there will be further representations to the government. I suggest that unless this problem is solved the government may yet see another mass delegation of wheat farmers coming to Ottawa to demand this problem be solved and that a fundamental right be restored.
The government now is taking the jurisdiction over the distribution of box cars away from the railway companies, out from under the Canada Grain Act, and according to the recommendation of the agriculture committee are going to ask the Canadian wheat board to get into the business of box car distribution. The minister has said repeatedly that the Canadian wheat board's first business was to sell wheat and that the Canadian wheat board should not have to spend its time in the business of distributing box cars. We never disagreed with that statement; we always agreed with it. But now the minister is forcing the Canadian wheat board to undertake the distribution of box cars on the one hand, something the wheat board should not be doing and on the other hand something the farmer himself should control.
The agriculture committee has reported. The report is unanimous. But let no member

Canada Grain Act
of parliament think that the section recommending this new method of box car distribution is unanimous. That section is opposed by members of this group, because we feel it is something that will not work. It is wrong, because you are asking the wheat board to do something it should not be doing. It will not work, because the Canadian wheat board cannot give to the various elevator systems the exact percentage of box cars based on the wishes of the producers in western Canada.
Even if the Canadian wheat board distributes box cars to a local elevator point on the basis of the recommendations of the elevator companies, it will still be impossible for box cars to be distributed in an equitable manner. That is impossible because at a shipping point, for example, where you have four elevator companies you will have each company deciding the number of box cars that will go to its elevator at a given time. Any single company, by sending a certain number of box cars to its elevator at that point, will be able to get a greater percentage of grain than it would get if box cars were distributed on the basis of the farmer's own choice.
It is a shame that producers even now will not be allowed to take their business to the elevator they wish to patronize. I said in moving this measure more than live weeks ago that a cabinet minister would not like to be told that he would have to buy a Volkswagen if he wanted to buy a Cadillac. He would say, "If I have sufficient money to buy a Cadillac and I want to drive a Cadillac, that is the car I am going to buy". Why then should a farmer in western Canada be forced to deliver his grain to a certain elevator, because of the maldistribution of box cars?
Because we in this group believe this is something that should not continue, because we disagree with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosthern as it now stands, I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson):
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words "shipping point" and substituting therefor the following words:
"according to the preference of producers at that point".
While I did not draft that amendment on the basis of the resolution passed by the Saskatchewan Liberal party in convention on September 23, 1954, I nevertheless find that the Saskatchewan Liberal party in convention passed a resolution in almost precisely the same terms, which reads as follows:
On the question of box car allocation, the convention urged that the Canada Grain Act be amended to provide for placing box cars at country elevators in accordance with the farmers' preference.

This subamendment would provide an instruction to the Canadian wheat board to distribute box cars in accordance with the preference of producers. It is because we believe in freedom of choice for the producers that we are moving this subamendment.


Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like apologizing to the house for speaking once again on this question of box car distribution. However, in view of the extensive remarks that were made, particularly last Friday and again today, by the hon. member for Assiniboia on the recent proceedings of the committee on agriculture, I feel that I would be remiss in my duty as chairman, particularly, if I did not correct some of the statements.
As a matter of fact, I think this year the committee on agriculture did an extremely good job. We had an extensive discussion on the whole grain question. We dealt at length with this question which is now before the house. I think it is fair to say that at no time during the proceedings of the committee on agriculture this year did party politics muddy the waters throughout the discussion. I believe the committee gave serious, earnest and objective study to this whole question of box car distribution. After having given such a study, the committee unanimously agreed on a recommendation in order to try to solve this problem equitably.
Our C.C.F. friends, now that they are back in the house, on a bill previously moved are trying to explain their position in committee, I suggest, in the light of political ramifications. I must say that I was greatly disappointed in the speech made by the hon. member for Kindersley. Frankly, I may say that the hon. member attended assiduously at all the sittings of the agriculture committee. He seemed to be interested in the proceedings. I was amazed, however, at the interpretation he placed on the record of the evidence presented to the committee. Practically every paragraph of his speech of last Friday is either absolutely wrong or places a wrong interpretation on the evidence presented to the committee. I am sure a twelve-year-old who sat in the committee would have done a better job of interpreting the evidence than that which was done by the hon. member for Kindersley last Friday. I shall not be obliged to deal with the amendment that he suggested was moved in the committee because having heard the one that was moved today, I think I have heard it before and possibly there is a very great resemblance between the two. Hence if I deal with one I shall be dealing with the two at the same time.

At the same time I want to say, to begin with, that all this nonsense we have been hearing about the government or the Liberals or anybody else being opposed to giving the farmer the right to exercise his choice in the matter of delivery to elevators is just a red herring that has been drawn across the trail by the C.C.F. for the last two or three years. They have dragged it across the trail for so long that it is now beginning to stink. Naturally nobody is opposed to giving everyone his choice with regard to the elevator to which he delivers.


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: Prove it when you vote.


René Jutras: I shall do so in due time, and I will show you where you were wrong in many other instances in your speech the other day. You did not get the implication of the evidence at all during the sittings of that committee. One would have thought you had not been present at the meetings. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; one should address the Chair. From reading the speech, Mr. Speaker, one would have thought the hon. member had not been present at any of the meetings.
Everybody has an earnest desire to try to solve this difficulty in the most practical way. Our C.C.F. friends say, "We want to give everybody the preference". Let me say this. I have a car, and there may be 25 people who want to get into my car. If they all want to get in at the same time, on the first trip, there is bound to be difficulty. I may ascertain their choice, but if they all want to get in first and if they keep on saying they all want to get in, it does not get them in the car because they will not be any better able to get into the car after expressing their preference than they were before. The question is how to provide transportation for all those people. That is the crux of the matter that this amendment is trying to solve.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Get a box car.


René Jutras: Even a box car will not do it. I am tired of hearing the C.C.F. posing in this house and throughout the country, saying they are the only people in this country who are trying to help the farmers get the advantage of exercising their choice in the matter of delivery of their grain. Of course the whole committee was unanimous; everybody tried to find a solution to this problem. I submit that anyone who studies in an objective manner the evidence given before the committee cannot help coming to the conclusion that this amendment is the only possible and practical solution to the problem in the immediate present. I venture to say
Canada Grain Act
that the pool organization will agree with me that this amendment will solve, if not all the problems, at least 95 per cent of them in the three western provinces.
The point is that even this amendment suggested by the hon. member for Assiniboia is not a serious one. It makes no effort to carry out the resolution. The preference is directed to the spotting of box cars. 1 shall not read the amendment and the subamendment, but the subamendment is directed at the distribution of box cars. The amendment is to the effect that the cars will be spotted according to the allocation of orders. Hence, even if you ascertain the preference at the box car level it will not solve the problem if the orders are not allocated differently. Even the hon. member for Kindersley, in his great confusion, admitted that principle last Friday. As reported at page 4658 of Hansard he made this statement:
The percentage of allocation among the elevator companies determines the ability of the farmers to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice.
That is the crux of the whole thing. Who does the allocating of the orders? It is the Canadian wheat board. So no matter what you do at the other level, unless you change the proportion of orders that go out to the various elevators it will not solve the problem in any way.
As to the complaints of the pool throughout the evidence, may I say this. Again the hon. member for Kindersley is wrong when he says that Mr. Wesson in his evidence said he did not know the proportion of allocations. It is quite true that he said he did not know what other companies were getting, but he admitted that he knew very well-and it is obvious that he would know-what percentage he was getting. If he knows what he is getting, and if they all know what they are getting-I refer to the three pools-then it is a simple arithmetical calculation to find out where the balance goes and whether company A or company B gets 20 per cent or 35 per cent is no concern of theirs. All they are concerned about is what percentage of the total they are getting. That information they naturally have because they are the ones who allocate the cars. Hence there can be no doubt on that point.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Wesson stated that he did not know the percentage his company was getting as opposed to the other companies. He did know the amount of grain, but he did not know the percentage.


René Jutras: He certainly knows the total. From the evidence given to the committee I

Canada Grain Act
know and you know what the percentage was last year and what every company got last year.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: This system was not operating last year.


René Jutras: No, but we still know what the percentage was on the basis on which it was operated last year. Statistics are published every year, and they know perfectly well what percentage they are getting. Another witness in the same position as Mr. Wesson admitted readily before the committee that he knew quite well what he was getting, and he said he had a very good idea what the others were getting.
At any rate, the percentage of grain that will move is determined, as you stated, by the amount of grain ordered by the Canadian wheat board. Without exception all the witnesses agreed that the wheat board had to have the right to order grain at the present time. They agreed this was a necessity that could not be helped. They agreed that it should have precedence over the car order book or any other scheme. The first requisite is for the wheat board to get a buyer, and the second step is to move the grain to a selling position. Consequently board orders had to be given preference over everything else.
The question arises of one elevator, one car, which the hon. member for Assiniboia again brought up last Friday. He said the minister was wrong, and by the same token I must have been wrong because I said the same thing previously, that the box cars were not spotted one elevator, one car. There again, what is the truth? It all came out in the committee. The hon. member for Assiniboia said the president of one of the pools read a letter from the board of grain commissioners. He was wrong, because the letter he read was from the railways. He read a letter from the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is true that in that letter the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway said that as far as they were concerned they would allocate cars on the basis of one elevator, one car; but the same witness in the same breath-I believe he repeated it twice so there would be no misunderstanding-made it clear that in actual practice that was not what they were doing.
If you analyse the statistics presented to the committee you will find the facts of the matter are that a great many elevators at many points get a percentage which varies considerably. Consequently cars could not be spotted on the basis of one elevator, one car over the year. The answer of the main witness on that point was that they were not spotted on the basis of one elevator, one car

ultimately. You will recall all the discussion about the word "ultimately". He said that if there was any dispute at the beginning of the shipping orders it was one elevator, one car, and that when one elevator ran out of orders all the cars were sent to the elevator that had orders left.
This was their main complaint, and we agreed with that. That is why the committee recommended that cars should be spotted in the same proportion as orders are issued by the Canadian wheat board. It is quite clear that the hon. member for Assiniboia did not understand the report of the committee, and he does not understand the amendment now before the house. He says what we have done is ask the wheat board to distribute cars. The recommendation does not do that at all. It does not change the procedure one iota. It is exactly the same procedure as was followed last year.
The hon. member missed the point of the recommendation. The Canadian wheat board does not allocate cars and will not allocate cars. All the recommendation does is ask the wheat board to instruct the railways to spot cars, not ultimately but from the beginning, in the same proportion as shipping orders are issued by the board. If that is done I do not say it will solve all the problems, but it certainly should solve most of them.
Any amendment to the car order book that could be suggested at the moment would not help the present situation one iota, because we are operating now under special orders of the board and the car order book is not in operation. Therefore no matter what you do to the car order book section, no matter what bill you pass, no matter what amendment you make, it will not be operative because the car order book is out the window. Every witness before the committee said that the car order book was not operative. In my own province I believe it is operating at five points, and there only partially. I think Mr. Wesson said that in Saskatchewan it was not being operated at any point because they recognized the necessity of giving precedence to these shipping orders.


Hazen Robert Argue: Because the transport controller threw it out.


René Jutras: I did not hear the hon. member.


Hazen Robert Argue: The reason the car order book is not being used is that the transport controller has suspended its use.


René Jutras: The car order book is not suspended by the transport controller.


Hazen Robert Argue: The reason being that the wheat pools are not using it. As soon as they use

it the transport controller suspends it. He does not suspend something that is not being used.


René Jutras: The transport controller did not suspend the car order book.


Hazen Robert Argue: But he would if they used it.


René Jutras: No. My hon. friend still does not understand the situation. Even if you placed your name in the car order book today-


Hazen Robert Argue: You do not understand the situation.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Everybody is out of step but my Johnnie.


Mr. Weir:: The C.C.F. are the only ones who are right.


René Jutras: The hon. member for Assini-boia is about the only one in the country who still has not got the point. I think the witnesses made it quite clear. Even some of the Ontario members, who knew absolutely nothing about this question to begin with, proved by the time we reached the end of the sittings of the committee-and the evidence will establish it-through their summarizing of the situation that they understood it far better than the hon. members for Kindersley and Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: They just voted with you.


René Jutras: I do not want to hurt the modesty of hon. members from Ontario, so I shall refrain from naming them. However, anybody who reads the evidence will see that at least they benefited a lot more than those who stand up in the house and pose as great experts on this question and others affecting agriculture.


Hazen Robert Argue: Now you are speaking for yourself.


An hon. Member:: Be quiet.


René Jutras: The hon. member stands up here again and again and says the Liberals are voting against the principle of the bill. He says we do not have to vote for what is in the bill but simply to vote for the principle.


Hazen Robert Argue: Why do you not let us have the vote?


René Jutras: Certainly. You need not worry. I am not going to delay the vote, but I want to get the matter straight once and for all, because I do not want to hear any more of this nonsense. We all know that you cannot vote on a principle without voting for a bill. Ordinarily the principle is discussed at the 50433-303
Canada Grain Act
resolution stage. If there had been a resolution stage we would have had the opportunity to vote on the merits of the matter and the bill would not have been forthcoming. But the bill was given first reading so we might know what it contained, and now we have to vote on it. We have said again and again that the bill does not cure the situation. The bill will not do what the hon. member says it will do.
The hon. member cannot be too sure of himself, either, because we spent two weeks discussing this problem in the standing committee on agriculture, and at no stage did the hon. member make any mention of his bill. At no stage did any witness-and they all knew about the hon. member's bill- recommend his suggestion or commend in any way, shape or form the bill before the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: They said it was a good principle.


René Jutras: They did not mention it.


Hazen Robert Argue: They said it was the same principle they were seeking.


René Jutras: There was no mention of the bill in the committee at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: You are wrong again.


René Jutras: If my hon. friend had been sincere in his belief that this was the key to the whole problem surely he would have offered it-


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member has implied that I was not sincere in the committee in regard to this bill. I do not believe the hon. member for Provencher really meant that, and I believe he is gentleman enough to correct it.


René Jutras: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I certainly did not intend to impute motives to the hon. gentleman. I will question his knowledge of the situation, but not his intentions. I did not mean that he was not serious in proposing this bill. What I meant was that I did not feel he was completely convinced that this was really the key to the whole problem. Surely it stands to reason that if the witnesses who appeared before the committee in great earnestness to try to find a solution to this problem had thought for a minute this bill was the answer, they would have put it forward and supported it. But they did not do that in any way, shape or form. They presented suggestions of their own. Consequently there can be no doubt on that point.
In conclusion I want to say this. The hon. member referred to the amendment of the member for Rosthern as something to take

Canada Grain Act
the Liberals off the hook. I wonder who is squirming in the house at this moment. When the bill and this amendment that is before the house were voted on, the hon. member voted for it in the committee and then tried to make excuses for having done so. Now he is saying he is going to vote against it, and he is trying to give excuses for having voted for it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought the session was in camera.


René Jutras: No matter what we do he is trying to find excuses for voting for or against it. It ill behooves him to make the charge that this was done for tricky motives.


Hazen Robert Argue: I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member has said that in committee we voted for such an amendment. His statement is correct, but my question of privilege is this. When that vote was taken it was in an in camera session of a committee of this house. My understanding of an in camera session is that it is a secret session. If I am wrong I have no question of privilege, but I would not refer to the in camera session last Friday to answer a statement by the hon. member for Rosthern. I am suggesting that it is not in order for the member to refer to a vote taken in an in camera session.


René Jutras: The hon. member is under a misapprehension. He is giving out the information, not me. I was referring to the amendment before the house, not the amendment in the committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: I heard the words very clearly, Mr. Speaker, and he said, "in committee". We are not now in committee, so he could have referred to nothing else.


René Jutras: I said that in comiriittee we had voted unanimously for the amendment which is now before the house, and the report of the committee is made public although the discussion in an in camera meeting is not. The unanimous recommendation was tabled in the house, and that is all I said. You gave out the rest of the information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: The
question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia introduces a matter of some importance on which, at the moment, I do not feel able to rule with certainty. It is my impression that meetings of committees held in camera are held without the attendance or assistance of the press or outside visitors, but are still open to all members of the house and are not in any sense secret sessions. However, I believe this is the second time this year I have heard the matter referred to, and I will assume the responsibility for asking Mr. Speaker to deliver at as early a date as

possible a specific ruling on whether or not the proceedings of committees which hold' meetings in camera should or should not be discussed in the house.
In passing I might mention that Mr. Speaker himself recently tabled the report of a committee which met entirely in camera, the committee on procedure. At the same time Mr. Speaker felt able to inform the house that the report was unanimous, and by saying so he advised the house how every member of that committee voted. However, I shall bring the matter to the attention of Mr. Speaker and ask if he will find an early opportunity to make a formal statement on the subject.


René Jutras: I am quite ready to have the question put now. All I want to say in conclusion is that this amendment should not be represented as a new departure. It does not take away the liberty of allocating box cars in any way, shape or form. It only carries through the practice of allocating orders, which we were told by all witnesses was not being carried out to its ultimate conclusion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Before I put the question may I just draw to the attention of the house that it was stated the subamendment now before us was seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Johnson). With the approval of the hon. gentleman I have taken the liberty of inserting in place thereof the name of the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Campbell), the hon. member for Kindersley having already spoken on the amendment.


Tom Goode: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Hahn).


Mr. Speaker:: So that in future this instance may not be raised as a precedent, I should 50433-303|
like to point out that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) moved the second reading of this bill to which an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). Then the hon. member for Assiniboia moved an amendment to the amendment to the main motion. I hesitated when I put the question because it struck me that an hon. member cannot amend his own motion. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 351. It is true that once an amendment has been moved and a subamendment is moved, then the amendment is tantamount to a substantive motion. See Beauchesne, third edition, citation 360. Therefore one would assume that by moving an amendment to the amendment the mover of the main motion, which is set aside for the time being, is not amending his own motion.
It strikes me that if the amendment to the amendment were carried and then the amendment as amended were carried, then in fact the mover would be the mover of the main motion which he would have amended. What happens then to the principle that an hon. member should not amend his own motion? I raise the question merely because it is rather unusual that an hon. member should move the main motion and then later move an amendment to an amendment that has been moved.
It being after six o'clock the house will resume at eight o'clock the business which was under consideration at five o'clock. Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair so the chairman may call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INTERNATIONAL RIVERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 3, respecting the construction, operation and maintenance of international river improvements-Mr. Howe (Port Arthur)-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: When the committee rose at five o'clock we had been discussing clause 1 as amended. Shall clause 1 as amended carry? Clause 1 as amended agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.

Municipal Grants Act On clause 3-Regulations respecting river improvements.


Howard Charles Green: Clause 3 is the clause which has to do with the licensing. Could the minister tell the committee under which department the licensing is to be done?


Jean Lesage: The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


Howard Charles Green: Applications will be made to the minister's department?


Jean Lesage: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On the title:
Howard Charles Green: An amendment to the title was suggested in the committee. What happens to that?


Jean Lesage: It is the amendment to clause 1, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: The amendment to clause 1 is to the short title of the bill.


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


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient, in the proposed measure to amend the Municipal Grants Act, Bill 258 now before the house, to provide for the amendment of clause 6 so as to add a new section 8 to the main act as follows (the proposed sections 8 and 9 of the main act to be renumbered 9 and 10) :
"8. (1) A grant may, pursuant to this section be made to a municipality in respect of real property that is
(a)	owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada,
(b)	leased to or occupied by a person who is an
employee of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a member of the Canadian forces, and
(c)	is used by such person as a domestic establishment.
(2)	Subject to subsection (3) the amount of a grant made pursuant to this section shall not be greater than a fraction of the accepted value of the property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section, such fraction to be determined as follows:
(a)	the numerator is the total amount of the
real estate tax levied in the appropriate tax year, and
(b)	the denominator is the assessed value of all
taxable property in the municipality.
(3)	Where in preparing its budget for any tax year a municipality has not taken into account the amount of a grant that may be paid under this section the denominator of the fraction referred to in subsection (2) shall be the assessed (The Chairman.]
value of all taxable property and the accepted value of the property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section in the municipality.
(4)	The minister may, in determining the amount of a grant under this section, deduct from the amount that might otherwise be payable an amount that, in his opinion, represents the value of a service that would customarily be furnished by the municipality to the property in respect of which the grant is made and that Her Majesty does not accept in respect of that property.
(5)	No grant shall be made under this section in respect of
(a)	property in respect of which a grant has
been made under section 5,
(b)	property described in subparagraph (iv) of
paragraph (c) of section 2, or
(c)	property in respect of which a real estate
tax has been levied on a person described
in paragraph (b) of subsection (1).
(6)	In applying paragraph (a) of section 2 to this section, the words "federal property" shall be construed as meaning property in respect of which a grant may be made under this section.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a tew comments on the proceedings in the committee, if it is in order at this time. I believe the report on the bill raises a question as to the nature of the proceedings in the committee, which were in my opinion very narrowly conceived. We tried in the committee to get permission to call representatives of the municipalities and introduced a resolution to that effect, but we got nowhere. In our opinion that was a great mistake. The chairman gave us the amplest assurance that we could ask any questions and they would be answered, but there is not much point in asking questions when you do not have the proper people there to ask them of. We felt that in view of the importance of the matter it should have been possible for us to have representatives of the mayors and municipalities there. I just wish to record the fact that we feel the matter was quite improperly and narrowly dealt with, since that was not done. The attitude of the minister is shown on page 12 of the report:
I am quite prepared to answer any questions with respect to the past administration of the Municipal Grants Act and what this bill proposes to do, but not at this stage to hear representations from any other body.
That is the complaint I make, Mr. Chairman. I do not propose to discuss it at length, but I just wish to say again that it seemed to us, having regard to the importance of the matter and the many interests involved, that it was taking a very narrow view of the duties of the committee to refuse to have those representatives. On other questions which the banking and commerce committee

has discussed, questions of no greater importance than this-for example, the Bank Act itself-the widest representations were received from all manner of bodies, and the matters were fully discussed on their merits. That is the comment I wish to make.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I should like a little information on the proposed amendments. There are quite a few of them. I raised a question when Bill No. 258 was before the house, before it went to committee, with respect to Canadian National Railways property. It was in connection with a town, city or municipality billing the railway for curbs, gutters, sewers and so forth-quite an expenditure a city has to make-on property belonging to the C.N.R.
The law previously was that Canadian National Railways property was not taxable. I suggested when the bill went to committee that this matter might be considered. It is a long-standing grievance, and I am wondering now whether in the amendments that are proposed here that particular problem could be taken care of. Personally I cannot see that it could. I am wondering if the minister who is proposing these amendments would not consider Canadian National properties for the purposes I have enumerated.
I read into the record, at the time I spoke on the bill, a grievance that goes back to 1901 as far as the city of Sydney is concerned, with an itemized account of the amount of money that is outstanding at this stage. The city solicitor admitted that in law the C.N.R. were right in their decision that the property was not taxable under present legislation, but I think they have a legitimate grievance. I am wondering if the minister might not consider working in something that would take care of that kind of situation.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I must apologize to the hon. member for not having considered it in committee. As a matter of fact I did not know he had specific reference to the Canadian National Railways. I understand they pay their own taxes, but perhaps by arrangement with the municipality. It may mean, however, that while the particular railway to which he is referring is part of the Canadian National Railway system, some other rules may be applicable to it. I shall be glad to look into it. I did not know of the complaint that is referred to. If the hon. member will let me have the details of the claim I shall be glad to consider it in that connection.


Clarence Gillis: Thank you, sir.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question. Is this bill confined to
Municipal Grants Act
the payment of grants in lieu of taxation, or does it go beyond that and grant moneys for reconstruction purposes?


Walter Edward Harris: I did not hear the hon. member.


Ernest George Hansell: I was asking the minister if these grants were given merely in lieu of taxes or whether they were granted for other purposes such as construction. I believe the original act grants money for certain public works, does it not?


Walter Edward Harris: No. They are just in lieu of taxes.


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: I should like to make two or three observations, Mr. Chairman, if I may. First, I think the minister might clarify for me the statement he made in committee, at page 27, with respect to Indian reserves. This question was asked by the hon. member for Peace River:


Mr. Low:: With respect to Indian reserves being excluded in this clause, why was that done? What experience have you had with municipalities claiming grants in lieu of taxes?


Hon.   Mr. Harris@: Indian reserves are often
situated in several municipalities, so that it is a little difficult to decide which municipality provides the best service or the most service for the government-owned property in the reserve. Therefore. it was decided to exclude them from the bill and to permit the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to make whatever arrangements they consider appropriate.


Solon Earl Low: That provision is being maintained.


Hon.   Mr. Harris@: Yes; the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will look after the grants and payments from now on.
When the minister speaks I hope he will clarify that matter. As I understand it, in the city of Sarnia, and no doubt the same thing exists in other areas, we have an Indian reserve that is serviced by the city-I think it was taken in just two or three years ago- with police and fire protection and, I believe, whatever other services it has. It might entail some other responsibility by the city of Sarnia with respect to what is required by the reserve.
I also have two or three more questions; maybe the minister can answer them all at the same time. The next one I have in mind is in connection with military camps. Many counties have military camps within their boundaries. I have one rather peculiar situation in the county of Lambton. Ipperwash camp formerly was an Indian reserve in the township of Bosanquet. It was taken over by the department and made into a military camp. The Indians who were on that particular reserve were moved two miles to another reserve. What concerns the people in that particular township is the maintenance of roads from the different villages or towns which are easily accessible to the occupants of that particular camp.

Municipal Grants Act
In addition to the roads there is a matter of drainage respecting that camp. Just today I received a letter from the township clerk. I am wondering whether under this act an approach can be made by the township to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Defence for what may be considered to be their share of the responsibility for road maintenance, or whether the government is subject to payment for these services. If so, what approach is being made? Up to now I understand from the clerk of the township that no moneys have been paid into any fund for road maintenance.
The other point in connection with that particular camp is this. Some two or three years ago or so, or maybe longer, they had drainage problems in the township and the outlet had to go through the military camp. From what the clerk said I gathered that the government assumed no obligation or responsibility for this drainage problem, notwithstanding the fact that the works would also drain part of Ipperwash Camp. At the moment I think there is an application for an extension of the drainage scheme which must have the camp under consideration. They are now wondering what responsibility the government assumes in cases of that sort.
I am now going to say this, and I could have said it earlier. I believe this approach is sound. I think the government, with respect to their contribution to the municipalities, have a very fair precedent to go on in their formula introduced in 1949 respecting the payments in lieu of taxes on crown corporations or crown companies, such as Polymer in the city of Sarnia. I am quite satisfied of this. I hope I speak for others as I speak for the city of Sarnia when I say that formula has been regarded as very fair since it came into effect. The unfortunate part is that it was late coming in. Had we had the formula from the time Polymer was constructed, the city of Sarnia would have received probably $1 million between the time of its construction and the time payments were made in lieu of taxes.
I am now suggesting that that formula should apply to all crown property. While this is a step in the right direction, I sincerely hope that in another year the government will see fit to introduce further legislation so that no crown company property or no crown property in any part of Canada will be exempt from taxation. Or I might put it this way. I hope the government will see fit to introduce legislation so that all crown property will make payments in lieu of taxes on a basis that is fair and equitable, under the same principle that is applied to crown corporations.

I do not think there will be any disagreement by any member in the House of Commons on this point. Today home owners are being taxed very heavily all across this country until the situation has almost reached the state where it is a hardship, in many cases, to own a home. Special provisions have been made for the city of Ottawa-and I say this with all deference to government policy-but up until the recent enactment whereby the city gets a greater share than it formerly received, these additional amounts that are now being paid by the government on its property were a burden, as you might say, on the small home owner. I do not think this government or any other government should, because of crown property, impose upon veterans or small home owners obligations which, after all, should be shared by all the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada; and they would be so shared if crown property were to pay on the same basis as any individual or any company.
In connection with increased taxes I should like to refer to a problem I have mentioned before, which is not local but national. I refer to the increased cost of education. We will have to face the situation, because no one is going to agree to any suggestion that we lower our standards of education. In receiving information from different municipal bodies it has amazed me to find that over the last ten years the cost of education has risen in many cases from 10 mills to 30 or 40 mills. In the last ten years it has doubled or trebled. While the measure before us will alleviate to a certain extent the heavy responsibility of small home owners to their municipalities, I submit that additional legislation should be introduced at the earliest possible moment to make all crown properties subject to the same payments to municipalities as are now applicable to crown companies. I trust the government will consider it advisable to do so.


Mr. Regier:: Mr. Chairman, there are three minor points I wish to mention at this time. I notice that the resolution does not completely meet the desires of municipal officials across Canada in that it still provides a loophole or means whereby the minister is able to compensate municipalities on a lesser scale than if the municipalities were given outright powers to tax real estate owned by the federal government. I see no reason whatsoever why the federal government should not pay its full share of the municipal tax load on any real estate it owns within the borders of a municipality. In the western part of Canada at least the provincial governments are very slowly coming around to

assuming their share of the municipal tax load on property they hold within municipalities, and I think the federal government is being just a little slow in acknowledging its responsibility. We often ponder ways and means of helping municipalities. Here is one way we could help them much more than we are doing now, and we would be able to do so without violating any constitutional provision or any other prohibition that may be in the way.
There is another matter I think should be raised at this time. I refer to the burden imposed upon municipalities by people building houses or shacks on federally-owned land within a municipality. We usually call these people squatters, although they may or may not like to have that name applied to them. However, these people add to the burden of the social welfare departments of the municipalities concerned. I think the federal government has a responsibility here. They should either move these people into adequate housing somewhere else, housing these people are able to afford, or they should compensate the municipalities for, in some cases, the hundreds of squatters who are allowed to live on federally-owned land and become a burden to the municipalities in which these federal lands are located. I think it is an unfair imposition to allow people to live on these lands.
Another cause of worry to some municipalities arises out of land held by the federal government that is not being properly looked after. In the middle of a rapidly growing suburban or metropolitan area you may have an acre of land which is crown property owned by the federal government. Possibly it was purchased 40 or 50 years ago as the site of a potential federal building. Perhaps its purchase was the result of an election pledge away back in 1911 or around that time. Everybody in the city uses this vacant land as a garbage dump, and again there is an imposition on the municipality because it has to maintain the appearance of the property and look after the upkeep of this federal real estate. I think such real estate should either be disposed of on the market or the municipality should be given adequate compensation for looking after it so it does not depreciate the value of nearby property.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to raise one point, and I hesitate to do so because it is very technical. The minister may ask me to abandon it on the ground that it is contrary to common sense. I refer to the wording of the new clause 8, subclause 2 (a), where reference is made to the numerator, and
Municipal Grants Act
subclause 2 (b), where reference is made to the denominator. Has the minister got it before him?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: These subclauses read as follows:
(a)	the numerator is the total amount of the real estate tax levied in the appropriate tax year, and
(b)	the denominator is the assessed value of all taxable property in the municipality.
Does the minister think a technical lawyer might suggest that subclause 2(a) should read that the numerator is the total amount of the real estate tax levied "in the municipality" in the appropriate tax year?


Joseph Warner Murphy: I have, one question I should like to put to the minister before he answers. Take the situation in the city of Sarnia, where we have 187 Central Mortgage houses. Some of these were probably built for employees of the Polymer Corporation, and some were built under the regular plan. I know an agreement was entered into between the municipality and Central Mortgage, the agent of the government, for the payment of a stated amount, something like $70 or $75 per unit, I believe. That was several years ago. The revenue is about $12,000 per year. As a matter of fact, taxes in our area have risen considerably since the arrangement was made, and I would think the amount should probably be about double, according to the city manager.
When the minister speaks will he tell the committee to whom the approach should be made in order to have a discussion of municipal costs and taxes, at the time the agreement was entered into and at present? Should the approach be made to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? I hope there are precedents for such alleviation.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, I could not carry the details of the last matter in my mind, but to deal with the other questions raised by the hon. member for Lambton West, it is a fact that the grants to be made in the future with respect to Indian reservations will be made through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. No doubt they will be calculated on the basis of the services rendered and probably paid, in the particular instance he has in mind, to the one municipality. But I think he will appreciate why in many cases there will be more than one municipality concerned. In the case of the former Indian reservation which has now become a military camp, of course under the new formula we shall have to re-examine the municipal corporation to see if it now

Municipal Grants Act
qualifies with the change, and if it does there will of course be grants made in lieu of taxes.
As to drainage, that is a special grant often made by national defence. In answer to the question as to where the application might be made, I think it would be simpler if my hon. friend had the application made to me and I will see that it is dealt with by either national defence or finance.
With respect to what the hon. member for Greenwood read out, I see the point in what he-


Joseph Warner Murphy: Would the minister comment first on this Indian affair? Would the fact that it was an Indian reserve prior to the government taking it over as a military camp make any difference?


Walter Edward Harris: First I shall complete my answer to the hon. member for Greenwood. I can see the point in what he has said, and between the resolution stage and committee of the whole stage I shall consider whether the words he mentioned ought to be added.
I understand the former Indian reserve ceased to be a reserve at least 12 to 14 years ago. I should think in view of the fact this act came into force in 1950, it would have to apply under the condition then obtaining.


Mr. Jones:: I should like to ask one technical question of the minister. It is in connection with the fact that a grant may be made on real estate owned by Her Majesty in the right of Canada. Is it not a fact that municipal roads, once they are gazetted, become the property of Her Majesty?


Walter Edward Harris: All roads-I did not catch the last part.


Owen Lewis Jones: All roads within municipalities, once they are gazetted, become the property of Her Majesty. -Do they come under that clause?


Walter Edward Harris: They are not the property of Her Majesty in the right of Canada.


Owen Lewis Jones: But the property of Her
Majesty?


Walter Edward Harris: Yes, but this says "of Canada".
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
The house in committee on Bill No. 258, to amend the Municipal Grants Act-Mr. Harris -Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


William Alfred Robinson: The house in committee of the whole on Bill No. 258, together with the resolution which has just been referred to this committee. I may say that the bill was

considered by the standing committee on banking and commerce and reported without amendment.
Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a third time now?


Walter Edward Harris: In view of the fact that these amendments were made I suggest that third reading might stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 450, respecting Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the parliamentary
assistant going to give us a word of explanation?


William Moore Benidickson: The
purposes of this bill were explained on June 6, Mr. Speaker. It is not an unusual bill. I believe we have had six or seven similar bills in relatively recent times. During the resolution stage on June 6, I outlined the securities of the Canadian National Railways that would become due between now and 1962. The references are at pages 4455 to 4457 of Hansard for June 6, 1955.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I really have only one question to ask. As explained at the resolution stage, this measure is to provide for the calling of certain securities which were set out in the schedule to the resolution, as I recall it. I would ask the parliamentary assistant whether it would not be wise on another occasion-I am not going to press him now-to have these securities set out as a schedule to the act itself. I take it that the authority is clearly confined to that list which was given at the time the resolution was before the house. In other words, the effect of this bill is exactly the same as if that list of securities were made a schedule to it, and that being so I suggest that* it be considered whether in future it would not be wise to have the list appended to the act itself.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly assure-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should point out that when the parliamentary assistant speaks he will close the debate.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the hon. member for Greenwood that very careful consideration will be given to his suggestions. I do point out, however, that we have had six or seven similar bills in recent years. Without giving proper and exhaustive consideration to his suggestion, it does occur to me at the moment that some of the refunding that would be open would be for securities of the Canadian National Railways that could be callable and not necessarily maturing in the period outlined in the schedule I provided on June 6. I would think that to make a commitment as certain as the hon. member for Greenwood suggests would be unwise and might be just a little too rigid, in view of the opportunity to call certain additional securities if the market were favourable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Power for refunding.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to return to the point I mentioned when Mr. Speaker was in the chair. I am not clear as to whether the parliamentary assistant has agreed with me that this clause 2 applies to the list of securities maturing or callable, and to them only.


William Moore Benidickson: Yes, I believe it does.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PROVISION FOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, ISSUE OF SECURITIES, ETC.

Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 451, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system, etc.
Canadian National Railways


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2-Definitions.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: With reference to clause 2 and following clauses, I would ask the parliamentary assistant to go through them and assure us that they follow the budget as presented by the officials of the Canadian National Railways and approved by the committee.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, replying to the hon. member for Greenwood, I would confirm that the capital expenditures items as outlined in the bill do relate exactly to the budget presented to the committee on railways and shipping. While I was not a member of that committee I am very pleased to have with me my colleague, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport, who was a member of the committee, as was the hon. member for Greenwood. So far as capital expenditures are concerned there are no deviations from the information and tables given to that committee.
The only new feature in the bill, and the only deviation from last year's bill, is in respect to the clause relating to the appointment of auditors of the Canadian National Railways.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Issue of securities.
Mr. Barnett:: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would explain a certain part of the explanatory note. It gives details as to how the sum mentioned in clause 4 is arrived at. I see a notation which indicates that this sum must be considered, less certain indicated amounts. I notice among these amounts is an item of something more than $20 million for the retirement of equipment. How does this enter into the calculation? Do the railways expect to realize this amount from the sale of old equipment?


William Moore Benidickson: No, it is related to the C.N.R. system of depreciation. It is a retirement item referring to equipment purchased many years ago and going out of service.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-Auditors.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it that clause 11 appears in the bill to avoid, as has been
4798	HOUSE OF
Prairie Farm Assistance Act necessary in previous years, introducing a special bill for the purpose of appointing auditors for the Canadian National Railways. I do not have the text of the annual bills of previous sessions before me, but I believe the wording of clause 11 in this bill is substantially the same.


William Moore Benidickson: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise simply for the purpose of saying that I still agree with the position taken some years ago by the Minister of Fisheries, that the auditing of the accounts of the Canadian National Railways might well be done by the Auditor General of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Walter Edward Harris: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee on the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act with respect to certain benefits under the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Mr. Charlton:: Is the parliamentary assistant going to make a statement?


Mr. McCubbin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a short statement in respect to these amendments. It is proposed to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act to, one, make provision for payments on land which cannot be seeded or summerfallowed on account of natural causes beyond the farmer's control; and, two, require that the blocks of six or more sections which are excluded from payment, or paid, under section 6, be rectangular in shape instead of irregular.
Over widespread areas in the prairie provinces these last few years it has been impossible to seed, and in some cases even to summerfallow, lands which had been farmed for many years. It is considered that


such lands should qualify for assistance under the act the same as other lands do at present.
At present the act provides for the exclusion from payment within eligible townships of certain blocks of six or more sections which had an average yield of ten or more bushels of wheat and for the payment within ineligible townships of similar blocks which had an average yield of less than eight bushels. Prior to 1950 the act required that such blocks be rectangular in shape, but this requirement was removed that year. Since that time, and particularly during the last crop year, administrative difficulties have arisen in many instances when setting up irregular blocks, in that discriminatory distinctions as between neighbours show up to an extent not foreseen when the amendments were made. It is therefore proposed to revert to the provisions regarding these blocks of sections as they were prior to the 1950 amendment.
As it has been impossible to seed or cultivate over widespread areas this year these amendments should be made effective for the 1955 crop season, and it is desirable that they be introduced at the present session of parliament.


Mr. Bryce:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is in the bill that will follow this resolution, but if it contains anything that will help the farmers in my district I certainly welcome it and will be glad to see it pass.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, the part of the announcement by the parliamentary assistant that land that cannot be seeded because of natural causes will be eligible for prairie farm assistance is welcome, but that portion of the announcement that the provision with regard to six sections will be changed from the present provision whereby the block of sections need only be contiguous and not necessarily rectangular is a backward step.
I would like to have seen a really important amendment made to this act, namely to increase the size of the payment. The act is a good act, but nothing has been done about the size of the payment since it was first passed in 1939. I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare smiling, and I know he will recall that I used the same argument in reference to family allowances, which come under his department.


Mr. Martin:: I was smiling at something else.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prairie Farm Assistance Act passed in 1939 provided for a maximum payment in time of crop failure of $500. The purchasing power of $500 in 1939 would

perhaps equal that of $1,200 today, so if the Prairie Farm Assistance Act is to be made as valuable in 1955 as it was in the late thirties, when first passed by this parliament, the size of the payment will have to be more than doubled.
Certainly we welcome any provision that brings in areas which have been flooded. The farmer who is unable to seed his land because of flooding should be considered under the act to have had a crop failure on that acreage.
I take it that is the provision to be written into the act, and with that we are certainly in agreement.
The six-section provision, that it is to be made a rectangular block of land, in my opinion merely means that more farmers having high yields will be getting the bonus when they should not be entitled to it because they do not need it, and more farmers who have a crop failure in the sense that they have a yield of less than four bushels to the acre in one category or less than eight bushels to the acre in another category will be denied the bonus. The more irregular the area on which the payment can be made the more likely it is that the farmer with a crop failure will receive the payment.
Another provision which I should like to see in the bill is the deletion of subsection 3 of section 3 of the act, namely that part of the act which bars certain crown lands which have been disposed of since 1940. There is some merit in doing everything possible to see that submarginal lands are not made eligible for prairie farm assistance, but to discriminate against land merely because it was in the name of the crown previous to 1940, although it may be as good grain-producing land as there is in any part of western Canada, is not fair.
When the minister presented this proposal some years ago he intended to take out a great deal more land than was finally taken out. The bill proposed at that time went to the agriculture committee, and the minister put back under the act much of the land that he intended to take out. My only regret is that he did not go all the way and put it all back under the act, so that all land might be eligible no matter whether it had been in the name of the crown previous to 1940 or not. We shall look at the bill when we receive it, and perhaps at that time discuss it in more detail.


Victor Quelch: Mr. Chairman, the proposal to change back to a rectangle the shape of the block of six sections I think perhaps is a good amendment, because it has caused a tremendous amount of hard feeling and hardship in the past. When the department would
Blind Persons Act
establish a block of six sections within a township as being eligible, this often denied farmers in those six sections the right to receive the bonus.
Of course where the purpose is to establish a block of six sections in an ineligible township for the purpose of allowing those six sections to obtain the bonus, then the change will be to the disadvantage of the farmer. On the other hand, if we take six sections out the change will help the farmer. If you propose to establish a block of six sections, it will deny certain farmers the benefit they might otherwise receive. But I believe on the whole that it works both ways, whether you take a block in or out and, in the long run, it will be a good thing to make the change. As the parliamentary assistant has pointed out, it is very difficult to explain to farmers that they should be denied the bonus when their neighbours are receiving it. They do not understand that a block has been formed in the shape of a pair of steps, and it does not make sense to them. It will be easier to explain to them when it is back in a rectangular block. Some farmers will lose as a result of the change and some will gain. On balance I do not see that there will be any disadvantage to it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris (for Mr. Gardiner) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 481, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISHERIES


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 452, respecting loans to assist fishermen engaged in a primary fishing enterprise.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Walter Edward Harris: the second reading of Bill No. 350, to amend the Blind Persons Act.


Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):: I
just want to rise to say that we on this side

Blind Persons Act
of the house give wholehearted support to this bill but, like other hon. members, we would prefer to see the age limit for the recipients lowered. The family allowance stops at 16. We feel that blind persons should be given this allowance at 16 rather than 18. That two-year period between 16 and 18 can be the most expensive of all for blind persons. It is certainly the most expensive period in the educational life of a normal student, and how much more so it must be for a blind person.
The minister has explained that 18 is the eligible age for disabled persons. Under the Blind Persons Act it was 21. Bringing the age down to 18 means that blind persons are being put on the same basis as disabled persons. The minister indicated that the age could not be lowered for blind persons unless it was also lowered for disabled persons. That, of course, is a fair way of looking at it; but it just so happens that we are discussing a bill to amend the Blind Persons Act.
I feel that Canadians would be making a good investment in lowering the eligible age to 16, an investment that would help blind persons to help themselves. Those hon. members who have had anything to do with blind persons know that a special measure of courage and cheerfulness seems to be bestowed upon them. They themselves strive for an independence which is inspirational to all of us; and I am sure the minister will agree with that. Last year I watched a golf tournament of blind persons, and it was an unforgettable experience. I do not think any golfers ever enjoyed themselves more.
More recently I called upon Canada's famous spokesman for all blind persons in this country, Colonel Eddie Baker, head of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. Colonel Baker was himself blinded in world war I and since then has devoted his life to the rehabilitation of blind persons. It was before the minister had brought this bill to the house that I called on Colonel Baker, and the purpose of my visit was quite removed from this bill or the fact that I might some day speak on this subject. I had heard that Colonel Baker had a workshop in his basement and I wanted to see that workshop. I never saw more vicious looking tools, and to watch that man handicapped by blindness pursuing a hobby that sighted people could not enjoy more was a great inspiration to me. Blindness has not deterred him in his choice of a hobby or in his usefulness to Canadian citizens.
I mention these two things because I feel they emphasize the spirit of independence with which blind people face life. They do 
not sit back and say the world owes them a living. They want to earn their own living, and they want to make their own contribution to life. I feel that we who have eyes to see have a great debt to these people who do not ask anything of us. I feel we must hold out a helping hand with generosity.
The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) suggested that a guiding allowance should be granted, and this suggestion also came from the Canadian Council for the Blind. I hope in future the Minister of National Health and Welfare will look with favour on this suggestion. I know he is sympathetic in these matters, and I am in no way offering any criticism. I am just expressing my own and my party's tribute to these people who make a great contribution as Canadian citizens.
There is unanimous support in this house also for an increase in the maximum annual income. I should like to see the bill go even further. I should like to see us put the maximum annual income at the very top for these people. I hope the minister will take another look at that suggestion in the not too far distant future. I congratulate the minister upon this bill. I hope that before very long he will accept and have enacted the further suggestions that have been made from this side of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) has just indicated, when legislation improving our enactments respecting the blind is brought before us, that legislation has the unanimous support of this house. While the hon. member made that statement with reference to one particular aspect of the bill, I do not think I am being unfair to her when I take it that the members of her party and of all parties in this house are happy to see any improvement at all in the legislation affecting the lot of the blind people of this country, so this bill will pass this house unanimously.
We welcome the reduction in the eligible age. We too feel that this age should be set at 16 rather than 18. In other words it should be at the point where the family allowance breaks off. Indeed, we made that same point with respect to the disability allowance. We also feel that the limits of income allowed to the blind, which this bill increases to a certain extent, might not only be raised to the highest possible limit, as was suggested by the hon. member for York-Humber, but indeed that this is a piece of legislation with respect to which the means test might be abolished altogether.

I know there are those who still bring forth arguments in defence of means tests in certain cases. But I remind hon. members that we have in this country a few pieces of social legislation from which means test provisions have been removed. I think in particular of the Old Age Security Act and the Family Allowances Act, under both of which payments under the heading of social security are made to Canadians without any means test. So far as those under old age security are concerned where persons are already in receipt of substantial income, the answer is that any additional income that comes from a means-test-free old age pension is subject to income tax. If there are those who want to argue that there are a few blind persons who are fortunate enough to have a bit of income, I would point out that the payment of a means-test-free pension to them would be treated in the same way.
Actually we know there are not many of these persons who are able to earn an income of any size; rather the fact of the matter is that even with all the spirit and initiative these people have they are under a handicap that I feel we might well recognize by the payment of a blindness allowance or blind pension without any means test whatsoever.
I am satisfied that the day will come when we will remove the means test from the Blind Persons Act. I urge the government to give the matter favourable consideration and not to let that day be too far in the future.
While speaking in support of this resolution I also wish to indicate that we feel that consideration should have been given to the request of organizations representing the blind for a guidance allowance. I hope that even yet that request will be considered and met by the government.
So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude with these few word's indicating our keen desire to do anything we can to help these people, and indicating that, while we feel that there are further improvements that should be made with the least possible delay, we are nevertheless glad to give our full support to the second reading of Bill No. 350.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with what has been said by the last two hon. members who have spoken. The fact that the family allowance stops at the age of 16 years and that there is a gap between 16 and 18 is not the only reason the age limit should be reduced to 16 years. It should be reduced to that age for this reason also. Persons who are blind must learn the different things they can be taught when they are young. When they get older and get into set ways, it is hard to
Blind. Persons Act
get them to learn and in many cases they will not be taught. When they are 16 years of age, or between the ages of 16 and 18, their fingers are sensitive and they can be taught braille quite easily. At that age they also must have a typewriter, which costs money, as does the equipment for that typewriter.
There are also braille slates to be bought. Just within the last year in the United States a drawing board has been brought out and developed by an American. It is a plastic slate. On top of that slate there is rubber. On top of that rubber is placed a cellophane sheet. The blind person can draw on that slate and when it is turned over he can feel the outline of that drawing; or on it a person who has sight can give a blind person directions as to streets and one thing and another, and it can be turned over and the blind person can follow them. All these things cost money. The blind person is therefore put to quite a bit of expense.
Just lately-within the last six months or so, or perhaps less than that-the talking books that are distributed to blind persons who have these talking book machines have been changed. There is a new needle that must be used on these machines. In order to use these talking books these blind people must have a machine that has an arm on it so that they can turn it. I am not sure whether it is a 78 r.p.m. needle or a different kind of needle. However, there are two kinds of records. If you use the wrong needle it will spoil the record. All these new records that are coming out are marked with the letter "M" on them. It is a large, raised letter so blind people can feel and read it.
What I am getting at is the fact that these talking books and all this equipment run into money. I doubt whether a blind person could afford to buy these things unless his parents or some friend were able to buy them for him. I therefore feel that this age limit should be reduced to 16 years so the blind person would have that extra money with which to go on and be better prepared when he became 18 years of age.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, when the bill first came before us for consideration we gave it approval. The point has been brought out that this pension should start at age 16, when the family allowance stops, but the minister explained that it is a disability pension and should be brought into line with the other form of pension.
The bill has been well covered by the three hon. members who have already spoken. However, I wish to say to the minister that

Blind Persons Act when his health estimates are under consideration, and the clause with regard to prevention is brought before the committee, we are ready to vote any money that he requires to carry out his program of blindness prevention. I think that is a matter of great importance. I also regard the education of the people who are thus afflicted as of great importance. This bill is a step forward, and we congratulate the minister on bringing it in.
At the same time, however, if there is anything we can do in future with respect to making education easier for these disabled people, we are ready to help in any way we possibly can. I do not know whether it is feasible, but I was rather struck by the suggestion of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that more library facilities with braille books should be made available to these people. I am not very well versed on the amount of material available, but if the standard works of literature and so on could be made available through a central library -this has nothing to do with the minister's bill-I think it would bring a great deal of joy to these people. We approve of the bill. We want to do everything possible for these people.
We understand the minister's statement regarding the disability pension, but we feel that in future it may be possible to bring forward another measure to help blindness prevention and further the education of the blind. When his departmental estimates come before us and we are dealing with blindness prevention I can certainly assure him that if he needs money for research or to further the program we are ready to vote it and help all we can.


Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself and my colleagues in the Social Credit group with the expressions of approval of the bill now before us. The amendment is certainly welcome and is long overdue. I have noticed with a great deal of interest that there are times in the house when all members of parliament, irrespective of political affiliation, do agree. Especially is that agreement evident when we have before us legislation that has as its purpose and intent to assist those who are heavily handicapped. I like to interpret that type of unanimity not only as indicating the proper discharge of our traditional responsibilities but also, and perhaps more important, as expressing in a certain sense a prominent characteristic of our Canadian people, their concern that all men in high office should take a generous attitude toward those who are heavily handicapped and in distress.

We certainly welcome the amendment and see in it protection for those who hitherto have not been covered. In our debates we often make comparisons in order to justify certain accomplishments that Canada has achieved. It is done during debates on agricultural problems. We compare our surpluses with those of other nations. The same thing happens with respect to housing legislation. We compare it with that of other countries. But as far as social legislation is concerned I think we should adopt the attitude that our legislation should not be compared with that of some other country but should in fact be a model for other nations to emulate.
I should certainly like to see steps taken soon to protect those now unprotected, namely the group between the ages of 16 and 18. I am not a pediatrician or child psychologist, but it seems to me that is the very age when sensitive minds become conscious of handicaps. I believe it is during that period that certain curative steps can be taken. It is between the ages of 16 and 18 that proper education and further training are so necessary for the handicapped child.
Furthermore, I understand that when a recipient of the blind allowance reaches the age of 70 he automatically comes within the old age security bracket and receives his pension on the same basis as those receiving old age security pensions. All things being equal, I think everybody in the house will admit that a person who is blind has an extra burden to bear, and I believe it is well within the realm of possibility for us to provide an extra measure of security for these people. Ordinarily many persons over 70 years of age who are not handicapped by blindness are able to supplement their earnings with useful work, but that is hardly the case with respect to persons handicapped by blindness. I think possibly the next thing we should concentrate on is extending the coverage and making a worth-while effort in the field of eye research.
We support the measure, not only because we think it is right but because we think Canada can well afford it. We are one of the richest countries in the world. We have only 15 million people, and I believe our social legislation can be made such that it will be second to none. We support the legislation and trust it will bring a certain measure of joy to those who hitherto have been handicapped and unprotected. We hope they will see in the amendment some reason for them to look to their future with confidence.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


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


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank all members who have spoken so favourably about this measure, without in any way restricting, of course, their right to point out desirable improvements. I have noted what the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) said, and he may be assured that the support he has pledged will be gratefully received. I am sure he is aware of the very considerable work now being done in the field of blindness prevention and research.
As the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) said, this is a bill that will receive wide support in the house. We all appreciate the motives behind the observations of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser) who, more than any other member in the house, has a personal reason for appreciating the advantages of this bill.
I should note, as the minister sponsoring the measure, that we seek to do two things. We seek first to increase the permissible outside income and second to lower the age. With regard to increasing the income ceilings, the amendment before the house will have some important results for all beneficiaries. A number of them now receiving only a partial allowance will have that allowance increased by as much as $10 to $20 a month. Most of them will actually receive the full allowance of $40.
A single blind person will be able to have outside income of $40 a month and still draw full allowance. His outside income will have to reach $80 a month before he goes off the allowance altogether. A married blind person with sighted spouse will be able to receive the full allowance of $40 even though the outside income of the couple reaches as high as $90 a month. Only when the outside income of the married couple exceeds $130 a month will the blind person cease to be eligible for even a partial allowance. A married couple who are both blind may both receive the full allowance, a total of $80, and still have outside income of $60 a month.
Besides increasing the allowance for those who receive partial benefits, this liberalization of income ceilings will add an unknown number, possibly as many as 500, new beneficiaries now excluded by the present ceiling. The lowering of the age from 21 to 18 follows a previous step of lowering the age from 40 to 21. The reason for keeping the age at 18 is that, as the hon. member for Lanark has noted, this is in keeping with disability legislation generally.
Yukon Quartz Mining Act
The hon. member for York-Humber paid a deserved tribute to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I would want her to recall that last year we gave the Canadian National Institute for the Blind a grant of $300,000 to assist that organization with its new building, and we have increased the annual grant. We are, therefore, aware of the work of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and all the other organizations for the blind in our country, who do so much for this group of disabled citizens.
I am sure that in bringing this portion of our discussion tonight to a close I reflect what everyone in this house believes, when I say we are glad of the opportunity of introducing additional legislation which will mean so much to this particular group of people in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, May 25, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Lesage-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to repeal the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, chapter 301 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, and to make provision by means of a new act for all substantive rights relating to quartz mining in the Yukon, including the rights to stake and acquire mineral claims and leases, and to provide for certain modifications in the administration of the law.
Jean Lesage: When this resolution was discussed in committee the last time, Mr. Chairman, I said that after second reading of the bill I intended to move that it be referred to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters in order to discuss this highly technical matter. I wished to have this bill studied by the standing committee because I thought it was important that the interested parties should come and give evidence. I refer more particularly to the prospectors in the Yukon who are interested in this bill.
However, Mr. Chairman, it is now really too late in the session to expect these people to come so far, especially at this time of the year when they have their short season of

Yukon Quartz Mining Act work. I do not believe they would have time to give the detailed consideration to the bill which it deserves.
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I wish to declare now that it is not my intention, nor the intention of the government, to proceed any further than first reading with this legislation at this session. This will enable the bill to be distributed immediately, and will give interested parties many months to study it and make representations. It will also give to the officers of the department, and myself, more time to devote to those representations the careful consideration they deserve. I hope these representations will be in the form of constructive criticism in order that we may attain the aim I set out the other day, to provide the Yukon with a mining act that will help the development of this great territory.


Mr. Simmons:: I have listened with interest, Mr. Chairman, to the remarks of the minister concerning the desirability of passing this resolution and permitting the bill to receive first reading. In this way the bill could be distributed and carefully studied by everyone concerned, which would afford them an opportunity of making further representations before the next session of parliament. It will also afford the minister ample time to reconsider the recommendations contained in the Cole report.
In view of the fact that the bill will automatically die on the prorogation of the present session some time next month-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aubrey Simmons: -I can see no objection to the proposal, especially since the minister has assured us the bill will not proceed beyond first reading stage. I feel confident that the minister will give favourable consideration to the opinions expressed by the people of the Yukon Territory regarding the proposed legislation. There is no doubt the minister realizes that the members of this house are better informed as to the wishes of the people of the Yukon than are some of his advisers. The people who are building and working in the mining industry in the Yukon are in a better position to judge the value of this legislation than are the occupants of swivel chairs in Bay street, Toronto.
I have listened carefully to the minister's statement, and in view of his willingness to delay any action on this proposed legislation until next session, I shall forgo any extended remarks at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aubrey Simmons: Go to it, boys; I shall get away earlier than you do. I appreciate the


fact that if this resolution is passed and the bill reaches first reading my constituents will have an opportunity to study it in detail for several months. I can assure the minister that it will be gone over very carefully, with a fine-tooth comb, and at the next session I shall be prepared to again present the opinions and recommendations of my constituents to this house.
Before concluding, I must say how much the people of the Yukon and elsewhere appreciate the support I have received from members of other parties in this house. We look forward to that continued support in opposition to any legislation against their wishes. In view of the minister's interest, which I appreciate very much, I am hopeful that the views expressed by the people of the Yukon will prevail over those expressed by people who have never lifted a pick or a shovelful of muck, and whose mining capacity lies in other directions.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, there is one further suggestion I should like to place before the minister. When we were debating the resolution on May 25 the minister stated that he proposed to send the bill to a committee after it received second reading. In addition he said this, as reported at page 4101 of Hansard:
In the committee I intend also to bring forward the proposed regulations, which is not customary, in order that we may have a complete picture of the whole question and so all interested parties may make representations.
During that earlier debate some of us suggested the course the minister is now following, namely that of allowing the bill to stand until next session. But in order that the whole picture may be available for the people of the Yukon I think it would be advisable if, in addition to introducing the bill, the minister were to lay the proposed regulations on the table, or in any event make them available to the people of the Yukon. Without the regulations they will have only part of the picture.
One of the grave objections to the proposed measure was that, instead of having all the law written into the statute, there were to be regulations. As the minister knows, under the British Columbia mining law, on which the Yukon Quartz Mining Act is based, there are no regulations whatever. It is my understanding that the people of the Yukon do not want regulations in their act. In any event the proposed regulations should be made available.
One final suggestion. The minister has had a report from Mr. Cole, and seems to have paid attention to it. He has also had advice from officers in his department. I think the

way he is most likely to get an act satisfactory to the people of the Yukon-and, after all, they are the ones who should be satisfied-is to call in the member for Yukon to help draft the new act. He might also take advice from the Yukon territorial council, which voted unanimously against the proposals the minister was bringing forward. At least that is the evidence that has been placed before this committee. They, too, should be consulted.
For the first time we have in the Yukon a council elected by the people there, and the recommendations of that elected body should carry great weight. I believe when this act was passed in the first place it was drawn by the then member for Yukon, Hon. George Black. I believe the government of that day asked him to draft an act which would be satisfactory to the people of the Yukon.


Jean Lesage: The then regulations were put into an act; that is all.


Howard Charles Green: My information is that Hon. George Black actually drafted the present Yukon Quartz Mining Act, and I believe the present member for Yukon will confirm that. Certainly it would be wise to follow a similar course in revising this act.
The house has seen, in connection with this measure, an attempt by the government here at Ottawa to impose on the people of the Yukon a law they do not want. They do not want it; the territorial council do not want it; and although the present member for Yukon is a supporter of the government party, he stood up in the House of Commons and fought the measure. As a result of the support the hon. member for Yukon has been given, the minister has now changed his mind and is not forcing the bill through at the present session.
Let us not have anything of this nature next session. Let us have the bill approved by the people most vitally concerned. If that is done I am sure there will be no trouble in having the bill passed through the house. What is more important, the people of the Yukon will be satisfied with the result.
I would ask the minister whether he is willing to publish the proposed regulations so the people of the Yukon will have the whole legislative proposal before them for consideration during the next few months?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, representing
this group, and as parliamentary assistant to the hon. member for Yukon in connection with this legislation-


Stanley Howard Knowles: What does that make him?
Yukon Quartz Mining Act


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: -I wish to express my agreement with the minister's intention as outlined by him a few minutes ago. His proposal will give the constituents of the hon. member for Yukon six months in which to study the bill, to prepare their evidence and any representations they may wish to make to the committee on mines, forests and waters at the next session. I am sure the procedure outlined by the minister will please the constituents of Yukon; and in addition I am certain they will take great pride in the fact that their member's hectic speech at the resolution stage has met with such worthwhile results.
I am sure when this legislation is reintroduced next session the hon. member for Yukon and his constituents will be here to present their point of view. And I am sure the hon. member will continue to be as alert as ever on behalf of the welfare of the people he represents.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, we in this group are pleased to learn that the bill will not go beyond first reading, and then will be submitted to a committee for purposes of review and to receive representations. We are satisfied that this is the proper procedure at this time, and we are pleased to see that this action has been taken.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the resolution carry?


Howard Charles Green: I would like to have an answer from the minister concerning the suggestion about the regulations.


Jean Lesage: When the bill is distributed it will be realized by hon. members that the regulations cover, mostly, only forms and fees. This is true except in one important respect having to do with the method of staking. I intended to distribute the proposed regulations as to the method of staking, which would be the most important regulations under the act, if they remain in the regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Then do I understand that the minister will be distributing the proposed method of staking?


Jean Lesage: The wording of the proposed regulations regarding the method of staking. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot say that this will be available tonight, at the same time as the bill. It might take a week or so.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Lesage thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 482, respecting quartz mining in the Yukon Territory.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Canada Elections Act


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read
a second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next year.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 415, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Mr. Nowlan:: Is the Secretary of State going to speak on this?


Roch Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to add very much to what I said at the resolution stage. There are no important changes being made in the act. This bill embodies the suggestions that were made by the chief electoral officer, and other changes which were suggested during the sittings of the committee by two departments of government. I do not think that there is very much for me to say, except that the changes in the elections act are matters for every hon. member of this house to be concerned with. I would not suggest any changes other than those already contained in the bill now before the house.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) has said is correct. One cannot very well discuss the principle of this bill on second reading because it contains a number of clauses which are largely mechanical amendments to the act.
There is one section dealing with nomination day which was discussed at the resolution stage. As I recall it the Prime Minister signified at that time the intention to have an amendment moved to the section, which of course would be done in committee. The way the bill stands at the moment the period for nomination is fixed at three weeks, and at a later stage the Secretary of State or someone on his behalf will move an appropriate amendment to have that returned to the tWo-week period.
Perhaps the only other important amendment is the inclusion for the first time of the wives of service personnel serving abroad. Rather complicated machinery has been set up with respect to that, which follows the practice we adopted in the immediately preceding election of giving votes to service personnel. Of course this is limited to the wives of service personnel residing abroad. Those residing in this country will have the rights of civilian voters, as they have had up to the present time.

Another amendment deals with a perhaps more workable regulation with respect to the service vote. I want to express my own appreciation for the fact that during the last election these regulations were carried out much more efficiently and satisfactorily than was the case when they were perhaps in the experimental or preliminary stage. More amendments are being made at this time which will be dealt with in committee. If the Department of National Defence will cooperate, as they did the last time, in seeing that they are carried into effect I am sure they will prove reasonably satisfactory to the voters and to those on the other side of the coin, the candidates who are contesting the election.
As I recall it, these are the principal matters contained in the bill. There are many amendments to be considered, and I am sure the minister will not expect them to go through committee tonight, but in so far as the principle itself is concerned I think I have covered the situation.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have no particular quarrel with the amendments being introduced to the Canada Elections Act in the bill now before us, but I do feel that hon. members should realize that even with these proposed amendments our elections act as it will then stand will still leave in existence a situation under which a good many electors of this country are able to exercise their franchise in a federal election only under extreme difficulty, if at all. It has been said that the amendments are not of major importance and possibly the only solution to the problem I have in mind would require an amendment of major importance.
I believe I referred to this situation in the first speech I made in this house. It is a situation which exists in areas where working people are often required, in the pursuit of their normal occupations, to move from time to time and from place to place. I suggested at that time that with the industrial development of our country this is a situation which in the more remote areas is apt to be one of increasing importance to an increasing number of Canadians. Perhaps I might just give an illustration of the situation I have in mind.
I think I can describe it best by referring to what has happened in the area which I represent. Many hon. members will realize that there are a number of logging camps in my constituency, and I know of situations where camps have closed down between the time of enumeration and election day. Those camps provided the only place of residence the workers had at the time of enumeration.

Once the camps are closed down the living quarters, cook-houses and so on are closed down as well, and those people who have been enumerated as living in that particular polling area may have to move completely out of the constituency. In effect they are placed in the position that they are disfranchised.
The same applies to many people on the west coast engaged in the fishing industry. When an election is called at the height of the fishing season in many cases it means travelling many miles to return to the place where they are registered as voters. I know that many fishermen feel strongly on this matter of being virtually disfranchised under our present elections act.
I have given a good deal of thought to this matter, and the only practical suggestion as to how it could be overcome that I have been able to come up with is that we will have to introduce into the Canada Elections Act some provision for absentee voting. This provision has been in the British Columbia provincial elections act for many years and I believe has worked very well, without too many complications, except during that time when we had what was known as the single transferable vote.
This provision enables any elector in a provincial election in British Columbia to go into any polling place in the province and vote for the candidate of his own choice in his own riding.
Canada Elections Act
I realize that there may be a good many practical difficulties in the way of introducing such a plan into our federal elections act. I feel, however, that it could be successfully applied within constituencies within the boundaries of any one particular province. I feel that, before a federal election rolls around, this is a matter which could very well be given further consideration for incorporation in our federal elections act. I did not want to allow this bill to receive second reading without again drawing the attention of the house to the existence of this particular situation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-"Heures du jour".
Mr. Hees:: May we call it ten o'clock?
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take any third readings there may be, then the house in committee on the Canadian National Railways measure, then the bill to amend the Library of Parliament Act, then the continuation of this debate.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tariff Negotiations


[Stage Direction]
1.	Concessions exchanged in connection with Japanese accession to the general agreement on tariffs and trade.
(Note: These concessions will not become effective before Sept. 1955)
(a)	Concessions by Japan to Canada
Present M.F.N. Rate Proposed New Rate
[Stage Direction]
Synthetic rubber
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
Binding
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
free
[Stage Direction]
Sulphite paper pulp
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
Binding
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
Sulphite rayon pulp
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
Binding
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
Kraft paper pulp
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
Binding
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
Kraft rayon pulp
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
Binding
[Stage Direction]
of
[Stage Direction]
5%
[Stage Direction]
Certain of the United States direct concessions to Japan will also benefit Canadian exports. The more important of these concessions relate to paper bags, wallpaper, miscellaneous papers and rubber products.
(b)	Concessions by Canada to Japan
Canadian concessions to Japan took the form of binding of the present rates on oranges, fish preserved in oil, artificial flowers, certain types of table ware, stoneware, and earthenware, certain types of instruments such as optical instruments, feathers, certain types of precious stones and animal shell button blanks.
(c)	Concessions by the United States to Canada
Present M.F.N. Rate Proposed New Rate
Cobalt salts and compounds provided for in par. 29 (other than cobalt oxide, sulphate,
and linoleate)	
Graphite or plumbago, crude or refined:
Amorphous (except artificial)	
Iron in pigs and iron kentledge, not containing dutiable alloys and not containing more than 4/100 per cent of phosphorous ..
Alsimin, ferrosilicon aluminum, and ferro-aluminum silicon, other than containing 20 per cent or more but not over 52 per cent of aluminum and having silicon and iron as the other principal component elements Birds, prepared or preserved in any manner and nspf:
Turkeys, prepared by removal of the feathers, heads, and all or part of the viscera, with or without removal of the feet, but not cooked or divided into portions	
but not less than 5c lb., nor more than 10c lb.
30%	15%
5%	2i%
60c long ton	37|c long ton
2Jc lb.	lie lb.
10c lb.	12J per cent

Tariff Negotiations
(d)	Concessions by Canada to the United States and Japan
Present M.F.N. Rate Proposed New Rate
[Stage Direction]
Blinds of bamboo
[Stage Direction]
30%
[Stage Direction]
20%
[Stage Direction]
Artificial feathers, fruits, grains, leaves and flowers suitable for ornamenting hats
[Stage Direction]
22$%
[Stage Direction]
20%
[Stage Direction]
Bowls, trays and dishes of wood
[Stage Direction]
20%
[Stage Direction]
17$%
[Stage Direction]
Baskets of bamboo
[Stage Direction]
22i%
[Stage Direction]
17$%
[Stage Direction]
Tuna, frozen, to be processed in Canadian canneries
[Stage Direction]
$c lb.
[Stage Direction]
Free
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Results of renegotiations initiated by the United States.
[Stage Direction]
In compensation for the withdrawal of the concession on flshsticks and similar products the United States reduced its tariff on pickled herring from $c to $c a pound and bound its tariff on crabmeat against increase.
3.	Results of renegotiations initiated by Canada.
(See resolutions tabled by the Minister of Finance on June 2, 1955)
In compensation for the withdrawal of the concessions on ethylene glycol for antifreeze and on canned mixtures of fruit containing peaches, pears or apricots, the Canadian rate on canned peaches is being reduced from 2$c to 2c per pound; the rate on melons covered by tariff item 95(a) is being reduced from 2c to free; the rate on anti-freezing compounds of ethylene glycol base is being reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent; the rate on engines for power mowers is being reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, and free entry for dental engines, chairs and dental units is being bound.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 15, 1955